Sitting of 30 July 1925

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

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
Major COHEN: I beg leave to present to this honourable House a National Petition signed by 824,105 of His Majesty's subjects. The Petition relates to what are usually known as the "Seven Years' Limit" and "Final Awards." Your petitioners humbly pray that:
(1) The time limit imposed in the Royal Warrants should be entirely abolished for officers, men, widows, and dependants.
(2) Officers and men should have the right of appealing to an independent tribunal in cases where the Ministry refuse to grant further compensation after a final allowance, and the claimant can produce medical evidence that the disability has reasserted itself or become worse.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order).
  As amended, considered.
  CLAUSE 272.—(Articles conveyed in vehicles to be properly secured.)
  Amendment made: Leave out the Clause.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  CLAUSE 273.—(Throwing, etc., of articles from vehicles.)
  Amendment made: Leave out the Clause.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  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.]
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
  Slough Trading Company Bill,
  West Cheshire Water Board Bill,
  Stockton-on-Tees Corporation Bill,
  Lords Amendments considered, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 29th July, and agreed to
  Hoylake and West Kirby Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
  Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Stock Conversion and Investment Trust Bill [Lords],
  A verbal Amendment made; Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendment.
  Leek Urban District Council Water Bill [Lords],
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  London, Midland and Scottish Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
  Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.

  GLASGOW BOUNDARIES BILL (by Order),
  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.)
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    STABILITY OF WAR PENSIONS.

      GOVERNMENT DECISION.
      Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITEasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is now in a position to announce the decision of the Government with regard to any further stabilisation of the rates of war pensions?
      The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The Government have carefully considered in the interests of pensioners the practicability of a settlement of pension rates for a longer period than for the year to March, 1927, already announced.
      As the House is aware, pensions for the Great War were, on the advice of a Select Committee of this House, brought into definite relationship to the cost of living. They were increased to their present rates in 1919 on the basis of an increased cost of living represented by the index figure of 115 per cent. in excess of the pre-War cost. After an initial period of 3½ years ending in March, 1923, which was for special reasons subsequently extended for a further three years to March, 1926, they were, by the terms of the Royal Warrant, made to vary up or down if the average cost of living changed by at least 5 per cent. That cost does, in fact, now show a substantial decline from the figure of 1919, and if the rates of pension were reduced proportionately the annual cost of pensions would be lower by approximately 6½ million pounds.
      It has, however, always been the view of the Government that the operation of the Warrant in regard to rates should, in the interests of pensioners, be conditional on a reasonable stability being reached in the cost of living, and the Government long ago intimated that under present conditions they were not in favour of a reduction of rates. A settlement of the rates in perpetuity is not at present attainable consistently with the interests of all parties concerned, but the Government have come to the conclusion, after full consideration of all the known factors affecting the matter, that, while maintaining the present relationship of pension rates to the cost of living, a substantially larger measure of security can reasonably be given to the pensioner than has already been announced.
      The Government have, therefore, decided that, as regards the operation of Article 24 (a) of the Royal Warrant on the rates of pension, and other allowances for the classes of beneficiary provided for by the Royal Warrant and subject to the present terms of the Warrants, and the War Pensions Acts, no change in the present rates shall be made so long as
      594
      the average cost of living, as certified by the Ministry of Labour, lies somewhere between a given maximum and minimum figure. The minimum figure for this purpose will be 60 per cent. in excess of the pre-War cost of living, while the maximum is that already provided by the Warrant, namely, the cost of living in the year 1919.
      With a view to giving still further security to the pensioner, the average cost of living will be, not the annual average originally prescribed by the Royal Warrant, but an average over three years, and the average will not in any case operate before 1929. The effect of this settlement will be to give stability to the present rates for at the very least three years from 31st March, 1926, and from all present indications for an even longer period.

      MEDICAL HISTORIES.
      Mr. HAYESasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in cases of appeal by a widow or orphan children of an ex-service man whose medical history discloses venereal disease, he will sanction the omission of all reference thereto from the précis sent to the widow or other appellant when such disease has no relationship to the cause of death?
      Major TRYON: It has been the consistent policy of the Ministry, reinforced by repeated representations, to make the précis in a case of appeal a complete statement of the man's medical history as known to the Ministry, in order that the tribunal may have before it precisely the same and as full information as that on which the Ministry came to their decision. The Ministry are not in a position to determine the view which the tribunal may take as regards the connection between the cause of death and any other disease of which there is evidence in the man's medical history. The ease for presenting a complete statement to the tribunal is in my view so important that I could not authorise any exception to the rule.
      Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has received any representation from the local advisory councils on this matter?
      Major TRYON: The point has been raised frequently, but, as regards Advisory Councils, I should like to refer

      595
      to the records in the matter in order to see how it stands. It has presented very great difficulty for many years past. It is a very difficult question, as the hon. Member well knows.

      DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.
      Mr. HUDSON (for Mr. ROBINSON)asked the Minister of Pensions what is the number of persons in receipt of other dependants' pensions under Article 22 of the Royal Warrant of 1922, and the corresponding orders affecting the Navy and Air Force; whether he will ascertain the number who will be 65 years of age on 2nd January, 1928, and communicate the figure to the House at the earliest possible date; and the number of other dependants who are children under 16 years of age?
      Major TRYON: The number of persons in receipt of pensions under Article 22 of the Royal Warrant of 1919 and corresponding Articles affecting the Navy and Air Force, is 2,080. Of these some 640 were born in the year 1862 or earlier. About 150 children under 16 years of age pensioned with their parents are included in the figure first quoted.

  POTTERY TRADE (LEAD POISONING).
  Mr. CLOWESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases there are at the present time of persons receiving compensation for lead poisoning in the pottery trade, the length of time they were employed, and the ages of the persons; and whether any persons are receiving compensation who have only been employed in factories where low solubility or leadless glaze is used?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I regret that this information is not available anywhere.

  HOTELS, CARLISLE (BOOTS' WAGES).
  Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the Home Secretary whether be is aware that a wage of 18s. per week is paid for the services of boots at the hotels under Government
  596
  control in the Carlisle area; and whether he can do anything to improve the situation?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have made inquiry, and am informed that the persons employed as "boots" in the State-managed hotels in the Carlisle area receive free board and lodging in addition to their weekly wages except in one case of a temporary employé, who receives board without lodging. I am satisfied in all the circumstances that there is no necessity to make any alteration in the terms of their employment.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the man is employed also in cleaning motor vehicles, for which the charge is 5s. a time, and that he gets no recognition for that work over and above the 18s.?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have had no complaint at all. It is common knowledge that people occupying this position do get little emoluments in addition to their wages.
  Colonel WOODCOCK: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this shows the lack of success in State trading?

  ALIENS.
  Mr. LOUGHERasked the Home Secretary whether he has any particulars showing the number and nationality of aliens landed in Great Britain during the years 1913 and 1924, respectively, and for the first six months of this year; and the number which have been granted permission to permanently reside in this country during the same periods?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The number of aliens (excluding transmigrants) who landed in the United Kingdom in 1913 was 537,398, but the statistics prepared under the Aliens Act, 1905, do not enable me to state their nationalities. The bulk of them were not liable to inspection under that Act, and did not require permission to enter the country or to reside here. The number who arrived in 1924 was 388,129, and in the first half of this year 162,982. For particulars as to their nationalities, I must refer my hon. Friend to the annual and quarterly Returns presented to Parliament: that covering April, May, and June is now in the Press.

  597
  As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on 28th May last, in 1924, apart from residents returning after an absence abroad, the number of aliens whose stay might be expected to be permament was in the neighbourhood of 2,000. Information as regards this year will be included in the next annual Report.

  ROAD ACCIDENTS, KENNINGTON.
  Mr. HAYESasked the Home Secretary the number of accidents which have occurred within the vicinity of the junction of Vassall Road and Elliott Road, Kennington, during the past six months and the number of persons injured; and whether he will consider the placing of a constable on traffic duty at this dangerous crossing during the hours when traffic is heavy?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Three accidents are recorded by the police as having occurred in Vassall Road, resulting in injury to four persons, during the past six months. Two of these occurred at the junction of Vassall Road and Elliott Road. The Commissioner sees no justification for placing a police constable on permanent traffic duty at this spot.
  Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether, if he cannot place a constable there, he can make arrangements to have a "Dangerous crossing" notice put up in the vicinity?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will consider that.
  Captain BRASS: Is the right hon. gentleman aware that in Long Acre—a single direction road—there is a constable on duty to prevent people going the wrong side?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I suppose that must be because a good many motorists go down Long Acre.

  INTERNATIONAL PRISON CONGRESS.
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the Home Secretary whether the invitations to attend the International Prison Congress, to be held on 3rd August, have been
  598
  issued by his Department; and whether any invitation has been sent asking the present Government of Bulgaria to appoint a delegate?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Invitations to foreign Governments to send representatives to the Congress were issued from the Foreign Office. An invitation was sent to the Bulgarian Government, and I understand it was accepted as long ago as February last.

  NIGHT CLUBS.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary whether he has made further investigations into the existence of bogus night clubs in London and other large cities; whether he is satisfied with his present powers for dealing with these bogus clubs; and, if not, whether he intends to seek further powers to deal with this evil?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am continuing to keep a close watch on these clubs, but, as previously stated, it has been decided not to attempt legislation on the subject this Session.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my question? Is he satisfied with his present powers? Are they sufficient?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I shall be glad to give the House fuller information as to whether I am satisfied with my present powers when I have exercised them a little longer, but I am glad to say that I think the conditions of a good many of the night clubs are improving.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has not the right hon. Gentleman had more experience since he first took office? Did he not say then that his powers were not sufficient? Has he altered his opinion?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I do not say that I have altered my opinion. I say that since I have taken office I have given great attention to this matter, and had several consultations with the Commissioner of Police about night clubs. A large number of raids have been made and several of the clubs have been shut up, and I prefer to refrain from deciding whether my powers are adequate until I have had a little longer experience.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: In view of the expense of preparing a Bill, are we not entitled to know why that Bill was dropped?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the expense was very slight.

  CORONER'S COURT, WEST SURREY (NON-ATTENDANCE FINE).
  Viscount SANDONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the imposition of a 20s. fine by the Coroner of the West Surrey Court on the daughter of a man killed by lightning, for not appearing to identify the body; and whether he will remit the fines in such cases, in view of the fact that other responsible people, well acquainted with the deceased persons, could give the required identification?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have received no representation in this case, and am not in a position to express any opinion on it.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (DOCK LABOURERS).
  Viscount SANDONasked the Home Secretary whether he has any statistics showing that dock labourers run special risks of disease by reason of handling foreign cargoes; and, if so, whether he will introduce legislation to bring such cases within the machinery of the Workmen's Compensation Act?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Statistics are published annually by my Department in the Workmen's Compensation Statistics, in respect of certain diseases, such as anthrax, which have already been scheduled under the Compensation Act as specific to the employment; but I take it my Noble Friend is referring not to these but to diseases of an ordinary character. If so, I have no statistics showing that dock workers run special risks, and the second part of the question does not, therefore, arise. I may, however, refer my Noble Friend to the Report of the Holman-Gregory Committee on the subject.

  TRANSPORT.

    OMNIBUS ROUTE RESTRICTIONS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a number of small omnibus proprietors were convicted on a charge of having plied for hire on a route other than the one to which they were allocated under the recent traffic restrictions; and that, by the publication of a special concession in the "London Gazette" of the 19th June last, these men were permitted again to operate their vehicles on the actual route in respect of which they were prosecuted; whether the proprietor of an omnibus is held responsible for the action of his staff even if they should act contrary to his instructions; and can he see his way to issue instructions for the expurgation from the licences of the men concerned of the particulars of the offence for which they were prosecuted under the recent traffic restrictions?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The facts are as stated in the first two parts of the question, except that the offence charged was failing to maintain a regular service in accordance with the deposited schedules. As regards the third part of the question, the person liable under Section 6 (9) of the London Traffic Act is the person to whom a licence for an omnibus has been granted. As regards the last part of the question, particulars of these offences are not endorsed on the men's licences.
    Sir F. HALL: Then they will not be handicapped in consequence of what may have happened?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is somewhat remarkable that all prosecutions under this Act up to the present have been against small omnibus proprietors, and that although complaints have been laid against the London General Omnibus Company no prosecution has taken place?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I really was not aware of that fact. If the hon. Member can give me any particulars of offences by the London General Omnibus Company, of course they will be subject to prosecution.
    Mr. MORRISON: I will gladly do so.

    TRAFFIC OBSTRUCTION, VAUXHALL BRIDGE ROAD.
    Mr. COOPER RAWSONasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the building erected in the middle of Rochester Row at its junction with Vauxhall Bridge Road which hinders the free circulation of traffic and endangers passengers and vehicles; and whether he has referred, or will refer, to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, under the provisions of Section 10 of the London Traffic Act, 1924, the question of making Regulations controlling the erection, or placing, or the removal of any works or objects which hinder the circulation of traffic or endanger the public?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): My attention had not previously been drawn to the erection in question, but I am having inquiries made and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend as soon as possible. The whole question of making Regulations in this matter has already been referred by me to the Advisory Committee.

    AGRICULATURAL PRODUCE, SOUTH LINCOLNSHIRE.
    Mr. DEANasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that agricultural and horticultural produce from the Continent is receiving from the London and North Eastern Railway and the train ferry service a far better and more regular delivery than produce from South Lincolnshire and the Eastern Counties; whether he is aware that loss is being suffered by English growers owing to these delays; and whether he will inquire into the cause of the delays in transit on this line, and take immediate action with a view to a more efficient service being provided by the London and North Eastern Railway Company?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am not aware of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers, but, if he will furnish me with the particulars on which his complaint is based, I will consider them.

    RIVER TAMAR (BRIDGE).
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Transport whether his Department has ever had before it any
    602
    proposition to build a bridge over the River Tamar; and what attitude the Ministry has adopted towards such proposition?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Although I am aware that such a project has been advocated at various times, no proposals for its execution have been submitted to my Department by any responsible authorities.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    JUVENILE CENTRE, LIVERPOOL.
    Mr. HAYESasked the President of the Board of Education what decision has been arrived at with regard to the application from the Liverpool juvenile employment committee for the opening of a new centre capable of accommodating from 200 to 400 boys and girls?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. I have not yet received an application from the Liverpool education authority for approval of a, new juvenile unemployment centre.
    Mr. HAYES: Will such an application, if it be put forward, receive sympathetic consideration?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Oh, certainly it will. We always consider these applications most sympathetically. Of course, I cannot give any undertaking until I have seen the details, but we will certainly consider it.

    EXCHANGE, SALKELD STREET, GLASGOW.
    Mr. T. HENDERSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the unsuitable nature of the Employment Exchange premises at Salkeld Street, Glasgow; that these premises are an old grain store, with very bad lavatory accommodation, heating, ventilation, and lighting; and that there are various premises near by which could be taken in substitution; and what steps he proposes to take, in the interests of the health of the staff, to provide more suitable accommodation?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir. The Salkeld Street premises are purely temporary, and were taken pending the ac-

    603
    quisition of a permanent building for this Exchange. Negotiations for permanent premises are actively in hand.

    JUTE WEAVERS, DUNDEE.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Minister of Labour how many jute weavers are signing on at the Dundee Employment Exchange as unemployed; and what proportion of these workers are being paid unemployment benefit?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Local inquiry has been necessary in connection with this question, and the information will be sent to the hon. Member when received.

  POOR LAW RELIEF, SOUTHWARK.
  Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the evidence given at a Southwark inquest on the 15th July held on Arthur Passey, an unemployed labourer, of 35, St. Gabriel Street, Southwark, who committed suicide, and whose widow and other witnesses made certain allegations against officials of the Southwark Board of Guardians in the matter of deceased's application for relief from the said board; and, in view of such allegations, will he cause a public inquiry to be held, in order that the statements made by the witnesses at the inquest may be fully inquired into?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I have made inquiries into this case, and am informed by the guardians that it is not the fact that this applicant was refused relief on any occasion by them; I have no evidence to suggest that there is any cause for complaint of the manner in which he was treated by them, and would point out that the Coroner expressed the view that the relieving officer had done all he could for the family. I do not consider that it is necessary to hold a public inquiry.
  Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that a relieving officer is bound to give a man relief when starving, and that this man was refused relief for himself and his children by the relieving officer?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My information is that the applicant was not refused relief on any occasion.
  Mr. MAXTON: Is not even an allegation of this sort sufficient justification for a public inquiry? There is a public inquiry that has been attracting public attention regarding the alleged ill-treatment of an Army officer by the police?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think so.
  Mr. RAWSON: It depends where the allegation comes from.
  Mr. MAXTON: Yes, that's it—it does depend where the allegation comes from.

  INFANT MORTALITY, SOUTHWARK (MILK SUPPLY).
  Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the report of the medical officer of health for the Borough of Southwark states that the infant mortality rate has increased from 68 per 1,000 in 1923, to 71 per 1,000 in 1924; that, during such period, there has been a large decline in the amount of milk given away to necessitous nursing mothers; and, in view of this fact, will he state whether the Southwark Borough Council have supplied free milk to the maximum value allowed by the Order of his Department?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been drawn to this Report, but I would point out that, according to the Registrar-General's figures, the infant mortality rates for 1923 and 1924 were for Southwark 70 and 71, and for the whole of London 61 and 69, respectively. The small increase in Southwark does not, therefore, appear to call for any special or local explanation. At the same time I am informed that the reduction in the amount of free milk distributed by the borough council was due to a decrease in the number of eligible applicants, and not to any action of the borough council in reducing the supply below the limit authorised by my Department.

  HOUSING.

    WOODEN HOUSES.
    Mr. LOUGHERasked the Minister of Health whether he can give returns showing how many authorities are building wooden houses; and whether he has received reports as to cost, type and suitability?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no exact record showing the number of local authorities who are actually building wooden houses. In a case which has recently been before me the houses are of the non-parlour type, with three bedrooms, costing about £450, and I am advised that the form of construction is satisfactory. On the general question of the merits of timber construction I would refer my hon. Friend to the Third Interim Report of the Committee on New Methods of House Construction.

    ASSISTED SCHEMES.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Health how many houses are in course of construction under assisted housing schemes, in accordance with the terms of the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924, respectively, by private enterprise and local authorities?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On 1st July the numbers of houses in course of construction under the Housing Act of 1923 were 11,214 by local authorities and 31,593 by private enterprise. The corresponding figures under the Act of 1924 were 19,196 and 227 respectively.
    Mr. THOMSONalso asked the Minister of Health how many houses have actually been completed under assisted housing schemes, in accordance with the terms of the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924, by private enterprise and by local authorities, respectively?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On 1st July, the numbers of houses completed under the Housing Act of 1923 were 23,943 by local authorities and 65,484 by private enterprise. The corresponding figures under the Act of 1924 were 6,246 and 36, respectively.

  CHILD NEGLECT (CHESTERFIELD).
  Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the case recently dealt with at Chesterfield Police Court, where a man and his wife were charged with neglecting their children, when it appeared that the family of seven lived in a shed that had previously been occupied by swine, there being no fireplace, chimney, ashpit, or drainage, for which they paid 3s. per week; and whether he will have the matter inquired into?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention had not previously been drawn to this case, but I am having inquiries made.
  Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the owner in this case was an overseer of the poor, and does he not think he ought to have been prosecuted?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have said that I am having inquiries made.

  DAIRY HERDS (VETERINARY INSPECTION).
  Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the Minister of Health what local authorities in Scotland and England now carry out veterinary inspection of dairy herds?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A few of the sanitary authorities in England and Wales systematically carry out veterinary inspections of dairy herds, and I believe that most sanitary authorities have made arrangements for obtaining the services of a veterinary surgeon for the inspection of cattle when occasion demands. So far as Scotland is concerned, the question should be addressed to my right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland.

  CASUAL WARDS (TASKS).
  Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health whether the Local Government Board or the Ministry of Health have ever interfered to prevent any task unsuited to his age, strength, or capacity being given to a casual, or ever exercised any disciplinary action over any officer who has given such a task; if so, when, where, and under what circumstances; and whether he will give to any casual, who considers the task imposed upon him to be unsuitable as aforesaid, or otherwise illegal, a right of appeal to the master of the workhouse?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the question put by him a fortnight ago. I regret that I am unable, without unduly extensive research, to give a more precise answer. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Rhondda a fortnight ago.
  Mr. RICHARDSON: May I ask the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to what has arisen at Nottingham on this very point?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
  Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the tasks prescribed for the casual poor under the authority of Article 11 of the Casual Poor (Relief) Order, 1925, are posted in the casual wards without the proviso contained in that Article, that a casual shall be excused from the whole or any part of such task of work if it shall appear that the task is not suited to his age, strength or capacity; and whether he will circulate copies of the proviso, printed uniformly with the poster containing the list of prescribed tasks, to the guardians and others in charge of the casual wards and ask that they shall be posted below the tasks?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is necessary to require guardians to post in the casual wards the proviso to which the hon. Member refers.

  FOOD PRESERVATIVES (DRAFT RULES).
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the Minister of Health what Amendments are proposed in the Draft Rules and Orders, Public Health, England (Preservatives, Etc., in Food) Regulations, 1925; and what arrangements will be made for the discussion of these Regulations?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I am not at present in a position to add anything to the reply which was given to the hon. Member on the 7th instant.

  NURSING HOMES REGISTRATION (SELECT COMMITTEE).
  Mr. RAWSONasked the Minister of Health whether he is in a position yet to state the constitution of the proposed Committee to inquire into the question of the registration of nursing homes; and whether the British Medical Association will be given an opportunity of giving evidence or an expression of their views?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not proposed to set up the intended Select Committee to inquire into this question until after the Recess. It will rest with the Committee to decide what evidence it is desirable to hear, but they will no doubt consider the question of inviting evidence from the British Medical Association.

  COTTON RAGS (LACE DUTY).
  Mr. DALTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a parcel of 39 bales of old cotton rags, consisting of cast-off men's and women's underwear, recently imported from Rotterdam for papermaking by Messrs. Alexander, Jacob and Company, of Peckham, was detained at St. Katherine's Dock on the ground that the bales contained lace; that the Board of Customs have only permitted the firm to take delivery on payment of a deposit of £20; that a small part of the rags, which were once women's underwear, was edged with what once was lace but is now rags; whether such rags come within the departmental definition of lace; and, if not, whether he will give instructions that the aforesaid deposit shall be immediately returned to Messrs. Alexander, Jacob and Company, and that such action shall not be repeated?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): I am informed that 39 bales of cotton rags were recently imported from Rotterdam. These bales contained a proportion of lace which was prima facie liable to duty on importation. As the case was represented to be urgent, the usual procedure was followed, and delivery was allowed on a deposit of £20 pending settlement of the question of liability to duty. The importers have now been informed in the sense that payment of duty will not be required provided that satisfactory evidence is produced to the Commissioners of Customs that the goods have in fact been used for paper making and that immediate return of the deposit can be obtained on security being given that the goods will be so used.
  Mr. DALTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue instructions that in similar cases in future legitimate trade shall not be penalised in this way?
  Mr. GUINNESS: Legitimate trade is not being penalised at all. It is the duty of the Customs authorities to see that dutiable parts cannot be extracted from such parcels, and the interests concerned are arranging for the setting up of a system under which deliveries shall be made under bond, and no duty will be incurred, provided the materials go straight into the pulping machine.
  Mr. HARRIS: Is this not typical of many other cases, where many merchants have had goods delayed for many days?
  Mr. GUINNESS: It certainly is not typical of delay, because the goods were immediately handed over.

  JAPANESE SUBMARINES AND CRUISERS (WAR SERVICE).
  Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether during the War the Japanese submarines and cruisers which accompanied our troops and merchant vessels did so at the expense of the Japanese people or whether the British Government paid the expenses involved?
  Mr. GUINNESS: The Japanese bore the cost, but certain Japanese light cruisers on the Mediterranean and South African stations assisting the British Forces there were supplied with fuel, stores and some fittings at British expense.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    SERVICE DEPARTMENTS (PRESS COMMITTEE).
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what duties are discharged by the Admiralty, War Office, Air Ministry, and Press Committee; who are the members of the Committee; what are the annual charges of the same; and on which Vote are these charges borne?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I have been asked to reply. The Committee exists for the purpose of maintaining cooperation between the Service Departments and the Press to guard against the publication of items of news the disclosure of which might be prejudicial to the interests of the forces of the Crown.
    610
    Its members are the permanent heads of the three Service Departments and representatives of the London and provincial Press. The necessary arrangements with the Press are made through the Secretary of the Committee, who is nominated by the Press members, and is also a member of the Committee. The expenses are borne (on behalf of the three Service Departments) by the War Office. In the last two years these expenses have amounted to slightly over £50 a year.
    Captain BENN: Do I understand that this Committee exercises some sort of censorship over the announcements which it is proposed to make in the Press?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Oh, no. It is not censorship at all.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it for propaganda purposes?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Not even for that.

    MEN AND WOMEN (EQUAL PAY).
    Major MacANDREWasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if or when it is intended to appoint a Committee of inquiry to report on the question of applying the principle of equal pay for men and women in the Civil Service?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham on the 15th July.

    FOREIGN-MADE GOODS.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that some Government Departments are still buying foreign-made goods; and whether he will insist that in future all Departments will obtain from all firms tendering a declaration that the goods are actually made in this country from British material?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Government Departments make contracts within the limit of their own authority, without reference to the Treasury, but if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the cases on which his question is based I will have inquiry made. There is, of course, considerable difficulty in practice in securing that manufactured products purchased from British firms in this country con-

    611
    tain nothing but British material, but I have no reason to doubt that Departments, in placing contracts, use every endeavour to secure the maximum of employment in this country.

  TRADE FACILITIES GUARANTEES.

    BEARDMORE TAXI-CAB COMPANY, LIMITED.
    Mr. RUNCIMANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether consent has been given to an advance or a guarantee of £365,000 to William Beardmore and Company, Limited, under the Trade Facilities Act, to enable this company to construct and place on the streets of London and other places a number of new taxi-cabs; and how many cabs are to be provided out of this money?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The Treasury have agreed to guarantee under the provisions of the Trade Facilities Acts a loan of £350,000 to be raised by the Beardmore Taxi-cab Company, Limited, to enable them to buy and place on the streets of London a number of new taxi-cabs which will be built by Beardmore (Paisley), Limited. The number of cabs that will be so provided is about 750.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will these cabs replace existing cabs or be in addition to them; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the owner-drivers at the present time have great difficulty in making their cabs pay owing to the number on the streets?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am advised that these cabs, generally speaking, will be in place of obsolete cabs. The normal wastage is estimated at about 500 cabs a year, which is the rate of supply under the proposed arrangement.
    Major CRAWFURD: For what period is this advance being made?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Was the Treasury satisfied that there was really a demand for this excessive number of cabs, and that they could not be provided by the existing cab companies?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am advised that there is this demand in order to replace the wastage. The Trade Facilities Committee were satisfied that the only alternative to this arrangement was that the order would go to French, Italian and American firms.
    Sir F. HALL: May I ask whether any assistance is likely to be given to the men who are called owner-drivers? Will they have any assistance granted them to enable them to procure their cabs to run on the London streets?
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Are the Trade Facilities Committee assisting Messrs. W. Beardmore and Co. to set up a huge combine against the owner-drivers with the aid of public money?
    Mr. BRIGGS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these guarantees are not merely as to capital but also as to interest, and does he consider that what is practically a guarantee of dividend is an inducement to this firm to put forward their best efforts?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The conditions of the guarantee satisfied the eminent business men on the Trade Facilities Committee.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to my question?
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Are these business men shareholders in Messrs. William Beardmore and Company?

    BLUE STAR LINE.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether consent has been given to a British Government guarantee being granted under the Trade Facilities Act for £2,500,000 for the Blue Star Line, Limited, an ally and off-shoot of the Union Cold Storage Company, Limited, and of Messrs. Vestey, Brothers, for the construction of steamships with refrigerated cargo space for the carriage of meat owned by the Union Cold Storage Company or one of Messrs. Vestey's concerns; whether the Treasury has been satisfied that the Union Cold Storage Company, or Messrs. Vestey, or the Blue Star Line are unable to raise £2,500,000 on their own credit without Government guarantee; and whether the Blue Star Line would have been unable to give orders for the construction of these

    613
    vessels at the present time without the assistance of a British Government guarantee?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Subject to the reservation that the meat carried is not necessarily owned by the Union Cold Storage Company or any concern of Messrs. Vestey, the answer to all parts of the question is in the affirmative.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that evidence was given before the Food Commission showing that the formation of a vertical trust in the meat trade is in process, and is this not assisting such a formation at the public expense?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Our object is to provide work in this country.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is there a stipulation that British material shall be used, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in other instances under the Trade Facilities Act British material has not been used?
    Mr. GUINNESS: If the hon. and gallant Member will give me any details of such cases, I shall be glad to look into them, but, as he is aware, precautions are taken as far as possible to see that orders are placed to their fullest possible extent for British materials.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I press for an answer to the last part of the question?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Is this issue identical with an issue that was offered to the public and under-subscribed?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I do not know the details of the issue made to the public, but the Trade Facilities Committee were satisfied that it would not have been possible to put this transaction through without the Government guarantee; therefore, as I have said, the answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: May I ask—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We are going very slowly to-day.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    CRANWELL COLLEGE.
    Mr. BASIL PETOasked the Secretary of State for Air how many cadets are in training at Cranwell and the total personnel at the college?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare): The answer, according to the strength returns of the cadet college for 30th June last, is 109 cadets and 320 Air Force officers and airmen. As regards the latter figure, I would remind my hon. Friend that the equivalent of approximately two squadrons, with an establishment of 36 machines, are maintained at this station for flying instructional duties, and that the personnel of these units are included in the above. There are also 62 civilians employed as instructors and civilian subordinates at the cadet college.

    HALTON TECHNICAL SCHOOL.
    Mr. PETOalso asked the Secretary of State for Air how many boys are under training at the technical school at Halton and the total personnel at the school?
    Sir S. HOARE: The latest strength return for Halton shows 1,843 apprentices under training, and 429 Air Force officers and airmen and 88 civilians employed in the Boys' Sections, but, as explained in my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) on 25th February last, it is difficult to distinguish between the School staff proper and the personnel of the station as a whole, which includes other establishments than the school.
    Mr. PETO: Although it may be impossible to distinguish between the personnel of the schools and the staffs proper, is it not a fair conclusion to draw, from the right hon. Gentleman's answer, that in the one case over two members, and in the other case one-half of one member, of the personnel, is required to teach one cadet or one boy?
    Sir H. HOARE: I do not think that that would be a fair conclusion to draw from my answer. If I can give any further details to satisfy my hon. Friend on this point, I shall be very glad to do so.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the cadets at Cranwell will be transferred to Halton?
    Sir S. HOARE: I should require notice of that question.

    PILOTS AND OBSERVERS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Air how many fully qualified pilots and observers, respectively, are in the service of the Royal Air Force and stationed in Great Britain at the present time?
    Sir S. HOARE: The numbers of qualified pilots and observers of the General Duties Branch of the Royal Air Force stationed in Great Britain as at 30th June last were 1,457 and 32, respectively.
    Captain BRASS: Is it not a fact that a large number of these pilots are also observers?
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir, that certainly would be so. The general policy of the Air Ministry is to reduce so far as possible the number of observers.

    RESERVISTS (PAY).
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS (for Mr. W. BAKER)asked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is proposed to reduce the pay of reservists who may be called up for duty in future?
    Sir S. HOARE: The matter is under consideration in connection with the proposal for the general revision of the pay of airmen.

  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION.
  Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Minister of Labour whether any effect has been given to the unanimous resolution of the Conference of the International Labour Organisation, Washington, 1919, that an advisory committee, on which the Governments, the employers, and the workers shall all be represented, shall be appointed without delay to keep in touch with the work of the Health Section of the International Labour Organisation?
  Mr. BETTERTON: So far as I have been able to ascertain up to the present,
  616
  the only committee appointed, as a result of the Washington resolution, to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, is the Correspondence Committee on Industrial Hygiene. That committee, however, consists of experts, and not, as laid down by the Washington resolution, of representatives of Governments, employers, and workers.
  Colonel WOODCOCK: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why it is that this definite instruction has not been carried out during the preceding six years? Does not that show that these unanimous resolutions passed by the organisation are simply pious hopes?
  Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot answer the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question. With regard to the latter part, he must draw his own conclusions.
  Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Minister of Labour whether a comprehensive encyclopædia of industrial hygiene is being prepared by the International Labour Office; whether he can furnish the House with a list of the experts in industrial hygiene chosen as expert collaborators for such work, and the proportion of British experts in such list: whether these expert collaborators are nominated by the governing body or by the officials of the International Labour Office; and whether the Director of the International Labour Office claims the right to consult in the preparation of this encyclopædia such of the expert collaborators as he thinks fit, and without reference to the governing body?
  Mr. BETTERTON: As the answer is necessarily long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The answer to the first and last parts of this question is in the affirmative. A list is given below of the experts who are understood to have been collaborating with the International Labour Office up to the present in the preparation of the encyclopædia. Of the 66 experts, four are British. As regards the third part of the question, some of the experts are members of the Correspondence Committee on Industrial Hygiene of the International

  617
  Labour Office. The approval of the governing body is obtained before experts are added to this Committee. As far as I am aware, the remaining expert collaborators have been selected by the Director of the International Labour Office.
  LIST of the EXPERTS who are collaborating with the International Labour Office in the preparation of the Encyclopædia of Hygiene, Pathology and Social Welfare.
  (Members of the Correspondence Committee on Industrial Hygiene are indicated by an asterisk (*).)

  Agasse-Lafont, Dr., Head of the Department of Pathology, Professor at the Institute of Industrial Hygiene, Faculty of Medicine, Paris.

  Allevi, G., Lecturer in industrial pathology, University of Milan.

  Balthazard, V., Professor of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Paris. Member of the Academy of Medicine.

  Bayet, Dr., Professor of the Free University of Brussels.

  *Biondi, C., Director of the Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Sienna.

  *Boulin, P., Divisional Factory Inspector, Lille.

  *Brezina, E., Professor of the Polytechnic School, Vienna.

  *Chajes, B., Lecturer at the Charlotten-burg Polytechnic School, Berlin.

  Clark, J., Director of the Medical Department of the Norton Company, Worcester (Mass.).

  *Collis, Edgar L., Talbot Professor of Preventive Medicine, University of Wales.

  *Cristiani, H., Director of the Institute of Hygiene, University of Geneva.

  Dearden, W. F., Certifying Surgeon, Secretary of the Association of Certifying Factory Surgeons, Manchester.

  Devoto, L., Director of the Clinic for Occupational Diseases, University of Milan.

  Engel, Dr., of the Federal Public Health Office, Germany.

  Ferrannini, L., Director of the Clinic for Occupational Diseases, University of Naples.

  618

  Fischer, Dr., President of the Council of the Federal Insurance Office, Germany.

  Frey, Dr., Director in the Federal Public Health Office, Germany.

  Frois, M., Factory Inspector, Paris.

  Fuss, Mme., Doctor of Medicine.

  Gaster, L., Secretary of the Illuminating Engineering Society of Great Britain, London.

  Giovanni, De J., Director of the Medical Department of the Sicilian Sulphur Mines Consortium, Caltanissetta.

  *Glibert, D., Chief Inspector, Ministry of Industry, Labour and Social Welfare, Brussels.

  *Hamilton, Alice, Assistant Professor of Industrial Medicine, Harvard Medical School, United States.

  Hayhurst, Emery R., Profeseor of Hygiene, Ohio State University, Columbus.

  *Heim, F., Director of the Institute of Industrial Hygiene, Faculty of Medicine, Paris.

  Heyermans, L., Director of the Health Department of the City of Amsterdam.

  Hoffmann, Dr., Statistician, Prudential Insurance Company, New York.

  Holtzmann, Prof., Medical Inspector, Carlsruhe, Baden.

  Jellinek, S., Director of the Electro-pathological Museum, Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Vienna.

  Kober, G., Professor of Hygiene, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

  *Koelsch, F., Medical Inspector of Factories, Bavaria; Lecturer at the University of Munich.

  Kohn-Abrest, E., Director of the Toxicological Laboratories of the Prefecture of Police, Paris.

  *Kranenburg, Dr., Medical Adviser to the General Labour Department, The Hague.

  Krantz, Dr., Ministerial Councillor, Dresden.

  *Legge, Sir Thomas, Senior Medical Inspector of Factories, Home Office, London.

  Lehmann, H. K., Director of the Institute of Hygiene, University of Wurzburg.

  *Lorange, O., Director of the Factory Inspectorate, Oslo.

  619

  *Loriga, G., Chief Medical Inspector of Factories, Ministry of National Economy, Rome.

  Malvoz, Dr., Director of the Provincial Institute of Bacteriology, Liege.

  Martin, E., Professor of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Lyons.

  *Massarelli, F., Engineer, Director of the Association of Italian Manufacturers for the Prevention of Accidents, Milan.

  Mori, A., Lecturer in Industrial Pathology, Director of the Piombino Hospital, Italy.

  Oblath, O., Lecturer in Ophthalmology, Trieste.

  Ottolenghi, D., Director of the Institute of Hygiene, University of Bologna.

  Perussia, F., Professor of Roentgenology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Milan.

  Pittaluca, G., Professor in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Madrid.

  Preti, L., Assistant Professor, Clinic for Occupational Diseases, University of Milan.

  Price, G. M., Director of the Joint Board of Sanitary Control in the Ladies' Garment Industries, New York.

  Ranelletti, A., Lecturer in Industrial Pathology; formerly Medical Inspector of Factories, Municipality of Rome.

  Rasch, H., Director of the Factory Inspectorate, Hamburg.

  Rubino, C., Lecturer in Industrial Pathology, Assistant Professor in the Institute of Pathological Medicine, University of Genoa.

  Sand, R., Secretary-General of the League of Red Cross Societies, Paris.

  Sayers, Dr., Chief Surgeon, Bureau of Mines, U.S. Public Health Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

  Schmidt, P., Director of the Medical Clinic, University of Halle, Germany.

  Sclavo, A., Director of the Institute of Hygiene, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sienna.

  Silberschmidt, Dr., Director of the Institute of Hygiene, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich.

  Teleky, Prof., District Industrial Medical Officer, Dusseldorf.

  620

  Thiele, Prof., District Industrial Medical Officer, Dresden.

  Thompson, Gilman, New York.

  Wade Wright, Dr., New York.

  Wenzel, Industrial Councillor, Berlin.

  Weisweiller, L., General Secretary of the International Union for Combating Venereal Disease.

  *Winslow, C., Professor of Public Health, Yale School of Medicine, United States.

  *Wirgin, Dr., Professor of Hygiene and Bacteriology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Upsala, Sweden.

  Zangger, H., Director of the Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Zurich.

  *Zielinski, Dr. J., of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, Warsaw.

  Colonel WOODCOCK: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that books of this sort should be under the management of the governing body, and not of the officials?
  Mr. BETTERTON: I think that perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend had better wait and see my answer. I am not prepared to accept his statement as accurate.

  WAR CEMETERIES.
  Mr. CADOGANasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to give effect to the recommendation of the Imperial War Graves Commission, and to provide a contribution towards an endowment fund for the maintenance of War cemeteries?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have been asked to reply. It is the intention of the Government, in conjunction with the Dominion Governments, to set up an endowment fund of £5,000,000 for the maintenance of War cemeteries. It is proposed to ask this House to vote £50,000 as the contribution of the United Kingdom for this purpose in respect of the current year, and further sums annually, increasing as the cost of the construction work diminishes, until the capital sum reaches the British share of the total amount required for the permanent maintenance of these War graves. An opportunity for discussing this proposal will arise on the Supplementary Estimate.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    BRITISH EXPORTS.
    Sir F. WISEasked the President of the Board of Trade the percentage of British exports to the Dominions, Colonies and foreign countries for the six months ending 30th June, 1925?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): The distribution of the exports of Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the six months ended 30th June, 1925, was as follow:

    Per cent.

    Consigned to the Dominions and Colonies

    42·6

    Consigned to foreign countries

    57·4

    CONTINENTAL GOODS (MARKING).
    Mr. CROOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that some of our manufacturers are buying Continental goods, stamping their own name on them, and then offering such goods for sale ostensibly as British manufacture; and whether he will have investigation made into the extent of this practice?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I have no definite information to the effect indicated by my hon. Friend. If, however, he will send me evidence of such a practice having been followed in any particular case, I shall be glad to consider what action can be taken.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some manufacturers cast the names of English towns on their machines, indicating that they are made in England, although in fact they are made abroad?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: If a manufacturer puts a wrong mark on any article, he is liable to prosecution.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have frequently represented these facts to the Board of Trade, but that it has been utterly impossible up to now to obtain a prosecution?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: If my hon. Friend will bring specific cases to my notice, they will certainly be looked into.
    Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Have any steps been taken to prevent these
    622
    wrongly marked goods from being brought into this country, in view of the fact that we cannot very well prosecute a German in Germany?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This question is on another subject altogether. This is a case of our own manufacturers stamping goods which they have imported. The other matter must be the subject of a separate question.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Does not this indicate the unscrupulous character of private enterprise?

    VULCANISED FIBRE (IMPORTATION).
    Mr. LIVINGSTONEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the quantity of vulcanised fibre imported into Great Britain from the United States of America for the six months ending June last?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: As the imports of vulcanised fibre are not separately recorded, I regret that it is impossible to furnish the particulars asked for.

  FOOD COUNCIL.
  Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Board of Trade what emoluments, if any, are to be paid to the chairman and members of the Food Council?
  Sir B. CHADWICK: No emoluments will be paid.

  AGRICULTURAL WAGES.
  Mr. ALEXANDERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now give an up-to-date list of the decisions arrived at by the county committees established under the Agricultural Wages Act, 1924?
  Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the current minimum rates of wages for adult workers for each area, as decided by the agricultural wages committees.
  Following is the statement:

  STATEMENT SHEWING MINIMUM RATES OF WAGES FOR ADULT AGRICULTURAL WORKERS OPERATING ON 29TH JULY, 1925.

  Area.

  Males.

  Females.

  Special Provision for Harvest (if any).

  Ordinary Workers.

  Special Classes Rates (if any).

  Wages.

  Hours.

  Class of Workers,

  Wages.

  Hours.

  Wages.

  Hours.

  s.

  d.

  Per hour.

  Beds and Hunts

  30

  6

  50

  —

  —

  —

  6d.

  All time

  —

  Berkshire

  29

  2

  50

  —

  —

  —

  5d.

  All time

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  30

  0

  50

  —

  —

  —

  6d.

  All time

  —

  Cambs and Isle of Ely

  30

  0

  51

  Horsemen, Cowmen and Shepherds.

  37s.

  Customary

  5½d.

  8 per day

  60s. per week of 64 hours for adult male workers and lid. per hour for all time worked for female workers of 18 years and over.

  Cheshire

  35

  0

  54

  —

  —

  —

  6d.

  All time

  —

  Cornwall

  31

  0

  51

  —

  —

  —

  5d.

  All time

  —

  Cumberland and Westmorland.

  32

  6

  54

  Workers hired on yearly or half-yearly engagements.

  38s.

  Customary (62).

  5½d.

  All time

  —

  Casual workers

  8d. per hour

  All time

  Derby

  8d. per hour.

  54 (Guaranteed).

  —

  —

  —

  5d.

  All time on weekdays.

  9d. per hour for all overtime employment on the Hay and Corn Harvest, 1925.

  Devon

  32

  6

  52

  —

  —

  —

  5d.

  All time

  10d. per hour for all overtime employment on the Hay and Corn Harvests, 1925.

  Dorset

  30

  0

  51

  —

  —

  —

  5d.

  51hours

  l0d. per hour for all overtime employment on the Hay and Corn Harvests, 1925.

  Durham

  32

  0

  50

  Horsemen:

  Householders

  32s. plus 7s. per week.*

  50

  2s. per day.

  8

  —

  Not Householders

  32s. plus 3s. 6d.per week.*

  50

  Receiving Board and Lodging.

  32s.

  50

  Stockmen and Shepherds:

  Householders

  43s.

  Customary

  Not Householders

  37s. 10½d.

  Customary

  Receiving Board and Lodging.

  36s.

  Customary

  Essex

  30

  0

  50

  —

  —

  —

  Per hour 5d.

  50

  Male workers employed throughout the Corn Harvest on farms comprising more than 60 acres of corn to be paid the ordinary minimum weekly rates plus a bonus on completion of the Harvest, which in the case of a worker aged 21 years and over is £5 5s. In the case of male workers on such farms not employed fully on Harvest only a proportionate part of the bonus is payable. On farms comprising 60 acres or less of corn male workers are to be paid at special hourly rates for all employment on Harvest, the rate in the case of workers aged 21 years and over being 10id. per hour. Female workers 7½d. per hour for all time.

  Gloucester

  30

  0

  50

  Head Shepherds and Stockmen.

  36s.

  60

  5d.

  All time

  —

  Under Shepherds and Stockmen.

  34s. 6d.

  57

  Head Carters

  34s. 6d.

  58

  Under Carters

  32s. 6d.

  54

  Hants and Isle of Wight.

  30

  0

  51

  —

  —

  —

  5d.

  All time.

  9d. per hour for all overtime employment on the Corn Harvest, 1925.

  Herefordshire

  31

  0

  54

  Bailiffs, Waggoners, Stockmen and Shepherds.

  36s.

  60

  4½d.

  All time

  —

  Hertfordshire

  31

  0

  48

  —

  —

  —

  24s. per week.

  48

  10d. per hour for all overtime employment of adult male workers and 7½d. per hour for adult female I workers employed on the Hay Harvest, 1925. 10½d. per hour for all employment of adult male workers and 7½d. per hour for adult female workers employed on the Corn Harvest, 1925.

  Area.

  Males.

  Females.

  Special Provision for Harvest (if any).

  Ordinary workers.

  Special Classes Rates (if any).

  Wages.

  Hours.

  Class of Workers.

  Wages.

  Hours.

  Wages.

  Hours.

  s.

  d.

  Per hour.

  Kent

  32

  6

  52

  Horsemen, Stockmen and Shepherds.

  33s. plus 8d. per hour for all employment on customary duties up to 60 hours.

  52

  5½d.

  8 per day

  —

  Lancashire—

  Eastern Area

  42

  0

  60

  —

  —

  —

  6d.

  All time.

  —

  Southern Area

  33

  6

  50

  Stockmen and Teams-men.

  37s.

  52½

  Northern Area

  37

  6

  60

  Stockmen and Teams-men.

  40s.

  60

  Leicester and Rut-land—

  Leicester

  34

  0

  54

  —

  —

  —

  5d.

  All time on week-days.

  —

  Rutland

  32

  6

  Lincolnshire—

  Holland District

  36

  0

  52

  Cattlemen

  36s. plus 5s. per week.*

  52

  6d.

  All time

  —

  Shepherds†

  36s. plus 5s. per week.*

  52

  Horsemen

  36s. plus 10s. per week.*

  52

  Lincolnshire—

  Kesteven and Lindsey District.

  32

  0

  52

  Waggoners

  32s. plus 7s. per week.*

  52

  5½d.

  All time

  —

  Shepherds†

  32s. plus 5s. per week.*

  52

  Stockmen

  32s. plus 6s. per week.*

  52

  Middlesex

  34

  4½

  50

  —

  —

  —

  25s. per week.

  50

  —

  Stockmen

  41s. 3d.

  60

  30s. per week.

  60

  Carters

  38s. 6d.

  56

  28s. per week.

  56

  —

  Casual workers

  8¼d. per hour

  All time

  6d.

  All time

  Monmouthshire

  32

  0

  50

  —

  —

  —

  6d.

  All time

  —

  Norfolk

  29

  0

  50

  Teamsmen, Cowmen and Shepherds.

  29s. plus 5s. 6d. per week.*

  50

  5d.

  50

  Male workers employed on the full Corn Harvest, 1925, to receive an inclusive wage to cover the Harvest month, the amount in the case of male workers of 21 years and over being £12. Workers who do not work the full Harvest to be paid the ordinary minimum rate with overtime payment at a special rate, the rate in the case of male workers of 21 years and over being 9½d. per hour.

  Sheep tenders and Bullock tenders.

  29s. plus 4s. 6d. per week.*

  50

  Northants and Soke of Peterborough.

  30

  0

  50

  —

  —

  —

  6d.

  All time

  —

  Northumberland

  34

  0

  52½

  Horsemen, Cattle-men, Stockmen and Shepherds:

  5d.

  52½

  —

  Householders

  41s.

  62

  Not House-holders.

  38s.

  62

  Casual Workers

  7½d. per hour.

  All time

  3d.

  52½

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  32

  0

  50

  —

  —

  —

  5d.

  All weekday employment.

  —

  Oxfordshire

  30

  0

  50

  —

  —

  —

  6d.

  All time

  —

  Shropshire

  31

  6

  54

  —

  —

  —

  5d.

  All weekday employment.

  All employment after 1 p.m. on any employment. one weekday in each week, all employment on Sunday and all employment after 6 p.m. on any | other day on the Hay and Corn i harvests to be paid at not less than 10d. per hour.

  Somerset

  32

  0

  52

  —

  —

  —

  6d.

  —

  —

  Area.

  Males.

  Females.

  Special Provision for Harvest (if any).

  Ordinary workers.

  Special Classes Rates (if any).

  Wages.

  Hours.

  Class of Workers.

  Wages.

  Hours.

  Wages.

  Hours.

  s.

  d.

  Per hour.

  Staffordshire

  …

  31

  6

  54

  —

  —

  —

  5d.

  54

  —

  Suffolk

  …

  7d. per hour.

  50

  Horsemen, Stock and Shepherds.

  7d. per hour plus 6s. per week.

  50 Guaranteed.

  5d.

  All time

  Male workers employed throughout the Harvest on harvest work to be paid, in addition to the ordinary weekly minimum rate, a bonus on the completion of harvest, the amount in the case of male workers of 21 years and over being £6 3s. 4d. Provision is also made for the payment of a proportion of the bonus to workers employed on only part of the harvest.

  Surrey

  …

  32

  3

  50

  Stockmen, Shepherds and Horsemen.

  38s.8d.

  60

  5½d.

  50

  —

  Casual Workers.

  7¾d. per hour

  All time

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  …

  30

  0

  52

  Horsemen, Cowmen, Shepherds and Stockmen.

  35s.

  58

  5d.

  52

  —

  Warwickshire

  …

  30

  0

  50

  —

  —

  —

  5½d.

  50

  —

  Wiltshire

  …

  30

  0

  50

  —

  —

  —

  5d.

  All time

  —

  Worcestershire

  …

  30

  0

  53

  —

  —

  —

  4½d.

  8 hour day

  —

  Yorks, E. Riding

  …

  34

  0

  52½

  Foremen

  32s.

  52½ hours and in addition 12 hours per week on weekdays and 3 hours on Sundays in attention to stock.

  5d.

  44

  Special overtime rates for all over time employment on the Corn Harvest, 1925, the rate in the case of adult male workers being 1s.3d. where not Boarded an Lodged and 1s. where receiving Board and Lodging (Foremen, Beastmen, Shepherds and Waggoners). The rate for adult female workers is 11d. per hour.

  Beastmen and Shepherds.

  29s.

  Waggoners

  28s.

  Plus Board and Lodging in each case.

  Yorks, N. Riding

  33

  0

  52½

  Workers receiving Board and Lodging.

  4d. per hour for all overtime occupied by care of stock.

  —

  6d.

  44

  —

  Workers not receiving Board and Lodging.

  8d. per hour ditto.

  Yorks, W. Riding

  36

  0

  52½

  Foremen, per annum Beastmen and Shepherds, per annum.

  £85 16s.£83 4s.

  52½ hours and in addition 12 hours per week on weekdays and 3 hours on Sundays in attention to stock.

  5d

  44

  —

  Waggoners, per annum.

  £78 Plus Board and Lodging in each case.

  Horsemen, Beast men and Shepherds (not living in).

  £42

  Anglesey and Carnarvon.

  30

  0

  50

  Horsemen, Cowmen, Shepherds and Bailiffs.

  35s.

  58

  6d.

  All time

  —

  Carmarthenshire

  30

  0

  54

  —

  —

  —

  5d.

  8 hour day

  —

  Denbigh and Flint

  30

  6

  50

  Teamsmen, Cattlemen, Cowmen, Shepherds and Bailiffs.

  37s

  61

  5d.

  8½ hour day

  —

  Glamorganshire

  37

  6

  53

  Stockmen, Cattlemen, Cowmen, Horsemen, Shepherds and Bailiffs.

  40s.

  60

  6d.

  8½ hour day

  —

  Merioneth and Montgomery.

  31

  6

  54

  Stockmen, Teamsters, Carters and shepherds.

  34s. 6d.

  60

  5d.

  All time

  —

  Pembroke and Cardigan.

  30

  0

  54

  —

  —

  —

  5d.

  8 hour day

  —

  Radnor and Brecon

  31

  0

  54

  —

  —

  —

  5d.

  48

  —

  * Additional sums to cover time occupied by attention to stock.

  † Additional sums to be paid during the lambing season according to the size of flocks.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Postmaster-General what is the estimated cost of each transaction in the Post Office savings bank as compared with the figure of 4¾d. stated by the Postmaster-General on 3rd November, 1911?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The estimated cost of each transaction, for the year 1924 was 9·01d., as compared with the 4¾d. mentioned for 1911. The figure has been steadily falling since 1921. I may mention that the expenses of management amounted in 1924 to 9s. 3d. per £100 of the total amount standing to the credit of depositors, as compared with 7s. 2d. in 1911.
  Colonel WOODCOCK: Is that 9d. each way?

  SCOTLAND.

    AFFORESTATION, OBAN.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether the purchase and afforestation of two estates in the neighbourhood of Oban is contemplated; whether he is aware that the lands in question are at present farmed and producing an average daily supply of 100 gallons of milk; and what steps are to be taken to ensure that the development of afforestation is not made in competition with but in supplement to agriculture?
    Sir LEOLIN FORESTIER-WALKER (for the Forestry Commissioners): A technical inspection and report has been made on behalf of the Forestry Commissioners of two estates in the neighbourhood of Oban, but negotiations for purchase have not been entered into. The Commissioners are aware of the present utilisation of these estates. With regard to the latter part of the question, the Commissioners consult with the Board of Agriculture for Scotland before any decision as to acquisition of land is reached.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it the policy of the Forestry Commissioners to afforest land which is presently yielding a milk supply for the people?
    Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: The policy of the Forestry Commission is to make use of such land for afforestation in consultation with the Board of Agriculture, who will be presumed to know what will be the best use to make of that particular land.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: If the facts are as stated in the question, that this particular land is yielding 100 gallons of milk, is not that land put to an agricultural purpose?
    Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: No doubt that fact is taken duly into account when consideration is given to the matter.

    OMNIBUS DRIVER SENTENCED (GLASGOW).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that a young lad, William M'Arthur, Waterside, Kirkintilloch, has been sentenced at the Glasgow Sheriff Court to 60 days' imprisonment for reckless driving of a motor omnibus; that this was his first offence; that no accident took place; and whether he will consider the desirability of a reduction of the sentence to a fine and endorsement of licence?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): My attention has been called to this case. I am making inquiry into the matter. I shall communicate with the hon. Member thereafter.

    IRISH PRISONERS, PETERHEAD.
    Mr. SCURR (for Mr. LANSBURY)asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that Felix O'Byrne and Soumas O'Reilly, at present imprisoned in Peterhead Prison, went on hunger strike on the 28th June; that other prisoners, including Thomas McShea and Seumas Monaghan, have been on hunger strike in sympathy with these men; will he inform the House whether any of these prisoners have been forcibly fed; what is the present state of their health; and will he state the number of prisoners still detained in Peterhead Prison, or any other Scottish prison, for and on behalf of either the Northern Government of Ireland or the Free State Government?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: O'Byrne and Reilly went on hunger strike on the 27th June, Monaghan on the 29th June, and McShea on the 1st July. These prisoners were forcibly fed from and after various dates in July. All four ceased their hunger

    637
    strike on the 24th July, and are at present taking food. Their health is reported to be good, and they are expected to be back at work in a few days. Thirty-three prisoners are at present detained in Scottish prisons on behalf of the Government of Northern Ireland and none on behalf of the Irish Free State Government.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these 33 prisoners are being treated differently from any other prisoners in Scotland; and will he take steps to see that at least in regard to visitation they are made equal to other prisoners in Scotland?
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Is it a fact that the Government of Northern Ireland do not possess a convict prison?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that the accommodation in Northern Ireland is not sufficient. I do not think that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is correct when he states that these prisoners are differently treated from other prisoners.
    Captain BENN: Is it not a fact that the Free State Government have already amnestied their political prisoners, and will he ask the Government of Northern Ireland whether they will do the same?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.

  COLUMBIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
  Sir F. WISEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the treatment by the Columbian Government of the Columbian Northern Railway Company; and if he will make a statement as to the action which His Majesty's Government has taken, or is prepared to take, in the matter?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Columbian Northern Railway Company took over the line in 1898, and have been effectively working it since 1905. In 1921 proceedings were commenced in the Columbian Courts calling in question certain of the concessions granted to them by previous Governments. The question
  638
  was still sub judice when on the 4th May, 1925, a Presidential "resolution" was issued, without warning, cancelling the company's rights and declaring that Government officials must be given possession of the railway within 30 days. His Majesty's Minister at Bogota was instructed to protest to the Columbian Government, who nevertheless appear to have persisted in their decision, since on the 10th June last a further Presidential resolution was issued confirming the previous one, and again ordering the surrender of the railway within 30 days. The railway was in effect taken over on the 14th of July.

  COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
  Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position with regard to the commercial treaties with our Allies which were in operation before the War; whether any of those treaties have been denounced by any of the countries concerned; and what steps are being taken to introduce order and regularity into our international relations in this respect?
  Mr. McNEILL: The Anglo-French Convention of Commerce has been denounced by the French Government, but is being continued in force subject to three months' final notice of termination. This convention does not apply to Customs tariffs, and goods of United Kingdom origin or manufacture are granted most-favoured-nation treatment in France.
  The Anglo-Greek Treaty of Commerce has been denounced by the Greek Government and will expire at the end of this year. Negotiations for a new treaty are taking place and the British proposals are now before the Greek Government.
  The Anglo-Roumanian Treaty of Commerce has been denounced by the Roumanian Government, and commercial relations between the United Kingdom and Roumania are now regulated by a provisional arrangement based on the most-favoured-nation clause.
  The Jugo-Slavian Government have denounced the Anglo-Serbian Treaty of Commerce, which will expire in June, 1926. The question of concluding a new treaty is under consideration.
  Article 8 of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of Commerce and the schedule to that

  639
  treaty have been denounced by the Japanese Government. The rest of the treaty, including the provisions as to reciprocal most-favoured-nation treatment of goods, remains in force and negotiations have been taking place for a supplementary convention between Great-Britain and Japan.
  Colonel GRETTON: Has notice to terminate any commercial treaties been given by the British Government, and does such notice still stand?
  Mr. McNEILL: So far as my recollection serves, none.

  BRITISH LEGATION, PEKING.
  Mr. LOOKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that, shortly after the recent disturbances occurred in Peking, the Soviet envoy to the Chinese Government caused loopholes to be made in the wall dividing the British and Russian Legation quarters; and whether he will take the steps necessary to safeguard the British Legation in view of the serious menace, in certain contingencies, to its security owing to this having taken place?
  Mr. McNEILL: No official report of this nature has reached me. But it may be safely assumed that His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Peking has taken all possible steps to assure the safety of the British Legation.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it not a fact that recently, during some of the disturbances in China, British residents have received protection from troops attached to the Russian Consulate?
  Mr. McNEILL: I could not answer that without notice. I should have to look at the records.

  BRITISH COMMERCIAL SECRETARIAT, NEW YORK.
  Sir F. WISEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the British Embassy has opened offices in New York; and, if so, what is the total cost?
  Mr. McNEILL: I presume the hon. Member's question refers to the branch
  640
  of the Commercial Secretariat of His Majesty's Embassy at Washington, which was recently established at New York and placed in charge of a Commercial Secretary, Grade II, hitherto resident at Washington. The additional cost involved is, approximately, £400.

  SHEERNESS AND CHATHAM DOCKYARDS.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if Sheer-ness and Chatham Dockyards are within long-range gun-fire from the Continent; and, if so, whether it is considered possible to work these dockyards in time of war?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): The dockyards referred to are 47 and 51 miles respectively from the nearest point on the Continent. In these circumstances, it is not anticipated that they could be brought under effective fire. The answer to the second part of the question is, therefore, in the affirmative.

  PALESTINE (YARKON POWER HOUSE).
  Captain WATERHOUSEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements, if any, have been made by the concessionnaire under the Ruthenberg concession to erect the Yarkon power house; if any pressure is being brought to bear in order to expedite this work; and if, and when, the penalty clause under Clause 4 of the agreement will come into operation?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The postition is as stated in the latter part of my reply to the hon. and gallant junior Member for Southampton on the 15th of June. The greater part of the area covered by the Jaffa Electric Company's concession is already supplied from a fuel power station at Tel Aviv. The company have been required to submit a scheme within a period expiring in two months' time to supply the remainder of the area, which comprises the town of Petach Tikvah and the surrounding area, either from the existing

  641
  fuel station or from a hydro-electric station constructed in accordance with the original plan. The Palestine Government will, no doubt, consider the propriety of bringing the penalty clause into operation if the scheme is not submitted within the time limit specified above.
  Captain WATERHOUSE: In view of the fact that we are so short of trade, will the right hon. Gentleman make every effort to ensure that this concession is carried out under the terms of the agreement?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, that is being done.

  MONTAGU COLLIERY.
  Mr. WARNEasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has received the Report of the investigation he has instituted into the conditions at Montagu colliery; and what action he is prepared to take in the matter?
  Sir H. BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply. My hon. and gallant Friend has not yet received this Report, but understands that it will probably be ready for presentation within the next day or two.

  DOMINIONS (MOST-FAVOURED-NATION TREATIES).
  Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Dominions have been released from the obligations of the most-favoured-nation treaties to which they were parties, either in accordance with the practice in use before 1880 or by their acceding to such treaties, in accordance with the request, that they may be so released made at the Imperial Conference of 1911?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been asked to reply. In accordance with the Resolution of the Imperial Conference, 1911, to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, negotiations were opened with the Foreign Governments concerned. In a number of cases, supplementary agreements have been concluded under which the Dominions are enabled to withdraw from the Treaties in question if they so desire.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ACCOUNTANCY.
    Mr. BENNETTasked the Secretary of State for War whether any decisions have yet been reached on the Report of the Lawrence Committee and future of the corps of military accountants?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, Sir. After careful and prolonged consideration the Army Council have decided that the system advocated by the majority of the Committee, besides presenting serious disadvantages, e.g., from the point of view of mobilisation, would involve a heavier expense on account keeping than we can afford in the present circumstances of financial stringency.
    It is, therefore proposed, subject to the approval of the Committee of Public Accounts, to discontinue the "cost" accounts of combatant units, retaining only those of productive and other establishments for which such accounts are of proved value. It is also proposed to return to the cash form for the Army Estimates and Accounts presented to this House, while at the same time furnishing supplementary information as to the full cost of various parts of the Army. This change will involve a reduction in the numbers of the accounting staff.

    SWEDISH PLIERS, WOOLWICH DOCKYARD.
    Mr. CROOKEasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that at the dockyard, Woolwich, pattern room, cutting pliers of Swedish make are offered as samples for tender; and will he see that none but British manufactured goods are exhibited or purchased by his Department?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): The cutting pliers of Swedish make were selected as the most suitable example to guide manufacturers. It is stated in the specification that the pattern may be regarded as typical only and need not be copied in all details. The only orders placed have been for British manufactured articles, and I have no reason to anticipate that it will be necessary to accept foreign manufactured supplies in the future. As soon as articles of British manufacture suitable as patterns are received, they will be substituted for the Swedish pattern.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the War Office satisfied that no combine can be made against them to artificially raise the price, and will they reserve the right to import from abroad if they suspect it?
    Captain KING: I do not think that arises out of this question at all.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the War Office accept the principle that they must on no account buy anything from abroad?
    Captain KING: No: but we always endeavour to give a preference to British goods.
    Mr. HARRIS: Does not that handicap State dockyards as compared with private dockyards, who can buy in the open market?
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Is there a preference to British goods in regard to the seating of the House of Commons?
    Captain KING: That does not arise.

    INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE.
    Mr. JAMES HUDSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India when the Government intends to carry out the recommendation of the Lee Commission to the effect that 20 per cent, of 50 per cent, of the appointments to the Indian Civil Service should be filled by officers promoted from the provincial Civil Service?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): This recommendation is now under consideration, and a decision will be reached as soon as possible. If the hon. Member will look again at the Report, he will see that he understates the proportion recommended, which was 20 per cent, of the total recruitment.

  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
  Mr. J. HUDSON (for Mr. ROBINSON)asked the Minister of Health whether dependants' pensions payable or that may become payable under Articles 1102, 1103 and 1104 of the Royal Warrant for the Pay, Appointment, Promotion, and
  644
  Non-effective Pay of the Army, 1922, will be taken into consideration when the recipients become eligible for pension under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
  Mr. J. HUDSON (for Mr. ROBINSON)asked the Minister of Health whether pensions payable to dependants, other than widows, children, or parents, under Article 22 of the Royal Warrant of 1922 and the corresponding Order in Council affecting the Navy, will be taken into consideration when the recipients become eligible for pension under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reference to Article 22 of the Royal Warrant of 1922 is not understood. Pensions to the dependants of men who served in the Navy are given under the Order in Council dated 7th November, 1924, and, if the question relates to persons entitled under Article 27 of that Order, the answer is in the negative.

  MONEYLENDERS' ADVERTISEMENTS.
  Mr. EDMUND WOOD (for Sir R. GOWER)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to an advertisement, inserted in a London newspaper by a firm of registered moneylenders, appealing to prospective borrowers to let such firm be their private bankers; and what proceedings he proposes to take, having regard to the provisions of the Moneylenders Act, 1911, which provides, inter alia, that any moneylender who issues any advertisement which might reasonably be held to imply that he carries on banking business shall be liable to penalties?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I have been asked to reply. I have referred the advertisement in question to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who advises me that proceedings in respect of it, under Section 2 of the Moneylenders Act, 1911, would not be likely to succeed, and, therefore, it is not proposed to take any action in the matter.

  BRITISH BROADCASTING COMPANY.
  Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS (for Mr. W. BAKER)asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the British Broadcasting Company is able, after paying a dividend of 7½ per cent., to carry over nearly £80,000; whether he is aware that his predecessor agreed to the division of £2,000 of a previous surplus between the directors of the Broadcasting Company in addition to their normal fees; and whether he will give an assurance that no such bonus will be agreed to during the present year?
  Viscount WOLMER: The answer to the first two parts of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. With regard to the last part, I understand that no such bonus has been suggested or is contemplated.

  COAL INDUSTRY DISPUTE.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I do not wish in the middle of the day's negotiations to ask the Government for a statement of the present position in regard to the mining dispute, but I would like to take this opportunity of asking whether later in the day we might have a statement from the Prime Minister as to how matters are proceeding?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Austen Chamberlain): I have been in communication with my right hon. Friend, and he says that he hopes he may be in a position to make a statement later in the day. I cannot say that he will, but he hopes that he may be in a position to do so. If so, I imagine that by the leave and general consent of the House an opportunity will be found for the making of such a statement, at whatever hour.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. MacDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what business the Government propose to take next week?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The House will understand that the Prime Minister Has been fully occupied with other business, and I hope, therefore, that will be some
646
excuse for the poverty of my answer in regard to business, until I have had an opportunity of consulting him. The business for next week will be:
Monday: Supply, Committee—Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Vote.
Tuesday: Supply, Report—Scottish Estimates.
The business for the remainder of the week I hope to be able to announce later.
On Monday and Tuesday at Ten o'clock the Committee and Report stages respectively of all the outstanding Votes in Supply will be put from the Chair. After the conclusion of the business of SUPPLY We shall consider other Orders, including:

Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Bill;

National Library (Scotland) Bill;

Lords Amendments to the Greenwich Hospital (Disused Burial Ground) Bill;

Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, and Therapeutic Substances Bill [Lords];

unless the House has disposed of these Orders previously.
Ordered,
"That the proceedings on the Unemployment Insurance Bill and on the Telegraph (Money) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Austen Chamberlain.]

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF SCOTLAND BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 247.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,

Lanarkshire County Council Order Confirmation Bill,

647

London and North Eastern Railway Order Confirmation Bill,

Mental Deficiency (Amendment) Bill,

Ministers of Religion (Removal of Disqualifications) Bill,

Isle of Man (Customs) Bill,

Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Bill,

Leicester Fire Brigade Provisional Order Bill,

Salford Provisional Order Bill,

Land Drainage (Ouse) Provisional Order Bill,

London County Council (Money) Bill, without Amendment.

Allotments Bill,

Burnley Corporation Bill,

Bath Corporation Bill,

Middlesex County Council Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Advertisements Regulation Bill [Lords],

Poole Harbour Bill [Lords],

London Electricity Supply (No. 1) Bill [Lords],

London Electricity Supply (No. 2) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Dangerous Drugs Acts, 1920 and 1923, so far as is necessary to enable effect to be given to a Convention signed at Geneva, on behalf of His Majesty, on the nineteenth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-five." [Dangerous Drugs Bill [Lords.]

ALLOTMENTS BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 248.]
DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 249.]

BILLS REPORTED.
Bexhill Corporation Bill [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
West Ham Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Water) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
Colonial Bank Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Boothferry Bridge Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. T. SHAW: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, for the convenience of the House, if you will be kind enough to state what Amendments you propose to select to be taken on the Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have had the opportunity this morning of a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman and with some other hon. Members sitting on my left, and I have made a provisional selection of ten Amendments which I am prepared to put to the House. It will be necessary to have the help of the House, if that is to be possible.
  The first Amendment is that which stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, to leave out Clause 1.
  I understand that a Division only will be taken on the next one, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for West Notingham (Mr. Hayday).
  The third is the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), raising an important point, which is likely to take some little time.
  The fourth Amendment on Clause 1 is the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), which will require a short time.
  Then, with regard to the Amendments on Clause 3, there is first the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. R. Young).
  There is next an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson).
  Then there are two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The first follows the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, and the second is the last Amendment on the same page of the Order Paper.
  The next Amendment is that of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) on Clause 4.
  The last Amendment is the Government Amendment, also on Clause 4.
  Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that you rule all the other Amendments out of Order? Let us understand. Has there been an arrangement with someone that we are to take these Amendments and that the other Amendments are not to be taken? I want to know whether we are to be allowed to move some of the other Amendments. There is an Amendment in my name on page 1 of the Order Paper referring to paragraph (a) of Clause 1. That is a very important Amendment. Are we not to be allowed to move it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not my intention. I think that those Amendments are all covered by the Amendment which precedes them, to which I have referred, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdare, and discussion on them could only be a repetition of the points dealt with in discussing the preceding Amendment.
  Mr. STEPHEN: With reference to the Amendment to Clause 2 standing in my name, there is no other Amendment to Clause 2 on the Paper, and as the power of extending the time is to be given to the Minister, surely we should have some opportunity of discussing the conditions in which this power will operate. With reference to the points raised with regard to (a), (b), (c), and (d), last year when the Unemployment Insurance Act was passed because the discretionary power of the Minister was taken away, and the unemployed man was given a statutory right, all those conditions were put in to make it more difficult for him, because the discretion was withdrawn. Therefore we should be allowed to have a Division in reference to at least those provisions (a), (b), (c), and (d), as they are a matter of great importance to the unemployed.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I will further consider that, and if the discussion on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdare be not unduly prolonged, I will see if it be possible to call the other Amendment, for the purpose of a Division.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: With reference to Clause 2, which is of great importance,

  677
  may I point out that I attended the sittings of the Committee regularly, and there was no discussion on a point which is raised here for the first time? I ask, in view of the fact that the Amendments were put down without any cognisance of the Front Bench, whether it would not be possible to have a discussion on that?
  Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the Amendment on Clause 2, the reason I have not selected it is that it deals with a matter of administration, and not a matter of legislation. It is not in accordance with the scope of the Bill, and is not in order.
  Mr. STEPHEN: With regard to the point in respect of the Clause which gives the Minister the power of waiver for an extended period, would it be possible to have a discussion if I put down an Amendment to leave out Clause 2 in order that we might deal with some points which arise? Would it be possible to hand in a manuscript Amendment to leave out Clause 2?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I will consider that.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of s. 1 (3) of Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924, 14 and 15 Geo. 5, c. 30.)
    Mr. COMPTON: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    4.0 P.M.
    This Clause seeks to take away from the unemployed people of the country certain rights which were conferred upon them as statutory rights under the Act of 1924. When that Act was going through this House we did not find any real objection to it on the ground which is covered by this Clause. On the Second Heading of this Bill, during the Committee stage, no proof was produced of any abuse of the particular right which was conferred by the Act passed last year. We on these benches feel that to take away a statutory right, and to place in the hands of any Minister—admirable gentleman though the present Minister of Labour may be—a discretion in this matter is something which is dangerous not only to the individual concerned, but to the whole community, and especially to the unemployed people. These powers are sought by the Minister and we regard with very grave concern indeed the proposal that they should be allowed.
    678
    Furthermore, this Clause will, in our opinion, deal very harshly with a certain class of people whose income at the present time is limited to a very low degree. We are cognisant of the fact that almost 300,000 men have been added to the unemployed live register since about this period last year. In addition, we are cognisant of the fact that these 300,000 do not give the total increase in the number of unemployed since that period. That most objectionable Circular, issued by the present Minister of Labour on 19th February this year, has been the means of removing many thousands of names of unfortunate people from the unemployed live register and turning them over to the Poor Law. We maintain that the increase in the number of unemployed is greater than that shown by the statistics supplied to us. The Minister has not produced one single argument in favour of this Clause being the means of reducing unemployment in any shape or form. As a matter of fact, we feel that it will have the opposite effect. Therefore, I repeat that it gives an opportunity to the Minister or to his Department to impose hardships upon certain individuals in the community who are already sufficiently depressed by the anxious days and weeks in which they have been seeking employment which is not to be found in the country.
    There is one reason which the Minister has given, and it is a reason which does not in any sense appeal to Members on these benches. He says that through the present Unemployment Insurance Bill he hopes to effect a saving of about £6,500,000. Under Clause I, the deletion of which I have moved, he expects to effect a saving of £1,500,000. I ask hon. Members opposite to ponder well upon what a saving of £1,500,000 from the small pittance given to men and women, many of whom have for years trudged the streets of our cities and towns in search of employment which the present industrial system has failed to provide, will mean. We object very seriously indeed that these people should be called upon, not only the men who have suffered in health and stamina, but the unfortunate victims who cannot fight their own battles, the women and the children, to suffer this hardship. We know of instances where teachers have given their mid-day meal rather than endeavour to teach children with empty stomachs.

    679
    It may be that this sum of £6,500,000 will not be found to be a great hardship when spread out, as it will be, over such a large section, but that is not at all the point. Although the sum may be small in itself, it does not affect the real feeling which this Bill, if carried, will create among the people of this country. There is among the poor people in the country a great amount of sympathy with those who are in worse circumstances than themselves. Working people cannot stand aside and see starvation in their midst. We know that the Minister is engaged elsewhere on a very important matter, but, if it had been possible, I should have liked him to have been present to hear what we have to say with regard to this Bill. The Act of 1924 imposed a statutory obligation upon the Ministry of Labour. That was found necessary because of what happened during the life of the preceding Government in the year 1923. The Parliamentary Secretary held a similar condition under the then Minister of Labour, and I hope on this occasion he will convey to the present Minister of Labour the remarks that I am about to make. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in the last Conservative Government, Sir Montague Barlow, sought powers in this House, whereby, as a Minister, he could deal with unemployment in a certain direction. Sir Montague Barlow has passed into the political wilderness. Although some months previously he had a majority of several thousands, he lost his seat, and I say that it was the sympathetic feeling of the workers in that particular constituency, having watched the effects of the administration of certain powers which the Minister had taken upon himself, that in the main caused that reversal and turned the Minister of Labour out of this House. Personally, I have no desire to see such a fate befall the present Minister of Labour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] He is an admirable fellow in many ways. I hope, therefore, that the Minister of Labour, or the Parliamentary Secretary, will seriously consider the effect which this Clause, if carried, is likely to have on the feelings of the people of this country.
    There is one thing which must always be borne in mind. The people of the country, whether employed or unemployed, must be fed, and, if you turn
    680
    them from the Employment Exchanges and refuse them the benefit to which they are legally entitled, then you are only turning them on to the Poor Law, and thereby shifting the burden from the taxpayer to the ratepayer, who in the present circumstances is already overburdened. It may be that there are many members in this House who do not come into contact with their constituents as some of us on this side of the House do. Many of us on these benches live in our constituencies. Our constituents know that we are at home week after week, and therefore we are not only forced to visit them but they call upon us and we hear the details of their daily life week in and week out. I can therefore assure hon. Members opposite that, if this Clause be carried, it will undoubtedly cause such irritation in the minds of the people of this country as will shake the foundations of the present Government.
    This Clause also seeks in my opinion to take an undue advantage of those whom we should try to encourage in so far as the payment of unemployment insurance is concerned. Young men entering industry are forced to pay contributions at the age of 18. The Minister may utilise his powers to refuse benefit to a young single man who happens to be living with his parents. That is not only a gross injustice on the young man himself, but it is a bigger injustice on his parents. What will be the position of a miner with his 5s. per week trying to maintain a family if he is to have an able-bodied adult son forced upon him and invited to maintain him because he has been deprived of his benefit? What will be the position of the working engineer whose wage to-day is very little better than the wage of a miner? These men have sufficient worry and trouble to maintain themselves on their miserable wages, and they ought not to be called upon to bear this extra burden which the Ministry seek to impose upon them. These young men have paid their contributions, willingly and unwillingly, and, by every canon of the law, they aee entitled to their benefit. If by a majority of the Members of this House such powers are placed in the hands of the Minister as will deprive them of their benefit, then we shall not only be doing an illegal thing but something that will shake the very

    681
    foundations of the proper administration of justice from one end of the country to the other.
    Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do so without making any attempt to repeat many of the arguments that were stated in opposition to this Clause upon the Second Reading and during the Committee stage. As a matter of fact, some of those statements are almost unprintable, because this is the most iniquitous Clause that the Minister could attempt to re-introduce into national insurance, particularly in view of the fact that it is a re-imposition of the position that applied prior to the 1924 Act. We are assured that under this Clause the Minister will economise in industrial insurance to the extent approximately of £1,500,000. Consider the position of the unemployed worker who, for an extended period, has been out of work, and compare the Vote yesterday, of many millions of pounds to useless purposes, with the fact that we are here asking for something that is going to protect human life, not merely of the unemployed worker himself, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Compton) has very ably said, of the women and children who will also be affected. That £1,500,000 may be used for other purposes, but it certainly cannot cover up the sorrow and suffering that will be caused and the disgrace that will fall upon the Minister and his Department for the action which they are taking in bringing this Clause again into operation.
    It is, I believe, admitted by the Minister himself that his discretion under this Clause will cover some 300,000 of the 500,000 now in receipt of extended benefit. What a calamity in the homes of those men who have known what long periods of unemployment and destitution mean. What a calamity for men who have experienced all the difficulties of unemployment, and, as they say in the North, "whose children clem for something to eat," to have this forced upon them at the discretion of the Minister. To the 101 Regulations that are already in operation whereby unemployed workers have been deprived of benefits is now to be added the discretion of one man and one Department to take these benefits away from unemployed workmen. On the Second Reading of the
    682
    Bill, I was disposed to criticise the Minister for using the phrase that extended benefit was insurance upon credit, simply because the unemployed worker at some future period when in employment would have to pay his contributions to the insurance scheme. That is all the more reason I should say why under this Bill he should have something upon credit, because he has the onus imposed upon him that he must pay contributions at a later stage to provide for other unemployed men.
    What is the alternative if this Clause is put into operation? The only alternative is that thousands of men will be forced upon the Poor Law. That is maintenance upon credit, because he will have to pay not, only his share of rates under the Poor Law, but when he gets into employment he will have to pay his share of the contributions for the benefits that he never receives and of which he is being deprived by this very Clause. We are on the verge of winter, when the suffering is going to be more terrible than it would be during the summer months, and I want to put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that, in imposing such a burden on the unemployed workers, he should carefully consider our second Amendment, under which he would at least have six months to think over this proposition and to find out the opinion of the common people of the country as to what he is doing, before he makes any attempt to justify such a position and to maintain his attitude upon the question. It may be all very well in the light of what has been promised to reduce benefits under unemployment insurance, but if this Clause is carried it will react upon the Ministry, in spite of the huge battalions which support it in this House. I hope that representatives of industrial constituencies who sit on the other side of the House, will indicate their opinion and the opinions of their constituents to the Minister. Leaving aside altogether the question of the men who are unemployed, at least hon. Members should consider the women and children who are bound to suffer and who are to be asked to extend their present suffering, while we have had no intimation during the Second Reading Debate or the Committee stage that the Minister is prepared sympathetically to consider either delaying or abolishing this iniquitous Clause.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Question I have to put is "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'shall,' in line 9, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. SPENCER: On a point of Order. I understood that the next Amendment—in page 1, line 6, at the beginning to insert the words "as from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-six—was to be taken.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am going to allow that Amendment to be taken, on line 9.
    Mr. WIGGINS: I rise to support the Amendment. I strongly object to and protest against the removal of the rights given by the Act of 1924 for extended benefit. It is true that according to the actuarial report this is going to "save"—that is the word used by the Minister in the Committee—£1,500,000, but that money is going to be taken from the unemployed persons and is not a. saving to the Government fund. Further, it does not affect to any extent what the Government may have to pay. It is simply done to reduce the deficiency fund—so we are told. Now the deficiency fund to-day stands at something like £8,500.000. We are told it must be reduced, but it has stood at a higher figure than that in times gone by and the world has not come to an end, nor has the British Empire ceased to function. We protest, at this time when trade is bad and unemployment is rife, against an attempt to wipe out or reduce that deficiency when doing so means extreme suffering to people who are unemployed, and have been unemployed for a long time. We also object to the proposal that the Minister should have power to say who shall and who shall not have benefit. We do not believe that it is right for the Minister himself or his Department to have that power. It is not right nor good that any one man, however wonderful or beneficent he may be, should have the power of deciding who shall and who shall not receive benefit. Parliament which makes the laws, should decide from top to bottom, and from side to side, on what ground a man is to be entitled to benefit, whether standard benefit or extended benefit. In any case, the Minister himself will not be able to decide. He may lay down certain regulations and rules but these will have to be worked out by officials in the country and rota committees.
    684
    I am certain from my knowledge of the working of the Old Age Pension Act that no rota committee desires to have these inquisitorial duties once more placed on its shoulders. They hate such methods. They cannot help but hate them if they have any idea of other people's rights and privileges. The Minister, of course, has to judge of the circumstances of the case and the expediency in the public interest. Who is he going to wipe out? If this Clause is going to make a saving of £1,500,000, someone has to suffer to that extent. Who will the sufferer be? We tried to get to know in Committee upstairs, but our efforts were in vain: We had the suggestion that largely the money was going to come from young men and young women whose parents were able to keep them. But what right has the Minister to take away from anyone that for which they have paid? It may be argued that a commercial insurance company could not carry on with a huge deficiency like this. We agree, but we take it that when the Government introduce an Unemployment Insurance Bill the Government have the privilege of allowing a deficiency. Surely the Government have not arrived at the conclusion that the present period of bad trade represents the normal condition in the future. It would almost appear that they had come to that conclusion, and that they felt they must do something to prevent this deficiency becoming unwieldy. I suggest that this country is not yet finished or played out and that these people whom the Minister is going to deprive of extended benefit will, when they get work, have to help to pay off that deficiency.
    The deficiency does not cost the Government anything. It is, I admit, financed by the Treasury but the Treasury charge interest to the fund, and that fund some time or other will have to be repaid and cleared off by the unemployed people themselves. It is true that this Bill in other Clauses gives something, but what is the genesis of the Bill? We can gather from what has been said that there have been complaints by industry of the burdens placed upon it by the new Pensions Bill, and that these are to be met by a reduction in the contributions to the unemployment insurance when the deficiency is wiped out. This Bill by the reduction of contribution gives the employers

    685
    £3,250,000 or £3,500,000, but I am certain that while industry wants its burdens removed it does not want them removed at the expense of the poverty and distress of the working people. Unless we can maintain good feeling between the employers and workers, what good will industry be to anybody?
    I put this point to the Under-Secretary as one which he must consider fairly and squarely. The workers under the Unemployment Insurance Act who are going to have their contributions reduced would never have asked for those contributions to bra reduced so that the rest of the people should be robbed of benefit, but that is what is going to happen. Under this Bill you are going to reduce contributions by £6,800,000 and benefits by £6,500,000. Who is paying for it? The portion of our community which can least afford to bear it. It is not the standard benefit that is in danger but the extended benefit, the benefit given to men who have been a long time out of work and who through no fault of their own cannot find work in order that they may keep body and soul together. I appeal to hon. Members opposite who represent industrial constituencies to use their persuasive powers to see that this iniquitous Clause, this unfair and inhumane Clause, is withdrawn.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I share the regret expressed by the Mover of the Amendment at the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister. As the House is well aware of the cause of that absence, I will say no more upon it. I also acknowledge the kindly apprehensions which have been expressed as to the political future of my right hon. Friend and myself if we are rash enough to persist in this Clause. That risk, I can assure hon. Members, we are prepared to take.
    The Mover of the Amendment and the hon. Members who followed him attacked this Clause on two main grounds. First, they attacked it on the question of principle; and, secondly, they attacked it because, as they say, its effect will be to press harshly and unfairly on those who come within its purview. With regard to the latter point, I think I can remove many of the apprehensions and fears which have been expressed. I am not suggesting that these are not genuinely felt, but I think they are ill-founded.
    686
    Before doing so, I wish to refer to the first part of the case which has been presented to us. Really, between hon. Members opposite and ourselves there is a wide divergence of opinion. Hon. Members opposite persist in regarding this fund as one which is not an insurance fund at all, but a compassionate fund on which we can draw at will. If you once establish the right of an insured person to draw something for which he has not paid, you are doing something wholly inconsistent with the principle of contributory insurance. I quite recognise that there are many hon. Members who say that you can have a non-contributory principle. That argument would be relevant in regard to a non-contributory scheme, but it is not relevant to a contributory scheme. Hon. Members speak of "rights." They say a man has a right to something for which he has not paid. A right against whom? Not against this fund, which is an insurance fund. We have to consider, not only the rights of those who make these claims against the fund but also the rights of those who are contributors to the fund. In considering the rights of the contributors, we are bound to retain some relation between contributions and benefits. Until last vear that was always the principle upon which this House had proceeded, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) last year altered the word "un-covenanted" to "extended" it did not alter the principle upon which this provision was founded. This benefit was called "uncovenanted" because it had no covenant or bargain to support it. You do not get over the difficulty by merely calling it "extended." When the great slump came in 1921. the then Minister of Labour realised that there were many persons who, by no possibility could have been expected to subscribe because the slump coincided with a very large increase in the numbers who came within the purview of the Act, and he instituted what we then knew as uncovenanted benefit. He said, in effect, a man should have benefit beyond the contributions he had paid, provided he satisfied certain prescribed requirements. In a second Act of the same year the words used were:
    "If it appears to the Minister that having regard to all the circumstances of the case it is expedient in the public interest."

    687
    That was the position up to last year, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston brought in his Bill, and he then made what was formerly a claim, depending upon the words I have just used, into a right. Having regard to the fact, however, that this is a contributory scheme, we have also to consider the rights of those who are the contributors to it, and we cannot accept as an absolute right the claim that persons should benefit in advance of contributions without being subject to the exercise of a discretion on the part of the Minister. The last speaker talked as if the Ministerial discretion, apart from this Clause, was not in the Bill at all, but, as a matter of fact, a discretion has to be exercised by the Minister on very many occasions and in many circumstances before this extended benefit is allowed, as, for instance, in all those cases under Section 1 of the Act of 1924 to which the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) referred. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) himself, in his Bill of last year, realised the inconsistency of a contributory scheme, unless you reserved a discretion to the Minister, in the case of the claims to benefit of those persons whose contributions did not otherwise authorise them to receive it. On this question of principle, there is, between hon. Members opposite and ourselves, this fundamental difference, which I do not pretend to hide nor wish to obscure, as to whether, in a contributory scheme, it is possible to make statutory and of right something which is not sup-ported by the contributions paid.
    In regard to the second part of the case of the three hon. Members who have spoken, they dealt with what they regarded as the hardships which would be imposed if this discretion were given. The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. W. M. Adamson) said that, in his estimate, some 300,000 persons would be affected, but the estimate of the Minister is not 300,000 but 70,000, for the period between the date on which the clause comes into operation and the 30th June next.
    Mr. T. SHAW: What does 70,000 mean? Does it mean the number of persons to which the Minister's discretion will apply in the Bill, or does it mean the number
    688
    to which it is his intention to apply his discretion?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this Clause was in all the Bills prior to his own Bill of last year. In that Bill certain instructions were given, and it is the intention of my right hon. Friend to give similar instructions now. The number of persons affected by the instructions given by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was about 80,000 for a whole year, and so my right hon. Friend estimates that, approximately, 70,000 persons will be affected between the date of operation of this Clause and 30th June next.
    Mr. SHAW: What does the Bill give him power to do—to apply it to 70,000 or to 300,000?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman is just as able as I am to realise what this Clause does. I am endeavouring to explain to him what my right hon. Friend is proposing to do. He is proposing, as he has already told the House, to limit the exercise of this power, in the first place, to young single persons living with relatives who can support them. Therefore, the case put, I am sure in all good faith, by the hon. Member for Cannock, of a man with very small wages who would be called upon to support, perhaps, a considerable number of persons cut off under this Clause, is not a valid case, and his fears are really without foundation, because the Minister proposes, as I say, to limit it to single young persons living with relatives who can support them. Whether they can support them or not is, of course, a question of fact, which will come up for consideration before the rota committees, and the rota committees, to the value of whose services I pay a very sincere and real tribute, will, knowing the circumstances of the case, and knowing the local conditions, decide in each case whether, in their view, such single young person is living with a relative who ought to he able to support him.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: What will the Minister accept as a basis?
    Mr. BETTERTON: That really is a question for the rota committees.
    Mr. J. BECKETT: Will the Minister accept the decision of the rota committees?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I must reserve, and do reserve, the right of the Minister, if he thinks the rota committees are wrong, and is satisfied that they are wrong, to exercise his discretion. The second case which the Minister proposes to include is that of a married woman or man whose husband or wife is earning sufficient to support either the husband or the wife, as the case may be. There are many cases, undoubtedly, where a married woman, living with her husband, is at present drawing benefit, when the income of that household is as much as, or it may be far more than, the income of many of those who are contributing to this fund and drawing no benefit. The third case is that of short-time workers, whose incomings are sufficient to justify the withholding of extended benefit; and the fourth case is that of aliens. Therefore, it will be observed that my right hon. Friend has been most careful, in suggesting these classes with regard to which he will exercise his discretion, to avoid including those who may fairly be said to suffer the hardships apprehended by the hon. Members opposite. This question has been debated in this House in my hearing, certainly twice or three times, and we have had, of course, a very full discussion of it upstairs in Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It was certainly discussed when the right hon. Gentleman brought in his Bill last year; it was discussed the other day on Second Reading, and I think the point is so clear that, although I do not expect the party opposite to agree with me, I think the House will have no difficulty in deciding to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. SHAW: If the hon. Member will permit me to say so, we have heard another of the extraordinary speeches that have been delivered on this Bill, and particularly with regard to this Clause. It seems the most difficult thing in the world to get to know from the Government exactly what they mean, and, if one may be paradoxical, it is more difficult still to get a reason for what they mean. We are told that this applies to 70,000 workers. I assert that the Clause withdraws from a quarter of a million people a right to benefit, and places the granting of that benefit absolutely in the power of the Minister, and I challenge the hon. Gentleman to deny the statement that I make when I say that a quarter of a
    690
    million people come within the powers of the Minister if this Clause be passed; and it is not treating the House with the frankness that the House deserves to use the figure of 70,000 when the power given in the Clause extends at least to a quarter of a million.
    There is certainly a great difference between the two sides of the House, that is, if hon. Members opposite support the Minister in principle. We did discuss this in Committee, and I want to call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that from the beginning to the end of the Committee stage the only speech that was made from his side, with the exception of those by the Minister and himself, was an apology for the Bill and a declaration that the Tory party did not like it any more than we do. A more extraordinary Committee, I venture to think, has never sat; a more extraordinary display of lack of knowledge of what the Bill is has never been shown; and certainly a more extraordinary display of lack of frankness has never been manifested in this House.
    Now I will pass to one or two more of the things the hon. Member has stated with regard to this Clause. He says that the Unemployment Fund must not be looked upon as a compassionate fund, but he forgets, I think, what we have said so often, that the nation has a responsibility to these unemployed people, altogether apart from any contributions they pay, on the ground that many of them fought for the country in the War, and were promised, when they came, back, that they should be attended to. We are not prepared to accept the argument that this is an ordinary insurance concern, run in normal times for normal purposes at all. We say that this Government has a responsibility to these people. There has been another year of suffering since 1924, and the Government is absolutely unable to help the unemployed. Unemployment is much worse than it was at this time last year, and instead of the Government, in view of its failure to deal with the unemployment problem, coming forward and saying, "At least we will try to help the unemployed," it is coming forward and, by this Clause, making the position, not what it was in 1923, but worse, for while the Government wants to take away the right that 1924 gave, it leaves the obligations on

    691
    which that right was conferred in this Bill, and makes the present position of the unemployed worse than it was in 1923. After another year of unexampled unemployment, after a crass failure to deal with the situation, the Government actually proposes not to relieve the unemployed because of its failure to deal with the problem, but to make their position worse.
    The Government appears to be in this position. It says: "We cannot help you to get work, but we must do something, so we will hurt you because you are out of work." That is what is proposed in this Clause, and particularly in Clause 3 of the Bill, and not a word of justification of it was uttered by a single member of the Committee, outside the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary.
    I have dealt with the numbers affected, and may I now deal with the principle. What the Minister says he intends to do is not at all what the Bill says he intends to do. What he says he intends to do is to take rights of benefit away from people who are paying in exactly the same way and have exactly the same liabilities as the people to whom you will be paying the benefit. Was there anything in insurance ever so mad as that? It is the most extraordinary thing I have ever heard. The young people, who are the best assets of this scheme, are the people who are to be refused benefit while their next-door neighbour will be paid benefits, after having paid the same amount of contributions as have been paid by the other man. That is what this Clause intends to do. The only excuse for it is that it saves one and a-half million pounds. There can be no other excuse. It is the only excuse which has been adduced. It does not save one and a-half million pounds to the Treasury funds. I wish my right hon. Friend had told us what it means to the Treasury. Suppose I suggest to him that the Treasury will not save more than £400,000 by this, I wonder if he will accept my figure? It is easy to calculate it. The Treasury contribution—I am speaking in round figures—to this one and a half million pounds is only £400,000, and for that £400,000 what do the Government intend to do? They intend to make young men and women spongers on their parents,
    692
    parasites on working-class families, all for the sake of £400,000. It puts these young people in the position—and every working man and woman knows it—that is likely to prevent them getting married when they are ready to get married. In a working-class family the present rule is that a boy or girl of a certain age pays his or her full wage into the family exchequer, but on reaching a certain age that young person becomes a boarder, paying a certain sum per week to his parents. That is the only opportunity the parents have of ever getting in their life anything like real comfort and of putting a little bit away for a rainy day. You stop benefit, and what is the result? The result is that the young nun or woman falls on the parent for board. When they get work they start under a staggering load of debt, which may take years to wipe off. That is what you are doing to save £400,000. It is the greatest humbug in the world. You save £400,000, but you can spend innumerable millions on other things. To save £400,000, you are willing to put numbers of young men and women into a state of chronic debt and to destroy their independence by making them bound to get into debt and they become parasites on their families.
    I never in the whole course of my Parliamentary experience heard a more paltry proposition this this. I never knew a meaner or a more unfair proposition. Why should A, who is living next door to B, and paying exactly the same rate, be refused benefits while B gets them? Can anybody give a reason? Not only is the process unfair, but how are you going to administer this Clause when you get it? In every individual case you have got to have an investigation as to whether the family circumstances are such as will justify you in refusing the benefits. Was there ever a worse example of bumbledom since the world commenced? What you will get is this: that the decent people will suffer because they will not stand your infernal inquisition, and those that you consider not decent will get the benefits in spite of it. You are penalising the best portion of our population, and you are doing it for a saving which to the country is infinitesimal.
    I cannot understand the frame of mind of the Government. Frankly I admit

    693
    that there is such a gulf between us as to be apparently unbridgeable. Have we forgotten everything we ever promised to these young men? All you are trying to do is to see that working-class families shall not get too much money. That is the broad, salient fact of this matter—to see that they do not get too much, to keep them down, to screw them if you can, and, if you get any money out of it, so much the better. I think that in doing this you are committing, not a sensible act, but a crime. You are injuring the nation and taking away a right which ought not to be taken away. You are treating people differently who are paying in exactly the same way, and you will make the people who are most likely to pay off your deficits, pay the deficit that has been incurred, although they have been refused the benefits which have caused the deficit.
    There is another class of people who will apparently be hit, in addition to the young men and women. You talk of aliens. I know exactly what the alien question means. It is the biggest piece of spoof and humbug ever perpetrated in the House. I am sorry to see a responsible Cabinet Minister, at least one, who sits in the present Cabinet, went so far as to write at least one article which was glaringly incorrect from beginning to end and showed an absolute lack of knowledge of what the circumstances were.
    Mr. LANSBURY: He gets £5,000 a year.
    Mr. SHAW: Then we are told that short-time workers are not to be paid. Who is the short-time worker who gets paid? It is the man who generally loses at least half his week's wage and because taking an average wage in the country, he earns £1 a week, he must have no benefit! As I have said three or four times in these discussions, I should like to put every Member who supports this Clause on £1 a week and keep him there. Then in three weeks we should have the majority of those Members opposite on this side and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be seeking a position in the Army at Moscow.
    Mr. LANSBURY: We should have a revolution.
    Mr. SHAW: We should have a revolution pretty quickly. To sum up, we cannot accept the explanation the hon. Gentleman has given as being what the Clause means. It gives the Minister power to deal with a quarter of a million people and the right absolutely to refuse them benefit. It is no use saying to us that it means 70,000. If the right hon. Gentleman meant 70,000, he should have put 70,000 into his Bill. But he did not. He put a quarter of a million in his Bill. It is unjust because it refuses to one man the benefit it pays to another in exactly similar circumstances. It is bad for the morale of the people, because it makes young people parasites on their parents. It is bad because it will land them with a staggering load of debt, for every working man who has gone through it knows what it means, and that debt will lay on them for years to come. It is particularly ungenerous, because the unemployed are entitled to better and not worse terms than they were getting. It is particularly ungenerous on the part of a Government which is absolutely incapable of dealing with the problem and is helpless and hopeless before it, and which comes forward not to help on but to destroy even that which the poor has. It is bad because it will prevent the young man or woman, who ought to get married and who wants to get married, from getting married. It will prevent young people from setting up their homes and land them into conditions in which their difficulties will be increased tenfold—all for the saving of a miserable £400,000 a year! And that is the first result of the work of this beneficent Conservative Government, which, instead of taking the right way to help the unemployed, comes forward and proposes, literally to rob them.
    We do fundamentally disagree with this Clause. We make no appeal, and I personally am making no appeal to the Government. A Government that can propose a Clause like this under the circumstances and with the unemployment we have, is beyond the pale, and the Clause itself is, if I may say so, beyond contempt.
    Mr. CADOGAN: The right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) has drawn the attention of the House to the fact that no back bench Member on the Government side was prepared to defend

    695
    this Clause in Committee upstairs. I can assure him that it was no lack of courage or conviction on the part of the Back Bench Members on this side of the House that prompted them not to break the silence. It was far more the consideration that it would be less waste of time if the Labour party obstructionist tactics were given free play and allowed to perish of their own futility.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think it is rather dangerous to go into the proceedings upstairs. I was a little afraid of it from the other side, and I cannot allow it from any quarter.
    Mr. CADOGAN: I accept your ruling, Sir.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I raise this point of Order? The hon. Gentleman stated that there were certain obstructionist tactics upstairs. Is not that a reflection on certain Members of a Committee and on the Chairman? Apart from that, I was one of the Members upstairs, among several of my colleagues, and we resent very much the suggestion that all we were working for was obstruction.
    Mr. DUFF COOPER: On that point of Order. May I remind the House that the Labour party cannot truthfully and sincerely complain of being charged with obstruction, for when the Bill was last before the House, the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) closed his speech with these words:
    "We shall do everything in our power when this Bill comes to Committee to obstruct it and prevent it from becoming law in any shape or form."
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has given a very good illustration to strengthen me in my original purpose not to allow any discussion on the proceedings upstairs to take place down here, where we are supposed to have no knowledge of them.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. CADOGAN: I apologise to the hon. Member. I was not reflecting upon him, but paying a tribute to the ingenuity of hon. Members opposite. I listened to him, and to the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment. Having done so, the conviction is borne in upon me that they base their argument on three utterly fallacious assumptions. In the first place, they assume that the cases of standard
    696
    and extended benefit are exactly on a par; in the second place, they assume that the employment of the Minister's discretion will operate harshly in respect of those who have no other resources to fall back upon; and, thirdly, they assume that insurance is not an exact science—to use the words of the right hon. Gentleman himself, that insurance can be anything you care to make it. As far as I can determine, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make it a perfect farce. He and his Friends say that there is no sanctity inherent in the principle of insurance. That is where they are wrong. That there must be some ratio between the contributions and the distribution of benefits is a precept of insurance which is as incontrovertible as the laws of the Medes and Persians. It is perfectly true, as Members on the other side say, that if the Government desire to secure to the individual worker either work or maintenance free gratis for nothing, it is competent for them to do so; but that is not insurance. I am well aware of the attitude of the Labour party on the subject of unemployment. It is that unemployment should be a State charge, that the worker has got an alternative claim: he can claim that the State shall give him work, and if that work be not procurable, he shall have maintenance. But that is not what we are discussing now. That is not what we are concerned with at this moment. We are debating the merits of an insurance scheme, and insurance to be insurance must be based on certain actuarial foundations. It has to be, even in the case of an ordinary insurance company which has colossal reserves upon which to fall back. How much more is it so in the case of the Government, which has no such reserves?
    After all, the Socialist Government never brought in a work or maintenance Bill, a Bill which, I believe, was in the old original Socialist programme. So far from bringing in a Bill of that complexion, they not only recognised the principle of insurance, but introduced an Insurance Bill of their own, and so gave a Labour cachet to the principle of insurance. Once you recognise the principle of insurance, you have to recognise the existence of the actuary. The right hon. Member for Preston, when in office, did recognise the existence of the actuary. Now he affects to regard the

    697
    actuary as the Mrs. 'Arris of the Ministry, and affects to believe that there is no such person. We know there is. It is very noteworthy what an important part the actuary plays in the business of Government at the present time, and whenever the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Health, or the Minister of Labour is engaged in our proceedings, the actuary seems to hover over our deliberations. I suppose to the Labour party the actuary appears in the guise of some unwholesome bird of prey, who will swoop down and snatch up their most cherished arguments. The Government Front Bench probably regard him as a tutelary divinity. Personally, I regard the actuary as a quite unsentimental person, very useful, and one who knows move about mathematics than some hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. SPENCER: May I ask how the hon. Gentleman can explain Clause 4 of this Bill if he is arguing for a scientific insurance?
    Mr. CADOGAN: I am arguing about Clause 1. I should be completely out of order if I dealt with Clause 4. We on this side of the House are absolutely convinced that it is in the interests of the unemployed worker himself that there should be some connection between the right to draw benefit and the contributions themselves. It is quite true that you conferred a right in the last Parliament upon those who drew extended benefit, but that right was absolutely meaningless and artificial. The right to standard benefit is founded on law, equity, and common sense. The right to draw extended benefit in the last Parliament was merely founded on a desire to please a certain portion of the electorate, and I am not sure that it had that effect. We have already distorted the principle of insurance almost beyond recognition by grafting on to it extended benefit. I quite agree that, owing to the abnormal industrial depression, it was very necessary to do so, but, as a consequence of having grafted it on, it is very essential that the Government should reserve powers of discretion and discrimination.
    The Labour party affect to believe that the administration under this law is going to be drastic. Have they read anything of the account of the Swedish Unemployed Commission? If so, I think they will have changed their tone. That Commission is possessed of almost dictatorial
    698
    powers, and practically independent of its own Government. It fixes the amount of benefit, controls relief works, and even has powers—and, I believe, exercises them—of reducing wages. That Commission has been attended with absolutely phenomenal success, and has been able to witness the return of Sweden almost to her pre-War prosperity. Yet here when an insurance Minister says that a scheme shall be founded on sound insurance principles, Members opposite say it is tyrannical, and will deprive the working man of benefits to which he is entitled, and that it will remove the burden from the Exchequer on to the rates.
    That brings me to the other fallacy on which the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have based their argument, that these persons affected by the discretion of the Minister are just those whom the guardians have no business to assist. The right hon. Gentleman said he deplored the fact that this is going to make young men sponge upon their relations. Is that any worse than making them sponge on the Insurance Fund; in other words, making them sponge on their fellow-workers? There is another point. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the young man who could not afford to get married, but if he got married, he would no longer be able to come upon his family. [Interruption.] I should like the Minister to deal with that point. I am certain the Opposition is labouring under a misapprehension in regarding this extended benefit as a right. It was a concession in the first instance. I was very much impressed by an observation that fell from the Minister of Health in the course of discussion on the Widows' and Orphans' Bill. He complained bitterly that he never obtained any gratitude for a concession. All that happens is that you incur blame for not making the concession wider, or not granting another. It is always the same thing—"This is a small point; surely the Minister can accept it." Apart from the fact that it is going to involve a sum of £1,500,000, hon. Members opposite must realise that these concessions are being asked for day after day in this House on every single Bill, and all these small concessions added together, and reduced to pounds, shillings and pence, are going to represent a very formidable sum. The Deficiency Fund at

    699
    present has a deficiency of £8,000,000 a year, and, unlike the ordinary insurance company, the Government have no reserve upon which to fall back, or, at least, the only reserve is the taxpayer, and the taxpayer has to find the reserve not only for this fund but for every fund, and every Government debt, commitment and obligation.
    Hon. Members opposite have boasted that they are considering humanity rather than finance. It is just because we are concerned with humanity that we are considering finance. This is one of those cases where the interests of the individual and the Treasury are one. We have no less solicitude for the working man than have hon. Members opposite. This Bill is not going to deprive any honest working man of his charter. This Clause is not a retrograde Clause. It is a step in the right direction, in which we all want to go, namely, the solvency of the fund. That, of course, will be to the interest of the worker. For that reason, I do not regard this Measure as a retrograde one, but as a step in the right direction, and I believe if the working man does not appreciate that already, he will learn to appreciate it, and then he will realise that this Measure is guided by wise policy. For the time being, no doubt, hon. Members opposite will find it far easier to impress their audiences with the wicked cruelty of the Tory party. We on this side are not looking, at the present moment, for cheap popularity. The kind of improvident and profligate policy which they suggest is just as much open to us, but we are prepared to sacrifice temporary advantage for the ultimate good of the whole community. It is because of my firm belief that it is for the ultimate good of the whole community that I am going to support this Clause.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) is a very apt illustration of the Minister's statement that there is a very wide gulf existing between us on these benches and hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House. He is a type of superior person, and, to my mind, has never known what real material poverty means, and it would do him, and some of his colleagues, a great deal of good if they were to undergo,
    700
    not for a week, but for three months, six months or 12 months, the heart-breaking experience of an unemployed man. This would be particularly the case if he were married, and had a wife and two or three little children, and saw his home gradually disappearing, bit by bit, to the broker's shop, or breaking up under the stress of wear and tear; if he found himself absolutely unable to—
    Mr. CADOGAN: What has that got to do with whether or not this Clause should be passed? [Interruption.] The hon. Member has not heard what I said on some of these points.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I heard it all.
    Mr. CADOGAN: I am not unsympathetic to the working man.
    Mr. STEPHEN: One would not think that was so from your speech.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I should like to point out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we have heard arguments of that kind put forward by the hon. Gentleman before, and we expect to hear them again. The hon. Member must put up with our reiteration. For many years we have had to hear repeatedly more of the other side's statements than our own. As I say, what the hon. Gentleman said is an indication of the gulf that separates us. He talks about the taxpayers. His sole regard is for the taxpayer. The taxpayer is not to be regarded in this matter.
    Mr. CADOGAN: Yes, and also the contributors.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Yes, but you did not talk about them at all.
    Mr. CADOGAN: I did!
    Mr. WALLHEAD: The only thing the Government falls back upon in regard to this matter is the consideration of the taxpayer. That is not my point of view.
    Mr. CADOGAN: There are the contributors to the fund to be considered: I said so.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: The contributors to the fund have never complained.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): If hon. Members will address their remarks to me, instead of to one another, we shall get on better.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I shall do so. I should like to deal with the explanation given by the Minister. I want to discuss the whole of this Clause. This is the vital Clause in the Bill. Once this Clause is passed, the Bill, so far as we are concerned, is practically dead. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, no!"] So far as we are concerned. There are lots of other points, but the Minister made very great play with the discretionary powers of the Ministry in conjunction with the Rota Committee. One would believe a little more in that direction if the Ministry always accepted the advice of the Rota Committee. As a matter of fact, nothing of the kind happens. The Rota Committee may advise the Ministry, but the Ministry have discretionary powers to refuse that advice, given by the men on the spot. That is the difficulty, and the hardship—and there is a great deal of it—contained in this particular Measure. The young man or the young woman may be residing with parents at a time when no hardship will be incurred, because the Rota Committee has advised that where the father and the mother are in a position to maintain the son or the daughter who is unemployed they shall do so. But one has to consider that you have got 90 per cent, of the working people of the country at the present time whom you are leaving with a wage which does not guarantee them a decent livelihood. As a matter of fact, 90 per cent, of our people are abjectly poor.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear!
    Mr. WALLHEAD: The average wage in this country for workpeople is £3 a week, and that is not a living wage when prices are what they are. A living wage is at least £5 a week, and everybody who is not getting that is, from my point of view, actually poor.
    We have from one end of the country to the other, villages and districts, all kinds of men who are working three days a week, and it will be interesting to see how the Minister will regard this. Is a man with three days or four days a week able to maintain a son who is unemployed, and will the latter be refused unemployment benefit? In the area that I have the honour to represent, in addition to the thousands of men who are totally unemployed, there are thousands more who for the last two or three years have
    702
    been continually on short time. Not only does that apply to the coal trade, but it applies to the cotton trade. You will find that many of the men who are working short time will have, it may be, sons who are following the same occupations as the father, and the son may be out of work entirely. Under the powers of this Bill the father will be called upon, I suppose, to maintain the son, while the Minister tells us that the Rota Committee will advise as to what is to be done. I should be pleased to know whether or not the Minister always accepts the advice of the Rota Committee composed of those who are on the spot? It appears to me that this Bill is an attempt to penalise the men who are suffering through no fault of their own. I could understand the general position and the whole Bill better if this proposal was the effect of causes which the sufferer himself was able to control. As a matter of fact, the people who are suffering and who come under this Bill are suffering, not from causes which they can control, but because of the breakdown of the system of control by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is their miscalculation which has brought many of these to the pass in which they are at the present moment. On the Second Reading of the Bill I described it as an endeavour to escape from the difficulties created for the Government by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The sufferings undergone by the people who are enduring unemployment now is a result of causes which they themselves cannot possibly control. This Bill is going to punish people who are already penalised by a system which they cannot control. Unemployment itself is a penalty. Men have been penalised and are bearing the burden of a badly-organised industrial system, and are going to be punished still further because they have fallen under the ban of society so far as the breakdown of the industrial system is concerned. The whole thing is such a monstrous proposal that one is surprised that it can find supporters in any part of the House.
    Another point I want to mention is this. The unemployed man is one of ourselves. We do not regard him as a subject for scientific disquisition. I am afraid that hon. Members on the other side regard the unemployed man more in the

    703
    nature, to use a common term, of "a damned nuisance" than anything else. That is what he has become so far as they are concerned. Their one hope is to get shot of him at the earliest possible moment—if they possibly can do so. We cannot be expected to accept that point of view. The Government had a chance last October. They have the biggest majority of recent times, the biggest majority that the Conservative party have ever had in this House, so, at least, the Prime Minister himself boasted. He said his power was greater so far as his majority went than that of any other Conservative Prime Minister in this House before his time. They claimed they could deal with this matter. They claimed that they had the power by which our industrial struggles would cease. Instead of that happening, they have gone from bad to worse. Now, owing to their incapacity they are punishing the people, those whom they should have helped by every means in their power. The proposal before us. is a most dastardly proposal, a thing to be condemned by every right-thinking person. When I heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) give a scientific disquisition upon the value' of the actuary so far as unemployment figures are concerned, well, I realised then how great is the gulf between himself and myself.
    I am not concerned about Government Departments. I am not concerned with the saving of half a million. I am not concerned as to whether those connected with the Treasury can save six and a half million pounds to-day to pay for the Government's infernal naval programme. During the next seven or eight years we are going to spend £58,000,000. We are going to save an almost equal amount, year by year, to enable the Government to pay for their naval programme. The unemployed are going to pay for the whole of the ships. The rich people want a Navy to protect their possessions and investments abroad, and, by heavens, they are going to spend the sum of £8,000,000 a year on the Navy to protect those investments. They are going to extract the money by subjecting the unemployed to starvation. That is what it comes to in the end. The people who receive the least, and who get the least out of society, are going to be made, out of the savings of their miserable payments
    704
    to the unemployment fund, to pay for the Navy for the defence of the possessions of hon. Gentlemen who represent the possessions, the finance, and the Imperial power of this country. It is a grotesque perversion of what ought to be the facts of the case. Instead of the strong defending and helping the weak, it is the weak that comes to the rescue of the strong on every possible occasion.
    From this point of view I think no apology is necessary for the action which we propose to take by opposing by all means in our power the infamous proposals made by the Conservative Government. It is no use the Prime Minister saying what he does. He is not here. I suppose he is trying to exercise a little, bit of his sentimental powers upon some others. Although he may be able to do it with this House, he will find it is not so easy to do it with those outside and when it comes to getting down to brass tax and finance. If he were here he might be trying to persuade us to go a little more in the direction of peace, of all sides working together. You cannot do it by continuing this Bill. You are not going to get it by means of the Government proposing a Bill of this kind. So far as I am concerned the Government shall have no peace of mind, and no comfort of soul while the condition of the people remains what it is. To arrive at that peace the Government will have to pursue tactics very different to those employed in this most iniquitous Measure.
    Mr. SEXTON: I shall not detain the House very long but, perhaps, I may be allowed to make some passing remarks. I want, if possible, to exert my persuasive eloquence on the right hon. Gentleman. I did it upstairs in Committee, but failed to make any headway. Having now the opportunity I am bringing some of these matters before the House to see if they will receive any more consideration they they did upstairs. May I again appeal to the Minister of Labour seriously to consider what he is doing by the suggested propos Is in this Clause 1 As my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) has pointed out, a young man living with his parents is sponging on his parents, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite said that if he were not sponging on his parents, he would be sponging on his fellow workmen. While

    705
    he was in work he was contributing to the unemployment insurance fund, and he ought to be entitled to relief from the fund to which he has contributed.
    I would ask the hon. Member opposite, whoso lines have always lain in pleasant places, what alternative the young man has who does not sponge on his parents? No self-respecting young man would do it, but he must either sponge on his parents or go on tramp. That means that he has to tramp night and day, taking advantage of Poor Law institutions, or commit a vagrancy or a felony and run the risk of being locked up. The law lays it down that you may sleep in a ditch, but if you get through a hedge to lie under a haystack, you are a trespasser, and if you pull up a turnip from a field to satisfy the pangs of hunger, you are a chief. So the only alternative the man has is to go into the first casual ward he comes to. Some of us on these benches have been there. In return for the hospitality of the soft side of a deal plank bed and of a basin of skilly in the morning, he has to perform a task of work that takes so much time that he has no opportunity to look for work elsewhere; and so he goes on and on and on, day after day, becoming an undesirable. That is what the right hon. Gentleman's Clause is assisting to do.
    The next question I have to raise is in respect to short-time workers, who are among those who will be deprived of benefit. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the short-time worker? Why, the man with half a day's work a week. He has to pay the full amount of his contribution for unemployment insurance benefit, even though he may do only half a day s work, but because he is a short-time worker he is to be deprived of benefit. The right hon. Gentleman used a rather peculiar phrase. He spoke of "A young man living with his parents who are able to keep him." I have looked in vain through all the Acts dealing with unemployment insurance to find those words used anywhere. Supposing we take it as the right hon. Gentleman put it. I would like him to tell the House how many working-class parents are able to keep idle sons. You are making it more difficult every day, every week, every month, every year. The wages of the working classes have been reduced by £600,000,000 in three years, and the ten-
    706
    dency is for them to go down and down and down. What is the definition of "able to keep him?" Even if parents were, is it just and right and humane to expect people who are living from hand to mouth, with only a small weekly wage, to bear the extra penalty of keeping an idle son in the house? When he was in work the son was contributing to the. unemployment insurance fund.
    In any well ordered State a man or woman willing to produce and to add to the wealth of the country would be an asset instead of a liability. Under present conditions many of them are a liability, deprived of the opportunity of earning a livelihood. Under the conditions prevailing to-day it is almost impossible for those of us who believe in constitutional action in this country to persuade our men that it is any use at all. Every day irritation, suspicion, aye, and rebellion are growing in this country owing to the action of the Government at present in power. The warehouses are filled, but there is no demand for the goods that have been produced, and so the workers are told to get out, because there is no work for them. They have no money to buy the food or clothes or goods that their labour has produced. I want to warn the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues of the seriousness of this question. Every step they take is making constitutional action in this country more difficult every day. We are living on the thin crust of a volcano which one of these days will burst and blow us all to blazes if we are not very careful.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The on. Member who spoke from the other side made excuses for this unfortunate Clause on the ground that we must stick to the insurance principle in this Measure. If that be so important, why have the Government reduced the contributions? If the fund will not stand for its obligations, that is no ground for reducing contributions. Throughout its history this insurance fund never has had a chance of working on a sound actuarial basis. The 1920 Act brought in 8,000,000 of new workers, and almost immediately afterwards, as the Parliamentary Secretary has told us, a period of depression came over the country, throwing a strain on the fund which was never contemplated under the original Act. If that Act had

    707
    been founded on a sound actuarial basis, provision would have been made in it for a contribution from the State in order to provide a reserve fund to meet these exceptional obligations. The obligations are entirely abnormal, being due to the War, and therefore could not be properly reckoned as an ordinary insurance risk. It would have been perfectly sound finance for the Government to recognise the national responsibility which attaches to them and to the country owing to the abnormal unemployment, and to have made provision for it.
    Apart from that, I submit that there is not the difference between standard benefit and extended benefit which hon. Members opposite seek to draw, inasmuch as in a short time, when trade becomes normal, the insured workers themselves will, by increased contributions, have paid off the deficiency which has been created. It is only a question of actuarial computation as to the increase necessary to provide for wiping off the advances made from the Treasury. Therefore I submit that this is an insurance fund, and that, apart from that, the State itself is not bearing its fair share. To make the excuse that we cannot provide these benefits because the Fund will not permit it, though having previously ordained that the contributions shall be on a lower basis than is required, is not treating the question fairly from an insurance point of view.
    Apart from that, what reason is there for making this change in the 1924 Act—apart from the paltry question of finance? As the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench showed, it only means £400,000 a year to the Treasury. Has not the 1924 Act worked well? Have there been abuses? Has the benefit been unfairly administered or has the administration led to people not seeking work, and to some of those other evils which are sometimes foreshadowed as arising from a distribution of public money? We have had no details from the Government showing that there has been abuse in its administration. A few days ago an interesting and informative report was published by a body of economists and business men who have made a special study of the working of the Insurance Act. Two years ago they
    708
    produced a report entitled, "The Third Winter of Unemployment." A year ago they produced another report on the working of the Insurance Act, entitled, "Is Unemployment Inevitable?" and now they produce another report based on a careful investigation into the working of the Insurance Act. That report shows conclusively that it has been fairly administered, that it has not had any demoralising effect, and it has not in any way diminished the incentive to work. They made careful investigations in eight of our large cities, and found that those abuses which are sometimes feared by hon. Members on the other side had not been experienced. There is conclusive testimony that men are more anxious to keep in work than they are to seek unemployment benefit, and after that careful investigation there is complete justification for retaining the Act in its present form.
    The present time, when we are approaching the fifth winter of severe unemployment, when all the resources of individuals and of localities are exhausted, is not the time to stiffen things up and make administration more difficult. An hon. Member who spoke from the other side said it was not fair to assume that there would be harshness in administration by the Minister of Labour. We all know that he and the Parliamentary Secretary are men of kindly and humane sentiments, but we have to deal with the facts as we find them, and our experience of the working of the Insurance Act, as we are brought up against it in our constituencies, shows that, despite the most sincere desire on the part of the Minister to administer the Act in a humane fashion, there are glaring cases of harshness and injustice to be found throughout the length and breadth of the land. Every week when I go down to my constituency, I am met with numerous cases of the most apparent injustices, inconceivable cases of refusal of benefit. It is no good saying that according to the Regulations this or that will not be done. We know as a fact that very severe injustice and very great hardship have been inflicted on thousands of people, and if that has been so with the discretionary power which the Minister has had under the 1924 Act, there will be more of it following the attempt he is

    709
    making now to exercise his waiver over a much larger number of cases. I submit that this is not the time to exercise this tightening up of the administration of unemployment benefit, because whatever is saved to the fund is purely a specious saving, and those who are denied benefit have to seek it from boards of guardians and local funds. I know it has been stated that they would not receive assistance from the boards of guardians, but that statement has no relation to the fact. Those in touch with their constituents know that these people do go to the boards of guardians, and those bodies are compelled to help them because they cannot allow them to starve. The fact that representations have been made to the Government from boards of guardians protesting against the curtailing of unemployment benefit under the Act shows that they fear that their local rates will be heavily mulcted by this Measure.
    Appeals are being made from many local authorities in necessitous areas for some relief of the burden of the rates. We have been told how industry is being crippled by heavy rates, and appeals have been made to the Prime Minister to do something in this direction in order to relieve our struggling industries. Now we are asked to do something which will add further burdens to the local rates and place further burdens on industry. It is an exceedingly foolish thing at the present time for the Government to inflict this injustice on so very many people. The report which I have referred to, which was issued by the business men and economists who investigated the working of the Insurance Act, shows that the statement that the granting of these benefits affected the willingness to work was not true, and they found practically no cases of fraud or abuse, and the experience of the-Employment Exchanges throughout the country shows that there were very few cases of this kind in different parts of the country. In the face of that evidence I think it is simply folly, when trade is bad and likely to be worse, to seek to burden localities and individuals by proposing such a change as will be brought about by this Clause. Is it worth what will be gained by tightening up this Act when it will cause disaffection and a big sense of injustice among so many hundreds and thousands of people? It is a very foolish policy to
    710
    make these cheese-paring savings at the cost of so much injustice and discontent. The working of the Act of 1924 has been more than justified, and there has been no cause of complaint and no abuses have been brought to the notice of the House. I think in this matter the House of Commons ought to re-establish its faith and belief in the working of the Act of 1924, and not adopt the arbitrary powers which are contained in this Bill.
    Mr. MARCH: I want to add my word of protest against this Bill, and I support the deletion of this Clause. We have heard from the Minister that the Government are now studying the rights of the contributors, but I would like to know from the Minister whether he has had any large body of contributors making complaints against the contributions which they are paying. We know that the employés are willing to pay their contributions to support the unemployed. It was the Government who came along and set up this- unemployment insurance without asking the workers whether they agreed with it or not. It was the Government who said you will have to pay certain contributions into this fund whether you like it or not, and they also laid down that the man who does half a day's work a week has to pay the same contribution as those who do a full week's work. Invariably it is the man who has a short time at work, and who is on casual labour, who very rarely receives the benefit he is entitled to simply because of the regulations laid down by the Government. The rules and regulations which have been made by the Government enforce contributions from these men, and then the Department seem to do their best to make Regulations in order to see that the men do not set the benefit. We have been told by the Minister this afternoon that the Minister of Labour is going to use discretion in regard to the young men who are living with their parents who are able to keep them. We have heard one or two statements as to what is likely to happen in regard to these young men. Probably if a young man has got any spirit in him at all he will not desire to stop at home to live on his parents under those conditions, and if they did they would not be living very comfortably together for long. It is quite possible that the Government have got in their mind that

    711
    there is not enough young men joining the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force, and they think this is a good way of driving young men into the Navy and the Air Force. With regard to young girls, many hon. Members opposite have said, Why not put them into domestic service? Possibly the Government may have an idea that you will drive the factory girls into service, but if you do the mistresses will very soon drive them out again because they do not know much about household duties. Then the Government are going to deal with the women who may have their husbands at work. I take it that in many households if the husband was earning sufficient money to keep the house as it ought to be kept you would not have so many married women in the factories and workshops.
    If the husband happens to be earning some money an investigation and inquiry is made into the income of the household by the rota committee, and if they think that there is not enough money coming in to keep the family respectably—I do not mean in comfort by a long way, because you have to go a long way with regard to wages before many of the workers can live in comfort—and enable them to live in decency and respectability then these persons get extended benefit; but that cannot be granted until the Minister of Labour reports, and even then the Minister has power to use his discretion. The consequence is that you have weeks of waiting before the people can get this extended benefit, and invariably they are driven to the boards of guardians where there are sympathetic people administering the Poor Law, and then the boards of guardians get into trouble, not in regard to the Minister of Labour because it comes under another Department, namely, the Ministry of Health, and then the Minister of Health has a word to say. The boards of guardians are told that they must not give assistance to a young man or a young woman if there is a certain sum of money coming into the house, and all that has to be taken into consideration, and if you are not had by the Minister of Labour you are had by the Minister of Health, and the workers are had all the time. I certainly think it would be interesting to a very large number of workers if they
    712
    would only read or have the opportunity of hearing speeches like the one which has been delivered by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan), because possibly a large number of workers in the Finchley district would not then be rushing to vote for their present representative. There are many districts in or around London in which there is a majority of working-class people, and if they would only read and listen to what is being said by hon. Gentlemen opposite on this subject there would not be quite so many misrepresentatives as there are on the other side of the House at the present time.
    6.0 P.M.
    I want to add my quota to the protest with regard to casual workers. In the district which I have the honour to represent we have large ship-repairing yards which everybody knows have been very slack for years, in fact we have had a slack time for the last four or five years. A very large number of people rushed into my constituency during the War to do work of national importance, and they were not asked to come there by the residents in my constituency. They came there because so many ships needed to be repaired and munitions were needed, and therefore we were inundated with people from every quarter to carry on the work of national importance. As soon as the Armistice was signed and there was a little quietening down, those people were thrown out of employment and they have been with us ever since, and they have been a great burden upon the district. We often heat from hon. Members that this should be made a national question. I wonder how many times the Tory party and the Liberal party when there was an Election have said in their programmes that the unemployment question was not a local but a national question, and that the nation ought to look after those people. Now he has a now idea, and it is that the nation has no right to look after these people, and they ought to be forced on to the local authorities. This has been done to such an extent that the local authorities are bitterly complaining of their burdens. The unemployment insurance was set up on your own calculations, and based upon your actuaries' reports. After all insurance is a speculation, and if the speculation happens to go badly on your side why should you impose these heavy restrictions upon the

    713
    unfortunate unemployed? You are working this on the same lines as the friendly societies. If they ask their members to pay a certain contribution they join in, and we know many of them never receive any benefit from the friendly societies at all. Nevertheless they do not grumble at those who have been unfortunate receiving benefit. Insurance is a speculation which you ought to provide for, and you have no right to deprive those who have paid their contribution of their benefits, and more especially those young men and women who were expected to come along and take the employment of the older ones. Therefore, I think this is one of the worst Clauses that could ever be introduced into a Bill, and, on behalf of the unemployed and of the constituency which I represent, I enter my emphatic protest against it.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: When I heard the last speaker say that this was one of the worst Clauses that could ever be introduced into a Bill, I could not help wondering whether he remembered that this very Clause was in operation on this day last year. It was in operation until the 1st August last year, and, therefore, was in operation for six and a-half months out of the nine months, during which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) was Minister of Labour. During that time, we on this side did not hear anything of the arbitrary cases of discretion referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and, in view of the fact that, if and when this Bill becomes an Act, the machinery will be similar to that which was in operation last year, I cannot help thinking that these cases of gross hardship of which we hear from hon. Gentlemen opposite are very largely figments of their own imagination. [Interruption.] All I can say is, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston must have used his discretion extremely badly if those cases were so hard during that period of six and a-half months.
    Mr. SHAW: May I call the attention of the hon. and gallant Member to the fact that I had to introduce a rush Bill to get rid of the gap, and that at the earliest possible moment I got rid of this discretion, which the present Government are trying to re-introduce?
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: That is quite true, but this Clause was, in fact, practically permanently in operation, until the 1st August last year, for the many years during which Unemployment Insurance Acts have been in force in this country. With regard to the point that was made by the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. March) and others, as to the nation shouldering a larger portion of the burden due to unemployment, we all of us agree that it is a national burden, but I think hon. Members opposite rather forget that, of the total of some £50,000,000 that is now being disbursed, one-fourth, in round figures, is already paid by the State, and, so far from the State trying to shirk its burdens, if hon. Members will turn to page 4 of the Actuarial Statement they will see it stated that, so long as unemployment continues at its present level, there will be a total extra contribution from the Exchequer of £3,900,000. In these times, when money is pretty hard to find, £3,900,000, on the top of some £12,000,000, is a very fair extra contribution from the State, and that, surely, is the best answer to points of that sort. May I also just make a point, which I know in a sense arises on a later part of the Bill, but which, in view of the fact that the discussion has gone over a fairly wide field, I think is material now, namely, that the reductions in the contributions from employers and employed will amount to no less than £6,800,000 when this comes into operation on the 4th January, while the amount by which the benefits are to be reduced is, in round figures, £6,500,000, so that employers and employed will be between them better off to the extent of £300,000 than if this Bill had not been introduced.
    Mr. SPENCER: Have there been any representations for the Clause?
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: Yes; representations have been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the heavy burdens placed on employers and employed in connection with the pensions scheme, and this will give some measure of mitigation to employers and employed in regard to their contributions. I am much obliged to the hon. Member for having given me the chance of making that quite clear.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out that we are not now discussing Clause 4.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: My only reason for mentioning that was that the discussion had gone over rather a wide field, and we have, of course, discussed the burden that is placed upon employers and employed. My last point is this: As is generally known, about a quarter of a million people would come out of benefit on the 30th September next unless some Bill had been brought in, and this Clause, to which so much objection is taken, will anyhow come to an end on the 30th June next year. It will, therefore, only be in force for a matter of ten and a-half months. Before that time we shall have the advantage of the Report of the Committee which is being set up, and, in view of their recommendations, modification may or may not be made in this particular Clause.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Before the House proceeds further, I may mention that I have received a request from the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) to find, if possible, a place for some further points, in addition to those that I mentioned at the beginning of the proceedings to-day, and I think we ought very shortly to come to a conclusion on this particular point.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: As far as that is concerned, if there is to be any limit on the discussion in consequence of any arrangement, we would rather no arrangement were made. We only wish to raise our points provided that every Member who wishes to speak on this Clause has his chance to do so.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I only mention it, because it is my desire to help the House to deal with all the points on the Bill.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: If there is to be any sort of limit, we on this side would rather take our chance than that anything should be done to limit in any way the opportunity of any man to speak.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Have not the Government carried the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, certainly, and my remarks had reference to the possibility of a long sitting. If, to the ten points I had previously, I have now to add two
    716
    others, hon. Members will see that it will take until very long after Eleven o'Clock to cover those points.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I only want to say at this moment that we all feel that this is the most awful Bill that has ever been brought before this House, and, therefore, we want to fight it just as hon. Gentlemen opposite would have fought any Bill as to which they held the same views as we hold about this Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I quite understand that.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: There is, naturally, a very strong feeling among the body of people who are directly concerned in this Bill, especially in regard to such a Clause as that with which we are at present dealing. We recollect what happened under the Labour Government when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) had charge of these matters. I have a clear recollection of the strenuous attitude taken up by Members on the other side on this very matter, and we certainly did make out, in our view, a very strong case for the position stated a little while ago by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson). Notwithstanding the view expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for East Lewisham (Lieut.-Colonel Pownall), we do not need to draw upon our imagination in regard to the hardships of these people. I think it was an unfortunate expression that was used by the hon. and gallant Member for East Lewisham. I am sure that anyone who is in close personal touch with the struggles in life's combat will know that a very small modicum of financial aid is of tremendous importance, and I say without fear of contradiction that those who are in close personal touch with these combatants in life, who have to face such tremendously adverse circumstances, are bound to realise that the situation is of a momentous character.
    There has been undoubted evidence of confidence in the Committees that have adjudicated and I think the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough will be accepted, that there has been no complaint about the allocation of the benefits. The period of 10½ months to which reference

    717
    has been made includes the winter period, and, if we get a very severe winter, the conditions of which we are speaking become all the more exacting. I feel that it is hard lines to hear that phrase, which is repeated in certain circles of society, that, so long as we have this dole, we shall have people who will not want to work. I resent that very deeply, having the clearest understanding that, under our commercial system, people have been driven right down and out, have been battened down until they have lost hope, and many of them feel that it is hardly any use their making an effort at all. As a consequence, they become familiarised with the situation, and it looks to them as though it were very little use making any effort. I am not going to say that they should not still make the effort, but it is a gross injustice to make the statement to which I have referred about a body of our people in reference to whom every Member of this House ought to be able to say, from the point of view of British prestige, that our working men and women, taken together, individually or collectively, are as fine a body of people, speaking generally, as you could get in any part of the world for the purpose of carrying on our commercial and industrial activities. To malign them in that fashion is really to make an attack upon our national credit.
    These people, in truth, have a claim to that defence of which we were hearing yesterday. They have a claim to ask, "Where is your home defence? Where is your provision for the defence of the hearths and the homes of the people?" If you have a million and a quarter of people who are in this appalling position, that, according to the system of the Ministry of Labour, they have to go round the gates and get that cold, bitter answer, "There is nothing for you," there is no need to draw upon the imagination in cases of that kind; there is a hardship there that you are unable personally ever to measure up unless you have gone through it yourself. You would never have been able to sustain the situation unless you had made the guarantee that in some degree or other these people were to be protected from the marauder of starvation. You would have disgraced your nation, and you would undoubtedly have brought into
    718
    operation forces which some of us certainly disagree with very strenuously, and you would have had illegal in place of constitutional action. One of the arguments of these people is this. You will never find those who represent the class interests of the nation give way because of a realistic moral issue. They will only be governed, directed and controlled by selfish commercialised interests which place paramount the interests of property and of money, as against the interests of the people who produce the necessities of life.
    I want to speak for our constituency and at the same time the other industrial constituencies of the country. At present about 17,000 people are unemployed. It is only fair to say you can bring that down to 9,000 or 10,000, because 7,000 to 8,000 people are out on holidays. They have to register as unemployed, and 7,700 are registered as unemployed and have no prospect of getting anything out of the benefit. Efforts have been made in the past to try to Secure an interpretation which would enable them to get some little benefit if they are contributors to the fund still. They are returning in a week or two, and they go back with nothing from the fund. I know perfectly well, from our experience of last year, the meaning of the Clause is to effect that tightening up which was suggested as necessary by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he made those references to which no doubt he had been directed by interests represented on the other side that there are those who by their cupidity are seeking to take advantage of the system under the Act in enabling people to obtain a benefit which, from a strict reading of it, it might be said they are not entitled to receive. Do you not think, while you are using your cupidity to obviate, if at all possible, any practical support to those who are truly struggling in the combat of life, you are only stimulating other people to use their brains to see how they can get the better of you? You are operating on such lines that they say, "We have to try to put through some sort of story in order to get a chance of getting an existence." Why cannot we have a greater recognition of the truth, as we got it yesterday in another connection, that your greatest menace is the industrial situation that faces us to-day. I feel very keenly that

    719
    you are doing a gross injustice to people who have not only a right to get out of that fund the requisite sustenance of life, but are entitled to receive something more. The nation's wealth is flaunted in the very eyes of those who are down and out. Why, in the face of such propositions in millions as you fought for and voted for yesterday, have you the audacity, as the protectors of the nation, to tell people, "We will cut you out where we can in order to economise"? God help the country if this is what you call economy.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I want to join with my colleague in my expression of contempt for the Government, and the party that supports the Government, which has brought in such a Measure. The Government are making an effort to save. The whole of their economy is going to be made at the expense, as far as economy and finance are concerned, of the very worst people in the community. You are taking it in way from the people who have been out of employment for two or three years, who have exhausted the number of stamps they were able to place upon the employment book during their period of employment, and that is the type of people, battered about from post to pillar, unable to find employment, not only in the trade they have been trained in, but even casual employment, who are singled out by this Government to make an economy upon. Surely in the eyes of all right-minded and all thinking people that is the most contemptible policy that any Government ever put before the House. Why does not the Government do what the Employment Exchanges were brought into existence for, and find employment for those who are unemployed, and find workpeople for the employers who were wanting workpeople? If they the unable to find employment for the unemployed, the unemployed are entitled to unemployment benefit. That surely is a sane proposition to put forward instead of saying, "Because these people have been out of of employment for two or three years we are going to tighten up the Regulations, we are going to give the Minister of Labour greater powers than he has at present to refuse benefit to those poor unfortunate people because they cannot find employment. Because we, the Minister
    720
    of Labour and the officials of the Employment Exchanges, cannot find them employment, we are not going to give them benefit, and we will use the Regulations to cut them out of all benefit whatever."
    They seem to be following out the policy of their own Prime Minister. The Prime Minister preaches a sermon—Moody and Sankey without the harmonium—appealing to us to give him peace in our time, and only to-day he tells the miners that, not only must their wages come down in the interests of the country, but the wages of other workers as well—a despicable and dastardly attempt to reduce the standard of living of the people. He ought to be ashamed to come to the House and face people with the word of the Lord in his mouth, as he uses it in this House. Reduce wages. We cannot carry on production unless we reduce wages. Extend working hours. We must have more production. Cut the money off the unemployed because we must have more money to carry on the Government, to build warships and for other purposes—Mesopotamia, Iraq, financing some cotton-growing plantation company that we are subsidising, finding money for everything but the people who have produced the wealth of the country and made that wealth possible. The Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Labour said that for us to speak of hardships was a figment of the imagination. It is well seen that he does not represent an industrial constituency. In my constituency we have had as many as 7,000 unemployed workers, male and female, on the books at one time out of a population of 70,000. I could have taken Members of this House—this is not sobstuff—into the homes of decent working people, men who were respectable, men who were not profligate either in morals or in any other way, women who, with small incomes coming in when the husband was unemployed, had done everything they could to bring up the family respectably and keep a decent home. I could have shown them sights in those homes which would have made their hearts bleed with pity for those who had to undergo the torture those people were undergoing. A figment of the imagination! I would to God some Members on the other side had gone through some of

    721
    the hell that working people are going through just now. They would be more appreciative of some of the attempts we are making to get better conditions for our people.
    The Private Secretary probably knows what is in the mind of the Minister of Labour and his Parliamentary Secretary, but he does not know what is going on in the country. He may know what is going on in the offices in London, in the business centre, in the financial undertakings, but he does not know what is going on in the homes of the people or in the minds of the people. When the War ended you extended benefit to people who had never contributed. The allowance you gave was 29s. a week. Why? Because you were afraid when the men came out of the Army and found no employment and no money coming in, they would use the guns and the training; you had given them to get something they thought they had fought for. To stave off the possibility of that you threw 29s, at them, for which many of them never paid. Now you are asking power to take from people the right to benefit which they possess because they have paid into the fund. It is true undoubtedly that some of these people have exhausted their benefit. What of that? Have not their contributions helped to build up the fund that kept others going during previous periods? If they were helping others is it not right and proper that now, in their hour of distress, the country should help them? They are out because they have no stamps to their credit. They are cut out of benefit because, in the opinion of the Minister, a man 62 years of age is not likely to be again employed in insurable occupation. There are men 70 years of age who would be employed to-morrow in the shipyards, because of their experience and skill, if there were vacancies for them. I know a case of a man who was refused benefit because he was not likely to be insured again in insurable occupation. While I was fighting his case with the Minister, the man who was supposed not to be employable got a job in one of the shipyards. When we get Ministers exercising discretionary powers which show such lack of discretion, it is no wonder that we refuse to give them further powers.
    Hon. Members try to make out that some people who get money from the Employment Exchange will not look for
    722
    work. The unemployment benefit is such a magnificent sum that large masses of workers prefer taking the benefit to finding work. You did not say that about them during the War. You did not malign their characters then. Now, they are defrauders of public funds, loafers, men who are sponging upon the community. Where are the spongers? Not in the Employment Exchanges, not drawing unemployment benefit, but here in the heart of London, down in the Smoke Room of this House, on the benches opposite. They are the spongers of society, the men who spend more in a week than a working-class family spend in a whole year. If some of the hon. Members opposite had to earn a living by the sweat of their brow, they would starve the first day.
    I hope the people of this country will show this Government, who think they are going to last for five years. They have a great majority behind them—they are not behind it at the present moment, but on the Terrace—who will go into the Lobby—a silent majority, a majority that is dumb, a majority that votes because they have come in here as Conservatives, and are influenced neither by their heads nor their hearts, but by their feet—to vote down the rights of the people outside who are more decent than, or at least as decent as any person on the other side. I hope the people will show, as they did in the Forest of Dean, at any bye-election, what they think of the present Government. You can crush the people down to a certain depth, but there comes a time when even the great majority that this Tory Government possesses will not be able to save them from the wrath of the people they are crushing. In every Division that takes place on this Bill, I shall go into the Lobby gladly, voting against the principles of this Bill, voting against this dastardly attempt to deprive the people of their rights, voting against the despicable character of the Bill in the interests of the people I represent, and also because I believe that the Government that has brought it in is the meanest, the most lying, the most unscrupulous and dastardly Government that has ever disgraced the records of political history in this country.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I have listened to speeches from the other side which made some attempt to defend the Clause. I

    723
    want the House to realise the meaning of the Clause. The Minister of Labour, in dealing with this Clause, originally said that he intended it mainly to deal with two classes. In the first case, young men living with their parents who are in receipt of an income, were to be disqualified from receiving extended benefit. The second class were married women living with their husbands who might be in employment. I oppose this Clause because I have always been an opponent of State bureaucratic methods. We are always challenged that we stand for Socialism, for nationalisation, and, therefore, for the power of the State bureaucrat as against the rights of the individual. This Clause means placing the lives of tens of thousands of people under the State bureaucrat in the Employment Exchange.
    I will give, as an instance, a case which I brought before the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor in the last Conservative Government. It was a case of two lads in Scotland who lived next door to each other. The father of one of the lads worked under the Glasgow Corporation, and the father of the other lad was a guest of His Majesty in one of the prisons. The two lads were working more or less in the same occupation, and more or less they were out of work at the same time. When they applied at the Employment Exchange, the State bureaucrat said to one of the lads, "What does your father earn?" He replied, "My father is a decent man; he earns wages week in and week out." The other boy said, "My father is in prison." What defence can there be for a provision which says that if your father is decent and works week in and week out, you will get no benefit, while, on the other hand, if your father is a criminal and costing the State money, you must be given benefit from the Employment Exchange?
    Why should a person because he has a decent father or mother be penalised, or why should he be penalised for his parents' bad qualities? This Clause is an attempt, in dealing with young men, to make conditions that no decent person would defend. I remember when I was fighting my first election, the Tory bills on the hoardings said, "Down with the Socialist, the man who is going to ruin the home!"
    724
    This Clause means that if a person puts his son out of the house, and makes him live in a model lodging house, that son will become qualified for benefit, because he is not in receipt of income from the family; but, if he is retained under parental control, and kept in the family, he is penalised. This Bill and this Clause are bad, because every son of a decent man will be penalised in the way I have suggested. I do not say that the man should be penalised because he has bad parents. No person, man or woman, ought to be penalised because of their parents.
    I listened to one hon. Member who spoke about spongers on the Unemployment Fund. It may be true that there are people who are bad, but, if we take the proportion of people who are bad among the unemployed, and the proportion of bad Members in this House, the unemployed are equal to, if not better than, the average Member here. Take the case the other week in the Divorce Court, when members of the same class to which hon. Members opposite belong were mixed up with filth that the unemployed man would be ashamed to be associated with. The Parliamentary Secretary may have boys and girls of his own growing up. Those for whom I speak were boys and girls a few years ago, and their parents gave them as many good things as they could afford. How would he like his children to be injured or penalised or refused benefit because of his character, good, bad or indifferent? He comes here and he supports a proposal which will rob the poor, and the men who do that, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Labour himself, are contemptible people, who have no right to be here.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must address me, and should remember that we must give credit to one another in all parts of the House for honesty of purpose, however much we may disagree as to the proposals brought forward.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I did so for a long while in this House. When the new Government came in, I was the first to raise the question of Unemployment Benefit. At that time, I gave the-Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary credit for good intentions, and for having hearts as good as

    725
    ours. But take their actions since. Take their Bills. It is not what we think, but it is our actions that matter. Take their actions in this Bill. They are depriving decent people of benefit. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker: What would you think of me if I came along, well fed, and I deprived another Member of his legitimate rights? You would think I was contemptible, a mean man. When a well-fed man, a comfortable man comes along to deprive poor people of the means of life, I cannot give expression to a bad enough phrase to convey my opinion of that man. This Bill and this Clause not only hit the poor man, but the whole family. It is handing over to the Employment Exchanges, the bureaucrats, undue power. The Committees do not judge the cases. When the man is asked about his parent's conditions, and he states them, the official turns round to his clerk or his inspector and says, "Do you find that this man's home is as he states it?" If the young man has drawn all his standard benefit and he comes under extended benefit, his home, his parent's home, has to be open to inspectors from the Employment Exchange, so that they can go in and find out everything about his parent's income. If they are not allowed to go in and examine into everything, the man is automatically disqualified, because he has not allowed them access to the information. That is the stage at which we are now.
    It was argued by a Member who occupies the position of Parliamentary Private Secretary that this provision was in operation for six and a-half months. Well, at least we took it away at the end of that time, but now the Government are taking away what was given by the Act passed last year. I understood that the object of every Minister was to make things better, but the object of his Bill is to make things worse. If the working people could have driven half as much terror into their hearts as they did in 1918 and 1919, this provision would not have been introduced, because argument here does not matter. The only thing that matters to them is terror. If the working people of this country could make the lives of the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary a burden, and make them live in daily fear, if they could make the Prime Minister not talk peace but live in mortal
    726
    terror with his colleagues, the unemployed would be decently treated. When you talk about these young men sponging, I look at the great places, the palaces, the royal homes of the rich, and I read of Princes touring abroad at the present time, of Kings with their £70,000, and if I had the choice between the poor unemployed and the rich spongers who are in the Royal family—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: I feel greatly concerned about this Clause, especially when I consider that in my constituency alone in one district you have ail the pits idle. What is going to become of these people under this Clause? In my constituency ever since 1921 there has been a large number of miners who have been victimised, miners whose places will never be open to them again. The Parliamentary Secretary paid a big compliment to the rota committees; but when the rota committee decides that these people are entitled to unemployment benefit, the Minister has actually turned them down. I have been in touch with the Minister myself in reference to several cases where the rota committee decided that these people are entitled to benefit, and yet the Minister, on his own discretion, has been turning these cases down. The Minister of Labour, in introducing this Bill, gave two descriptions of the men who were to receive standard benefit and those who were to receive extended benfit. The men who received the standard benefit were the men with money in their pockets. They were able to go into the shop and pay their money down on the counter for the goods which they ordered from this shopkeeper. But the extended benefit meant that the men had to go to the shop and order things on credit. What is going to become of the poor devils who are not going to get standard benefit or extended benefit? [HON. MEMBERS: "The Poor Law!"] These are the people who will be affected mostly by this provision.
    So far as the young men of 18 are concerned, they have not only contributed towards unemployment insurance but also fur unemployment benefit through their trade union. If a young man is entitled to benefit but his parents are in a very decent position, the Parliamentary Secretary is going to claim discretionary power in order to prevent him getting his benefit.

    727
    Suppose the trade union did exactly the same, the result would be resolutions from every branch of the trade union movement asking the executive why this man was deprived of benefit for which he was paying. The young man pays for this insurance benefit, exactly as he pays for the trade union benefit, and if the trade union fund is going down at all it is going to collapse after they have meted out justice In everybody who has contributed. Why cannot you do the same to these men? If the fund is going to collapse at all, let all collapse together. Do not penalise the parents of these boys simply because they have looked after themselves and are in a decent position. It is the most disgraceful Clause which I have ever seen in any Bill, and I shall vote against it. It is iniquitous and unjust to treat the people who are already downtrodden in the way in which this Bill is going to treat them.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: May I point out that the circumstances of the moment have altered entirely the character of the powers which the Minister has under this Clause? We do not know yet what the result of pending negotiations may be, but it may be that instead of being faced with the million and a-half unemployed whom we had last week—I am not speaking about miners—we may be faced in other trades with an enormous increase in the number of unemployed. These people will look to the fund to which they have contributed for years. We know that the Minister has introduced this Clause with a definite intention; that is, to save so much money. We do not know how much it is; but, if he is going to save the finances of this scheme—because this is merely a financial Measure; it is merely a way of screwing out of the unemployed a certain amount to support the fund—he will, if these unhappy events which we fear materialise, be compelled to use the powers under this Clause far more drastically than has been suspected hitherto. That added consideration must give us all very serious cause to pause. If it is intended to make the Clause effective financially and to save the money which it was intended to save, then, in view of the circumstances that may arise, the Minister will be compelled to use these powers not merely in the very mean way in which they were
    728
    to be used, but in a drastic way which will cause very widespread and very undeserved hardship.
    Mr. KELLY: Had there been some justification by the Government for this discretion being given to the Minister, I might have given a silent vote on this occasion. I have listened to the discussion when the Bill was introduced and in Committee, and I have listened to the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, and he has not given one word of justification for this discretion being handed over to him. I have wondered whether he was going to tell us that, by the rigidity of the Measure already in existence, his officers were not able to prevent people who were not entitled receiving the benefit, but I can assure the House that his officers are so severe in their regulation of the Act at this particular time, and have been in the past, that there is no justification for this discretion being given to the Minister. I have known of cases, even of standard benefit, which the Minister and his advisers might have let through.
    I will quote only one case to show how severe his advisers and officers are in preventing people from receiving unemployment benefit, unless they can prove their case. It is the case of a man in Huddersfield who, because he received 4d. on a particular day for helping a man to push a heavy load up a steep street, was deprived of his benefit. The man had signed in the Exchange and was standing on the pavement, when he saw this other individual endeavouring to take a great load up a steep street, and, because he gave a lift to that man and that man compensated him to the extent of 4d., the advisers of the hon. Gentleman appealed against the man having any benefit, on the ground that he had worked on that particular day. They were not satisfied when they went before the Court of Referees, and they actually took the matter before the Umpire, and the case was declared against us. The people who will advise the Minister as to the exercise of the discretion for which he is now asking, are the people who advised him in this case.
    With reference to the trades of this country with which we are dealing at this moment, which were referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith

    729
    (Captain W. Benn) the people unemployed in the engineering trade, the mining trade, and many other trades, is it because they are unable to find employment that the Minister is going to use his discretion if they are living at home? It is not only young men who are living at home with their parents. Does the Minister intend to take the benefit away from them? The Parliamentary Secretary and his chief have appealed to the employers and trade unionists to help them in the matter of the young people who are being placed in employment. They know the struggle that the parents of those young people have in maintaining their young people. Does the right
    hon. Gentleman intend now, after fighting with us as he has been fighting, to secure some payment to those people, to take away all the benefits from those young people who are entering upon their industrial and commercial life? There has not been one point put up which would justify us in supporting this Clause, and I hope the House will not give the Government the Clause it is asking for.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word "have," in line 9, stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 141.

    Division No. 326.]

    AYES.

    [7.1 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Homan, C. W. J.

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

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

    Daiziel, Sir Davison

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

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

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Davidson. Major-General Sir J. H.

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

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

    Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

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

    Atholl, Duchess of

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

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Atkinson, C.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Hunter-Weston. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Drewe, C.

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

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Beamish, Captain T. p. H.

    Elliot, Captain Walter E.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

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

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

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

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

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Bethell, A.

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Fielden, E. B.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Finburgh, S.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

    Fleming, D P.

    Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Ford, P. J.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Blundell, F. N.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Lougher, L.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Briscoe, Richard George

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

    Lumley, L. R.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

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

    Goff, Sir Park

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Grant, J. A.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Burman, J. B.

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

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    McLean, Major A.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Cassels, J. D.

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

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hanbury, C.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

    Harland, A.

    Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N (Ladywood)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Meller, R. J.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Merriman, F. B.

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Christle, J. A.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

    Clarry, Reginald George

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

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

    Clayton, G. C.

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

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

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

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Sailsbury)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Cope, Major William

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

    Neville, R. J.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

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

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

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

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

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Tinne, J. A.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Sandon, Lord

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

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

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Pilcher, G.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Wells, S. R.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

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

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

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

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Raine, W.

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Ramsden, E.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Rawson, Alfred Cooper

    Spender Clay, Colonel H.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

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

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

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

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

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

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

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

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Wragg, Herbert

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Ropner, Major L.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Captain Douglas Hacking and

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Captain Margesson.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    NOES.

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

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Scrymgeour, E.

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

    Hirst, G. H.

    Scurr, John

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Sexton, James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Baker, Walter

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Barr, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smillie, Robert

    Batey, Joseph

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

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

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bromley, J.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Sneil, Harry

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Buchanan, G.

    Kennedy, T.

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Cape, Thomas

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Stamford, T. W.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Clowes, S.

    Lansbury, George

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawson, John James

    Taylor, R. A.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lee, F.

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

    Collins Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Compton, Joseph

    Lowth, T.

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

    Cove, W. G.

    Lunn, William

    Thurtle, E.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Mackinder, W.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Dalton, Hugh

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Varley, Frank B.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    March, S.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Maxton, James

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Duncan, C.

    Mortague, Frederick

    Warne, G. H.

    Dunnico, H.

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

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Murnin, H.

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

    Forrest, W.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Gibbins, Joseph

    O'Connor, Thomas P.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gillett, George M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Westwood, J.

    Gosling, Harry

    Paling, w.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Whiteley, W.

    Greenall, T.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Groves, T.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Riley, Ben

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Ritson, J.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hardie, George D.

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

    Windsor, Walter

    Harris, Percy A.

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Wright, W.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

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

    Hayday, Arthur

    Rose, Frank H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hayes, John Henry

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A.

    Barnes.

    Mr. CHARLETON: I beg to move in page 1, line 9, after the word "shall, to insert the words
    732
    "as from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-six."
    As I understand that the Debate which has taken place is intended to cover this

    733
    Amendment, I formally move it, and regret that I am not allowed to say what I would have liked to say.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 244.

    Division No. 327.]

    AYES.

    [7.12p.m.

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

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Scurr, John

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Sexton, James

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

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Baker, Walter

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Smillie, Robert

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Barr, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Batey, Joseph

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Snell, Harry

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

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

    Kelly, W. T.

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Bromley, J.

    Kennedy, T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buchanan, G.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cape, Thomas

    Lansbury, George

    Taylor, R. A.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawson, John James

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

    Clowes, S.

    Lee, F.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Livingstone, A. M.

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

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lowth, T.

    Thurtle, E.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lunn, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Compton, Joseph

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

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Cove, W. G.

    Mackinder, w.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Viant, S. P.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Dalton, Hugh

    March, S.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Maxton, James

    Warne, G. H.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Montague, Frederick

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Day, Colonel Harry

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

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

    Duncan, C.

    Murnin, H.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Dunnico, H.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    O'Connor, Thomas P.

    Westwood, J.

    Forrest, W.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Paling, W.

    Whiteley, W.

    Gillett, George M.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Gosling, Harry

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Greenall, T.

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Groves, T.

    Ritson, J.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

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

    Windsor, Walter

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Wright, W.

    Hardie, George D.

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

    Harris, Percy A.

    Rose, Frank H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Charles

    Hayday, Arthur

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Edwards.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Scrymgeour, E.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Blundell, F. N.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

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

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Christie, J. A.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Atkinson, C.

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Burman, J. B.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Cope, Major William

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

    Cassels, J. D.

    Dalziel, Sir Davison

    Bethell, A.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

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

    Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

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

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

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Jacob, A. E.

    Rawson, Alfred Cooper

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

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

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Drewe, C.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Elliot, Captain Walter E.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

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

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Finburgh, S.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Fleming, D. P.

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Ford, P. J.

    Lougher, L.

    Sandon, Lord

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

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

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    McDonnell Colonel Hon. Angus

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

    McLean, Major A.

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

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Goff, Sir Park

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    McNeill, Rt. Hon Ronald John

    Spender Clay Colonel H.

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

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Sport, Sir Alexander

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Maitland Sir Arthur D. Steel-

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

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E

    Margesson, Capt. D.

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Meller, R. J.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

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

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Hanbury, C

    Merriman, F. B.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Harland, A.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Harrison, G. J. C.

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

    Tinne, J. A.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Haslam, Henry C

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Hawke John Anthony

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

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

    Headlam Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Watts, Dr. T.

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

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Wells, S. R.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Neville, R. J.

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

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

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

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

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

    Oakley, T.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

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

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Homan, C. W. J.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Womersley, W. J.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Pilcher, G.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

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

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Wragg, Herbert

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'and, Whiteh'n)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Raine, W.

    Major Hennessy and Mr. F. C.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Ramsden, E.

    Thomson.

    Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, at the end, to insert the words
    "and as though the words 'if in addition to satisfying the requirements aforesaid he also proves' and the words following to the end of the Sub-section were omitted."
    The importance of this Amendment can only be seen by hon. Members if they refer to the 1924 Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of that Act, which deals with the Regulations governing the work of the rota committees and the payment of benefit to a number of the unemployed
    736
    men who have to appear before those committees, is the Sub-section in question. It is as follows:
    "If an applicant for benefit in whose case the requirements of subsection (1) of this section are fulfilled is not entitled thereto under the provisions of the last preceding Sub-section, by reason either that the number of contributions paid in respect of him within the period therein mentioned is less than twenty, or that sufficient contributions are not standing to his credit or that he has already received benefit, for periods amounting in the aggregate to twenty-six weeks in the benefit year in which the application is made, he shall nevertheless be entitled to receive benefit

    737
    if in addition to satisfying the requirements aforesaid he also proves—

    (a) that he is normally employed in such employment as would make him an employed person within the meaning of the principal Act (in this Act referred to as "insurable employment"), and will normally seek to obtain his livelihood by means of insurable employment;

    (b) that in normal times insurable employment suited to his capacities would be likely to be available for him;

    (c) that he has, during the two years immediately preceding the date of the application for benefit, been employed in an insurable employment to such an extent as was reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and in particular to the opportunities for obtaining insurable employment during that period;

    (d) that he is making every reasonable effort to obtain employment suited to his capacities and is willing to accept such employment."

    The Amendment asks for the insertion in this Bill of the words contained upon the Order Paper and the deletion of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Sub-section of the Act I have quoted. The Bill which we are now considering is the fifteenth Unemployment Bill introduced during the last nine years, and as it has already been described, this Clause is one of the worst Clauses of a very bad Bi]]. It is really a combination of two Sections which we regard as the very worst Sections of the 1923 and 1924 Acts. The 1924 Act took away the discretionary power of the Minister, and, in taking away that power, it inserted the Subsection which I have read out and which was for the purpose of tightening up the administration. As this Clause seeks to restore to the Minister that discretionary power, we ask that this Bill should be placed in the same position as the 1923 Act. The whole purpose of this and other Clauses of the Bill is to save money.
    I am not going to deal with the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or with the purpose of some of the worst Clauses of the Bill. One could easily describe this as a second baby handed on, not to the Ministry of Health, but to the Ministry of Labour. It is solely for the purpose of saving the face of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the light of the new Pensions Bill. As we are giving this discretionary power to the Minister, we ask that he should accept this Amendment
    738
    and place himself in the same position as that which he occupied previously Whatever the grounds were for the inclusion of this provision in the 1924 Act, it has turned out from the actual working of that Act that it has been used for a purpose quite different from that which was intended, and I am sure that hon. Members will agree that in view of the situation instead of tightening up the administration of the Act, there should be a little easing off. Every hon. Member has had brought to his notice individual cases with regard to the working of this Sub-section, and while it really was given as an instruction to the rota committee and while the rota committees have tried to carry-out the spirit of the Sub-section, unfortunately the Ministry through their officers have so interfered that even the rota committees' opinions are not taken in connection with this question.
    I have a case which shows how it affects a number of men who are genuinely unemployed and seeking work. It is the case of a man who was employed as a craftsman at a colliery for something like, 35 years and who, as a craftsman, was insured against unemployment from 1912 till 1922. In 1922 he left his insurable employment and went into business for 18 months or two years. At the end of that period he gave up business and again entered insurable employment. Unfortunately, he could not get regular employment, and he had only eight or nine stamps to his credit. He appeared before the rota committee, and the committee said he was entitled to benefit even under this Sub-section, but the insurance officer intervened, with the result that the decision of the rota committee was turned down, and this man for some time was deprived of benefit. The Sub-section is full of anomalies such as this, and, if we can delete it, a better chance of obtaining the benefit to which they are entitled will be given to men who are willing to work but unable to find it.
    We claim that whatever money is saved as a result of Clause I of the Bill is simply going to be saved to the Insurance Fund, and the burden is going to be passed on to the local authorities. I come from an area where the local authority has been suffering and the Poor Law administration has almost broken down.

    739
    The rates are between 24s. and 25s. in the £, and they have been as high as 30s., and this is very largely the result of the local rates being used for the maintenance of people who should be entitled to the unemployment benefit. Taking the amount of Poor Law payments in 1913–14, we find that the amount of Poor Law relief paid by local authorities in this country was then nearly £15,000,000. In 1924 it had increased to something like £38,000,000. I would also refer hon. Members to the Report of the Minister of Health dealing specifically with the grams of loans to local authorities to assist them ever difficult periods in such centres as Merthyr, Middlesbrough—so ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson)—and quite a large number of other necessitous areas. I would draw attention for a moment to the mining industry. We are faced at the present moment in the mining industry with the fact that the cost of production has increased by something like 6d. per ton owing to the incidence of local rating, and that, with other factors, is making the situation as difficult as it is at the present moment.
    There is another aspect of the question. We have now had five years of unemployment, and, if we take the figures given by the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health, we can see some part of the effect which unemployment has had in our large industrial areas. In 1923, he said, that among the insured population of this country not less than 20,500,000 weeks of work was lost, very largely through preventable illness, but, if we take his Report for 1924, we find that the number of weeks lost had increased to not less than 23,750,000. We say that a good deal of this is owing to the poverty of these people and the very poor conditions with which they are faced. When we talk of all these millions of weeks' work lost, or 477,000 years of work lost, as the Chief Medical Officer said, if unemployment is going to keep on as it is, it will mean that there will be not less than 1,300,000 years of work lost, or nearly 70,000,000 weeks of work lost amongst the working population of this country. Seeing that the Government have failed, up till now, to deal with unemployment effectively, the least we can ask them to do is to make the receiving of unemployment
    740
    benefit by a number of these men who cannot get work as easy as they can make it.
    Who are the most pitiful objects with whom we have to deal? Come into the mining areas, with a colliery closed down, and men from 45 to 60 or 65 years of age unable to get work. In some of the mining valleys in Wales, in little townships, there is nothing else but mining for the men to do. About 99 per cent. of the male population are engaged in mining, and when you have, as you have in Blaina, in Blaenavon, or in Merthyr, a great number of the men who have been engaged in mining for something like 40 or 45 years, and who are now 50, 55 or 60 years of age, it is impossible for them to get work in other collieries around. Some of them have been unemployed for two, three, and four years, and yet, as a result of a Sub-section of this kind, you make it almost impossible for these decent men, some of the most respectable men I have known, to get unemployment benefit. There is the other aspect, such as the nystagmus men, who, as a result of this dread industrial disease that is so prevalent in our mining areas, are unable to get suitable work, owing to the fact that they cannot be employed underground. They cannot get work on the surface, their compensation is reduced to the bare making up amount, and the result is that, unless they get unemployment benefit, all that they have to do is to seek Poor Law relief. I ask the Minister to give serious attention to this Amendment. It will not affect him very greatly, and it will show to those men who are suffering—and no men have suffered more than they have—that there is a genuine desire on the part of the Government to make things as easy as possible for them.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out to the House that, having disposed of the first Amendment, after a prolonged Debate, we must not go back to the full width of that question on the whole Clause. We must keep ourselves to the particular proposals of this Amendment.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do so on the ground that the retention of these statutory obligations imposed upon claimants to benefit will place them

    741
    in an inferior position to that in which they were in 1923. These particular paragraphs in. the Act of 1924 were inserted for the purpose of acting as safeguards to balance taking away the discretionary powers of the Minister. It is sought to renew these powers now, and yet, at the same time, the Act of 1924, so far as these paragraphs are concerned, is to remain unamended. Paragraph (d), which imposes the condition that the claimant shall make
    "every reasonable effort to obtain employment suited to his capacities and is willing to accept such employment"
    is the thing that, to my mind, has done more to injure the interests of the unemployed, perhaps, than any other provision of that character. I will give the House one indication of what I mean. Your committees have no industrial experience; they do not understand the conditions of seeking employment and the varying conditions in the different industries. I know a case where an unemployed man has only about 15 or 20 workshops in the whole of London to which he can go to ask for employment. That man, in the early period of his unemployment, went the round of those workshops over and over again, and obtained letters from the employers stating that they were unable to find employment for him. It is quite impossible for that person to continue to go round that limited number of shops, knowing full well that there is no possible chance of employment for him, annoying everybody concerned, from the manager of the shop up to the employer himself, and to be sent away time after time with more or less covert insults. He cannot be expected to be continually going round seeking employment in order to conform to a provision of this kind. That is just one instance where a man is injured and penalised because of a peculiar industrial condition which the rota committees themselves do not understand. For these, and many other reasons, I second the Amendment.
    Mr. BETTERTON: As the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), who moved the Amendment, said, it is a very far-reaching one and one of very considerable importance, but I hesitate to think that either the Mover or the Seconder has really visualised what would be the effect of the Amendment, if passed. Neither hon. Member suggested any alternative words. What
    742
    they do by the Amendment is to ask that paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of Subsection (3), of Section I of the Act of 1924 shall be left out. The effect would be to give the Minister free and absolute discretion. I do not know whether they contemplated that they were putting this immense responsibility and power into the hands of the Minister, but that undoubtedly would be the effect of what they are asking us to do. If this Amendment were accepted, the Minister would be subject to no control at all; he would have absolute discretion with regard to all these cases. These four paragraphs do, through the rota committees, give guidance to the Minister, but the Amendment does something more, which I do not think the hon. Members have contemplated. At the end of Sub-section (3) there are certain benefits given to persons who have served in the forces. It says that for the purposes of paragraph (c), which is one of the paragraphs sought to be eliminated by this Amendment:
    "(i) in the case of a seaman, marine, soldier, or airman in respect of whom a payment is to be made or has been made under Section 41 of the principal Act, service as 6eaman, marine, soldier or airman; and
    (ii) in the case of any person formerly engaged in war service, the undergoing of training for an insurable occupation, where the cost of the training is defrayed out of funds administered by the Minister or by the Minister of Pensions;
    shall be treated as employment in insurable employment."
    The benefits then are given to persons undergoing training and to persons who have served in the forces, and they are also to be taken away if this Amendment be accepted. A further result of accepting the Amendment is that you place persons who apply for extended benefit on exactly the same footing as those who have contributions to their credit, which I hesitate to think is what the hon. Members desire, because surely that would be contrary, whatever may be the rights and the wrongs of our respective views in the discussion on the previous Amendment, to every true insurance principle that you can name. If the contributions are available, that is to say, if they are standing to a man's credit, that is the test of his insurability. If there are no contributions, some conditions are necessary to test the genuineness of

    743
    the claim, and the effect of this Amendment, I repeat, is to remove all these tests. It does not suggest any other tests to put in their place, and I suggest to the hon. Member that, in the interests which they themselves have at heart, they would be well advised not to press this Amendment.
    Sir HENRY SLESSER: I have listened with great attention to what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, and I really think that, so far from my hon. Friends suffering from any mistake in this matter, it is the hon. Member himself who is mistaken in his view of this Clause. What is the position as it exists to-day I Before the passing of the No. 2 Act of 1924, I think the hon. Member will agree with me that the conditions which are here laid down did not exist—not, that is, in the form in which they now are. In 1924 the applicant who comes under Subsection (3) was given a statutory right. It was declared that, if he had received benefit, he should nevertheless be entitled to receive benefit. That was safeguarded in this way, that he was to receive the benefit if, in addition to satisfying the requirements aforesaid, he also proved the conditions set down in paragraphs (a) to (d). The Government are seeking to take away that statutory right to benefit, and are substituting for it the words
    "the Minister may, if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, he considers it expedient in the public interest so to do, authorise that person to receive benefit."
    So that the individual claiming benefit under this Sub-section is back in the position in which he was before 1924, dependent upon the discretion of the Minister. He ceases to have any statutory right. What I do not understand is what the Minister means when he says that, if this Amendment were accepted, he would be able to do whatever he liked and would have a free hand. This condition operates, not against the Minister; it operates against the applicant. The position to-day is this: that the applicant has certain rights, if he can satisfy certain conditions. The Clause says that he has no lights unless the Minister chooses to give him those rights, and, therefore, the question of the conditions does not arise at all. The conditions which we are now seeking to eliminate only become impor-
    744
    tant if a man otherwise has a right to benefit, but, if this Clause is carried, then the Minister, "having regard to all the circumstances of the case," may, if he thinks fit, authorise the benefit. It leaves him a complete discretion as to whether or not he authorises the benefit.
    What occurs to me, and what makes this Amendment so important and the refusal of the Minister to accept it so serious, is that if these conditions are still to obtain the Minister will only be able to exercise a discretion when those conditions are first satisfied. It means that the things he is going to consider, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, are only going to arise for consideration after the conditions are satisfied, which will whittle down the right to an extraordinary extent. The applicant has now to satisfy these four conditions. In the first place, he will have to get the discretion of the Minister exercised in his favour, and, if there is any meaning in giving a Minister discretion, that discretion must be something over and beyond the conditions which the applicant has to satisfy in any event.
    Let us see what these conditions arc. He has got to satisfy that he is normally-employed in such an employment as would make him an employed person, that in normal times insurable employment suitable to his capacity would be available, and that he has during the two years immediately preceding the date of his application for benefit been employed in insurable employment. Lastly, he must show—and that is often hard—that he has made every reasonable effort to obtain employment suitable to his capacity. I say that is hard, because in practice it is interpreted in a very harsh way. I know there have been cases—and there have been cases in my own constituency—where in order to satisfy that condition the man was required to go round all the works in the district, although there were large placards displayed outside, "No men wanted," with the foreman standing there to swear at any man coming there for employment. Before the man can satisfy this condition, he has got to show he has been kicked out from, and insulted at every work in the district. When all that has been done and persecution and humiliation have been endured, then at last under the

    745
    existing law he has a right to benefit. As the law will now be, if the Bill goes through, having done all that, it is to be left in the discretion of the Minister.
    Surely that is really being a little merciless. If you give a complete discretion to the Minister to deny unemployment benefit altogether under this Clause, surely the most academic and the most timid person influenced by actuarial considerations ought to be satisfied with entrusting the Minister with that discretion. I do not want to be misunderstood. I do not think the Minister ought to have discretion, but I am giving consideration to what Mr. Speaker said, that that arises on the more general question. But, seeing that the discretion is there, surely it is sufficient safeguard. The Minister can provide in his own discretion what the conditions should be. You do not want to fetter a man twice, first tie him to a stake, and then fetter the stake to the floor. Surely it is enough if the Minister has the discretion. I think it is a very important matter, because it shows clearly that the Government are not merely concerned with this discretion but want positively to worsen the position as compared with what it was before the year 1924 and before the Labour Government introduced this provision at all.
    There is one other matter. The Minister has again said that we have overlooked the final paragraph that says persons who have been serving as seamen, soldiers and so on, are to be deemed to be in an insurable employment. But there is no danger to a man when once the conditions are eliminated. I do not understand the right hon. Member when he says we have overlooked the proviso. It says you have got to show that you are in insurable employment. If the Amendment be carried, the necessity to show insurable employment in paragraph (c) goes, and therefore the proviso is not needed. I do suggest that my hon. Friends around me were not so foolish or witless as is suggested, in moving the Amendment in this form. If you are going to have a discretion, it remains the discretion of the Minister. What we want to know and what the House is entitled to know is this. This is a proposal for taking away a statutory right to benefit. We ask, if it be decided that the Minister
    746
    should exercise a discretion, what need have you still to maintain the old statutory conditions which were inserted solely for the purpose of guaranteeing that the statutory right which now exist should not be abused? If Members will read the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) which was made when the Bill was introduced, it will be seen that the two things are one and indivisible. The statutory right was given, and statutory protection against abuse was given too. But to insist upon statutory protection against abuse when there is no statutory right is overdoing it. I cannot help thinking, and I say it with all respect, that had this Amendment been moved from the other side it would have been accepted by the Government. There is no answer to this Amendment except that which is moved from the Labour Benches. That is the only answer. You are seeking to impose by Statute a limitation which often in practice amounts to persecution, in order that at the end of all the toil and trouble you are left with the mere charity right at the discretion of the Minister
    I do not suppose anybody attaches importance to what I say, but I remember I said in the first speech I made in this House that sooner or later the party opposite would come to the parting of the ways—whether they were really going to be dominated by those members of the party who were really concerned with social reform or reconstruction, or whether they were going to fall under the domination of the more harsh members and plutocrats. It is quite obvious that the refusal to accept this Amendment is dominated by plutocracy and financial influences, and I regard it as a crushing defeat of the social reformers on the other side of the House, that having once given to these poor people a certain right which would help them and do so much social good, the Government should now come along and go back. It is a surrender to the Press, because the whole of this agitation was started in the newspapers. It is a surrender to financial interests and to the callous and more cruel influences which always work in a Conservative Government, and is a defeat of those on the other side of the House who stand for better influences. I hope that the Minister will see that this is a really needless hardship and callousness, and will, after considera-

    747
    tion, agree to this Amendment, although it has been moved from this side of the House.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 216

    Division No. 328.]

    AYES.

    7.55 p.m.

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

    Harris, Percy A.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

    Hayday, Arthur

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hayes, John Henry

    Scurr, John

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Sexton, James

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Baker, Walter

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Barnes, A.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Barr, J.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Smillie, Robert

    Batey, Joseph

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bromley, J.

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

    Snell, Harry

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Cape, Thomas

    Kelly, W. T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kennedy, T.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Clowes, S.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lansbury, George

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

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lawson, John James

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Compton, Joseph

    Lee, F.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E)

    Cove, W. G.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lowth, T.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lunn, William

    Varley, Frank B.

    Dalton, Hugh

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

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Mackinder, W.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dennison, R.

    March, S.

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

    Duncan, C.

    Maxton, James

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Dunnico, H.

    Montague, Frederick

    Welsh, J. C.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Murnin, H.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Forrest, W.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Whiteley, W.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    O'Connor, Thomas P.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Gillett, George M

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Gosling, Harry

    Paling, W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Greenall, T.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Potts, John S.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Windsor, Walter

    Groves, T.

    Ritson, J.

    Wright, W.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

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

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hardie, George D.

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

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

    Warne.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Cope, Major William

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Atholl, Duchess of

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

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Atkinson, C.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Burman, J. B.

    Dalziel, Sir Davison

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

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

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Campbell, E. T.

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

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

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

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Bethell, A.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Drewe, C.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Christie, J. A.

    Elliot, Captain Walter E.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Clarry, Reginald George

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

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Finburgh, S.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. O.

    Fleming, D. P.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Ford, P. J.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T

    Lougher, L.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Rye, F. G.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Goff, Sir Park

    McLean, Major A

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Sandon, Lord

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

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Malone, Major P. B.

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

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Margesson, Captain D.

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

    Hanbury, C.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Meller, R. J.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Harland, A.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Spender Clay, Colonel H.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Hawke, John Anthony

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

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

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Storry Deans, R.

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

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Henn, sir Sydney H.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Neville, R. J.

    Tinne, J A.

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

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Homan, C. W. J.

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

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Oakley, T.

    Watts, Dr. T.

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

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Wells. S. R.

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Pilcher, G.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Wise, Sir Fredric

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

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Womersley, W. J.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

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

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Raine, W.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

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

    Ramsden, E.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Rawson, Alfred Cooper

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Remer, J. R.

    Major Hennessy and Mr. F. C.

    Thomson.

    Miss WILKINSON: I thought we were to move the omission of (b) and (c).
    Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. When I raised this point earlier in the day with regard to these four paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), there were various names to those Amendments. None of those Members has been asked to move.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was not in the House at the time.
    Mr. STEPHEN: The two paragraphs I wanted to omit were (c) and (d)—not (b) and (c).
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have no doubt the hon. Lady will give way.
    Miss WILKINSON: I am perfectly willing to give way, but can I ask your ruling on this matter? There seems to have been a misunderstanding on the
    750
    previous Motion. Would it not be well, seeing that we are not allowed speeches on the Motion, to move to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) and (c) and (d)?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I cannot do that, as there are other Amendments coming on, and if I allow a Division on paragraphs (c) and (d) or (b) and (c), we could pass to the further points of the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) to move the Amendment.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, at the end, to add the words, "and as if paragraphs (c) and (d) were omitted."
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 211.

    Division No. 329].

    AYES.

    [8.7 p.m.

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

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

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

    Hayday, Arthur

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

    Hayes, John Henry

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Scurr, John

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Sexton, James

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Baker, Walter

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Barnes, A.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Barr, J.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smillie, Robert

    Batey, Joseph

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Bromley, J.

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

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Snell, Harry

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Cape, Thomas

    Kelly, W. T.

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kennedy, T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Clowes, S.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Stephen, Campbell

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

    Lansbury, George

    Taylor, R. A.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lawson, John James

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

    Compton, Joseph

    Lee, F.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Cove, W. G.

    Livingstone, A. M.

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

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lowth, T.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lunn, William

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Dalton, Hugh

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

    Varley, Frank B.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Mackinder, W.

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Dennison, R.

    March, S.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Duncan, C.

    Maxton, James

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

    Dunnico, H.

    Montague, Frederick

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Murnin, H.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Forrest, W.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Whiteley, W.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    O'Connor, Thomas P.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Gillett, George M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Gosling, Harry

    Paling, W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Greenall, T.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Potts, John S.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Groves, T.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Windsor, Walter

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Ritson, J.

    Wright, W.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Hardie, George D.

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Harris, Percy A.

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

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

    Warne.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

    Campbell, E. T.

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

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

    Cassels, J. D.

    Finburgh, S.

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

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Fleming, D. P.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Ford, P. J.

    Atkinson, C.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Chapman, Sir S

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Christie, J. A.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Clayton, G. C.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Goff, Sir Park

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

    Cope, Major William

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Bethell, A.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

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

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Daiziel, Sir Davison

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Blundell, F. N.

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

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Hanbury, C.

    Bowyer, Capt G. E. W.

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

    Harland, A.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Drewe, C.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Burman, J. B.

    Elliot, Captain Walter E.

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

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

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

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

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    752

    753

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Meyer, Sir Frank.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Homan, C. W. J.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Sandon, Lord

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

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

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

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

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

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

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

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

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Smithers, Waldron

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Neville, R. J.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Hurst, Gerald B.

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

    Spender Clay, Colonel H.

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

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

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Jacob, A. E.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

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

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Nuttall, Ellis

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

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

    Oakley, T.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Storry Deans, R.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Pilcher, G.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Tinne, J. A.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Loder, J. de V.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Lougher, L.

    Raine, W.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Ramsden, E.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Wells, S. R.

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Rawson, Alfred Cooper

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Remer, J. R.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    McLean, Major A.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Womersley, W. J.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

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

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Roberts. Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Wragg, Herbert

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Major Hennessy and Lord Stanley.

    Meller, R. J.

    Rye, F. G.

    Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, at the end, to insert the words
    "Provided that any Regulations made by the Minister with respect to the conditions under which a person is to be authorised to receive benefit shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty days on which that House has sat next after any such Regulation is laid before it praying that the Regulation may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of any new Regulation."
    In this Clause, the Minister is taking the most democratic powers to deal with the administration of benefits. There is nothing in the Bill which indicates on what lines or under what conditions benefit will be given or refused in the future, and this Amendment retains the Parliamentary power of controlling and regulating the conditions under which benefit shall be given. It is, of course, a constitutional point of some considerable importance. Having by this Bill repealed, in effect, the 1924 Act, which laid down a statutory right, and now giving the Minister these large democratic
    754
    powers, we are entitled as a House to know under what conditions and under what terms he will administer them. I cannot see how the Minister can refuse the request that these Regulations that are being made should be laid upon the Table of the House, in order that the House may agree or approve of them, as we may desire.
    This procedure happens in regard to many other matters in the Ministries. When the Pensions Bill was passed last week, or the week before, similar Regulations or conditions were laid down. Therefore, we are only following constitutional precedent in asking that the Regulations should be submitted to the House. In resisting this Amendment in Committee, the Minister suggested that it was impossible to standardise the conditions, and that by requiring that these Regulations should be laid before the House we were acting against the interests of the insured people, because, if there were qualifications to be made, it was much more difficult to make them under Regulations than by the act of the Minister. But I submit that we ought to know what are the conditions. We want to standardise the terms. We say that

    755
    the insured person has a right to know, and that Parliament has a right to know, the terms and conditions under which benefit shall be paid. Therefore, I submit this Amendment to the House.
    Mr. HARRIS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I hope it will be accepted by the Minister. There is a very important point of constitutional liberty here, for the House of Commons has always been jealous of parting with any of its powers of legislation to a Minister. To give a Minister such important powers as these of making and drafting Regulations is very nearly parting with legislative powers to a Government Department. This Amendment is drafted in such terms that there will be no delay entailed in the matter, for, as provided by the Amendment, the Regulations may be either accepted or cancelled by the vote of the House. Hon. Members are naturally suspicious as to the powers to be placed in the hands of a Minister, for hon. Members feel, as do some of the people outside who are concerned, that these Regulations may be so drafted as to go very much further than has been suggested by the Minister in his various speeches. We ought, I submit, 1o have the opportunity to criticise, to scrutinise, to see what form they are going to take, and then much of the opposition to this Bill would be removed.
    There is something even more than that. We are getting into the habit of giving autocratic powers to Ministers which affect the lives and well-being of our citizens. The House of Commons is very careful to keep control over Government Departments. Bureaucracy may be full of good intentions. It does not always exercise good understanding in the powers entrusted to it. The world is paved with good intentions. But Members of Parliament, who are in touch with their constituents, know very much better what are the needs and realities of the situation than does any Government Department in Whitehall. It is just as well that the House of Commons should have some say in Regulations such as these, affecting so many thousands of people. From my own experience, I know that some of these Regulations in the past have fallen very severely on certain people. The Minister
    756
    may not intend it, but what we want to secure before these Regulations become permanent is that they should be thoroughly criticised by the House of Commons, and that the House should have the right, if hon. Members so desire, to amend, alter, or annul them.
    Mr. BETTERTON: I gather that the object of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment is to secure that the action of the Minister in regard to the matters referred to in the Amendment shall obtain he fullest publicity. If that be so, I can satisfy hon. Members at once.
    Mr. THOMSON: It was not publicity we wanted, but sufficient control by the House of Commons.
    Mr. BETTERTON: If that be so, I must point out, first of all, that the hon. Gentleman opposite has somewhat misconceived the matter. The Amendment says:
    "Provided that any Regulations made by the Minister with respect to the conditions under which a person is to be authorised to receive benefit shall be laid before each House of Parliament…"
    But the present Bill and the Act of 1924 does not make that necessary, nor, indeed, do they prescribe that the Minister, when giving these directions, shall make Regulations at all. The Act allows him to do this by directions. A direction is a very different thing from a Regulation, because a Regulation has always the rigidity of the Act itself. In many of these cases it is necessary, or it may be necessary, for the Minister to act quickly; it may be necessary or desirable that his decision from time to time should be modified at rather short notice. My right hon. Friend has always desired that there shall be the fullest publicity of what he is doing in this matter, and he has agreed to place in the Library the directions which he issues from time to time. He has said, and I have said here, too, that we are perfectly willing, and indeed wishful, to send these copies to any Member of the House who cares to see them at any time. The Minister is anxious that the House should know exactly what he is doing in this matter, and for that purpose we are quite willing to take the steps that I have suggested. That would appear to be the object the hon. Members have in view in the Amendment. In these circumstances,

    757
    I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: It is quite true, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, that it is intended, apparently, that a lot of the administration under this Act shall be by instructions or directions of the Minister, and not be Regulations. We have had some experience of that already since the present Government came into office. It is the very thing which has been done by the Minister under the Circular which has now come to be known as the famous circular of 19th February. Although the Minister does not talk about such an arrangement as being a regulation, yet, in fact, when he comes to communicate with local people, an instruction to the various branches of his Ministry is regarded as a rule. I have before me a letter from the Minister, dated 11th June, to the Sheffield Board of Guardians, in which he is replying to a resolution of the guardians concerning the very severe effect upon local conditions of the instruction of the Minister of 19th February. He says:
    "It seems to the Minister to be the clear intention of the Act in allowing an interval before the new condition comes fully into force that during that interval steps should be taken to apply the condition gradually in the interval, and it was in pursuance of this intention that the Minister decided to put into force the 'rule' now in question."
    So the whole of the directions which have been so adversely affecting the unemployed and local authorities during the last five or six months have been regarded by the Minister as rules. If that be so, I think the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and those on the Labour Benches who have a further Amendment on the paper, are entitled to ask that this House should have the final control of instructions of that very far-reaching nature.
    I do not think it is realised in the country how serious are the effects of the instructions of the Minister. I have been going into some local figures on this very point. As a result of the rule laid down by the Minister on 19th February, over which this House has no control, we get such effects as this. In the week ended 21st February, that is, two days after the issue of the circular, I find that in the area of the Sheffield Board of Guardians the total weekly increase in relief, owing to lack of unemployment
    758
    benefit, was £888. On the 29th June this year, after his instruction had been in operation for four months, the extra charge in out-relief was £1,495, an increase of £610 per week, or nearly 80 per cent. At an earlier stage of the Bill I said it would cost Sheffield something like £30,000 a year—in regard to what the Minister did under the Circular of 19th February. The figures we have now got out demonstrate that absolutely, yet when we come here with a reasonable request that the regulations, rules, instructions, whatever you like to call them, which have such a very disastrous effect upon local finance should come within the purview and the control of the representatives of the people, we are quietly told by the Minister that it cannot be done. I realise from the drafting of the Bill in its present form, and from the original Act of 1920, that it may be difficult for the Minister to accept the Amendment unless he be prepared to accept another Amendment as well which would make it incumbent upon him to do these things by regulation instead of by instruction; and in spite of the adamant attitude he has shown during the discussion of the Bill. I hope that, having regard to the strong opposition to the Government's policy not merely of Members on these benches, but of representatives of all parties who sit on local authorities, and the desire to have some control in this matter, that the Minister will yet see his way to amend the Bill so as to provide for control by this House of matters of such far-reaching effect as those we have been talking about.
    Mr. BECKETT: I cannot let this Clause go through without saying on behalf of the constituency I represent how very necessary it is that some check should be placed upon the actions of the Minister and of his Parliamentary Secretary under this Clause. Tyneside has for some years been one of the six worst places in the country for unemployment, and since the advent of the hon. Gentleman opposite to power the unemployment figures have very largely increased, and when the whole of our industry is being ground even lower than it was before by the action of the present Government in callously throwing their responsibility on to the ratepayers, and thus handicapping our export industries in such a way that it is impossible for them to make any

    759
    kind of recovery, it seems very necessary to have a check upon the activities of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) spoke of the deputation, which I had the honour of accompanying, which waited on the Prime Minister last Friday on behalf of necessitous areas. In those areas we are faced with what amounts practically to a breakdown in the system of local government. If the right hon. Gentlemen and their unemployed friends, who will presently come in to vote us down without having heard the discussion, are allowed to continue their thoroughly mischievous activities with regard to the bottom dog, it is going to be quite impossible to carry cm the system of local government which has been carefully and gradually evolved by the wisdom of many generations of Englishmen. "When we saw the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour and the Chancellor of the Exchequer we wore met with very great sympathy and very great kindness. If the Prime Minister were not even more helpless than he is sympathetic, we should have had something to help us on the very hard journey we are engaged on, but we have to face the fact that in 1923, under the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors, we had 6,000 unemployed on the live register—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I do not see how the hon. Member is connecting his argument with the question in this Amendment as to whether these regulations should be presented to Parliament.
    Mr. BECKETT: I am trying to show that the effect of what the Minister is doing is to throw upon our shoulders the burden of maintaining these unemployed, and that the Government are now refusing an Amendment which will make the Minister responsible to this House for his actions in that respect. If there were no unemployed in my constituency I should have no reason for speaking on this Clause. With your permission I should like to give to the House some particulars of the tremendous problem with which we are faced.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman may argue that the laying of these regulations before Parliament
    760
    would affect his constituency. He is really not in order in bringing in the circumstances of his own constituency without reference to the effect that will be produced by the acceptance or non-acceptance of this particular Amendment.
    Mr. BECKETT: We have at the present moment a tremendous unemployed problem which, unless we are very careful, will entirely break down our local financial system through the rates, and there I am very anxious that the Minister should not have power to impose any Regulations or directions which might have the effect of increasing our local burdens without this House having an opportunity to approve them which the Amendments of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) would give us. I hope the House will consider this Amendment very carefully. It is not as if we had gentlemen in office whom we felt had any kind of real sympathy or feelings in issuing these Regulations. We have learned very bitterly during the past six months that although we may get more courtesy from the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Labour than from other hon. Members, we also get more callous treatment, Because there is no tyranny like a weak tyranny, and there are no people so hard as those who know what they are doing is wrong and yet for other reasons deliberately pursue that wrong and callous policy.
    It is on that account that I appeal to those hon. Members who are interested in this question to see whether they cannot give us some kind of check on these mischievous activities. If no Regulations or directions are going to be imposed which the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary feel are unfair, mean, callous, treacherous or despicable, then why should they mind the House of Commons having the ultimate voice and authority in this matter? It seems to me that when we have all this fear about the House of Commons with a large Conservative majority governing issues of this kind there must be something even meaner contemplated in the future than what the right hon. Gentleman has done since he has been in office. I do not understand why these Regulations should not be brought forward for the House to consider. I regret that the House presents

    761
    such a contrast to that which was presented last evening, and reluctantly I have come to the conclusion that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have two broad prejudices and dislikes, they dislike people who live outside this country and workers who live inside it.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Questions about foreigners cannot possibly have anything to do with this Amendment, and I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the question before the Chair.
    Mr. BECKETT: I think the Regulations ought to be considered by this House before they are allowed to be put into effect. If we have to bring Regulations or directions in front of the House, and if we have to spend a certain amount of time discussing them, then urgent economies might not be effected in time. That would have been a very effective argument the day before yesterday, but it is not effective to-day. A Government that can spend £56,000,000 upon protecting us from some enemy that their distorted and fevered imaginations have conjured up cannot spend £400,000—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must know that all this has absolutely no relevance to the Amendment.
    Mr. BECKETT: It is very obvious that the feelings of the mass of the people are inspired by a deep distrust of the motives of the Minister of Labour, which T would ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to allow me to express as briefly as I can. If there was no feeling except that of a kind heart at the Ministry of Labour there would be no need for us to have to press for such an Amendment as this. If there was not even some more callous actions than the right hon. Gentleman has performed in the past contemplated he would not oppose such an eminently reasonable Amendment, which is not intended, and could not have the effect of luring him into any kind of rash financial commitment. It cannot cost him a penny. The only thing it can do is to say that in the future any particular cheeseparing which the thoroughly comfortable intend to do at the expense of the thoroughly uncomfortable will have to be submitted to this House before it is done. For
    762
    these reasons I would like the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter. I have only been in this House a short time, and it has always been a marvel to me to notice how many hon. Members in their individual capacity are charitable, and yet when they come here in their corporate capacity they drive up to this House comfortably, eat an expensive meal, and buy themselves expensive wine—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot conclude that the hon. Member errs through obtuseness, and, therefore, I must conclude that he errs through intention.
    Mr. BECKETT: I am trying to put the case as I see it on behalf of the people who are being robbed and callously exploited by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and when I ask that these people may have the protection of this House, in my concluding sentence, I think I have a right to put their case forward. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite will do such things when they come here in comfortable expensive clothes, live on good food and good wine, and smoke expensive cigars, and then make a proposal like this to exploit and callously rob poor women and children.
    Mr. SPENCER: I have not been much impressed by the explanation which has been given about the operation of the Act of 1924. The reply which we have had with regard to the laying of these Regulations on the Table of the House was that in the 1924 Act Regulations to be made by the Minister there was no provision whatever that these Regulations should be laid upon the Table. That is perfectly correct, but, with all deference to the hon. Gentleman, may I draw his attention to the Regulations under the Act of 1924, as against these Regulations which govern the payment of those who are insured and have to have extended benefit. In the Act of 1924, three distinct provisions were made with regard to Regulations. One was in regard to the power to make Regulations with respect to the appointment of a personal representative of a deceased or insane person. That has practically nothing to do with Regulations regarding the payment of benefit. The second

    763
    provision was with regard to persons working partly by day and partly at night, and the third had reference to a change in the insurance year. All of these were Regulations dealing with questions of a minor character, upon which there could be nothing but unanimity, or almost unanimity, of opinion.
    With regard to the Regulations with which we are dealing at the present time, I say again that there is all the difference in the world, because the Regulations which we are asking should be laid on the Table for 20 days have to deal, and will deal, with the instructions of the Minister in regard to payments of varying character. It is quite easy to conceive, and I believe it will be the case, from what has been said by the Minister him self, that there will be discrimination between insured persons. For instance in the case of, say, a young man of 22. who has parents with whom he lives, it is conceivable that a Regulation may be made that he will be entitled to extended benefit, because he is no longer a minor, but an adult, and his parents have no legal claim upon him, nor has he any legal claim upon his parents, but that a young man aged 20 years and 11 months may find a Regulation made against him stating that ho will not be entitled to extended benefit, because it will be assumed that his parents will be able to keep him. That is a conceivable, logical case. I do not know whether Regulations of that character will be made, but I think I might say to the Minister that we have a perfect right to know what these Regulations are. It has been stated that they will be placed in the Library, but that, obviously, is not quite sufficient, and I am quite certain that, if the right hon. Gentleman were dealing with a question of this character from an individual business point of view, he would never agree to a provision like this, but would demand to see exactly what the provisions were that were going to govern his business.
    I venture to say that we have a perfect right to know in this House what those Regulations are before they begin to apply, or, if they begin to apply while the House is not in Session, as soon as ever the House returns it ought to have an opportunity of examining, and, if it likes, pronouncing upon, these Regulations,
    764
    whatever they may be. I submit that both parties on this side of the House have made out a reasonable case on be-half of these whom we seek to represent. I am quite convinced that, if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side were sitting here, they would not be prepared to sit still while Regulations were going to be passed and were going to come into force of which they could have no knowledge whatever. Therefore. I submit that we have a perfect right to see what these Regulations are before they come into force, or, if they come into force during the Recess, we ought on our return to have an opportunity of examining them and seeking by prayer to get His Majesty to remove them if we think they are not right.
    Sir H. SLESSER: As I read this provision, it gives authority to the Minister to decide whether or not a particular person shall receive benefit and that authority may conceivably be in the form of a Regulation. There is power under the principal Act to make Regulations generally for the purpose of carrying the Act into effect, and the principal Act and this Measure are to be read as one Act, so I take it there will be nothing to prevent the Minister, if he wishes, from giving his general authority by Regulations. The Parliamentary Secretary, who has now left the House, said a few minutes ago that he objected to the procedure of Regulations, because, he said, a Regulation was so rigid, and was part of the Act of Parliament. I should have thought that in a matter of this kind, when we have taken away the existing statutory right to benefit from these classes of cases, something more or less rigid was needed when you are cutting off whole classes of persons from benefit. It seems to me that the fact that the authority would be of a rigid nature, which could be critically examined and really made part of the Act, would be just what we ought to demand, and what the House ought to desire. After all, the effect of this authorisation is going to be quite as decisive as to whether a particular class of person is or is not going to receive benefit as any statutory limitation which exists in any of the Acts to-day. One might as well say, as it seems to me, that all the qualifications for unemployment benefit in all the Unemployment Insurance Acts should be

    765
    decided by the Minister by directions, which, I understand, are to be exposed in the Smoking Room or the Tea Room or some other place of refreshment—I refer to something that was said by the Parliamentary Secretary a few minutes ago.
    That is not quite enough. What we are asking is that the demarcation, which is made between persons who may or may not receive benefit, should be definitely made rigid and decisive, and that the House should have control over it. It was said that the circumstances might frequently vary, that you wanted to be elastic, but I cannot understand how that can be the case. The provision runs:
    "The Minister may, if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, he considers it expedient in the public interest so to do, authorise"—
    that a certain class of persons shall have benefit. That, surely, is not a matter which can vary from week to week or from day to day. Surely, the decision which the Minister would give as to whether a particular class, say the class of young persons referred to earlier in the Debate to-day, are or are not to receive benefit, is a decision which he will make, at any rate, for a period of several months, if not for a year. It is not a thing, surely, on which he is going to change his mind from day to day. I assume, rightly I think, that the right hon. Gentleman is a gentleman of discretion and judgment, and that his successors will be also, and that they are not going to change their minds from hour to hour or from day to day as to what constitutes a proper right to receive benefit. If a Regulation can be made, the Minister would scarcely argue that it should not be laid on the Table of the House. The Regulations which are made under the principal Act, and the Regulations which are made under Section 35 of the Act of 1920, had all to be laid on the Table of this House, and the provisions are precisely the same as those in this Amendment.
    Therefore, the whole question really boils itself down to whether you think it is necessary to have Regulations, or whether in this matter it is safe to give the Minister unfettered power to give directions from day to day. As the Clause is actually worded, it would appear that he might even direct that one individual
    766
    shall have benefit. It does not even refer to classes. It says:
    "The Minister may, if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, he considers it expedient in the public interest so to do, authorise that person to receive benefit."
    So that, of two persons of the same class, one might get benefit and the other might not, at the arbitrary dictation of the Minister. Surely, the saner, fairer and more democratic way of dealing with the situation would be to make general Regulations stating the ground on which in the public interest a class of persons should or should not receive benefit, and use that authority in a general way, making it part of the Act by Regulation, and changing it, if you will, without coming back to Parliament—which there is power to do if it be a Regulation—but abstaining from any suggestion of being autocratic and issuing directions for classes or individuals from day to day. I should have thought the Minister would welcome an Amendment to that effect. I quite agree the Minister may say,'' As the Bill is drafted, I do not agree with you that this authority really contemplates a Regulation." I can appreciate that argument being made in a Court of law, but here, with every respect to Courts of law, we are dealing with realities. If the Minister thinks the proposal of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, is a sound one, that the Regulations should be laid on the Table of the House, he will not hesitate to put in, even at this late hour, a consequential Amendment saying this authorisation shall be by Regulation.
    I do not know if we are to have a reply or not. Perhaps the Minister does not think what I am saying is worthy of it. But if he is moved to reply to what I am saying, I am sure he will not make this point against me or the hon. Member, that this authority is not by Regulation. The two things are really one. The Amendment asks for the Regulation to be laid on the Table. That assumes that the authority is to be made by Regulation. The general principle is that the House shall continue to have control. You are really here not dealing with a minor point of directing a particular executive or administrative act. You are deciding whether a whole class of persons shall or shall not receive unemployment benefit. As that is done by Regulation under the principal Act, so we

    767
    ask that it should be done here. The Under-Secretary said something about the Act of 1924. The Act of 1924 cave a statutory unqualified right to benefit in every case, and the question of Regulations or authority or direction defining who is to have benefit and who is not cannot arise when the whole thing is statutory. The Act of 1924 has nothing whatever to do with the case. The whole question is, Are people to be cut off from benefit in classes by a mere ipse dixit or an arbitrary decision of the Minister, or are we to have a proper Regulation which may be criticised and treated as of statutory sanction?
    9.0 P.M.
    Major CRAWFURD: I wish to urge the Amendment on the right hon. Gentleman simply from the point of view of House of Commons' control over questions of public policy. I do not want to refer to any particular Regulations which might be made under this Clause. I should like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the powers with which he is going to be endowed under this Clause, and to the position to which that reduces the House of Commons, which, after all, is supposed to be the sovereign authority in matters of legislation. I should also like to draw attention to the fact, as I believe it to be, that neither in Committee nor, so far, on the Floor of the House, has the Government made the slightest concession on this Rill to Amendments which have been put forward, both by hon. Members above the Gangway and, more particularly, by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson). [Interruption.] I say "more particularly," not in any offensive sense but because he happens to have taken part, both upstairs and downstairs. If there is anything offensive in the word, I will alter it and use the word "generally." This adamant attitude of the Government is taken up with regard to a Measure which has received fierce opposition from Members on this side of the House. I should like to make the Amendment a test case of the Government's readiness to meet a genuine grievance under the terms of the Bill they have drawn. My hon. Friend behind me and the right hon. Gentleman, who has just sat down, have both drawn attention to the very wide powers conferred on the
    768
    Minister under the terms of Clause 1 The words, "the Minister may, if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case," are the only qualifying words put into the Bill which bind the discretion of the Minister in granting or withholding the benefit. I cannot conceive language vesting a more arbitrary power in any Minister of the Crown on a subject which unquestionably arouses very deep feelings and affects a large number of the population. I understand the defence offered by the Under-Secretary for the refusal to accept the Amendment was that if it were embodied in the Bill it would be more difficult for the Minister who has these powers to adapt the Regulations from day to day. In moving the Amendment we are not considering that contingency at all. What we are considering is that the Bill provides very considerable alterations in the method of dealing with the whole of the vast question of unemployed benefit, and changes just as great as these may be carried out under the provisions of the Bill without any effective opportunity arising in the House of debating them or putting the other side of the case. You could not have a wider and more arbitrary power than is given under the language of this Bill. By giving that arbitrary power you enable the right hon. Gentleman, or any of his successors, to make what amounts to a vast change in public, policy without any control whatever by the House of Commons, and it is on that constitutional point that I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, even at this stage, to reconsider his decision and to give us the Amendment.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I wish I could accept the Amendment with fairness to the administration and, as I think, to the claimant, but I fear really I cannot. If it were possible I should have been glad to do it, exactly in the same spirit that I am putting down an Amendment myself, when it comes to a place where it can properly be done on Clause 4, page 4. May I refer to the points at issue? I am anxious to do anything in my power to secure that there should be publicity. I am not wishing to hide anything from any Member of the House. I am not certain whether the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with this in my absence. On a previous occasion the right hon.

    769
    Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) dealt with a point exactly parallel with this, and he said the great thing required was publicity, and he was satisfied on that occasion with any Regulations of this kind being placed in the Library. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary has already stated that we are ready and anxious, when anybody expresses a wish, to send him any Directions of this kind that may be made, so that, at least, nothing shall be hidden.
    As regards what has been called the autocratic or arbitrary use of this power, it is very easy to make a charge of that kind, but there has never been any complaint when the same power of discretion has been in existence that there has been autocratic or arbitrary use of it. Upstairs in Committee, we had strange and contradictory arguments used by different members of the Committee. One objected because he said he would not mind what the Minister did, but he was afraid of the arbitrary action of the public officials. Another said that if he knew that he would be in the hands of the officials of the Department he would not mind, but it was the Minister that he really objected to. Those types of objection about arbitrariness destroy one another. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because one hon. Member said that he was perfectly prepared to leave it in the hands of the Minister, while the other said that if the power was in the hands of the Minister he would not be satisfied.
    The proof of the pudding has really been in the eating. This power has been in operation for a long time, and there has been no question about arbitrariness in its use. The real safeguard against that, is the publicity which we are perfectly willing to afford. The real objection that I understand has been made against it was made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who said that it ought to be a Regulation like other Regulations. If he will refer to the original Act, and to the kind of Regulation contemplated in that Act—I think it is in Section 35—he will find that those Regulations are Regulations which are admittedly rigid, and which could be laid down, as a rule, like a Statute. The case with regard to these Regulations is that if they are laid down with reference to certain classes of people—it may well be that hon. Members opposite do not agree
    770
    to them being laid down in regard to certain classes of people; but we are dealing with the question of Regulations—an individual case may come up which under any Regulation might be a case of hardship. It is with that point precisely that I want to be able to deal without too great rigidity. I am thinking of the case quite apart from whether hon. Members opposite and I agree as regards the class of case.
    Suppose it does apply to a class; with regard to young men living with their parents. There may be exceptional cases which are out of the general category. There may be a case of sickness or the case of a cripple. That is the reason why we want to have power to administer the rule with as much flexibility as possible. It is on behalf of the claimant, and to see that there should not be over-rigidity in dealing with cases which ought to be excepted from the general class, because of some such qualification or condition, that I ask for this power. It is for that reason that I ask hon. Members opposite in the interests of the claimants themselves to allow the flexibility for which I ask, and not to press this Amendment.
    Mr. SHAW: If my hon. Friends press this Amendment to a Division, I shall support it.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I must ask my right hon. Friend to excuse me. I must leave the. House, but it is not out of discourtesy. He will realise the reason.
    Mr. SHAW: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman must go. This Amendment is essential in the interests of the insured people. We have heard a great deal of the Minister's intentions, but we cannot take the Minister's intentions. What we have to take is the Bill that gives the Minister power to deal with a quarter of a million of people, and to refuse our grant benefits at his discretion. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying that he wants power so that he can have elasticity to provide for the claimants in a beneficent way. The Clause deals with the claimants in an anti-beneficent way, and we cannot accept his statement that his intentions towards the insured persons are good, when the Bill says that the Government's intentions towards the insured persons are bad. Because we

    771
    cannot accept the statement that the right hon. Gentleman's intentions are good, when the Bill's intentions are bad, I shall certainly support the Amendment if my hon. Friends press it to a Division.
    Captain BENN: A reason why this Amendment should be pressed to a Division was given in the attempt of the Minister to defend the Clause. I do not think any thinner argument has ever been put forward. We are asking for a very simple thing. The Minister will still have power to make these' Regulations, and when he has made them and they are presented to this House, all we ask is that we should not be required simply to endorse them, but that we should have the power to pass an Address regarding them if we have a majority. That would not cost much money, and it is not a demand inconsistent with the self-respect of the House of Commons. His defence is, "I want this power in order to be kind. I am anxious to consider hard cases, and if you ask me to lay Regulations, I shall not be able to give free play to my kindly instincts." Did anyone ever hear such nonsense? If he wants latitude for special cases, that could be met by inserting in the Regulations such words as "Except where the Minister otherwise decides."
    The plain fact is that with things as they are to-day, we are afraid that he will use the discretion much too harshly. We desire that these Regulations should be laid, and that we should have the power to move an Address in regard to them in the middle of the night. That is what it will amount to. Why should the Attorney-General be afraid of a minority, a small minority, moving an Address against the Regulations. It gives a little ventilation of grievances. Then he can bring in his hundreds of silent and absent voters to vote us down. Whereas the Government can plead legitimately against Amendments which involve large financial issues, they cannot plead against this Amendment, because it is nothing but the self-respect and control of the House of Commons that is involved in it. The Government will be well advised to allow it to be added to the Bill.
    Mr. VIANT: I desire to express my opposition to this Clause, and my
    772
    intentions to support the Amendment. In order that one may appreciate the spirit behind this Amendment, one has to take into consideration the purpose of the Bill as a whole. The Bill is brought forward with a desire to effect economy.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We have had a long discussion on the Clause as a whole, and must not go back on that. We are now dealing with the detailed point.
    Mr. VIANT: I have no desire to go back on the Clause, but this Amendment is moved wholly with the view of endeavouring to be sure that the kindness which the Minister of Labour has said he desires to exercise being embodied in the Regulations. We also desire that those who are affected by unemployment shall have the assurance at least that the Regulations which are issued to the rota committees are of such a kind that every kindness that can be expressed shall be expressed by those committees, and furthermore that due consideration shall be given to the cause of the individual being unemployed. It is within the recollection of the House that in the early part of this Session Regulations were issued, and on previous occasions in Debates in this House many hon. Members have had occasion to draw attention to the spirit which permeated the Regulations issued to the various Labour Exchanges and rota committees, and if this Amendment were carried it would at least avoid anything of that kind taking place, or if it did take place, prevent it from operating for any great length of time.
    It would give the House the opportunity of assuring those who are likely to be affected by the Act that due attention is being given to their interests. The statutory right has already been taken away. The discretion of the Minister is to be exercised, and, even if we are prepared to accept the statement of the present Minister, it is not certain that he is going to remain in office for any undue length of time, and, having conferred these powers on the Minister, this House ought to insist upon retaining the right of reviewing the Regulations, and having a power to amend them. In order that that shall be done I desire to support the Amendment.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I view with considerable alarm the determined fight

    773
    which the Minister is making to preserve the rights which he claims under this Bill. It is interesting to notice the very wide discrepancy of authorities on this matter as to the number of persons who will be affected by the Regulations and by the Orders which the Minister will bring into operation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour stated this afternoon that this Clause will affect about 70,000 persons, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) has declared more than once, and his statement has in no sense been challenged, that the number of persons to be affected will be 250,000. If these Regulations are to affect the welfare of 250,000 persons then they become a matter of some moment. Again and again we have been assured of the good intentions of the Minister. It has been said that the pathway to Gehenna is paved with good intentions, but I have never yet heard it said that the quality of the material used for pavement made any difference in the destination, and in this case I am afraid that we cannot accept the good intentions as being at all commensurate with the value to be placed upon the fact that the Regulations must be laid on the Table of this House so that they may be challenged by Members.
    I am saying what I am saying, frankly, because I do not trust the Minister. It is my firm conviction that this Bill has been introduced to achieve some form of economy which, to my mind, is entirely false, and the strenuous attempt which the Government are making to achieve economy in this particular field makes me suspicious of the Regulations which they will adopt. I am here to do what I can to protect the interests of the public authorities in my constituency who are going to be affected very sadly indeed by the passing of this Bill. I am quite convinced that any saving which the Government may make by the harsh operation of this Clause will react very badly on the very much harassed local authorities which I have the honour to represent. There is no economy which can be effected except so far as the Government are concerned. Other people will have to pay the bill. We want to have the right to say in this House that in our opinion the Regulations are ill-framed and badly advised. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will be carried.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 244.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment as to statutory conditions.)
    Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    I do so in order to put a question to the Minister. Some time after the present administration came into office I think the Minister of Labour was responsible for altering the conditions under which extended benefit was given. There was the. Regulation made with regard to the eight stamps, or the 30 stamps in all, as a condition of the recipient receiving benefit. I want to know, now that the Minister is seeking to get from this House an extended period in which he is able to exercise this waiver in connection with the first statutory condition, whether he can give us an assurance that there will not be a tightening up of those conditions; that all the alterations contemplated are those already stated by the Minister, and put into the Bill. Frankly,
    778
    I myself have been very suspicious with regard to this Measure because of the difficulty that we find in getting any exact statement from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, and I would like to know if the Parliamentary Secretary could give us the assurance that all that the unemployed have got to fear in connection with the Regulations are the statutory condition and these statements that the Minister has made in connection with this Measure. I would like the assurance that there will be no more onerous conditions imposed upon these people during this extended period when the Minister is being allowed to waive the first statutory condition. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the Minister, will be able to give this House that assurance.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. BETTERTON: I think the House will realise, that the request which the hon. Member has made is one to which I should not be justified in acceding. It is perfectly obvious that in the exercise of a discretion of this kind the Minister must be moved and rightly moved by the circumstances prevailing at the time. He cannot tell in the near future, or indeed in the more distant future, what the circumstances with regard to trade or employment or industry may be. The Minister is not present, but I think I can say for him that he will exercise this discretion in a manner which will be fair to all concerned and it would not be right to fetter or bind his discretion in this matter in the way in which the hon. Member asks me to do. The manner in which he exercises it must depend on the circumstances of the time.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot give us the assurance

    779
    for which the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has asked, can he at least give us this assurance—that no alteration will be made in the immediate future. Some of us are gravely disturbed at the condition of affairs in the country and at the possibilities of the next week or two. Surely we might have an assurance that the Ministry or the Government do not contemplate making any change in the Regulations within the next few weeks. If such an assurance cannot be given to cover a very long period, I suggest it might be given to cover a reasonable period.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to inform the House whether it is the Minister of Labour who is to interpret these Regulations or whether they are to be interpreted by the managers of Employment Exchanges, rota committees or some of the other numerous individuals who come between the Minister and the person claiming benefit. Personally, I am anxious to know with whom we shall have to deal in the event of these Regulations being passed as contemplated. It is only reasonable and fair that the Parliamentary Secretary should give us some information on that point. We have found in the past when raising particular questions, that it was not the Minister himself who was responsible but some member of the Department, and the unemployed person is entitled in this case to know who is directly responsible for the interpretation of the Regulations.
    Mr. MAXTON: May I urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary to accede to the request of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and give us some indication of what is in the mind of the Ministry on this matter. This is a tremendous power which the House is giving to one Minister. We are leaving in his hands a discretion as to whether or not a very large number of the unemployed in this country are to receive extended benefit. I hope that in the many estimates made and the many actuarial calculations that have been carried out by the officials of the Ministry they have roughly drawn out a plan as to the period during which the Minister is to exercise his discretion. Without attempting to interfere with that discretion, it is reasonable to ask the Par-
    780
    liamentary Secretary how long they contemplate carrying on the present rights.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid this discussion is going beyond what was originally intended. That matter does not really arise on the Clause.
    Mr. BETTERTON: With the leave of the House, may I say that I think the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Duncan Graham) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) have misconceived the purport of Clause 2 and the object of the question which was put by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Camlachie, I certainly will say that no change in the immediate future is in contemplation, and when, therefore, he asks me whether, in view of the rather perplexing and discouraging immediate outlook, it is proposed to take any action during that period, I say, certainly not.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Amendment as to waiting period.)
    Mr. PALING: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    During the Second Reading Debate, when the Minister was making his apology for bringing in a Bill of such a wretched character, he twitted the Labour Minister of the last Government with the fact that this particular Clause was not included in the original draft of the Labour Government's own Bill last year, and I think he sought to find in that some reason for going back to the provision which existed prior to the Labour party's Measure. I do not think it was a very good reason, and it appeared to me that if the right hon. Gentleman was at a disadvantage to find any reason for this proposal he failed to find one in that direction. In any event there was a great difference in character between the two Measures. The Bill of last year sought to make better the lot of the unemployed and sought to give legislative effect to some of the promises we have made. Hon. Members opposite have made as many promises as most people, but they seek to carry out their promises by

    781
    making the position of the unemployed infinitely worse. This Clause proposes to undo what the Labour party did last year in regard to the waiting period.
    It will be remembered that in connection with the provisions of the Budget there was the suggestion of providing pensions for widows and orphans and extending old age pensions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that provision and the general provisions of the Budget were to be related one with another, and he suggested also that the whole thing would be related with the Unemployment Insurance Bill. With remarkable ingenuity he has managed to knit these things together. He has said, among other things, that as a result of the Pensions Bill a certain contribution per week will be put upon the employers, but he has indicated that some alteration will be made in the contributions to unemployment insurance. Time after time we have attempted to get some indication from the Chancellor, the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Labour of what the alterations are going to be, but we could get nothing. Apparently they were waiting to see what effect the contributions that were to be imposed in the Old Age Pensions Bill were going to have on industry, and immediately they were made known, big business in this country shrieked, and the Government had to find some way of placating big business. They proposed to put so much per week on to the contributions for old age pensions; there was a row about it, and they found they must placate them. They took so much a week off the contributions now being made for unemployment insurance, and, as a result of that reduction, it meant that there would be a reduction in the funds, and some equivalent had to be found.
    It is to be found out of the pockets of the unemployed. Some £5,000,000, I think, has to be found by increasing the waiting period from three days to six, which means that £5,000,000 less is going to be paid out to these unfortunate people than has been the case hitherto. It is one of the meanest ways of balancing, to use the Chancellor of the Exchequer's term, that I have ever known introduced into this House. The only reason that I can find that the
    782
    Minister of Labour has given for the introduction of this Clause is that the limitation of benefit by the extension of the waiting period is the least burdensome form of limitation. I think it is quite clear that when a person has been ex hypothesi in employment for a good period, a limitation of this kind is less burdensome at the end of that period than would be such a limitation at a later period. The only argument put is that it is more possible for a man, when he has been in employment and is then unemployed, to go for six days on starvation benefit than it is for a man who has been unemployed for a considerable time.
    It is a poor argument, in my opinion, and I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he thinks the wages that are paid to the working men and women of this country are such that they have any chance of saving a sufficient sum to enable them to be six days unemployed without receiving any income of any description. Campbell-Bannerman, just before his death, gave expression to the opinion that there were 13,000,000 people in this country always on the verge of starvation. I believe that number could be increased to-day, and for the Minister of Labour to suggest that the wages that are being paid to-day are sufficient to cover this waiting period is absurd. The wages average, round about three guineas a week, calculated on a basis of six days a week, but millions of our people are not making six days per week, but two, three, four, and five days a week with the cost of living 80 per cent. above pre-War, equivalent to a pre-War wage of 37s. a week. In answer to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson), when he pointed out that this extension to six days would mean that more men would be put upon the rates in the necessitous areas, the Minister dissented, and said he thought he could bring figures to prove that that was not so. He has been asked on various occasions to submit such figures, but we have never seen them yet.
    As a matter of fact, the evidence of last year's Labour Government proves this, that the benefits that were given under the Unemployment Act actually succeeded in reducing the number of recipients of Poor Law relief throughout the length and breadth of this country. At the end of the Labour Government's term

    783
    there were less people receiving Poor Law relief than at any other time since the slump in industry came, proving that there is a direct connection between benefits given under the Unemployment Insurance Act and the relief that has to be dished out by Poor Law authorities. In these circumstances, I think that even now the Minister would be wise to withdraw this Bill. This Clause has not a single virtue to recommend it. It takes £5,000,000 off the people who can least afford to have anything taken from them. Talk about balancing a Budget—£5,000,000 from those who are already starving, and £40,000,000 to those who have already more than enough, and yesterday £58,000,000 for a naval force, after a war to end war. The only contribution to the financial solution of all these problems is the suggestion in this miserable Bill, and in this even more miserable Clause, that £5,000,000 should be taken off the unemployed to compensate for some of the things the Government have given to their friends.
    Mr. SEXTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    My reason for doing so is not exactly the same as that which actuated the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) in moving it. I am dealing with a particular class of men, and I hope I shall be excused for alluding to them, because I think it is due to the Parliamentary Secretary to explain the reason why I was not present upstairs in Committee to move the rejection of this Clause. I happened to be otherwise engaged, on matters connected with the shadow that is hanging over the country to-day, but I have the opportunity now, and I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to ask the Minister of Labour, even at the eleventh hour, to reconsider his decision with respect to the casually employed men, of whom there are no fewer than 200,000 at the docks of this country, who are roped into this legislation, which was never intended to cover them.
    This legislation was originally based on the principle of constant employment. It was never anticipated that men who were employed for half a day, and whose contract then ended, should have imposed upon them legislation of this character, which does not fit them even now. I
    784
    recognise, and I am somewhat grateful for, the fact that the spirit of the continuity rule with respect to the casual labourer still continues in the Bill, but that is very much discounted, if not entirely wiped out, by the fact that 15 per cent. at least of the casual labourers of this country will be permanently disqualified, as they were before, by the extension of the three days to six. I know I may be confronted with the fact that, so far as the casual labourer is concerned, he has received considerably more benefit than he has paid in. That may be, but the hon. Gentleman opposite is never tired of telling us that this is an insurance, and that is one of the risks of insurance. Let me put as a typical case that of the casual labourer who works a five and a-half days' week. We have no six days' weeks, and 11 half-days make up our week. I am not quite sure even now as to whether, when this Bill goes through, the half-day on Saturdays will be allowed to count as a day. The man may be idle several half-days in the week, and if the half-day on Saturday is counted as a full day, why is not that continued on the ordinary half-days of the week? I quote that as a concrete case which applies generally. A man's contract ends on a half-day. He may have a full day and four half-days during the week, and yet none of these four half-days counts in order to qualify him for the benefit. A man may only get half-days all the week, or might only get three half-days, and yet although he is only earning on three or four half-days per week, he has to pay every penny and an additional fourpence on account of the Widows' and Orphans' Bill, for which he never qualifies at all.
    Then there is the case of the man who may work a full day on one day, but that does not count unless another day follows. The rest of the week may be half-days, and every one of those half-days is absolutely wiped out for this man in respect of qualification. I have had considerable negotiations with the Minister's Department years and years ago, and I do not complain that they have not met me as fairly as the Regulations permitted, but I put it that this goes entirely beyond what was originally decided, and I toll the right hon. Gentleman that it is not fair. This legislation

    785
    does not affect the casual labourer at all and never will. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some hope that a Regulation will be framed to meet the case I have quoted.
    Mr. THOMSON: I do hope the Minister, whom we are glad to see back again from his duties upstairs, will be able to make some concession on this most important Clause. When we were discussing this matter upstairs, it was suggested by many of us that the alteration in the waiting period from three days to six days would not only do an injury to the individual insured person but also inflict a considerable hardship on the local authorities where these people live, because whatever may be the feeling of the Minister, the feelings of the local authorities will not permit these people to starve. If the Minister is going to save some £5,000,000 owing to the operation of this Clause, that £5,000,000 has got to come out of somebody's pocket. If it is taken out of the pocket of the insured workers, then they are bound to turn for assistance to the local rates and the boards of guardians. Therefore, the direct effect of this particular Clause will be to throw on to the local ratepayer those burdens and responsibilities which hitherto had been borne by the national Exchequer.
    10.0 P.M.
    It does seem a somewhat extraordinary proceeding that, at the very time the Prime Minister himself is considering ways and means of attempting to relieve the overburdened ratepayers and industries which are hardly pressed, and at the very time he is setting up a Departmental Committee to consider how they can give assistance to distressed areas, at the same time by this particular Clause the Government should be making an alteration in the law which is bound to impose on those very authorities an additional burden. The Minister suggested that our fears, are exaggerated, but the boards of guardians and local authorities who have to deal with this matter are probably better acquainted with what the effect will be than even the Minister himself. Most of us have had representations from our local authorities that, if this Bill goes through in its present form, it will mean a considerable extra burden on to the rates, because although it may seem a
    786
    small matter to increase the waiting period by three days, in effect it means a fortnight at least during which a man is out of work before he gets any benefit at all.
    I submit that at a time like the present, when unemployment has been so excessive in all districts, the resources of the individuals are exhausted, and any savings they may have had have long since disappeared. Owing to the fact that wages are so small, it has been impossible for them to save. It has been said by an hon. Member that wages upon an average were more than £3 per week. He is fortunate in his district if they average that. I know that in the district I have the honour to represent wages of skilled labourers, shipyard workers and iron and steel workers are more like £2, and out of that 40s. it is impossible for them to save anything in case they are thrown out of work. It means that immediately they are out of work they have to wait for this additional period. They will be compelled to go to the boards of guardians and get assistance from them, and that will make a very considerable addition to the burden of the local rates if this Clause passes in this particular form.
    I appeal to Members opposite who represent these distressed industrial areas to raise their voices, if not to exercise their votes, in impressing upon the Government the seriousness of this position in these particular areas, because it is impossible for industry to revive if the rates are being piled up in the way they are. In may cases now they are nearly 20s. in the pound, and from the accounts one receives from these distressed areas, when this Bill goes through the chances are that they will be raised by five or six shillings in the pound. Therefore I do appeal to the Minister that in the interests of these depressed areas, and of industry itself, which cannot recover so long as the rates are so heavy, he should accept the Amendment and allow the waiting period to remain at three days instead of increasing it to six days. Is it really worth while inflicting this injury on the individual and on industry for the short period that this Bill has to run? The present Insurance Acts practically come to an end in June of next year. Is it worth while, when we are facing a winter of unemployment and everything looks so

    787
    black as it does at the present time, that this extra burden should be put on to the individual and on to the local authorities? I appeal to the Minister to leave things as they are, so that at any rate during the currency of the present Act the individual shall have the advantage of the short period.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The first day that the imprint of this Bill was available in the Vote Office of the House, I said that the Bill, and particularly the Clause we are discussing, was the meanest Bill this Government had yet produced, and that was saying a great deal. The effects of this Clause, in its hardships upon the individual insured worker, have been so graphically described by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling), that I need not labour that point. That does not mean I do not agree with every word he uttered on the point, but I desire to emphasise the case that has been put by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) again and again in this House with regard to the effect of the policy of this Government upon the local authorities responsible for administering our Poor Law. We have heard all kinds of criticisms of the Bill, which became the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1924, which was sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw). One thing that Act did was to bring immediate and very effective relief to the local authorities with regard to their administration of the Poor Law. I can best illustrate that from our experience in Sheffield. The immediate effect of the Unemployment Insurance Act of last year was to relieve the rates in Sheffield, one of the most heavily-burdened unemployed areas, by no less than £68,000 for the year. That had an enormous effect on the rates, and was a real relief not only to the ratepayers, but to those specially burdened industries in Sheffield faced with an overhead charge for rates which bears upon them, not like the Income Tax, which is levied on profits, but an overhead charge which has to be met by industries, whether they make a profit or not, and, therefore, continually operates against the recovery of that industry.
    What is the effect of the policy of the present Government? I would be out of
    788
    order in pursuing very far the argument I used on a previous Clause, but I might say the effect of the operation of this Clause upon local authorities has been very well foreshadowed by the fact that the Minister's instructions have meant an increased charge up to the moment in Sheffield of £610 per week extra for relief. This has to be met out of the local rates, and is an increased charge on the local ratepayers in general, and upon our overburdened industries in particular. We are told that this Clause is going to save to the Fund something like £5,000,000 a year. It means, in the long run, that that money has to be found by the Poor Law authorities, and it has to be found by the very authorities who are least able to bear the burden. We, on these benches make no apology for saying that we often in our speeches say of a lot of our workers that they are poor because they are robbed, and robbed because they are poor. That is just the kind of effect the policy of this Government is having on the local authorities in the areas most heavily burdened with unemployment. They are poor because they have been robbed of any real assistance from Governments which they ought to have had in the last four years, and now, apparently, because they remain poor, they are to be robbed for the benefit of the Fund under this Bill.
    Take the rates of my own city, in which my constituency is situated. On the 31st March of this year, because of the situation there, we had outstanding rate arrears amounting to £536,000. We have had to issue for the year ending 31st March, 1925, summonses for uncollected rates against 47,180 individuals or firms. The guardians already have incurred up to the 29th June, 1925, for relief of unemployment, loans amounting to £698,000, and, in addition to that, the ordinary debt is another £92,965, and, as the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough has pointed out, this additional burden is now to be placed upon authorities with those fearful commitments. With no possible hope of escaping from the situation in which they find themselves, they are to be met with a policy, as outlined in this Clause, of an additional charge for the unemployed, which we had been meeting in our Act of last year, and to be faced with another danger of an increased local charge, because of the Government Bill upon rating and valuation. It seems to those

    789
    who are concerned with these authorities that this Government is going out of its way on every occasion to place more burdens upon those areas which have had to bear the biggest burden with regard to unemployment, and we begin to wonder what is going to be the end of it. I think that while the Debate is proceeding on this Clause, we ought to get from the Minister of Labour some answer on two points. First of all, locally, in regard to Sheffield, what hope is he going to offer, in regard to this policy in this Bill, of redress to the Sheffield Board of Guardians on the case they put in their interview the other day with the Parliamentary Secretary?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going somewhat beyond this Clause.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I am the last to want to transgress, but, if I may put it, you will pull me up if I transgress too far. We are raising the effect of this Clause in its incidence upon local authorities which are overburdened. The two cases I wanted to put were, first, the Sheffield case, and, secondly, the deputation from Members of Parliament representing—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that is a matter rather with regard to administrative acts. The hon. Member is perfectly in order in saying that the rates in any particular place are very much overburdened, and that this would throw an extra burden on them, but he is not entitled on this occasion to deal with administrative action.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I accept your ruling, and will content myself with expressing the hope that the case we have been putting up on this Clause may have some influence, in regard to the other representations we have made as to administration. But I want to put it to the representatives of the Government here to-night, that in regard to places like Sheffield and similar areas, if the Government persist in this kind of policy, I am certain we shall come to a serious impasse in regard to the administration of local Poor Law. You have had already considerable difficulty in the case of West Ham, and you will get, I am afraid, just as serious an impasse in other localities. What will be the result? If you persist in this policy, you are going, finally,
    790
    I believe, to have to administer the Poor Law yourself by commission from the Government, because you will find that the locally elected representatives on these authorities are not prepared to go on week after week, month after month, and now year after year administering what seems to be almost a hopeless task.
    So far as we are concerned in Sheffield, we can say that the reconstituted board of guardians, and, indeed, the two boards that preceded that board, have given their time, energy, and their undivided labour to economising in every possible way to try and relieve the burden without coming to the State for more assistance than was necessary. Yet every month seems to make the position worse because of the attitude of the Government. Unless the Government can see their way to withdraw Clauses of this kind, I am afraid the position is going to be made still more acute. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary not to discount this Amendment. At any rate—the hon. Gentleman has been courteous—I would ask him not to treat it in that hard-hearted manner that the other Amendments have been treated by the Government, and to remember that it is not a question of party on this particular Amendment. All parties who are represented on the local authorities in these areas, knowing the difficulties that they have, are waiting for some measure of hope and encouragement from the Government.
    Mr. SPENCER: The points that I really wanted to emphasise have been taken up by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton). Indeed, he and I for many years in this House have been on a mission of failure with regard to the particular industries which we represent. We have a case which appears to have some point of resemblance though it is not exactly on "all-fours," for both among the dockers and in the mining we have workmen who are continually working, some four and some five half-days per week, and it is impossible for them on these occasions to qualify for benefit. I know cases in which men have been working at the pit for four weeks and off for four weeks, and then they have made eight days. I know other cases in which, say, an engineer has worked for a couple of weeks and then had holiday for two. He has worked for another three weeks,

    791
    and then had holiday for another week, and has got unemployment benefit for the week in which he was having holiday; while the miner, who has been working just two days per week, could not get a single benefit because ho had made four half-days only. That is so under the present Act. That position is going to be made infinitely worse by the present Bill.
    I should like to ask the Minister of Labour one or two questions. The right hon. Gentleman knows what I am talking about. He is cognisant of these facts, for he and I have talked the matter over many times. Our constituencies are contiguous. I remember discussing some of these questions in 1924. Some hon. Member on the opposite side suggested that the men should not go to work unless a day's work could be found. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary, if he is going to reply, would we be justified in saying to an employer: "If you cannot find us a full day we are not coming to work until you can"? Would we be justified in doing that? Would we get unemployment pay if we could put that down? Because if we could we would be quite prepared to say to any employer who could not find us a full day's work: "We will wait until you can." We have the utmost difficulty in some instances in going to the employers and asking them to work their pits when they can give us a full day. On the other hand—I say it frankly and honestly—we have other employers who are sympathetic towards us, and do their very utmost to work only when they can give a full day. In these cases we have very little difficulty. We have cases where we have done three days' work, then been out of work a day, and then had two full days afterwards. On the other hand, we have collieries now where the men have been working, through this bit of a fillip owing to the threatened stoppage, two days and two and a half days a week, and that has not qualified them at all simply because the men made half-days. As the Bill stands at present it is going to be difficult in this matter of qualification. I do not know whether any special provision can be made to meet the cases such as the Member for St. Helens and myself have put up?
    792
    An insurance scheme ought to give some reasonable prospects of benefits to the whole of the men who contribute to it, and if in certain industries conditions are imposed upon the men which they cannot avoid and which militate against them in the way I have been speaking of, special consideration ought to be given to those industries. We have been told more than once that the Minister is sympathetic, but that it is an administrative difficulty. I admit that so far as the dockers are concerned the Department might not know who had been working and who had not been working; but I do not want to plead my case as against the case of the hon. Member for St. Helens. There may be a measure of truth in that as regards the dockers, but certainly one cannot bring that argument against the miners, because when a pit stops it stops, and anybody who has any knowledge of the working conditions knows that when a pit stops the whole of the men, very largely, have to go home—the exceptions being a few special hands, like winders and others, who are necessary even when the pit is actually at a standstill. If we are to have the six days' waiting period, the Minister ought to devise special Regulations to cover cases of this kind, because he knows as well as I do that in the industry with which I am associated it is almost impossible for men to bear the six days.
    I cannot conceive why the Government should have changed the three days to six days. In the Workmen's Compensation Act the period is three days, and it was the present Government that passed that Act. If three days is a fair waiting period in a workmen's compensation scheme, it is certainly a fair period in an unemployment insurance scheme. If a man is away from work owing to an injury for a month he gets paid for the three days, whereas in this case the men get benefit for neither the three days nor the six days, and I submit that the case presented by the hon. Member for St. Helens as regards the dockers, and the case I have presented, call for special consideration and special treatment.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry I have not been able to take part earlier in these discussions, owing to circumstances over which I have had no control. I consider this Bill one of the worst, one of the most

    793
    callous, and characterised by the most calculated meanness, that has ever been brought before this House. It robs and plunders the very poorest in the land. The alteration of the law which is proposed by this Bill is definitely robbing the very poorest of the unskilled labourers. It is all very well for the Minister and others to talk about the principles of insurance, but nobody on that side of the House or on this side talked about the principles of insurance in 1919 and 1920, and I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that Lord Derby has put it on record that in other days we were obliged to deal with the unemployed differently from how we are dealing with them to-day because of the fear of revolution. I think there is nothing more mean and contemptible on the part of any government or any party than to differentiate their treatment of human beings because on one occasion you think they are strong enough to fight you, and on another you think you have got them down and you can keep them down and rub their noses in the mud a little deeper. I am not so much concerned about the rate of any borough or district where they find the burden very heavy indeed, but the burden of starving is a very much harder thing to bear than even getting rid of a little mud.
    In my district, which is one of the poorest in London—I am sorry the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) is not here—I have to remind the House again that there are between 25 and 30 per cent. of the wage-earners who are always casual workers, and nobody knows it better than the present Minister of Labour, and nobody knows better than he does that this has been their normal condition for the last 25 or 30 years, and the present position of affairs has accentuated that state of things. Only two days ago I bought out of a group in a pawnshop these three stars. Although I am what you consider a person who holds queer views about war, I should think myself the most contemptible person under the sun if I inveigled men to go to war and gave them medals such as these. Here is the Mons Star—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot see how the hon. Member is connecting his argument with the Amendment.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I am speaking, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, of men whom the callous meanness of the Government Bench is going to rob of three days' unemployment pay and thus drive them deeper into the mire. [An HON. MEMBER: "Put them away!"] I will not put them away. In fact I should like to take them to Buckingham Palace. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are disgracing them!"] The disgrace is on you who allow men to be driven into starvation like this. These are the men whom you said stood between you and destruction in France, and all you can do for them now is to drive them to destitution. These are the men upon whose breasts these medals were pinned by the King. [An HON. MEMBER: "What have you done?"] I defy any of you to convince these men that you are treating them properly now when the pawnshops are full of these medals. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did you do?"] I did nothing in the War, in fact I tried to keep men out of the. War.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member has now got away from Clause 3.
    Mr. LANSBURY: This is a matter of vital importance to the men and women that I represent in this place. It is economising out of the lives and the well-being of the poor men and women of waterside districts, up and down the country. This Bill is a murder Bill. Every man who votes for it will be guilty of sheer murder, because under this Bill children will be starved, women will be. starved, and men will be starved. I understand it has been said that these men can save enough money to tide them over the six days. Those who say that are people who have never bad to live on any such money as any of these men earn. For people, whose incomes run into thousands, to tell poor men, who earn a few shillings a day, that they ought to be able to economise and save so that they can pay for the six days, and not need money from the fund, is, I consider, adding insult to injury; but you do not get away from the fact that, even with the three days' waiting period, men are obliged to do this kind of thing, and you cannot get away from the fact that when it is six days, more of them will have to do it.

    795
    When you argue that they may spread the period over so many weeks, how are you going to save the millions you are going to save from this if it is not by taking them off these men in one form or another? You cannot save it unless you get it from someone or other, and you are going to get it out of these unskilled workers who rallied to defend this country—which never belonged to them, but which belongs to you—and who formed what is called the living wall. I am going again to repeat, in spite of the sneers and jeers of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that to pin these medals on the breasts of unskilled labourers, pat them on the back, and tell them what great, fine fellows they were, and then to starve them so that they have to pawn your wretched medals, is, I think, the most mean and despicable conduct that ever the Parliament of any country was ever guilty of. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman might come down to Poplar and to Bow and Bromley and talk to the ex-service men down there, and tell them what his opinion is as to this sort of thing. You dare not do it, and you dare not do it in your own constituencies either, in defence of this most mean proposal to plunder these men in this way. I think that any party or any Government that is so guilty proves to the workmen quite conclusively that you only pat them on the back, you only think them fine fellows, when you want them to fight for you or to die for you. It is not as if there were only these three medals. I invite you to go round the pawnshops of the West End and look in the windows. You will see them there, exhibited for sale, and not merely in my district. I bought three the other day up here in Westminster, pawned by the same kind of people that the right hon. Gentleman is going to rob through this—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is again getting away considerably from the Clause.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I am trying to point out the effect even at the present time, when the waiting period is three days, and what will be the effect when it is six days. Then I want to call attention to the fact that this physical and mental demoralisation not only affects the men,
    796
    but the children and women also. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the death-rate amongst babies under one year old before the War was infinitely higher than it is to-day, and one reason why it has been kept down has been that there has been more generous administration of the Poor Law, and also more generous administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. But this is all part of a deliberate policy to drive the workman into the position he was in after Waterloo. [Interruption.] If you do not know your history go and read it. Everyone knows that the British worker went through hell after Waterloo.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Amendment.
    Mr. LANSBURY: This is part of a policy which was deliberately started by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) when he was at the Ministry of Health. He started the policy of restricting relief, and it has been extended by his successors. At the same time the Minister of Labour has been using every endeavour to cut down public assistance through the Insurance Act, and the only reason for it is to give the worker who is out of work no option but either to starve, to go to the workhouse or to blackleg his fellow men, and it is because the great captains of industry want to get the workman down that you are doing your level best to drive those who are unemployed into the position of blacklegs. You are not going to succeed in doing it because the working people are just a little more intelligent than they were 50 or 60 years ago. If they had not more intelligence than people who jeer at this sort of thing they would not have any intelligence at all. The policy of cutting down this assistance through the Insurance Act is part of the policy of depressing the working classes in order that you may get cheap labour. The Prime Minister has told us that the wages must come down not only of miners but of railwaymen and everyone else. This business is being done in order to assist the employers to get blacklegs. It used to be workhouse or starve or take whatever wages you can get.
    It is no use the right hon. Gentleman laughing. He knows these facts. He sins against the light. No one knows better than he does the social and indus-

    797
    trial conditions I am speaking of, and he knows as well as I do that the physical deterioration, the physical and mental suffering of women, the starving of children, the making of a C3 population, has all come from this starving of men, women, and children when the breadwinner is out of work. There is not a man on that side of the House who would have dared to bring in a Measure like this wretched, mean Measure that we are discussing to-night. This is only one part of the iniquitous business. It is only one part of the swindling and robbery of the working class. You tell us you cannot afford it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said we must economise, and the only people you can economise from are the poor little children of the casual worker in the East End of London. The only people you can economise on are the poor people who, you think, are absolutely friendless, and who live at any time on the border line of starvation. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the late Charles Booth investigated all these conditions, and over and over again in his books he demonstrated that physical, mental, and moral deterioration all came from the fact that men and women had not enough to live on. Here you are, years after the conclusion of the Armistice, and all you can do to deal with unemployment is to drive the unfortunate victims down, and to refuse them the maintenance that is their due. How long could hon. Members opposite live without income? How long would they live if someone was not earning profit for them? Let them go to their own homes—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must address himself to the particular question of Clause 3.
    Mr. SPENCER: Who is in the Chair? Is it the duty of hon. Members opposite to call "Order," or is it your prerogative to call "Order"?
    Mr. LANSBURY: I want to point out to you, Sir, and to the House that there is only one way of judging whether a thing is right or wrong. When you come to apply such a Clause as this to men and women, the one way of judging whether it is right is to apply it to yourselves. I saw the other morning in my home a man who had been one of the victims of the
    798
    right hon. Gentleman's mean and callous Measure. That man was starving. He has been dubbed a person not genuinely seeking work. I know what that man does in trying to get work. I know that he served during the War. He was one of the living wall to defend Britain against the German Huns. Could the German Huns do anything worse for him than starve him? Could the German Huns do anything worse than to drive poor men to pawn the wretched medals that you gave them? If hon. Member opposite were in that position, they would be with me in fighting this Bill to the bitter end. Hon. Members talk about saving money. This is being done to help the Chancellor of the Exchequer to save money. It is hoped to save £5,000,000 in this way. The other £1,500,000 will be saved out of the poor fathers and mothers by making them keep their grown-up children, although those grown-up children have paid and will have to pay again. You are going to take these £5,000,000 out of the stomachs of children and out of the men and women who are to be robbed by putting on this extra three days' waiting period.
    There is no one in this House who, if they had to endure this sort of thing, would not feel as I do about it. If they had to face these men, they would say exactly what I am saying. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman knows all about these things, knows all about the evil results that will flow from this Bill proves that he is sinning against the light. He knows that the result of this Bill will be the slow murder of children, even before they are born. He knows, and we all know, by our social inquiries, that it is the starvation of the mother that starves the child before and after birth. You are going to rob the mother, you are going to rob the child before it is born, and you are going to rob it after it is born. You know perfectly well that the result will be inevitably an increase in the death rate amongst these children.
    Within the last two or three years men driven to despair, not knowing what to do have killed their children, their wives and themselves. You come with me to the men and women down at Hackney Wick, where only the other day an unhappy man killed his family because he could not get assistance either from the Employment Exchange or the board of guardians. What about that South London case of

    799
    which we heard to-day? You all know that through this Bill you are going to accentuate human suffering to an extent which none of us can measure. None of us who have not suffered can measure what suffering means to other people. I trust that the day will come when the workers of the country will rise, and if you do not let them get what they need in a decent manner will come up here and take it. I am sick and tired of the unemployed just starving at home. I say to them and to you that I wish they would come out of their homes and do something to make a protest against these infamous conditions which exist to-day when you have the Government assisting the employers all over the country, and in addition helping them to drive the working people down in industry. And this is the Government that promise them full work that the Socialist Government could not give them at higher wages. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Your party said: "We are the people who can bring you better trade and who can give you work at decent wages," and all you can give them is starvation, more, starvation, and again starvation.
    Mr. HARRIS: I think that this is a most unfortunate Clause, and I am not surprised that it has provoked opposition. During the last four years the patience of a very large part of the population has been very severely tried. Thousands of people have been in irregular employment for from one to four years. In London, perhaps, more than any other part of the country, there is a large amount of casual labour. You have in London none of the big industries, such as you have in the North of England, with highly orgnnised trade unions providing regular work at full rates, owing to the general circumstances of a capital city with large numbers of people out of work from time to time. I can confirm what the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has said. The pressure upon the family budget has been immense, I have been surprised at the exemplary patience of people after four years of unemployment. Of course, the Insurance Act alone has made it possible to pull through. The concession made last year, I think I must say largely due to the efforts of Mr. Masterman and a number of Members above the Gangway, was one which was immensely
    800
    appreciated. You can go forward, but it is quite another thing to go back. Once you have made a concession of this kind it is a very serious proposition to take it away.
    The Member for Bow and Bromley referred to the Poor Law. Members from the North of England have been talking a lot to-night about distressed areas. In the East End of London the strain on the Poor Law has been immense. It is time that by legislation it has been more spread over London than before the War, but in spite of that the strain on the Poor Law has been very heavy. It is a mistake to think that a remedy could be found in the Poor Law. There are thousands of men and women who, unless they were forced to it by very severe pressure would go for relief to the Poor Law Guardians. There is a reluctance to go to the Poor Law because of its associations built up by years of reactionary administration. Somehow or other they go without it.
    There is quite a different attitude towards unemployment insurance. There is a feeling that they are getting help and assistance as a right and without any charity and that they have contributed their quota to the money they draw. Now the Minister comes along and says that the waiting period should be increased from three to six days. But the cupboard is bare. Where there was three or four years ago a certain amount of savings due to the prosperous times of the War, those savings have been eaten up. The rent goes on, whether a man is in work or out of work. The rent is always the first charge on the family budget. Kent has gone up 40 per cent. In the six days' waiting period the rent book has to be met. The landlord will not wait, and it is a remarkable thing to me that in the East End of London there is a tremendous honour about meeting the rent. It may be because of the shortage of houses or the difficulty of finding alternative accommodation if a man loses his home. There the first charge of rent has to be found even in the six days that the man is without benefit, and without anything coming into the home. It may be that he is forced on to the Poor Law. Anybody who knows Poor Law administration in London knows that the guardians already have to carry a burden more than they

    801
    are able to carry. Rates are high, expenses growing, the machinery of organisation is strained to breaking-point. It would be most unfortunate at a time of labour crisis like this that the message the Government has to send to the people, five years after the War, is that they are going to make it more difficult to get benefit and that they are going to set up difficulties and are going to increase the time that the people have to do without means.
    This is a most unfortunate move on the part of the Government after being 19 months in office. We were assured that there was a new spirit in the Tory party, a new progressive spirit was to inspire it, and that there were young men behind the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has new ideals. This is an unfortunate answer. This is not a new Bill. It is an old Bill. It is a mutilated Bill—mutilated in the wrong direction, and I think this new Clause might very well be dropped. It would disappear, with no regret from any part of the country. The ratepayers will not regret it. The great ideal that the Tory party have adopted of insurance as opposed to poor law relief, will receive a set-back by the embodiment of this Clause in the Bill.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I heard most of the speeches with regard to Clause 3, and, as usual, I listened with particular interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). I know he accuses me of sinning against the light, and suggests that this Clause bears peculiarly hardly on the casual worker—whom he knows well and whom I know no less well—down in the East End of London and other places. I do not deny for a moment that if there is money to be saved under this Clause it must come from somewhere, but I do say to the hon. Member that it is not the casual worker who bears the chief brunt. Of course, the money has to be saved. I am not pretending that it comes like manna from Heaven. I have always thought, as the hon. Member knows, that possibly the greatest hardship in industry is the hardship of the casual labourer. Among many hard conditions casual labour has probably produced the most, but I Would point out that casual labourers are not peculiarly hard hit in this Bill, and I think, if anything, they hear rather less of the burden than others.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Do they bear any of the burden, and, if so, why should they?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Exactly. I am coming to that. The hon. Member in his speech said that they were singled out and were particularly hard hit. That, to the best of my knowledge, is not the case.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The clerk to the guardians has made provision for extra thousands—I will not charge my memory with the exact number—for the next half year, anticipating this Bill.
    11.0 P.M.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: What the hon. Member suggests as to casual labour is not the case. I have tried to explain the matter before, and perhaps the hon. Member is acquainted with it, but he will forgive me if I mention it again. When you get casual labour, the probability is that the operation of the continuity rule relieves them more than it relieves people who have more regular spells of work. The operation of the continuity rule is this: You reckon by periods of three days' unemployment in any six, and where you have two such periods, you can have five or even six whole weeks occurring between the two, and yet by the operation of the continuity rule that gap is bridged, and in cases of that kind no fresh waiting period has to be served. That is a provision which applies, I think, more to casual labour than to any other, just for the very reason that the labour is casual. T know the hon. Member objects to the thing as a whole, and I am not trying or hoping really to overcome his objections, but I am pointing out that, so far as the casual labourer is concerned—and I have always said that the casuality of labour is the cause of the worst hardship—he is less hit under the rule than other classes, and it is by reason of the operation of that continuity rule.
    Perhaps the hon. Member thinks it is not necessary to try to balance finance, but while I do realise that necessity, and accept it, I have done my best to see that the savings to he effected by the Bill bear least heavily where they can least be afforded. It is for precisely that reason, just in connection with changes of this kind, that I have been following out an idea which I had before the hon.

    803
    Member made his last speech in this House, to which I listened with very great interest. I was myself much interested in the case of the young men who have not got the training to which he referred. I can only say that I do not suppose I shall get his support, whether for this or any other Measure, but at least I have instituted since then training centres to meet just that kind of case, so that I hope he will realise that, while I do not pretend to get agreement from the benches opposite, I am trying to see how the burden can be adjusted so that the heaviness can least be felt.
    In regard to the Clause generally, I say at once, as I said at the beginning, that if money has to be found, there are people who have to find it, and if one could get manna from heaven, quite naturally one would have benefits greater and contributions less, and so on. But I am really looking to the balance of finance under the schemes of social insurance as a whole, and also under this particular scheme, and it is no good thinking that under certain industrial conditions increased benefits can be maintained without having any regard to the expense involved. It is absolutely essential. Hon. Members opposite may attack the Government and me because we have not reduced unemployment. They may do that, and it is open to them to do it.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: As you did last year.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I never promised at any time work for all or good wages or said that any Government could do much. At any rate when you have the degree of unemployment that you have at this moment, and with the burden that it causes, expenses and incomings have to be adjusted together, and the rate of benefits has to bear some relation to the rate of contributions. It is from that point of view that, when the waiver is continued, and when the rate of benefit is continued at its full amount, I am trying to see how things can balance, and, taking all in all, this is how the burden can be so adjusted as to bear least hardly. I have dealt with the case of casual labour and the effect on casual labour of the continuity rule, and it is those people who have been in employment for a certain time on whom the extension of the waiting period falls
    804
    rather than on those who are in casual work from day to day. That is the case with regard to the burden.
    The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) spoke of the local ratepayers. As I pointed out, both the extension of the waiting period and the use of the waiver, if there is need to get a financial balance at all, are the two methods which will probably be best able to be borne and are least likely to cause a burden on the local rates. It is perfectly true that the charge on the local ratepayer in the Poor Law unions was reduced after the Bill of last year, but by far the greater proportion of that reduction was due to the increase in the rate of benefits, which has not been touched, and far the lesser proportion of it was due, either to the use of the discretion or to the waiting period.
    I would only ask the House to bear in mind one other consideration. When a plea is put forward for industry and the taxpayer and the contributor, the whole country, the taxpayer and the local ratepayers, have all got to be considered together, the increased Exchequer contributions have got to be taken into account, the relief to the contributor, who is the workman, the relief to the business which gives the employers contribution—all that has got to be taken into account together. From that point of view I say that quite undue exaggeration, to my mind, has been laid on the amount of the burden which is likely to be put on the local rates and ratepayers and on business generally. I submit to the House that if you look on what is really being done in the matter of social services by the Government, that the continuation of the waiver and the relief to the contributor is the fairest and most equitable adjustment and enables the burden, so far as there is any burden, to be borne where it is least heavily felt.
    Mr. T. SHAW: I have heard very little attempt to justify this Clause. The Minister is evidently of opinion that figures are more important than the unemployed. He has made no attempt to prove that the unemployed can afford to "play," or can bear the taking away of three days, and he has said nothing to indicate that they are in a position to bear the burden. The tenor of his song was, "We shall save £5,000,000, and there is an end to it."
    Mr. LANSBURY: Somebody has got to Pay.
    Mr. SHAW: I cannot understand the frame of mind of the Government on this matter. Possibly I cannot understand it because of little things that have taken place in my experience. May I tell a little story to the House, in order to explain why some of us look upon these things with different eyes. When I worked in the mill in Lancashire, I worked next to one of the finest workmen that God ever put the breath of life into, one of the best workers I ever met in my life. He was a man of exceptional character; thrifty, sober and honest. I went to Lancashire one week-end and found that, as a result of unemployment and privation that man, who was one of the finest men God ever made, had thrown himself in front of a train and ended it all. That is the type of man we are thinking of. You can talk to us about your £5,000,000 until the moon turns blue: we shall still look at the human being and not the £5,000,000. What does your £5,000,000 mean to the Exchequer? In round figures, it is £1,250,000, and if the Government tell us they cannot afford to pay that sum to the unemployed, we say to the Government, it is humbug, pure and simple humbug. They can find any number of millions when it pleases their politics, when it pleases their friends, when it pleases their policy, but they can take from the unemployed, just at the time of the unemployed's greatest need. Are these men so well-to-do that they can go a week without wages? Take two of the largest industries of the country—one, the largest exporting industry before the War, the other, I think, the second—coal and cotton. There has Scarcely been a full week's wages in the cotton trade for the last five years, and when these people begin to play, not on stock that they have saved while working, but on debts already standing against them, all that the Government say is, "We shall save £5,000,000 on this Fund; you live a week on nothing at all." It is no use saying that this will make no difference to the Poor Law and to the guardians. If the Minister will take the trouble to look at the figures of the Ministry of Health find his own figures, he will find that the numbers put on the Unemployment Insurance Fund by the 1924 Act are strikingly similar to the
    806
    diminution in the numbers of those applying to the guardians. Is there no connection between these figures, and is it merely a coincidence? I suggest that that striking similarity in figures is due to the fact that the expense of unemployment was put where it ought to be, and taken from the shoulders of those who never ought to have borne it.
    I would like either the Minister or some speaker on the opposite benches to try to prove to us that these people are really in a condition to bear the deprivation of this £5,000,000. No attempt has yet been made to do so. Money, money, money; figures, figures, figures; Fund, Fund, Fund; gold, gold, gold—humanity in the background! Mammon is your God; the actuary's report is your Bible. If the unemployed took what they are entitled to, it would not be £5,000,000. Every member of the unemployed who is an ex-soldier—and there are hundreds of thousands of them—is entitled to this Fund. One gets sick and tired of the unhealthy humbug that is talked about this Fund, of the broken promises made to these men, and of the slobber that was thrown over them when they came back from the War, and the treatment they now get. I do not understand the position of the Government. I demonstrated conclusively the other day that with the full unemployment benefit it was impossible to spend more than a penny per head for meals for the unemployed family drawing the maximum contribution from the Unemployment Fund. And yet there are people who will take away from the unemployed part of that they now get. If I were in need, I would take it before I would starve. If it meant fighting, although I am a man of peace, I would fight before I would starve. You are prepared to take these millions from these men, men who do not know where they are going to get the next pair of boots, or whether they can afford a little bit of meat once a day. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish!"] "Rubbish" is very appropriate in the mouth of the hon. Member opposite. Every man who belongs to an industrial constituency, every man who lives in Lancashire knows that what I am saying is true, and any man who denies it denies what is true. I have been back to the places that I knew before the War

    807
    —one place was a most prosperous town—and I have wondered how my friends have, got along the years that have elapsed since 1918 and 1919. How they have lived is a mystery to me. It is extraordinary that the more the suffering grows the more the people are punished. They have to be punished for the fault of the Government, which cannot make peace in the world. The average wage of the Lancashire cotton worker, I know, particularly during the last five years, has not been 30s. a week. What can a man do with that, and a man perhaps with a wife and family? Yet you say that if a man "plays" he must pay for the first week out of his wages, "then we will give you assistance." Why do you do this? Because there is £5,000,000 that someone wants to balance his accounts with. There was no reason why the Minister of Labour should have introduced this Bill at all. A one-Clause Bill would have maintained the present state of affairs until the Bill expired next year.
    The Minister has never yet demonstrated that the people from whom the money is to be taken can bear the loss. He has never demonstrated that it was right to take it. He has never demonstrated that it was in accordance with the whole system of insurance in this country that they should bear this loss. In health insurance have you a waiting period of three days? Under the workmen's compensation you are paid from the first day if you do not work for a fortnight. This is the only insurance scheme in the whole of our insurance system where a man or a woman is to be asked to do this. Why, I simply cannot understand; and I do not know why the Government have never taken the trouble to explain! We have tried to get facts and figures out of them. We have literally tried to extract them like extracting a cork with a cork-screw. They have never attempted to demonstrate that their policy was fair or that it was good; always we have had the reiteration of the phrase, "We save £6,500,000 a year for the fund." I can only repeat what I have said before, that you can save money for the fund at the expense of something that is far more precious than money. These people are far more precious than six and a-half millions of money. They have a right, an absolute right, on the State, to be
    808
    looked after. Hundreds of thousands of them went to the War. These are the men you are punishing, and you are punishing them doubly, because if they still remain with their parents you are refusing them ordinary benefits as well as making them wait a week when they have any benefits to draw.
    This is what this brilliant Bill of the Government is doing—a Government with a huge majority, a Government full of promises, a Government with St. John the Baptist at its head, a Government full of reformers, burning with zeal for social reform, a Government of all the talents, of all the culture, of all the knowledge of the ages, and its first concrete action, with regard to unemployment, and the only concrete action with regard to unemployment, is to steal £6,500,000 from the unemployed. I compliment the right hon. Gentleman on his Bill. If, in finishing my remarks, I may make a suggestion to him, I should suggest that he should give these men a loin cloth each and a handful of rice, and make coolies of them.
    Mr. KELLY: In supporting the Amendment, I want to deal with one or two other parts of the country as against Lancashire, which has been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw). I wish to refer to Macclesfield and its industries, in view of the interjection we have just had. We might change from Macclesfield, and talk of the timber trade and the wages that are paid there in order to show that even when a full week is worked, there are no savings to be made out of which people can exist for the period of six days. It is bad enough as it is, with a three days' waiting period; people have to borrow or to get assistance to carry them through that period. Now that the Government are suggesting a six days' period it will mean something of starvation for these people, who become unemployed, as so many of them are becoming unemployed. Take the silk trade and the artificial silk trade of which we heard so much during the Budget discussions. I have often wondered whether in his interruptions the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) would fling across the House the wages that are paid in that industry. The artificial silk industry, a luxury industry, if I may borrow the

    809
    Chancellor of the Exchequer's word, pays less than 50s. a week for a full week's work. Can the Minister show that there is a penny to be saved out of that wage? I am giving more than the wage that is paid.
    I put it to him that the timber trade—perhaps the hon. Member for Macclesfield will deal with this point—is paying less than that to many of those engaged in that trade. Does any hon. Member suggest that a wage like that is sufficient to make provision for a six days waiting period during unemployment. We are also taking away by this measure any payment to those who are working short time, and those who are on three days a week, and if we divide the 50s. a week by two, making the wage 25s., then this Bill says that those with 25s. a week on short time have no right to receive benefit from unemployment insurance.
    That is the man's side. But I want to take the woman's side. There are women engaged in this trade at wages between 30s. and 33s. a week, and where they are on short time it means that they receive in wages about 15s. or 16s. a week, and the Government say "from you, with 15s. a week, we are going to take away even that benefit which is due to you under the Bill which is operating at the present time." It is not only in those industries that we find that the Government is taking this benefit away. We find that even in the case of those employed by the right hon. Gentlemen in the service of the Ministry of Labour women are receiving 17s. a week and 19s. a week and I ask if there is any margin there to provide for a six days' waiting period. Is the First Lord of the Admiralty prepared to say that the thousands of workmen employed in the dockyards are able to save anything for this purpose out of 47s. a week? Is there any margin there to provide for the period of unemployment which will enable them to get over the six days' waiting period? I say that there is no man in this country who can maintain a family decently on 47s. a week, and on that wage they can only exist at a semi-starvation level. I am prepared to prove that, and I think I did prove it during the Committee stage. At any rate no hon. or right hon. Gentleman during the Committee stage attempted to prove that a man could maintain a family on a wage of 47s. a
    810
    week. What I have just said applies equally to the War Office, to the workers in Birmingham, and those who work in the constituency of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon)—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think I have allowed the hon. Member considerable latitude by way of illustration, but I cannot permit him to range over the whole country.
    Mr. KELLY: We have been told that on those who are in full employment this would press less hardly because the benefit would be sufficient to enable them to tide over that particular period. What I wanted to show was that, so far as the majority of the people who come on to unemployment benefit are concerned, when they are working full time—let alone the half time or short time that is worked so much in the country—they have nothing left each week that will enable them to wait for the longer period which is put into this Measure I need merely instance those cases in which the wages paid are much less than the 47s. and 50s. that I quoted at first—wages of 35s., such as are paid in the engineering trade, and 40s. in the engineering trade in Birmingham. I will leave it at that so far as the men are concerned.
    As to the women, who are also included, actually the women employed in preparing, as I told the Committee, the materials and textiles for the Royal Yacht and the Admirals' cabins in the Naval Service, get 35s. a week—widows, with families to maintain; and they are expected to have a margin that would enable them to wait for this six-day period. If there is one fault to be found with us, it is that even we are being satisfied with the three days' waiting period which is in operation at the present time. I am not, like the late Minister of Labour, going to appeal to the Government, but I do hope that even at this stage something is going to break in upon them to show them that they are doing, not merely an injustice, but something even worse, to the people of this country.
    They say they have to consider those who have contributed to the Fund. I wonder whom they mean by those who contributed to the Fund. I know of dozens of people who contributed to the Fund during the period from 1914 to 1919,

    811
    people who went out of insurable employment; and they never complained, they never asked that they should receive back their contributions, they have never asked that other people's conditions should be worsened at this time. Speaking, as one can, for people engaged in something like 100 industries in this country, I have never once heard those who are in full employment, or those who are on short time in the industries, ask for any worsening of the conditions of those who are unfortunate enough to he unemployed. This is a vicious proposal, a proposal that one is astounded to find being made at this time. I hope it will be understood by the people outside, and that they will rise up against it.
    Mr. BECKETT: I should not, after the right hon. Gentleman's reply, raise further matters in this discussion, were it not for the very deplorable manner in which this Clause, is going to affect a considerable number of people who have not so far had their case put in the Debate on this Clause. I listened with very great attention to what I suppose must by courtesy be called the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), and I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman should by some unfortunate accident have been in charge of the introduction of such an iniquitous Clause. For five years I lived amongst the casual workers of the East End, who have been mentioned as being affected by this Clause, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman knows their condition as much as I do. He knows it as well as anybody in this House, or as any of these unfortunate people who will suffer in East London from the deplorable effects of what he is going to do, and I am sure he knows that, when his actions have to be judged in the future, no amount of personal courtesy and charity will wipe out acts of public iniquity of this kind.
    He particularly said, in his reply to hon. Members on this side, that the casual labourers were not peculiarly hit, but were only hit, perhaps, to the same extent as other classes of workers. The point I want to put forward for the consideration of the House is that, thanks to the policy since the Armistice of the party on the opposite side of the House, ably supported by some Members on the Liberal Benches, almost every class of worker in
    812
    this country is casual at the present moment. On Tyneside we have our engineers and boilermakers and shipbuilders. Further out from there we have miners and iron and steel workers. Nearly all those men are casual workers at the moment, working half a day, one day, two days, or, if they are very fortunate indeed, three days a week, and their wages are no better, or hardly any better, than those of the lowest-paid casual workers. The shipyard worker is extremely fortunate and has to be very skilled on Tyneside if he can earn as much as 45s. or 47s. 6d. a week. How on earth are men who are working three days a week for two or three weeks to save enough to keep them in the interval which the right hon. Gentleman is so callously placing upon them in this Bill? It simply cannot be done. It means that you will drive them to an even worse stage of despondency than they are in at present. It means that you will make the lives of these men and their women folk thoroughly miserable in order to save your miserable £5,000,000. It means that you will deliberately cramp the chances of development of hundreds of thousands of children. And then you bring in an iniquitous measure like this. You vote for it and go away again refusing to allow yourselves to imagine the appalling conditions that you are deliberately creating, not only amongst the Bow and Poplar casual workers, not only the miners in Yorkshire and Nottingham and the Midlands, but in almost every skilled industry. The Government have first of all deliberately, with their eyes open, degraded the condition of all the finest workers of the land to that of casual labourers and then beat down their wages to such an extent that their purchasing power has gone and they have no power to supply the natural market for their goods, and then, by careful juggling with the Unemployment Insurance Act and the measures introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) last year, after they have robbed these men of their regular work they have proceeded to rob them of even the small pittance that will enable them to keep body and soul and some kind of respectable home together. Earlier in the debate the Parliamentary Secretary told us about the history of the unemployment insurance scheme. He forgot to say it was really

    813
    not insurance against unemployment at all. It was really in the first place insurance against revolution. That is what it was brought in for. That was its purpose. There comes a time when constitutional methods must give way, and the patience of the poor has lasted long enough. If this Clause is to go through, if they are to be deprived of the small sop you give them in order to keep them patient, I hope we shall do our best to see that it comes about that we shall abandon all hope of reasoning with you by persuasion, that men who can do cruel and callous things of this sort are hardly worth sharing the same atmosphere within the House of Commons, and that we will go to the country and say even the Conservative majority cannot stand against a determined and sullen people, and we will advise the unemployed to make their lives a misery to them, to come out from their homes, to come out from the misery in which they are going to starve under your miserable Clause and wait for you on the Great North Road when you go up to murder birds on the 12th.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That might be more suitable to-morrow than on this particular Amendment.
    Mr. BECKETT: I was just finishing. If the Clause be carried, I hope the unemployed will refuse to suffer patiently but will take every means in their power to make the lives of the men responsible a nuisance to them.
    Captain BENN: We are specially interested in this Clause, because it was an Amendment accepted by the late Government, and moved by hon. Members on these benches, which reduced last year the waiting period from six days to three days. If there was a case for reducing the waiting period last year, the case is far stronger this year, because the reserves of the people have been much diminished by unemployment and hardship. Therefore it cannot be any surprise that we stand to-night by this Amendment for fixing the three days waiting period, as we, were the authors of the Amendment last year reducing the waiting period to three days. We feel strongly the hardship which is placed upon these unfortunate people, the un-
    814
    employed. There is a further point. The Government are great supporters of the contributory principle. They believe that there is more merit in making people pay for their benefits. I am not concerned to argue as to the best way of running an insurance scheme, but it is clear that those who earnestly support the payment of contributions from the other side should equally earnestly support the demand for the payment of benefits when contributions have been made.
    One of the great demerits of this Clause as against Clause 1, which only deals with extended benefits, is that it deprives people who are in full stamps of the standard benefit to which they are entitled. We are not here dealing with any charitable benefit or any benefit given in advance of contribution, but benefit for which people have paid and for which their cards are fully stamped. The Clause is estimated to save £5,000,000. The finance of this scheme unless we get good news to-morrow will be entirely futile. It will break down if the worst happens to-morrow. Assuming that things go no worse, then £5,000,000 will be saved by this Clause. How much of that £5,000,000 is being taken by reducing the period of waiting, how much is being taken from the insured persons who are asking for extended benefit, and how much from those persons who are unemployed who are fully stamped and who are only asking for standard benefit?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Approximately half and half.
    Captain BENN: Then you are depriving of £2,500,000 those insured persons who have paid and who under the present law are fully entitled to benefit. What hon. Members opposite mean by the contributory principle is contribution. They are ready enough to insist upon contribution and ready enough to support the Government in that respect, but when the people ask for the benefit for which they have contractual rights you deprive them of it.
    Question put, "That the words pro posed to be left out to the word 'have' in page 2, line 13, stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 120.

    Division No. 330.]

    AYES.

    [9.27 p.m.

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

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Lowth, T.

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

    Gillett, George M.

    Lunn, William

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

    Gosling, Harry

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

    Ammon, Charles George

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Greenall, T.

    Mackinder, W.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Baker, Walter.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    March, S.

    Barnes, A.

    Groves, T.

    Maxton, James

    Barr, J.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Montague, Frederick

    Batey, Joseph

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

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

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Murnin, H.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hardie, George D.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Bromley, J.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Owen, Major G.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Paling, W.

    Cape, Thomas

    Hayes, John Henry

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Clowes, S.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Potts, John S.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Compton, Joseph.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Cove, W. G.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Ritson, J.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

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

    Dalton, Hugh

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Jones J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

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

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Kelly, W. T.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Dennison, R.

    Kennedy, T.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Dunnico, H.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Scurr, John

    Duncan, C.

    Lansbury, George

    Sexton, James

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lawson, John James

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Lee, F.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Forrest, W.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

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

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Smillie, Robert

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Whiteley, W.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Varley, Frank B.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Snell, Harry

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Warne, G. H.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Stephen. Campbell

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Windsor, Walter

    Sutton, J. E.

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

    Wright, W.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

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

    Welsh, J. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Westwood, J.

    Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir Robert

    Hutchison.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

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

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

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

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

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

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Lougher, L.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Atkinson, C.

    Finburgh, S.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Fleming, D. P.

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Ford, P. J.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    McLean, Major A.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Bethell, A.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Betterton. Henry B.

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

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Malone, Major P. B.

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

    Goff, Sir Park

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Blundell, F. N.

    Grant, J. A.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Greene. W. P. Crawford

    Meller, R. J.

    Bourne. Captain Robert Croft

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Merriman, F. B.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Mever, Sir Frank

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

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

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

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

    Buckingham, Sir H.

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

    Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Hanbury, C.

    Morrison, Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Burman, J. B.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Harland, A.

    Neville, R. J.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

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

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

    Campbell, E. T.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Oakley, T.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

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

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Christie, J. A.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford. Watford)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Clarry, Reginald George

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

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Homan, C. W. J.

    Pilcher, G.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Cope, Major William

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

    Raine, W.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Ramsden, E.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Rawson, Alfred Cooper

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hunter-Weston. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Dalziel, Sir Davison

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Remer, J. R.

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

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

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

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

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

    Rice, Sir Frederick

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

    Jacob, A. E.

    Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Ropner, Major L.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Drewe, C.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Rye, F. G.

    Elliot, Captain Walter E.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    776

    777

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Storry Deans, R.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Wilson, R. R. (Statford, Lichfield)

    Sandon, Lord

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Wise, Sir Fredric

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

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Womersley, W. J.

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

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

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

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

    Tinne, J. A.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

    Smithers, Waldron

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Spender Clay. Colonel H.

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

    Wragg, Herbert

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

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

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Major Sir Harry Barnston and

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

    Wells, S. R.

    Captain Margesson

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    White Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill." put, and agreed to.

    Division No. 331.]

    AYES.

    [11.46 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Pennefather, Sir John

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

    Grant, J. A.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

    Greene. W. P. Crawford

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

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

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Atkinson, C.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Ramsden, E.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Balniel, Lord

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. Eastbourne)

    Rawson, Alfred Cooper

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

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

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Remer, J. R.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Harland, A.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

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

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Ropner, Major L.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Blundell, F. N.

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Sandon, Lord

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

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

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

    Bullock, Captain M.

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

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

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Burman, J. B.

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

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

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cassels, J. D.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Spender Clay, Colonel H.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Lamb, J. Q.

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

    Christie J. A.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Little Dr. E. Graham

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Clayton, G. C.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Storry Deans, R.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Lumley, L. R.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Cope, Major William

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Tinne, J. A.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    McLean, Major A.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Watts, Dr. T.

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

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Wells, S. R.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Drewe, C.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Edmondson. Major A. J.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Fielden, E. B.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Finburgh, S.

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Fleming, D. P.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Ford, P. J.

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

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

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Neville, R. J.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Nuttall, Ellis

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Gates, Percy

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Sir Harry Barnston and Captain

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Oakley, T.

    Margesson.

    NOES.

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

    Cape, Thomas

    Duncan, C.

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

    Charleton, H. C.

    Dunnico, H.

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

    Clowes, S.

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Cluse, W. S.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Barnes, A.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Gillett, George M.

    Barr, J.

    Compton, Joseph

    Greenall, T.

    Batey, Joseph

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Groves, T.

    Bromley, J.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Guest, J. (York. Hemsworth)

    Buchanan, G.

    Dennison, R.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    816

    817

    Harris, Percy A.

    Murnin, H.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Naylor, T. E.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Hayday, Arthur

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

    Sutton, J. E.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Paling, W.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Potts, John S.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Viant, S. P.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Riley, Ben

    Warne, G. H.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

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

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

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

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

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Westwood, J.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Whiteley, W.

    Kennedy, T.

    Scurr, John

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Lansbury, George

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Lawson, John James

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Lee, F.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Lunn, William

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Windsor, Walter

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

    Snell, Harry

    Mackinder, W.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    March, S.

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    Maxton, James

    Stamford, T. W.

    Hayes.

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

    Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, after the word "shall" to insert the words
    "from the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-five."
    I want to say that anyone who is moving such an Amendment as I am doing this evening must have a real reason for so doing seeing I have already registered my vote against the Clause that we have just been considering. There seems to be, in many directions, complete ambiguity as to the nature of the Clause. I want to register my profound disapproval as the representative of one of the greatest industrial constituencies in the country, because I believe it will inflict extreme hardship.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not go back on the preceding Debate, which dealt with the Clause as a whole The Amendment deals solely with the matter of the date, and the hon. Member must confine his remarks to that point.
    Mr. THOMPSON: I did not know, Sir, whether or not you would allow me to explain—to some extent at any rate—the general reasons for this Amendment. I think, however, as a Division has been taken on the Clause as a whole, that this is an opportune moment for suggesting an extension of the period which is to elapse before the Clause comes into operation. According to the provisions of the Bill, this Clause will come into operation some fourteen days after the passing of the Bill, and that period is inadequate. We should, at least, have
    818
    some extension. It might be urged that the date of coming into operation should be made coincident with the time when the reduction in contributions will have been made. We should remember the extraordinarily critical time through which we are passing. We should remember that possibly at this moment an endeavour is being made to gain an extension of time to carry us over a very critical period, and in such circumstances it is reasonable to ask for an extension of the period before this Clause becomes effective. By 18th December, the date which my Amendment fixes, we shall have had time to consider the position, instead of being precipitated into this situation without any alternative and without any method of safeguarding the interests of those who may be thrown out of employment. I hope the Minister will seriously and carefully consider the Amendment. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to accept the responsibility of causing any undue infliction upon those who are or who may be unemployed, and I ask him to accept what I regard as an entirely reasonable proposal.
    Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do so, in one sense, with mixed feelings, because I have no desire to oppose the Government, but I desire to ask them if even at this moment they cannot see their way to accepting this suggestion. From, the business point of view, this is an Amendment which the Government ought to consider seriously.

    819
    My hon. Friend has pointed out that he has selected December 1st for the Clause to come into operation. Might I remind the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that, if this Amendment were passed, it would not in any way interfere with the Bill; it would merely mean the postponement of the operation of the Clause till December 1st? I am sure there is not a Member of this House who would not agree with me in saying that at the present moment of great industrial unrest nobody can possibly say what the next four months may produce. I know that some hard things have been said of the Prime Minister during this debate. I do not say this simply because I am one of his supporters, but I say without any fear of contradiction that the average man and woman in this country, whether or not they agree with his views, look upon him as a man who is honestly trying to lead us through this industrial trouble, and I think it might contribute towards easing the situation, at any rate, if this Clause were suspended for four months. I know that my right hon. Friend may say that it will cost a certain amount of money, and I am afraid I do not agree with quite all that has been said by the Labour Members to the effect that we can disregard all questions of finance. Of course, we cannot.
    I am not in a position to say how much this Amendment would cost, but I imagine that it would cost practically nothing; I do not suppose it would come to a farthing in the Income Tax. On the other hand, if the Clause were postponed for four months, at any rate the air would be to a certain extent cleared. If trade improves, as we all hope it will improve, and unemployment decreases, it is possible that the Minister in charge of the Bill will be very glad not to have to put the Clause into force. On the other hand, supposing things do not turn out so well as we hope they will, and there is a really serious dislocation in the labour market, I venture to think that some legislation will have to be resorted to, because I am certain that if there is any abnormal degree of unemployment the boards of guardians will not be in a position to meet the stress. May I, in conclusion, point out that this Amendment would not in any degree alter the Bill itself? The only
    820
    thing that it would do would be to allow four months to elapse, during which time we shall hope to be in a better position to judge as to the industrial conditions, because I am quite sure that there is no Member of this House who would like to do anything to cause hardship or injustice towards those men and women who are feeling most acutely the present depressed state of some of the industries of this country.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Amendment has been moved, in most moderate language, asking me if I would accept a date for this particular Clause later than the date of the passage of the Bill into law, and the reasons which have been given have been, first, by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir R. Newman), who seconded the Amendment, that the negotiations that are at present taking place with regard to matters of industrial trouble, and, secondly, by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson), who moved the Amendment, that more notice should be given before new people who are claimants have to undergo a waiting period. I know that the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), my predecessor, is one who does not share my views of careful finance with regard to the Bill. Of course, I may be wrong, but I look to the expenditure that may be caused, and I have to realise that under present conditions the debt on the Bill is likely to be a very serious amount. [An HON. MEMBER: "Be reckless for once."] That is an awful appeal to make to a Scotsman! But if my hon. Friends wish it, I could meet them in this way: that is to allow for some period of notice. I am ready to move an Amendment that the waiting period should be from October instead of from the present date. The reason is this: I do not think anyone can forecast the future and say that any particular date in the near future is likely to be better than another. If hon. Members wish it, I am prepared to move as an Amendment to the hon. Member's Amendment to leave out the word "December" and insert "October." Even so the cost will be over £500,000, and money is not easy to come by at the present moment. But under all the conditions, which I realise as fully as any-

    821
    one, and the troubles at the. present moment, I am wishful not to be unaccommodating.
    Mr. THOMPSON: Possibly I did not make myself clear, but the reason I warned to fix the date as 1st December was that I wanted a period when this House might be reassembling. If the Minister of Labour would meet me with a date that would correspond approximately with the time the House would reassemble so that it can deal with any industrial difficulty that might arise, I should be willing to make it 1st October.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: May I add to the appeal of my hon. Friend that the Minister should make it correspond with the meeting of Parliament? The whole idea of the Amendment is that Parliament should have power to review the matter if it comes into force. We are entering into a critical and possibly dangerous time and for all we know the effect of this Clause may be very bad indeed for the country. It may add to the unrest and discontent, and I do feel very strongly that we should have the power of reviewing this Clause.
    Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: As my name is associated with this Amendment I want to add a few words to what the mover has stated. It was suggested across the House that certain sections of Lancashire will be adversely affected; that engineers, dock workers, and furnace men also are affected. I want to say that for the in-and-out underemployed trades it severely penalises those who are just coming into benefit and soon are out again continuously and who, as a class, will receive some assistance by this Amendment failing the elimination of Clause 3 which many of us desired. I know that the extension to December would be better than October, but, on the other hand if we cannot have December, I, for one, should support November. I do hope the Minister will, at any rate, give us November rather than September or even October.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word
    822
    "December", and to insert in place thereof the word "October."
    If I might say one further word of explanation, I would ask my friends to accept October. I am making this concession to try and show that, if I am asked to do anything when there is a period of great stress, I am willing to try and do it as a temporary measure. But I would point out that if there is acute industrial trouble of course bigger things than this will probably have to go into the melting-pot, and it will be more than likely that this House would have an opportunity of considering this. But I hope that those to whom I am suggesting this will realise that I am doing this so as to give a period of notice, and in order to show that if one be asked to do something in a peculiar time of stress I am not unwilling to try and meet them.
    Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that we are not asking alms of him The charitable note which runs through all his speeches does him credit, but becomes somewhat monotonous. The purpose of the Amendment is to try to secure some sort of Parliamentary control. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to say that Parliament will meet on 1st October, then I think many of the objections would be met. When he said greater things would occur, and that this House would be invited to consider them, was he giving a pledge that the House would meet? [HON. MEMBERS: NO!] Then what is the value of his argument? If it means nothing, and is only just an observation, it has absolutely no relation to the argument, and I would invite the right hon. Gentleman to say if he has the authority of the Patronage Secretary for a promise that Parliament will meet before this new power comes into force. If the right hon. Gentleman will address himself to that, I certainly will support any Amendment which tends to increase Parliamentary control over this power that he proposes to exercise.
    Question put "That the word 'December' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 167.

    Division No. 332.]

    AYES.

    [12.15 a.m.

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

    Harris, Percy A.

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

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

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

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

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

    Hayday, Arthur

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hayes, John Henry

    Scurr, John

    Barr, J.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Batey, Joseph

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Buchanan, G.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Cape, Thomas

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Charleton, H. C.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Cluse, W. S.

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

    Sutton, J. E.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Compton, Joseph

    Kelly, W. T.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Kennedy, T.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Kirkwood, D.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lansbury, George

    Viant, S. P.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Lawson, John James

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lee, F.

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

    Dunnico, H.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lunn, William

    Whiteley, W.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Maxton, James

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Gibbins, Joseph

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

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Gillett, George M.

    Murnin, H.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Greenall, T.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

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

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Paling, W.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Groves, T.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Windsor, Walter

    Grundy, T. W.

    Potts, John S.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Purcell, A. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Mr. Warne and Mr. Barnes.

    Harney, E. A.

    Riley, Ben

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Drewe, C.

    Loder, J. de V.

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lougher, L.

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

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

    Fielden, E. B.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Finburgh, S.

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

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

    Fleming, D. P.

    McLean, Major A.

    Atkinson, C.

    Ford, P. J.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Balniel, Lord

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Ganzoni, sir John

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Beamish, Captain T. P H.

    Gates. Percy

    Merriman, F. B.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Meyer, Sir Frank.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

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

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

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

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

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

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Blundell, F. N.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

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

    Oakley, T.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hanbury, C.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Harney, E. A.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Burman, J. B.

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

    Ramsden, E.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

    Rawson, Alfred Cooper

    Cassels, J. D.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Remer, J. R.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Christie, J. A.

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

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Cooper, A. Duff

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Sandon, Lord

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow).

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

    Lamb, J. Q.

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

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. sir Philip

    Smithers, Waldron

    824

    825

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Spender Clay, Colonel H.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Womersley, W. J.

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

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

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

    Wells, S. R.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    White Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

    Wragg, Herbert

    Storry Doans, R.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Heading)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Major Cope and Captain Margesson.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Word "October" there inserted.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, at the end, to insert the words
    "and as though the following proviso were added:
    Provided that if the continuous period of unemployment is longer than two weeks benefit shall be payable from the commencement."
    The effect of my Amendment is that if an unemployed man or woman is idle for a period of two weeks or more that man or woman shall be entitled to be paid benefit from the first day of unemployment. This is the plan that is followed under the Health Insurance Scheme and in Workmen's Compensation cases. I think there is a good case to be made out for it in this connection. The Minister of Labour earlier in the Debate argued that a man or woman who was dismissed usually had a little surplus and that therefore they did not feel the first six days of unemployment very acutely. That may be true, but may I point out to him while a person who is idle for six days may not be hard hit, yet if a man is idle for 14 days he is beginning to feel the pinch very much, and ought to be paid from the first day of his unemployment. We are putting forward this Amendment in the hope of a compromise. We have made an effort to modify other provisions without success, but we made yet another effort. I suppose we shall be told that it will cost half a million or a million. I am glad to see the Minister of Labour in his place again. I suppose he has got over his job of lecturing the Tory party. No doubt ho will tell us that it will cost half a million pounds. On a previous Amendment he said it would cost that amount, and made the announcement as if it were a great concession. I can tell him that the working classes do not thank him for it. It seems to be a lot of money when
    826
    it has to do with the working classes, but when it comes to building cruisers then 58 millions is not much.
    The reason why we are moving this Amendment is because we think that any person who is idle for 14 days is entitled to have unemployment pay as from the first day. In the days before the War it was common for workmen, particularly in the great industries, to get long periods of work. The moment a man or woman was given work the employer usually kept him for a long time, but nowadays in the shipbuilding and steel industries it is not uncommon, under the combination of employers, for a man to be taken on for a brief spell and then turned off. He may have six or seven weeks' work and then be idle for three weeks. If these men are going to be idle at the end of every six or seven weeks for about three weeks at a time they are going to be extremely hard hit under this Bill. We ask that the Amendment shall be accepted. I know from past experience of the Parliamentary Secretary and his chief that it will not be accepted. I had some experience when sitting with them on the Committee upstairs. I did have some hope of the Parliamentary Secretary that he had a broader mind than his chief, but after some seven or eight days in the Committee I came to the conclusion that if the Minister of Labour is bad the Parliamentary Secretary is no better. I do not expect that the Amendment will be accepted. The Government only accepted the month of October through fear. You will never convince them by argument. The only thing is to drive fear into their hearts. I put forward the Amendment because it will affect my own constituency and the industrial population of the country. I see no reason why it should not be accepted, except the argument that it will cost us half a million of money. And just as they tell us that they cannot find half a million pounds for the working

    827
    people of this country I know that tomorrow or the next day if they wanted them to fight as soldiers they would find ten times the amount. Half a million pounds saved for the working people is not half a milion pounds saved at all. It is stolen from them. It is nothing less than a common theft. In my district, people who do this, sort of thing would be looked upon as thieves: in this House they are elevated to Cabinet rank. We shall persist with the Amendment and record another vote in the Division Lobby against the present Government which will one day tell against them in the country. I content myself on moving it. I hate sob stuff as much as anyone, and I hope the Minister of Labour will at least spare our feelings and refrain from giving us a religious lecture when replying.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I am not going to make an appeal for sympathy to the representative of the Government. I have always said that if the Conservative party were in office and in power that they would take away the little advantages which were given to the unemployed during the short period of office of the Labour Party, and, therefore, I am not disappointed with their action in connection with this Bill. I support the Amendment because it is a final attempt to minimise some of the hardships which this Bill will entail upon the unemployed. This Clause compels an unemployed person to have a six days' waiting period. There is no other Act of Parliament which deals with the relief of poor people that makes them wait six days. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, if a man is injured and is kept from work for some time, he loses three days. If he is off work for a month he gets paid for the full period. If this concession was logical in that connection, surely it is also logical now, and an unemployed man who has been out of work for a fortnight should be entitled to unemployment benefit for the full period instead of being docked these six days. I hope the Amendment will be accepted. It may cost half a million pounds, but a Government that can afford to spend £58,000,000 for building a navy can at least afford to see that the navy when built will be equipped with men;
    828
    though under the conditions now offered by the Government we shall have a C6 population instead of a C3 population. You will destroy the unemployed by the conditions in the Bill, and the Amendment will do something to relieve real suffering which will be placed on the unemployed people of this country.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I hope the hon. Member who moved this Amendment will not think I wish to trouble him or any other Member of the House with a religious lecture. I have never done so yet, and I hope I never shall in this House. At the same time, I must point out to him that it is not the way to encourage people to try and meet them to say that if you do meet them they will not thank you and that any concession is wrung from you by fear. That is not the way to create a conciliatory mood or induce anyone to meet you. In the present case, I am not moved by the hon. Member's unconciliatory manner or by any other reason. I am moved only by the merits of the Amendment; and on its merits I cannot accept it. In many cases in trade union practice you get a waiting period of six days, and that in some cases without any reimbursement afterwards.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Which unions?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will send the hon. Member instances if he desires. I think I quoted them upstairs in Committee.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: No. The right hon. Gentleman did not quote. I waited patiently to see if he did and I am still waiting to hear the statement of any union which does not pay for the six days.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I shall be glad to send the hon. Member instances. May I say that the patience was not all on one side in Committee upstairs. I know that in many cases trade unions have a waiting period, although in most cases the members are recouped afterwards. But there is this further difference between trade union practice and the Bill, that extended benefits under the Bill are given for an indefinite period. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. SHAW: I rise once again to protect against the idea that this is an ordinary

    829
    insurance scheme. We will not agree that it is anything of the kind. I state again definitely on behalf of the party I represent that we look upon this exceptional unemployment as a direct result of the War, for which the whole of the nation is responsible. It is a national responsibility to see that these men and these women are looked after. We cannot accept the suggestion that, because trade union contracts before the War were such-and-such, they should be applied in
    this case. The conditions and responsibilities are quite different. We look upon the responsibility as a national responsibility, and we shall vote for the nation bearing its responsibility, and vote for this Amendment.
    Question put: "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 79; Noes, 150.

    Division No. 333.]

    AYES.

    [12.42 a.m.

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

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Riley, Ben

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

    Harney, E. A.

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

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

    Harris, Percy A.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Scurr, John

    Barnes, A.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Barr, J.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Henderson. T. (Glasgow)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, Ben (Bormondsey, R'hithe)

    Buchanan, G.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Cape, Thomas

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Compton, Joseph

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Crawfurd, H. E.

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

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

    Dalton, Hugh

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Westwood, J.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Whiteley, W.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lansbury, George

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Dunnico, H.

    Lawson, John James

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lunn, William

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Maxton, James

    Windsor, Walter

    Gillett, George M.

    Murnin, H.

    Greenall, T.

    Paling, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Mr. Thomas Kennedy and Mr.

    Groves, T.

    Potts, John S.

    Warne.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Purcell, A. A.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

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

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

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

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

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

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

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

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

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Drewe, C.

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

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Atkinson, C.

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Balniel, Lord

    Fielden, E. B.

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Finburgh, S.

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

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Fleming, D. P.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Ford, P. J.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Boothby, R. J. G.

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

    Loder, J. de V.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Lougher, L.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Burman, J. B.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    McLean, Major A.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Christie, J. A.

    Hanbury, C.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Harland, A.

    Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Cope, Major William

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

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

    Crookshank, Cpt, R. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Neville, R. J.

    Sandon, Lord

    Wallace Captain D. E.

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

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Wells, S. R.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

    Oakley, T.

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

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Smithers, Waldron

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Spender Clay, Colonel H.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Price, Major C. W. M.

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

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Ramsden, E.

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Rawson, Alfred Cooper

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Womersley, W. J.

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

    Storry Deans, R.

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

    Remer, J. R.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Wragg, Herbert

    Ropner, Major L.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Colonel Gibbs and Captain Hacking.

    Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, at the end to insert the words
    "Provided that in the case of a person who has received benefit in respect of a continuous period of unemployment commencing on a date subsequent to the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, benefit for any further period of continuous unemployment shall be payable from the commencement."
    I will content myself with formally moving this Amendment, which seeks to prevent a hardship. I ask the Minister if it is not possible to accept what I propose?
    Mr. MAXTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    When a man has been sentenced to bread and water for a number of days, it is not regarded by the Prison Commissioners as right that he should go through the same thing again. That is the best parallel to what the Minister of Labour is imposing of which I am aware. Two periods of that description should not be imposed on the same man.
    Mr. BETTERTON: I think the House will hardly expect the Government to accept this Amendment, if it realises what it means. It means that any man or woman who has served any waiting period at all since August, 1924, is to be free from such for all time hereafter. The result would, certainly, ultimately be that
    the waiting period would be abolished altogether. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That, no doubt, commends itself to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they could hardly at this stage ask the Government to accept it. The cost would be about £10,000,000 a year. Under these circumstances, if the facts are as stated, the House will realise that it is impossible to accept it.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the Government could not accept the Amendment by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) which relates to any single year. That, I think, is a fair proposition in view of the Prime Minister's statement in reply to the unemployment Debate, when he said that employment is not continuous but a process of intermittent work in which men are out of and in work periodically. It is not right that a man may have in one year to forfeit three, four, five or six weeks, which would be the case under the Act in its present form. The hon. Member might consider the advisability of doing something to improve the position, so that one man shall not be called upon to forfeit so many weeks because of intermittent unemployment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 76; Noes, 139.

    Division No. 334]

    AYES.

    [12.55. a.m.

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

    Cape, Thomas

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

    Charleton, H. C.

    Gillett, George M.

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

    Cluse, W. S.

    Greenall, T.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Compton, Joseph

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Barnes, A.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Groves, T.

    Barr, J.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Grundy, T. W.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Buchanan, G.

    Dunnico, H.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Hayes, John Henry

    Maxton, James

    Taylor, R. A.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Murnin, H.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Paling, W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Hirst, G. H.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Potts, John S.

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

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Westwood, J.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Riley, Ben

    Whiteley, W.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

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

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

    Scurr, John

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Windsor, Walter

    Kennedy, T.

    Siten, Charles H.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Lansbury, George

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    Lawson, John James

    Stephen, Campbell

    Warne.

    Lunn, William

    Sutton, J. E.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Pennefather, Sir John

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

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

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

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

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

    Ramsden, E.

    Atkinson, C.

    Hanbury, C.

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Remer, J. R.

    Balniel, Lord

    Harland, A.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

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

    Sandon, Lord

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

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

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Boothby, R. J. G.

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

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

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

    Smithers, Waldron

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Spender Clay, Colonel H.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Bullock, Captain M.

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

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Burman, J. B.

    Jacob, A. E.

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

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

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

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Christie, J. A.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Storry Deans, R.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Lougher, L.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Lumley, L. R.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

    McLean, Major A.

    Wells, S. R.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Fielden E. B.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Finburgh, S.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Fleming, D. P.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Ford, P. J.

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

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Neville, R. J.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

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

    Oakley, T.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Major Hennessy and Major Cope.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    CLAUSE 4.—(Rates of Contribution.)
    Captain BENN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, after the word "payable," to insert the words "by the employed contributor and."
    This proposes to amend paragraph (d) (3) of Clause 4, which deals with the time when the Insurance Fund has approached more nearly to solvency. It
    834
    is provided in the paragraph that if at any time it appears to the Minister that the amount of the debt on the Fund does not exceed the amount as it exists to-day, he may then make arrangements by Regulations that the amount of contribution payable shall be reduced. That is a very natural and proper thing, and we look forward to the time when it shall be reduced. But the strange

    835
    thing about this provision is that it only allows for a reduction of the contribution by the employer and makes no allowance for a parallel or equal reduction of contribution by the employed per son. I think everyone will agree that, if we come to a time of greater trade, in which the Insurance Fund has been replenished and the debt is not greater than it is to-day, the employers will benefit by the improvement of trade at least as soon as, and probably just before, the workman. That being the case, it seems to me illogical to single out the employer and give the relief of 1d. first to, him and to make no corresponding relief in respect of the contribution by the employed workman. The purpose of the Amendment is that the relief given, when this fund is in this move satisfactory condition, shall be equal as between the two. There is no preference in our Amendment. What is given to the employer on the one hand should be given to the employed person on the other. I think this proposal is just and reasonable and will commend itself to all Members of the House, and I hope the Minister may see his way to accept it.
    Major CRAWFURD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The hon. and gallant Member has explained its meaning and intention, and there is no need for me to say more.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I rise to say that I regret that we cannot accept this Amendment. Neither the Proposer nor the Seconder quite realised the circumstances of the case. The acumen and knowledge of history of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the
    Amendment were not quite so good as on previous occasions. He says both should be treated equally, that employer and employed should be on a parity. That is exactly what it is proposed to do by the Bill and what would not be done by the Amendment. I only ask the House to listen to what has been the actual history and the actual principles of the Bill from the beginning. In the early stages the contributions of employers and employed were the same in the case of men from its inception in 1912 to 1920. The contributions of the two were the same, 2½d. each. After that, when they were raised in 1920, they were again the same, 4d. each. When they were increased in 1921 because of the stress of unemployment, the employers' contribution, in order to try to meet the extra emergency, was increased by 1d. more than was the increase of the contribution of the employed. At the present moment, it is 10d. and 9d., and under the Bill it is still kept at a disparity, 8d. and 7d., and I only remark in passing that this disproportion of 8d. over 7d. is more than 10d. over 9d. The principle has been accepted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that they should revert to being equal again. It is in harmony with the principles of the Bill, and really in harmony with the principles laid down by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that both sides should be treated on a parity and that they should be equal. For that reason, I hope the arrangement in the Bill will be allowed to stand.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 76; Noes, 144.

    Division No. 335.]

    AYES.

    [1.9 a.m.

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

    Gillett, George M.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

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

    Greenall, T.

    Kelly, W. T.

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

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Kennedy, T.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Groves, T.

    Lansbury, George

    Barnes, A.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Lawson, John James

    Barr, J.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Lunn, William

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Harney, E. A.

    Maxton, James

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Murnin, H.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Paling, W.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Cape, Thomas

    Hayes, John Henry

    Potts, John S.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Riley, Ben

    Compton, Joseph

    Hirst, G. H.

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

    Dalton, Hugh

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Scurr, John

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Dunnico, H.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Stephen, Campbell

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

    Windsor, Walter

    Sutton, J. E.

    Westwood, J.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Whiteley, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Sir Godfrey Collins and Major

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Crawfurd.

    Warne, G. H.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

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

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

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

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Ramsden, E.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

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

    Rawson, Alfred Cooper

    Atkinson, C.

    Hanbury, C.

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Remer, J. R.

    Balniel, Lord

    Harland, A.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

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

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

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

    Sandon, Lord

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Blundell, F. N.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

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

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

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

    Smithers, Waldron

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Spender Clay, Colonel H.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Bullock, Captain M.

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

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Burman, J. B.

    Jacob, A. E.

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

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

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

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Christie, J. A.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Storry Deans, R.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Cope, Major William

    Loder, J. de V.

    Sugden, Sir Willfrid

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Lougher, L.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    McLean, Major A.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Wells, S. R.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Finburgh, S.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Fleming, D. P.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Ford, P. J.

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Forestier-Walker, sir L.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Womersley, W. J.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Neville, R. J.

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

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Wragg, Herbert

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

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Oakley, T.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.

    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, at the end, to insert the words
    "An order made under paragraph (a) of this Sub-section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament in the same manner as regulations made under The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, and Sub-section (3) of Section thirty-five of that Act shall apply accordingly."
    I undertook in Committee to bring forward an Amendment in order that this particular Order dealing with contributions should be laid upon the Table of the House. I, therefore, submit this Amendment to the approval of the House. Previously this Clause would
    838
    have left it to my discretion, without bringing it before the House, to say at what period the contributions, as stated in Clause 1, should be ordered. The argument was addressed to me by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) that this should be done by Regulation laid on the Table of the House, in the same way as previous Regulations under Section 35 of the principal Act. I consented to do so, and I promised I would get it into proper wording. I submit it to the House, and hope it may be accepted.
    Mr. STEPHEN: As the Member responsible for getting this concession from the

    839
    Minister, I desire to say I am quite willing to accept the form in which he has put it. I am sorry that the Minister of Labour could not have accepted the same form which appeared on the Amendment Paper earlier in the day dealing with Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the principal Act. I think it would have been much better if he had made the concession earlier, but one has to be thankful for small mercies. I believe the total sum of concessions that have been made to us by the Minister consist in the addition of the word "aforesaid" in another part of the Bill, in the alteration in one place of 1926 to 1927, and the dole that he threw to a member of his own party to-night when he was threatened with revolt.
    I do not really feel thankful to the Minister of Labour. I think the way he has carried through this Measure cannot be satisfactory to those who are opposed to him or to the Members of his own Party who are not very servile adherents. In accepting this Amendment I want to say that I am in thorough agreement with the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) who has not had to suffer as much as we have from the lectures on charity by the Minister of Labour, a quality that he has not practised in this Measure.
    Major CRAWFURD: I only want in a few sentences to enter my protest against the way in which this Amendment has been moved. It would have been much better from all points of view if the Minister had adopted the procedure which Is enshrined in several other Amendments, and explained exactly what is meant by the proposal, instead of pro-
    840
    ceeding by way of legislation by reference It does not make the meaning of the proposal clear.
    Mr. MAXTON: Before the Amendment is put and carried I would like the Minister of Labour to tell us if he can say how much it is likely to cost during the ensuing year?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot give the exact amount, but it will not be considerable.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Bill to be read the Third time tomorrow.
    Captain BENN: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask whether the Question has been put to the House: "That the Bill as amended be reported"?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Fitzroy): There is no Question put.

  COAL INDUSTRY DISPUTE.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will you, Sir, allow me to ask the courtesy of the House to put a question of which I gave notice immediately after Questions today, namely, whether any statement can now be made regarding the position of the industrial dispute that is going on in the coal trade?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): The Prime Minister has instructed me to say that he is not in a position to make any statement to-night on this subject, as he is meeting both parties to the dispute this evening.

  TELEGRAPH [MONEY] BILL.
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half past Eleven o'Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes after One o'Clock a.m., Friday, 31st July.

MALTA.
  KING'S OWN REGIMENT.
  KING'S OWN REGIMENT.
  AIR FORCE MILITIA.
  AIR FORCE MILITIA.
HOUSING.
  FURNISHED LETTINGS.
  FURNISHED LETTINGS.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  TUBERCULOSIS (SPAHLINGER'S TREATMENT).
  TUBERCULOSIS (SPAHLINGER'S TREATMENT).
  SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.
  SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.
  SLAUGHTER-HOUSES.
  SLAUGHTER-HOUSES.
  HEALTH VISITOR, DORSET (ADVERTISEMENT).
  HEALTH VISITOR, DORSET (ADVERTISEMENT).
  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
  BREAD (WRAPPING).
  BREAD (WRAPPING).
  AGED POOR LAW INMATES, WEST HAM.
  AGED POOR LAW INMATES, WEST HAM.
ROYAL NAVY.
  DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS.
  DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS.
  EXPENDITURE (INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON).
  EXPENDITURE (INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON).
EDUCATION.
  SCHOOLS, EAST LONDON (STAFFING).
  SCHOOLS, EAST LONDON (STAFFING).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (MEDICAL TREATMENT).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (MEDICAL TREATMENT).
  SPECIAL SCHOOLS (BLIND AND DEAF CHILDREN).
  SPECIAL SCHOOLS (BLIND AND DEAF CHILDREN).
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS.
  CROWN COLONIES (WIRELESS BROADCASTING).
  CROWN COLONIES (WIRELESS BROADCASTING).
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (LAND SETTLEMENT).
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (LAND SETTLEMENT).
  CIVIL SERVICE, INDIA (PROPORTIONATE PENSIONS).
  CIVIL SERVICE, INDIA (PROPORTIONATE PENSIONS).
CHINA.
  STRIKE, SHANGHAI.
  STRIKE, SHANGHAI.
  DISTURBANCES, HANKOW.
  DISTURBANCES, HANKOW.
  NAVIGABLE WATERS (OIL POLLUTION).
  NAVIGABLE WATERS (OIL POLLUTION).
  MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY.
  MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  DOMINIONS (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
  DOMINIONS (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
  BACON IMPORTS FROM LATVIA.
  BACON IMPORTS FROM LATVIA.
  IRON AND STEEL SHIP-PLATES AND SHEETS (IMPORTS).
  IRON AND STEEL SHIP-PLATES AND SHEETS (IMPORTS).
  COAL EXPORTS.
  COAL EXPORTS.
  HOME-BREWED BEER.
  HOME-BREWED BEER.
  INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.
  INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.
  PENSIONS.
  PENSIONS.
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (STATE PENSIONS).
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (STATE PENSIONS).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (MEDICAL BOARDS).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (MEDICAL BOARDS).
  INSPECTOR OF TAXES, GUILDFORD (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION).
  INSPECTOR OF TAXES, GUILDFORD (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE BUILDINGS.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE BUILDINGS.
  LAW CASES (PRESS REPORTS).
  LAW CASES (PRESS REPORTS).
  INQUESTS (VERDICTS OF MURDER).
  INQUESTS (VERDICTS OF MURDER).
  AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGES.
  AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGES.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED (GRAIN PORTERS, AVONMOUTH).
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED (GRAIN PORTERS, AVONMOUTH).
  GOVERNMENT ARMS FACTORIES (DISCHARGES).
  GOVERNMENT ARMS FACTORIES (DISCHARGES).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BURNLEY CORPORATION BILL.
  BARROW-IN-FURNESS CORPORATION BILL.

    BATH CORPORATION BILL.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
    Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bills.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

BURNLEY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 26:
Amendment of section 64 of Act of 1908.
26. Section 61 (Electrical fittings) of the Act of 1908 shall be read and have effect as if the word "sell" were inserted in sub-clause (1) of that section after the word "provide" where that word first occurs.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 26. The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 26 gives power to the Burnley Corporation to sell electrical fittings. The history of this power is as follows. Up to 1902 there were powers given to various corporations to supply and sell electrical fittings, but after that year, there being a strong feeling against encouraging municipal trading, no further powers were given to sell electrical fittings. Powers were given to supply electrical fittings on hire, because it was stated by the corporation that they were in a better position to let fittings on hire than private contractors, and that it would probably encourage the supply of electricity if they were allowed to let fittings on hire, but the purchase of fittings had to be made through a contractor.
In 1912 this House adopted what is known as the House of Lords Model Clause, whereby any such sales or work required on consumers' premises have to be carried out through an electrical contractor. In 1919, by arrangement with the Electricity Commissioners and supply authorities, Section 23 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, was agreed to, which gave local authorities power to provide and let for hire, repair and maintain electrical fittings, but prohibited them from selling the same unless expressly authorised by their special Act or Order. This section was adopted by both Houses of Parliament as the model for local legislation and it took the place of the model clause of the Act of 1912. Under this Bill the Select Committee have practically turned down this clause and given power to the Burnley Corporation to sell electrical fittings. Last year a Select Committee of your Lordship's House deleted a similar clause in the Wakefield Corporation Bill, and if this clause is allowed to remain in this Bill the action of your Committee of last year will be reversed. I do not think it is to the advantage of the trade of the country, which cannot be said to be in a prosperous condition at the present moment, in one year to protect electrical contractors and then in the next year to allow them to be over-ridden by municipal corporations.
The Conservative Party, including, I think, the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, has always opposed to the utmost of its ability municipal trading, and as this is a case of municipal trading and not only that, but a reversal of the decision of your Lordships' House last year, I hope you will confirm the decision at which you arrived a year ago.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, lines 26 to 29, leave out Clause 26.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, as the Chairman of the Committee which unanimously gave the power sought for in this Bill I hope your Lordships will allow me to give you some of our reasons for so doing. The Burnley Corporation, in fact, only ask for the same powers to be given to them as are given already to some eighty other local authorities. What is the position? I do not think Lord Banbury of Southam is quite correct as regards the model clause. He talked about
576
it as though it had been turned down by the Committee. The model clause, for all practical purposes, does not exist at the moment. I will tell you what the position is. The model clause came into effect in 1912 and remained in force until 1919. It gave power to the corporations to sell, hire and repair, but not to wire. Up to 1919 that was the state of the law. It was rather a curious position. What happened after that? An alteration was made, although I ought to say that under the model clause, while there was no power to wire, yet there was power allowing a corporation to call in a middle-man, a contractor, and he only had the power of carrying out the work of wiring premises.
We all know that the middleman is rather expensive if you cannot do any work direct. It is hard on the corporation. The corporation had to pay the bill sent in by the contractor and then recover the money from the occupier after the wiring had been done. It was found that the model clause was not workable, was not desirable, and, perhaps, there was also an idea that we should make progress in this matter. I know the noble Lord does not like progress, but in 1919 the Electricity Act gave power to let for hire, repair and maintain and supply motive power. There was no power to sell, except when so authorised by a special Act or Order. It is obvious from that that the model clause was not working well and power was therefore given by Act or Order under that Act in particular eases to sell and manufacture. In this case they are not asking for power to manufacture; they are only asking for power to sell.
Obviously the Act of 1919 went a little further than the model clause. It enables a Committee of your Lordships' House to give this power to sell to a corporation. I can imagine that there may be cases where municipalities are extravagant, do their work badly, where they are in debt, and power would not be given. It is right that there should be discretionary powers, but in this case the Committee was unanimous in considering that the Corporation of Burnley had carried out their electricity powers very well indeed. Their rates were low as compared with many other boroughs and they were conducting the work very efficiently. The Burnley Corporation also own their

577
own gas and water supply and it was shown that the municipality of Burnley consisted of good business men, capable of carrying on the work of the corporation and of being entrusted with further powers, such as the hiring and selling of electric wiring and fittings.
As regards gas and water Parliament has entrusted the municipalities in all these cases with absolute rights. There are no restrictions at all. The municipality often find it useful in the case of people who are not too will off, not only to have power to sell but to have power to sell on the deferred payment system. That is a common system throughout the country. Your Lordships' House have, indeed, gone a step further. In the case of Wakefield and Stoke-on-Trent you have allowed the corporations to hire the wire and fittings to the occupier of the house, and if there is a. change of occupier then the incoming occupier is allowed to buy the fittings and wiring. As a matter of fact, this power is not largely exercised. It is almost a dead letter, and there is no advantage to be gained from the cases of Wakefield and Stoke-on-Trent. This seems to me very desirable in the case of small houses. We all agree as regards the value of electricity. It is not merely a luxury, but in many cases a necessity, and there is no reason why members of the professional class, clerks and so on, as well as working men, should not enjoy the advantage of a supply. I have in my hand figures which show what is happening in the case of Burnley, where the approximate cost of wiring and fitting house of the rateable value of £15 a year is £12, while in the case of a house of the rateable value of £50 a year the cost is £60. A man might be very desirous of having electric light, but he might not be prepared to pay £60 down for it. On the other hand, if he is able to pay by means of deferred payments, he will do so if he desires the benefit of electric light.
Apart from the question of domestic lighting, I am informed that in many cases there is a great demand from people who want to have motive power. I am told that the cost of motors of one-half horse-power is from £9 to £13, and in the case of motors of ten horse-power the cost is from £32 to £40. Here, again, it seems very desirable that these small
578
men should have an opportunity of paying by means of deferred payments when they need motive power to carry on some small industry and cannot afford to pay a lump sum. As regards the question of small houses, I think that the evidence that was given in this connection with regard to Burnley was rather interesting. It was then stated that mains had been laid along certain roads upon which 3,369 houses abutted, but only 1,060 houses were connected with the mains. Many persons not so connected were anxious to be connected and to take a supply of electricity if the difficulty with regard to wiring and fittings could be removed. That, I think, is very natural.
In the case of Barrow I will quote certain figures which, though not actually connected with this Bill, are very interesting. Evidence was given that in Barrow, out of 10,000 houses of a rateable value of less than £16, only some two or three thousand were supplied with electricity. The owners of many of the houses that were not supplied were anxious to have a supply, but could not afford to wire their premises under existing conditions. It will be seen, therefore, that there is a real demand for electricity in working-class houses, even of the rateable value of £16, as is shown by the fact that out of 10,000 houses some two or three thousand have it already, and the same facilities are desired in a very large number. I am sure that your Lordships would do anything that you possibly could to increase the comfort of working, men living in Burnley or in any other large town.
I cannot help feeling in this connection that since, in tin case of gas and water undertakings, it has been thought by Parliament that there should be no restrictions, electricity, which is even more useful than gas in some cases, should be at least upon an equality with it, and there is no reason why exactly the same powers should not be given to corporations in this respect as they have in regard to gas and water. I know that this was, generally speaking, the feeling of my Committee. The expansion of electricity means a cheaper light and power and, in addition, the greater the supply of electricity the greater the demand for fittings, lamps and so on. This, in its turn, means that you get that increase in employment that we are all so anxious at the present

579
moment to facilitate in every possible way.
Let me say, since a reference has been made to municipal trading, that when I went on that Committee I was, if anything, opposed to anything of the kind, but although I was somewhat prejudiced in that respect it was my duty, as a member of the Committee, to put aside any feelings that I might have in that regard and to look upon the question in a judicial frame of mind. There was no kind of prejudice in this matter, and whatever feelings we may have had were not allowed to influence us. I hope that your Lordships will allow this Bill and the other two Bills to go forward in order to give a great boon for the inhabitants of these boroughs.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, in addition to what my noble friend has said there are one or two other considerations which are material. In the first place, this is a power already possessed by a large number of municipal corporations; and in the second place, it is not a. question which raises the issue of municipal trading. The Government, as is well known, are favourable to affording the country a supply of electricity. If that is done it means putting at the disposal of the municipal authorities and of other bodies much of the control of electrical power. I know from the newspapers and from what has been stated that the proposals of the Government extend to three heads:—(1), the securing of sufficient generation of electricity; (2), the distribution of the electricity so generated all over the country; and (3), the putting of the local bodies, municipal corporations and other authorities in a position to make the power, which for the first time comes into their hands in an adequate form, available to the public within their area.
That being so, it obviously involves a great deal more than exists at the present time. It is all very fine to talk of private people. Private people, no doubt, will come in whenever there is anything that is very profitable. They will come in in the future just as in the past, and if they can supply more cheaply than the municipal authorities then they will get the market. If they cannot, then the public ought not to be deprived of the power which is proposed to be given merely be-
580
cause the private contractors cannot supply as cheaply as the municipal authority. If that is so, it seems to me that there is ample reason for supporting the decision of two Committees, one of which was a Committee of the other House which has investigated this matter and reported in favour of this Bill and the other a Committee of your Lordships' House which has also looked into it and reported in its favour.
This power has been given as regards gas and water fittings and, for the life of me, I cannot understand what metaphysical distinction the noble Lord opposite, who is not given to metaphysics, draws between electricity and gas and water. If we are really to have a, great advance of productive power in this country we require electricity, not only for domestic consumption but for the small manufacturers, and if the latter have it in a satisfactory fashion they must be able to buy from the local authorities which have been entrusted with the power of distribution of such fittings as are required to make this source of power effective. I cannot conceive that your Lordships would throw out a proposition which is not only in accordance with the necessities of the time but is in accordance, in principle, with the proposals which the Government have put before us. These, no doubt, will have to be discussed by Parliament next Session, but they are proposals which, at any rate up to now, have been welcomed with a good deal of public assent because they make for our greater efficiency as a nation and because they supply a, want which we are deeply feeling at this moment.
THE MARQUESS OF BATH: My Lords, although I have a good deal of sympathy, as I expect have a good many others, with the main principle on which my noble friend has founded his Amendment, I confess that I cannot myself ignore what I believe to be the unanimous recommendations and opinions of the Committee of Parliament to whom these three Bills—because I understand the same Amendment applies to all three—was referred. I only venture to occupy your atention for a few moments because I think there is an important point involved. Some mention has been made, both by my noble friend and by the noble Lord opposite, of a Bill that was before a Committee of this House last year and

581
which was amended by that Committee, of which I was one of file members. I only allude to it to say this, that I have since heard, quite informally, that the clause which we put in, or the Amendment which we made to that clause, has since proved to be quite unworkable.
The fact is, as the noble Lord, who I think was Chairman of the Committee, has stated, that the Act of 1919 entirely superseded the model clause. Before that, Committees had something on which to work. They have now the provisions of an Act which I trust I am not transgressing the rules of the House if I venture to suggest certainly bear more than one-interpretation. I only rise really for the purpose of expressing the earnest hope that a model clause or model clauses may be framed on the new Act. I am sure every member of the House who has served on Committees will agree with me that the model clauses are of inestimable value to us when, in Committee, we have to deal with points raised by learned Counsel who represent the parties. We have something to work on. At present we have only the somewhat doubtful clauses of an Act of Parliament, and I venture very humbly to make this suggestion. I hope also that those clauses may give some directions which will ensure the safety of the installations in these small houses.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, my noble friend who has just sat down has, I think, dealt a little harshly with his own measure. He has alluded to a clause arrived at last year after a great deal of Parliamentary discussion and inserted in a Bill of last year dealing with this subject. My noble friend has described that clause as unworkable. I do not think it goes quite so far as that, but it certainly is not applicable to the difficulties as we now understand them, and for this reason these proposals come before your Lordships this afternoon. As my noble friend has mentioned, the same point arises in all three Bills and no doubt it will be in accordance with your Lordships' convenience that we should continue the discussion of the three Bills together on the one point.
Your Lordships have already realised from the debate that the point is one of considerable importance, and it is one that has an important Parliamentary
582
history. As Lord Strachie reminded us, in the early days seventy or eighty municipal authorities were given power to sell electric fittings. Then their opponents got active and there were proceedings in Paliament and in the Courts, with the result that the model clause of 1912 was drawn up—the model clause of your Lordships' House which forbade any sale of these fittings save through a contractor. The policy of your Lordships was then consistent. We insisted upon that model clause in the House and I insisted upon it very much more elsewhere in private interviews when considering proposals. There were a substantial number of applications during the period from 1912 to 1919 to depart from that model clause but, except in one very special case, I do not think we ever did depart from it.
But a new situation has been created by the Act of 1919, and we are all responsible for it. Lord Bath was rather diffident about criticising the Act of 1919. We have all been taught that fools sometimes rush in where angels fear to tread, and I am not going to hesitate to criticise as sharply as I can the Act of 1919. The clause was said to be the result of agreement, but there is complete disagreement as to what the clause means. It is Clause 23 and it enacts that
"a joint electricity authority and any local authority authorised by special Act or by Order to supply electricity may provide, let for hire and in respect thereof may connect, repair, maintain and remove (but shall not, unless expressly authorised to do so by the special Act or Order, manufacture or sell) electric lilies, fittings, apparatus and appliances …"
The electrical contractors construe that clause as meaning that all authorities who had obtained authority before 1919 to sell fittings should continue to sell them and no more should be authorised to sell them. On The other hand, the municipal authorities construe it to mean that they may not do so unless they are able to persuade Parliament in special cases to permit them to do so.
That, I think, is the attitude taken by the Ministry of Transport and the Electricity Commissioners, because I see that in the course of proceedings in another place a gentleman who represented the Ministry of Transport said the intention of the Ministry was merely to draw attention to the existing state of the law and to leave it to the Committee,

583
having heard the evidence, to decide whether the corporation in question should have extended powers or not. Hence come these applications. They came before me in the normal course, and my first instinct, I confess, was to insist that the practice of 1912 to 1919 should be maintained, but after some hesitation I thought it would not be unreasonable that further inquiry should take place. Therefore, these three Bills were referred to the Committee already mentioned.
May I say, in passing, that I am never nervous when I refer any subject to a Committee of this House because I have complete confidence in their decisions, but if ever I did feel hesitation this is one of the last Committees as to which I should feel hesitation. The Committee consisted of five members of this House, all energetic in assisting me in Committee matters, and three members have had great experience in the Chair on Committees. I have read the proceedings before the Committee from beginning to end and I entirely agree with their unanimous conclusion. Whilst I hope that my noble friend behind me will not force the matter to a Division, if he does I shall vote with the members of the Committees in favour of maintaining the Bill as now printed.
I am much struck by two facts in the proceedings which, to me, are new facts. First of all, there is the fact, already mentioned by Lord Strachie, that without some system of hire purchase or deferred payments, small value houses cannot get electric facilities as quickly as they should. The occupiers cannot afford the initial lump sum to instal, and this has undoubtedly delayed expansion in parts of England. It is quite true, I think, that contractors might have organised some system of hire purchase or deferred payments if they had wished to do so, but there is at any rate no evidence before us now that they have done so.
On the other hand, I am impressed with another fact which is also a new one to me. Parliament has allowed these authorities hitherto to hire out machines, but we are dealing with human nature and the evidence is that it often happens that somebody who has been hiring a machine comes to the authority from whom he is hiring it and says: "I am
584
quite satisfied with this machine. I do not want to hire it any longer; I would like to buy it from you." These municipal authorities who supply electricity cannot sell him that machine and your Lordships will see what will at once happen. The occupier says: "Take your machine back. I will hire it no longer. I will buy one from somebody else." Your Lordships will see the result on the electrical authority: they get left with these machines, which they cannot sell. They are what is familiarly known in the army as "half-worn" and, as such, are completely wasted from the owner's, that is to say the municipal authority's, point of view. That is an unbusinesslike proceeding and it is a second reason which makes me realise that the position has so altered that we are justified, I think, in allowing both Burnley and Barrow these powers, whatever may be the result in the future on general legislation.
Before I sit down I should like to express my anxiety on the greater point. You have now in the country, mainly, three systems under which the municipal authorities supply electricity. You have some with full power to sell fittings; you have some with no power to sell fittings; you still have some, of course, with the power to sell but solely through the contractor. All these three systems cannot each be the best possible system, and I suggest that the best possible system is the only one that we ought to contemplate in encouraging the expansion of the electrical industry in this country, which we know we are only just beginning to see. I would therefore make this appeal to the Government, without asking, of course, that I should receive an answer to-day. I would ask them to consider whether, this autumn or next year, some inquiry cannot be set up as was set up in 1912 to settle this matter once and for all. In 1912 it was a Joint Committee of the two Houses. I am, of course, indifferent as to what form the inquiry takes now.
My noble friend Lord Bath asks that a model clause should be drawn up. That is, of course, the ideal that I hope such an inquiry would have in view. Otherwise I can foresee endless Parliamentary fights. Every municipal authority which has not got these powers, encouraged by the Act of 1919, will come to Parliament and ask for these powers. We shall therefore have a great waste of Parliamentary time and

585
public money in settling a matter that ought to be settled once and for all. It was practically settled from 1912 to 1919. It is now unsettled and we are all to blame. I hope that we may all be given the opportunity of putting the position on a more businesslike and permanent basis which will be of value to the electrical industry throughout the country.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: After the speech of the noble Earl it is evident that it would be useless to press this matter to a Division, but I will not withdraw; I prefer to have the Amendment negatived. May I say that this is only one instance of how foolish it is ever to give way on anything? Once you begin to give way you open the door and somebody comes in and says: "If you have done that, now you must do something else."
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I have listened with the attention which is due to his great authority to the observations of the Lord Chairman and I will take care that his suggestion is transmitted to the proper quarters in the Government.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

BARROW-IN-FURNESS CORPORATION BILL.
Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I have an Amendment to this Bill but it was not quite in the proper form when the Order Paper was printed. In order to regularise the matter—it is not a question of controversy—I think it would be better not to take it to-night. On the other hand, if I move now that the Bill be passed it will be too late to move an Amendment to-morrow so I will move to put the question that the Amendment be agreed to and I will ask your Lordships to adjourn the debate on the question till to-morrow. By that time everything will be in order. The Amendment is not on the Paper. It is an Amendment dealing with a clause which has to do with camping. It has nothing whatever to do with what we have been
586
discussing. It is not printed; it is not the kind of Amendment which is printed. As your Lordships know, formal Amendments on the Third Reading of Private Bills are not printed, but I can guarantee that it will be made on the proper copy.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot put the Question without knowing to what clause this is an Amendment.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I think we had better postpone the further stages of the Bill until to-morrow.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is what I should like to do, but there is no Motion before the. House.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: If I may risk the censure of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, I would move that the further proceedings on this Bill be now postponed. I understand that this is a Motion which has never been made before.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not see why it should not be made.
Moved, That the further proceedings on the Bill be postponed. (The Earl of Dononghmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

BATH CORPORATION BILL.
Bill read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
LEICESTER FIRE BRIGADE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
SALFORD PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LAND DRAINAGE (OUSE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Short Title, construction and commencement.
1.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Public Health Act, 1925.
(5) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-five.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-five" and insert "expiration of one month after the passing thereof." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the first Amendment standing in my name is practically drafting. It is merely a precaution in case, through some accident, the Bill does not pass in this portion of the Session and your Lordships do not meet until October. It provides that the Bill shall come into operation a month after its passing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 3 and 4, leave out ("first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-five") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Emmott.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Application of Parts II to V in rural districts.
4.—(1) A rural district council may adopt all or any of the provisions of Parts II, III and IV of this Act, except the sections in Parts II and III of this Act which are mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act.
(2) The Minister of Health may by order apply to any rural district, or contributory place therein, any provision in Parts II to
588
V of this Act, in the same manner as provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, which apply to urban districts, may be applied to rural districts, or contributory places therein, and Section two hundred and seventy-six of that Act shall be extended accordingly:
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT moved, in subsection (2), after "Parts II to V," to insert "or Part VIII." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is also a drafting Amendment. Originally there were no restrictions in Part VIII of the Bill, but as the Bill now stands Clauses 82 and 84 have effect in urban districts and are now in Part VIII of the Bill. It is necessary, therefore, to put those words in. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, after ("V") insert ("or Part VIII").—(Lord Emmott.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I desire to move in subsection (2), after "Act," where that word first occurs, to insert "except as otherwise provided in the Second Schedule of this Act." My reason for doing that is partly to obtain the opinion of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack upon a legal question. Subsection (2) of Clause 4 enacts that the Minister of Health may by order apply to any rural district, or contributory place, any provision in Parts II to V of the Bill. Then if your Lordships will turn to the Second Schedule, you will see it is headed: "Provisions in Parts II and III of this Act which cannot be adopted by a rural district council."
EARL RUSSELL: On a point of Order, is this Amendment printed on the Paper?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: No.
EARL RUSSELL: That being so, can it properly be taken at this stage? I submit it is out of order.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I handed it in to the Lord Chancellor and he has agreed. If it is out of order, that is another matter. I only know the procedure in another place, where it would be in order.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): The proper course for my noble friend to pursue is to put the Amendment down for the next stage. I really do not think it is needed and I hope I may be able to persuade the noble Lord of that.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I understand that I am to put it down for the Third Reading of the Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Unless I can persuade the noble Lord otherwise.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Then I will do that.
Clause 13 [Street bins]:
LORD EMMOTT: The Amendment to this clause is drafting, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 27, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").—(Lord Emmott.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14:
Public drinking fountains, seats, &c. in streets.
14. The local authority may, in proper and convenient situations in any street or public place, erect and maintain seats and drinking fountains for the use of the public and troughs for watering horses or cattle.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT moved, after "authority," to insert "and any person with their consent and subject to such conditions as they may impose." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to meet a useful suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort. It has the object of giving encouragement to people to give drinking fountains and to allow the local authority to accept them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 31, after ("authority") insert the said words.—(Lord Emmott.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17:
Notice to urban authority before street is named.
(3) It shall not be lawful to set up in any street an inscription of the name thereof—

(a) until the expiration of one month after notice of the proposed name has been sent to the urban authority under this section; and

590

(b) where the urban authority have objected to the proposed name, unless and until such objection has been overruled on appeal;

and any person acting in contravention of this provision shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds and to a daily penalty not exceeding twenty shillings.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved, in subsection (3) (b), after "been", to insert "withdrawn by the urban authority or". The noble Earl said: My Lords, I need not assure my noble friend that if he objects to any of the three or four Amendments I am moving to the Bill I will not press them. I think they are improvements. The Amendment to Clause 17, for instance, deals with the proposed system under which a street can be named. The noble Lord and I have discussed this matter. I do not know whether your Lordships would desire that I should explain it in detail. If there is no objection to it, and as I understand my noble friend agrees, I will formally move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 33, after ("been") insert ("withdrawn by the urban authority or").—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19:
Indication of name of street.
(2) If any person destroys, pulls down or defaces any inscription of the name of a street which has lawfully been set up, or sets up in any street any name different from the name lawfully given to the street, or places or affixes any notice or advertisement within twelve inches of any name of a street marked on a house, building, or erection in pursuance of this section, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds and to a daily penalty not exceeding twenty shillings.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "or defaces" and insert "defaces or permits to be obscured." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment has reference to the same point. It deals with the desirability of securing that when a street is named, the name shall be legible. It does not go further than that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved
Page 7, line 29, leave out ("or defaces") and insert ("defaces or permits to be obscured").—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not object to the end which my noble friend has in view, but I question a little whether the words "be obscured" do not got a great deal too far. I imagine that what he is desirous of stopping is the case of a householder allowing a street name to be defaced, say, by a growing creeper or something of that kind. I am afraid in the towns in which we live, not only in London but elsewhere, the name of a street is very often obscured by smoke. Does my noble friend intend to make a house-holder responsible for that? It seems to me to be a little doubtful, and unless my noble friend is quite sure I should have thought the words "be obscured" went much too far.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It is "permits to be obscured."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes; so that if the householder allows smoke to come against his wall he will permit the name to be obscured. I should have thought it was rather doubtful. Your Lordships will remember that this Bill is rather drastic in certain respects and it is better that we should not increase its character in that particular unless we are sure.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, if there is the smallest objection to this Amendment in any part of the House I will not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved, after Clause 23, to insert the following new clause:—
Application of certain sections to main roads.
". The powers conferred on the urban authority or the local authority by the following sections of this Act (that is to say):—
22. (For preventing soil, etc., from being washed into streets);
23. (Lopping of trees overhanging highways);
may as from the date when the same come into operation in any district be exercised by the county council instead of by the urban authority or the local authority (as the case may be) as respects any main road maintained by the county council, and in relation to any such main road the powers of the said sections shall have effect with the substitution of the county council for the urban authority or the local authority (as the case may be).''
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this new clause is to provide that the authority which exercises certain powers under Clauses 22 and 23 of this Bill shall be the same authority as has the control and the management of those roads to which these particular powers apply. Clause 22 of the Bill is for the purpose of preventing soil, etc., being washed into the streets. This applies mainly, I think, to urban districts, but there are inside those urban districts a good many cases where the urban district council has not retained the management of the roads under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1888, and the county council itself manages and repairs those roads. I think in those cases it would be right that the county council, which manages the roads, should have the power of preventing the soil being washed upon them. As regards Clause 23, dealing with the lopping of trees overhanging highways, the same argument applies—namely, that the county council, being generally the authority for the maintenance of the main roads, should have the power of lopping the trees on the roadside. Your Lordships will, no doubt, be aware that there is nothing in this proposal to increase any of the powers under the Bill. It is just a question as to which is the proper authority for carrying them out, and I suggest to your Lordships that the proper authority is the council which has control over the roads.
The principle has been admitted in this Bill under a later clause for, of course, the true purpose under Clause 33 is stated in the marginal note: "Power to prescribe improvement line for widening streets." Under that clause the power is given to the local authority, but in the following clause there is a provision that the powers conferred upon the local authority by the preceding clause may be exercised by the county council as respects any main road maintained by the county council. That is really an exactly similar clause to the one which I desire to insert. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 34, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Clinton.)
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I do not know what advice His Majesty's Government may give to the House as regards this matter, but so far as those whom I represent here are concerned there would

593
be a very serious difficulty in agreeing to part of this Amendment, the part connected with Clause 22. When the Bill was in Committee in another place the promoters and the Ministry of Health agreed with the Central Landowners' Association that this clause should be included both in the First and Second Schedules to the Bill, with the result that it would not be adopted by an urban authority for a district of less than 20,000 population unless the consent of the Ministry of Health was obtained and that it could not be adopted by the rural district, and therefore must, be put in force in a rural district by an Order of the Minister.
The proviso to subsection (2) of Clause 2 enacts that where powers are conferred on a county council by any clause in Part II those powers may be exercised by the council without an adoption by them of the provisions of that clause. The noble Lord's Amendment would, therefore, put in force in the whole of England and Wales without adoption the provisions of Clause. 22 in so far as the clause applies to a main road maintained by a county council. This would be a breach of the arrangements made with the Central Landowners' Association, and I venture to suggest in those circumstances that it would not be wise on our part to accept that part of the Amendment at this stage. The objection of the Landowners' Association to the general operation of Clause 22 was that it would prove onerous to owners in rural areas and it was for this reason that the necessity for consent by the Minister was interposed if the necessity for adoption were removed.
As regards main roads the clause would automatically apply to the most important of the highways in urban and rural districts. With respect to the other part of the Amendment, so far as I am concerned and those whom I represent, we have no objection at all, but to accept that without the other would mean redrafting, and if your Lordships should, as I hope, take my view of the matter, I can suggest an Amendment that I think would meet the case instead of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has
594
asked what the opinion of the Government is upon this clause. I may say, for my own part, that in substance I agree with the argument which was put before us by my noble friend behind me (Lord Clinton)—that is to say, I see no reason in the world why county council roads should not be protected just as any other road is protected, and the county council authority in respect of those roads protected. But what the noble Lord opposite has suggested is perfectly true, that that cannot be done merely by an Amendment to this clause. It would want a very extensive amendment to Clause 2 of the Bill, and the question therefore arises whether my noble friend behind me thinks the matter of sufficient importance to press it any further. I could imagine that, though it is reasonable on the face of it, it is not a matter of very great importance so far as the rural districts of this country are concerned. If he thought it of importance, of course he would have to reserve himself, if I may venture to say so, for the Third Reading of the Bill, in order to insert the necessary Amendment in the second clause leading up to this Amendment here. I should hardly think that it is worth his while at the present time so far as the present stage is concerned.
There is no objection whatever on behalf of the Government, any more than on the part of the noble Lord opposite, to the second part of my noble friend's Amendment. As regards the lopping of trees, we are quite content to accept the noble Lord's Amendment as it stands. I think my noble friend opposite is right that a very small change in the drafting of this Amendment, as it stands, could be made to the Clause 22 part of it, and that would leave only the Clause 23 part of it. I should rather suggest that, at any rate at the present stage, my noble friend behind me should adopt the course suggested by the noble Lord opposite and between now and Third Reading he could consider whether it was necessary to draft the substantive Amendment to Clause 2 which would be necessary as enabling him to deal with Clause 22.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I admit that I am somewhat seriously alarmed at the awful power that, according to the noble Lord opposite, I have let loose upon the whole of the Kingdom by proposing a very innocent Amendment, and I

595
am rather hastily going to run away from it. But with regard to the second part—that is the Amendment applying my new clause to Clause 23—I understand that nobody has raised any serious objection to it and that no awful results are likely to occur if the clause remains in the Bill. If that is the case I am willing to adopt my drafting or any other that carries out the same object that the noble Marquess would like to suggest.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps the noble Lord opposite would suggest. a form for the Amendment?
LORD EMMOTT: If the noble Lord would look at the Bill at Clause 23, page 9, line 30, he will see that he might add as a new subsection the following:—
"(2) The powers conferred on the local authority by this section shall, as respects any main road maintained by a county council, be exercised by the county council instead of by the local authority, and any expenses incurred by a county council under this section shall be defrayed as expenses for general county purposes."
There would have to be an additional Amendment in page 9, line 32, after "authority," to insert "or county council." I will give the noble Lord a copy of that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I suggest that my noble friend had better move it on Third Reading as it is rather an extensive change. Your Lordships have an objection to passing words which you imperfectly understand, but, of course, if the House has no objection to accepting the Amendment now there is no reason why it should not be inserted.
LORD EMMOTT: I think it would be more convenient to insert it now.
LORD CLINTON: I raise no objection to that. Would it not be more convenient if I withdraw my Amendment altogether and then Lord Emmott can move his Amendments instead?
On Question, Amendment withdrawn.
LORD EMMOTT: I beg to move the Amendments which I have already read to the House.
Amendments moved—
Clause 23, page 9, line 30, at end insert the following new subsection:—
("(2) The powers conferred on the local authority by this section shall as respects any main road maintained by a county
596
council be exercised by the county council instead of by the local authority, and any expenses incurred by a county council under this section shall be defrayed as expenses for general county purposes.")
clause 23, page 9, line 32, after ("authority'') insert ("or county council").—(Lord Emmott.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Russell, if this is in order.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not know that I am the champion of order in this House, but this is merely an Amendment to an Amendment which is on the Paper.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, might I intervene for a moment It is rather important that your Lordships should arrive at a conclusion as to what may be done on Report stage. I think I am only stating what is right when I say that there is no objection, so far as rules of order are concerned, to moving Amendments on Report stage without Notice. That is perfectly in order, though it is not always a convenient course, for obvious reasons. It differs altogether from the rule as regards Third Reading. In respect of Third Readings it is distinctly contrary to the practice of the House to move Amendments of which Notice has not been given, and I hope your Lordships will be careful to maintain that rule. I am glad to see the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, in his place, and I hope he will confirm what I say. I have seen the greatest inconvenience arise from any relaxation of this rule in regard to Third Reading. It is often convenient on Report stage to move Amendments without Notice, and I think I am right in saying that it is not out of order in the least; but I think it is a course that should be adopted very sparingly and only as far as it suits the convenience of the House.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I think the noble Marquess is perfectly correct in stating what is the rule of order in regard to this matter, and I join with him in deprecating the moving of Amendments which are not on the Paper. There are occasions, such as he referred to, of an Amendment being moved to an Amendment already on the Paper, such as we have just had; and that stands in a different category. An

597
Amendment to an Amendment on the Paper is generally easy enough for your Lordships to follow, but it is out of order to move Amendments on Third Reading without Notice, and much wiser in my view that they should not be moved without Notice on Third Reading or on Report stage. Every Amendment should always be on the Paper. In this House we can, happily, move Amendments as late as Third Reading, if they are printed.
Clause 27:
Power to grant licences for bridges over streets.
27.—(1) The local authority may grant to the owner or occupier of any premises abutting upon any street a licence to construct and use a way by means of a bridge over that street for such period and on such terms and conditions as to the local authority may seem fit:
Provided that—
(d) Section seven of the Telegraph Act, 1878, shall apply to any works authorised or required by a licence under this section as if such works were authorised by a special Act of Parliament, and for the purposes of the placing or maintenance of overground telegraphic lines under the powers conferred by the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1924, any such bridge shall be deemed part of the street or road which it crosses.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name is purely drafting. It is the form preferred by the General Post Office. But it should read "the Telegraphic Acts, 1863 to 1924," and I will move it in that amended form.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 32, leave out proviso ("(d)") and insert:
("(d) For the purposes of Section seven of the Telegraph Act, 1878, any work authorised or required by a licence under this section shall be deemed to be work done in the execution of an undertaking authorised by an Act of Parliament, and for the purposes of the placing or maintenance of overground telegraph lines under the powers conferred by the Telegraphic Acts, 1863 to 1924, a bridge constructed or used in accordance with a licence under this section shall be deemed to be part of any sreet or road which it crosses.")—(Lord Emmott.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33:
Power to prescribe improvement line for widening streets.
33.— (1) Where in the opinion of the local authority—

(a) any street repairable by the inhabitants at large is narrow or inconvenient, or without any sufficiently regular boundary line; or

(b) it is necessary or desirable that such street shall be widened;

the local authority may prescribe in relation to either side of the street, or at or within a distance of fifteen yards from any street corner, the line to which the street shall be widened (in this section called "the improvement line").
(4) The local authority shall consider any objection made to a proposed improvement line, and not less than six weeks after the date on which notice of the deposit of the improvement plan was given to owners and occupiers, the authority may by resolution prescribe an improvement line, and any line so prescribed shall operate as the improvement line for the purposes of this section.
(9) Until any laud purchased under the preceding subsection is added to the street, the occupier of the land from which it is severed, and other persons with his permission, shall be entitled to reasonable access across the land so purchased to and from the street, and shall have the same rights in regard to the laying, altering, maintaining, repairing and renewing of drains, mains, pipes or electric lines in such land as if the same were part of the street.
(11) In the assessment of compensation for a compulsory acquisition of land, in relation to which an improvement line has been prescribed under this section, regard shall be had to any compensation which may have been paid to any person in respect of the injurious affection of that land.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, the first Amendment in my name to this clause is purely drafting and is designed to bring it into the form preferred by His Majesty's Government. It is to make sure that a plan may be modified and approved in its final form when due consideration has been given to it.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, lines 25 and 26, leave out ("any line so prescribed shall operate as") and insert ("the line so prescribed shall be shown on a plan duly sealed and authenticated and shall be").—(Lord Emmott.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, with your permission I will explain the next three

599
Amendments to this clause together. They arise out of a suggestion made during the Committee stage, and make sure that the land which is dealt with under this clause shall be added to the street and not used for any other purpose. We also had a discussion on subsection (11), and at that time, with the advice I had, I objected to its being taken out of the Bill. Further consideration has led to the view that this subsection is not needed; and there is also a positive reason for leaving it out. There is no such provision in the Town Planning Act and I understand it would raise legal difficulties if it appeared in this Bill and not in the Town Planning Act. I think we are better without it altogether.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 30, leave out ("Until")
Page 17, line 31, leave out ("is added to the street") and insert ("shall be added to the street, and until the land is so added").
Page 18, lines 1 to 6, leave out subsection (11).—(Lord Emmott.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 39:
Notice of intention to repair drains.
39.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any person, except in case of emergency, to reconstruct or alter the course of any drain which communicates with a sewer or with a cesspool or any other receptacle for drainage, without giving to the local authority at least twenty-four hours previous notice in writing of his intention so to do.
(2) Where any such works are executed without notice in a case of emergency, it shall not be lawful for any person to cover over the drain without giving to the local authority at least twenty-four hours previous notice in writing of his intention so to do.
(3) Free access to the drain or the work of repair, reconstruction or alteration, shall be afforded to the surveyor, or sanitary inspector, or any officer of the local authority authorised in writing, by the local authority for the purpose of inspection.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT moved in subsection (1) after "to" ["to reconstruct"] to insert "repair." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I now come to questions which were discussed at some length in the Committee stage and in regard to which I am making an endeavour to meet the wishes of noble Lords. So far as I understood the discussion, the main
600
objection seemed to apply to the repair of a drain on private land communicating with a cesspool also on private land. All that I am asking by the Amendments I have put down is that a man who has his own drain communicating with his own cesspool need not give any notice to the local authority when he repairs it, but that where his drain communicates with the sewer, and. may be a danger to public health if it goes wrong, he ought to give notice to the local authority.
I admitted the hardship of some of the cases that were put before your Lordships in Committee, but I pointed out then, and I must venture just once more to point out in putting this Amendment before your Lordships, that public health in urban districts, which, equally with rural districts, are dealt with by this clause, may be endangered if notice of repairing drains is not to be given to the local authorities. All that we propose is that the urban authority should be informed and should have an opportunity of inspecting the work in those cases. The clause does not prevent the repair being effected, but it prohibits the covering over of the work until an opportunity for inspection has been afforded. I do not know what view your Lordships may now take of this Amendment. I do not wish to take up an undue amount of time in discussing it, but, having regard to the views of those whom I represent, I think it my duty to put the matter before you again. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 13, after ("to") insert ("repair").—(Lord Emmott.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, this Amendment raises a rather difficult point, which was discussed at considerable length when your Lordships were in Committee. The effect of that discussion was to cut the whole element of repair out of the clause and leave merely the question of reconstructing or altering the course of the drain as matters which must be reported to the local authority. My noble friend opposite now comes forward with a sort of compromise. He suggests that we should include the question of repair again, so far as urban authorities are concerned. I understand that, if we inserted the word "urban" as he proposes to do later, the effect would be that, even if this part of the Bill were adopted in

601
rural districts, this particular provision regarding repair would not be applicable to those districts since the notice must be given to an urban authority. The noble Lord proposes also that, generally speaking, the provisions concerning the reconstruction and alteration of the course of a drain may be applied universally. Accordingly the question, as I understand it, really is whether we are to restore the provision which provides that no repair to a drain may be executed without notice to the urban authority, together with the consequential provision that a certain interval must be left before the work is covered up, so that the local authority may inspect it and see what has been done.
I quite understand the reason why my noble friend opposite wishes this clause to be restored to its original form, to the limited extent that he proposes, but I am afraid that my feeling still is that, even if your Lordships enact it in that form—I hope that this will not be considered to be high treason against Parliament—it will be a wholly ineffective provision. I do not think that anybody who has anything wrong with his drains will wait twenty-four hours in order to give notice to the local authority, whether it is a rural or an urban authority, or will leave the work uncovered in order that there may be an inspection afterwards. As a matter of fact, the moment there is the least reason to apprehend anything wrong with a drain everybody will send for the plumber and have it put right at once, leaving the urban or rural authority, as the case may be, to take any remedy which is open to them. As a matter of fact, in ninety-nine eases out of a hundred, the local authority will not pay any attention. Accordingly the clause will be largely a dead letter, and rather hesitate as to whether it is wise for us to insert in an Act of Parliament anything that will be treated as a dead letter. I do not take a very strong view on this point, but I should suggest to your Lordships that it would be wiser to leave the Bill as the Committee left it, omitting the word "repair." On the whole, I think that this would be the best solution.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, in the absence of any support to the views that I have ventured to put before your Lordships I do not think that I should be
602
justified in asking you to go to a Division, and accordingly I think I had better ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord move the Amendments that follow, substituting "urban" for "local."
LORD EMMOTT: I do; but, in moving them, I should like to explain one point. If your Lordships will look at the Bill, you will see that in line 23 of page 21 the word "repair'' still lingers. With your Lordships' permission I should like to leave that word out. This Amendment would be consequential on that which your Lordships have already clone, and it will come in the middle of the Amendments printed upon the Paper. It is for that reason that I mention it now.
Amendments moved—
Page 21, line 16, leave out ("local") and insert ("urban")
Page 21, line 20, leave out ("local") and insert ("urban")
Page 21, line 23, leave out ("repair")
Page 21, line 25, leave out ("local") and insert ("urban")
Page 21, line 26, leave out ("local") and insert ("urban").—(Lord Emmott.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 54:
Watercourse choked up to be a nuisance under Public Health Act, 1875.
54. Any part of a watercourse which is situate within the district of an urban authority, and is so choked or silted up as to obstruct or impede the proper flow of water along the same, and thereby to cause, or render probable, an overflow of the. watercourse on to land and property adjacent to the watercourse, or to hinder the usual effectual drainage of water through the same, shall be deemed to be a nuisance within the meaning of Section ninety-one of the Public Health Act, 1875, and all the provisions of that Act relating to nuisances shall apply to every such watercourse, notwithstanding that the same may not be injurious to health.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT moved to add to the clause:
"Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to impose any liability on any person other than the person by whose act or default the nuisance arises or continues.
"(2) This section shall not extend to a part of a watercourse which is ordinarily navigated by vessels employed in the carriage of goods by water."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that in the course of the Committee stage I read cut an Amendment which had been suggested to me only a few minutes before, in order partly to meet an Amendment proposed by a noble Lord opposite, with a view to distinguishing watercourses from rivers. There was some discussion about that point, and I suggested an alternative which partly met the case. But your Lordships do not like to have Amendments sprung upon yon, and so it was decided not to insert the Amendment at that time. Accordingly I have ventured to put it down for this stage, in order that your Lordships may consider it. I should like to call attention to the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merrivale, objected to the word "sufferance" in the Amendment which I then read. The phrase was: "whose act, default or sufferance," and so on. In deference to the very strong case that I think the noble and learned Lord made out against that word, as going too far, I have omitted it from this Amendment. An attempt has also been made to differentiate what is really n navigable part of a river from a water course in the subsection that is printed on the Paper. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 12, at end insert the said proviso and new subsection.—(Lord Emmott.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise only to say that I entered into an express promise with my noble friend Lord Dynevor when the Bill was in Committee that I would myself confer with the Ministry of Health upon this clause. I desire to assure your Lordships that I have not failed in my promise. I have taken great trouble to consult with the Minister of Health, and it, was in conformity with that consultation that my noble friend opposite moved this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Further powers as to parks and pleasure grounds.
56.—(1) The following powers shall be added to the powers conferred upon the local authority by Section seventy-six of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907 (in this section called "the principal section''), with respect to any public park
604
or pleasure ground provided by them or under their management and control, namely, powers—

(a) to provide, or contribute towards the expenses of, any concert or other entertainment given in the park or ground;

(b) to enclose, for the purpose of such concerts and entertainments, any part of the park or ground not exceeding one acre or one-tenth of the area of the park or ground, whichever is the greater; and

(c) to charge for admission to any such concerts or entertainments provided by themselves, or to let the part of the park or ground so enclosed to any person for the purpose of providing the same, and to authorise that person to charge for admission thereto.

Provided that the following restrictions shall have effect with respect to any concert or other entertainment provided by the local authority under this section, that is to say:—

(i) No stage play shall be performed; and

(ii) The concert or other entertainment shall not include any performance in the nature of a variety entertainment; and

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in proviso (ii) of subsection (1), after "entertainment," to insert "including what are now known as concert parties." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this because the provincial theatrical people are in doubt whether, if those words are not inserted, legal complications might not arise. Therefore, to make the matter quite clear, I propose to insert these words—
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 10, after ("entertainment") insert ("including what are now known as concert parties").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, as a matter of form I should like to draw the attention of Lord Banbury to the fact that his Amendment hardly reads. After all, an entertainment cannot be a concert party, and I think that if the Amendment were moved it should be moved somewhat in this form: "or entertainment of the nature given by what are now known as concert parties." Though I should like to meet my noble friend I hope he will not press this Amendment. We do not seem to know what a concert party is. Some times it is such a body as the Co-optimists,

605
who do give a variety entertainment, and a variety entertainment is excluded by other words in this paragraph. Sometimes it is the Gresham Glee Singers, who give what is generally known as a concert of the kind which it is agreed that municipal authorities should be allowed to give under this clause. I am afraid that if we put in these words it will give more work and satisfaction to the lawyers than to anybody else. We do not know how they would be interpreted, and I think it would be a bad thing to put in words of which we ourselves honestly do not quite know the meaning. What is objected to by these provincial people who have raised the point is the giving of a variety entertainment. That is expressly excluded by the paragraph, and therefore I do not think the words proposed are necessary.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Will the noble Lord put the words in on the understanding that he can reconsider them afterwards?
LORD EMMOTT: It is too late, I am afraid.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUT HAM: The noble Lord does not think they will do much harm, though he thinks they will not do much good. Under these circumstances, cannot I persuade him, in view of the assistance that I have given him throughout the stages of this Bill, to include the words?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment. He says the words cannot do any harm, but ambiguous words always do harm, and that they are ambiguous really lies on the face of the Amendment, because the words are "what are now known as concert parties." That shows that my noble friend has doubt himself as to what they are, and I hope he will not press the Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My noble friend has persuaded me.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64:
Extension of 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55, s. 131.
64. The power of a local authority under section one hundred and thirty-one of the Public Health Act, 1875 (which enables a local authority for the purpose of the provision of hospital accommodation for their
606
district, among other things, to enter into agreements with persons having the management of any hospital), shall include a power to make reasonable subscriptions or donations to a voluntary hospital or institution, if the local authority are satisfied that by so doing they will maintain or extend or increase the efficiency of hospital accommodation for the sick inhabitants of their district.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, the Amendment on the Paper stands in my name and in the name of Lord Stuart of Wortley. When I put this Amendment down I was not aware that Lord Emmott was going to put the Amendment on the Paper which follows mine. Of course I cannot speak for Lord Stuart of Wortley, but I am satisfied with Lord Emmott's Amendment and therefore I shall not move mine.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY had given Notice to move, after "accommodation," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "for their employees." The noble Lord said: Perhaps I had better pro forma move this Amendment, and intimate that as it at present stands on the Paper it involves the exclusion of the remaining words of the clause, so as to limit the new power to matters contained on the face of the Amendment. Your Lordships will doubtless remember the conversations which arose in Committee, when the proposals of the clause, which were left unamended, excited some alarm among certain members of your Lordships' House, lest the contributions of local authorities to hospitals might be made upon such a lavish scale that they could justly claim, and in due course receive, such a great share in the management of the hospitals that on the one hand the magnitude of their, contributions might serve very largely to dry up private benevolence, and on the other hand might virtually convert hospitals, which have attained such magnificent results on the voluntary principle, into bureaucratic and municipal institutions.
When those conversations took place in Committee I was not aware of the very large powers which local authorities already enjoy under the Public Health Act of 1875, and it still remains rather difficult to see what it is exactly that this clause proposes to add to those powers. I think I have discovered what it is. It is that,

607
whereas under the Act of 1875 it is possible for them to contract for the use of a hospital, and they were given the power to build one and to contract for the use of one, and to enter with those who had built hospitals, for the purpose of improving the accommodation for the sick inhabitants of their district—thus in 1875 it was the sick inhabitants, and not the sick poor, which words are the foundation of the voluntary principle—this new enactment proposed in this Bill would seem to add to those powers the power to give voluntary contributions without making any stipulation as to who is to be admitted.
It is probably no secret to your Lordships that that is a device which gets over difficulties which are very formidable. Certain persons connected with the conduct of hospitals very much object to anything like contractual relations being set up, which make it obligatory on the hospital to give preference, or to seem to give preference, to any applicants for their services over any other class. On the one hand, there are certain important members of hospital staffs who give their services gratuitously, and if they are now going to be placed on a contractual basis they naturally feel that they are entitled to a complete reconsideration of their position and rights, and of course it is equally difficult for hospital managers if a patient presents himself in respect of whom some kind of contractual payment has been made. It is very difficult for them to say: "We are very sorry we have not got room."
That has has led to the creation of these local schemes under which the employers and employees contribute in proportion to wages from year to year sums which have been found in some cases—due to local patriotism and the readiness to give where good service is rendered—to amount to such a figure as really almost to solve the question of hospital finance. In those cases the arrangement is a tacit arrangement—that where there is room in the hospital and the employee in respect of whom a payment has been made becomes an applicant for hospital accommodation, he is admitted and is treated free. That is really the only benefit which is received under the scheme. It is a very substantial benefit but, of course, it is very difficult to imagine any scheme
608
which secures such a benefit in any case where there is not a vacant bed in the hospital.
I should hope that probably this House would unwilling to confer this kind of power of granting subscriptions to the local authorities without agreements in extension of the powers conferred in 1875, on the ground which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech and which did constitute the grounds for the apprehensions manifested in certain parts of the House when this clause was being considered in Committee—namely, the apprehension lest, by an undue use of this power, the hospitals might be completely turned inside out and converted into semi-State institutions instead of manifestations of private charity and of the voluntary principle, under which such great results have been achieved. I confess that I do not know at this moment, and I wish I could tell your Lordships, how it would work out to pass the Amendment of the noble Lord, because I do not know exactly in any ordinary typical case what comparison would emerge if you measured the probable contribution of a town council, say, for the accommodation of its own employees against the actual proceeds of a penny rate. I confess I do not know which would be greater and which less. Just for the sake of starting a discussion I propose to move this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must put it in a slightly different form from that on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 22, leave out ("for the sick inhabitants of their district") and insert ("for their own employees").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to express the hope that this Amendment will not be inserted in the Bill. I am sorry to differ on any point with Lord Stuart of Wortley, who gives so much of his time to the work of the hospitals in the London district, but I should regret it if the power sought to be given by this clause were limited in the way which he, by his Amendment, proposes. As my noble friend knows quite well, the practice of our voluntary hospitals is to make no distinction. They provide their accommodation, not for any class but for everybody who comes or is

609
sent to the hospital, and I think it is desirable that that system of giving no preference should not be impaired. If this Amendment were adopted there would be a tendency for the local authority to say: "Well, we will give you so much a year if you will give our employees preference over everybody else."
Many hospitals would be unable to make any such arrangement. I know a good deal about the system by which contributions of weekly sums are made by workmen out of their wages and by employers. It is true that by this means very large sums have been provided for voluntary hospitals. I know eases where the yearly amount in these small sums comes to £40,000 or £50,000, or even more, and all these contributions, so great in the aggregate, are made by the workers and their employers without any agreement for any preference. Of course it is true that where the workers in a particular firm have made a large contribution the hospital is most desirous to give accommodation as soon as they can possibly do so. But there is no understanding and I think it is better that there should be no understanding. If this Amendment is passed there is a risk that the local authority would be given power to insist on having some understanding for preferential treatment. I do not myself think that the proposal in the clause to enable the authorities to contribute to a hospital is in the least likely to impair the voluntary system, to which I myself attach the greatest possible importance. I am not at all afraid of the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Emmott) limiting the contribution to a penny rate because I do not think that any authority would contribute as much as a penny rate. I hope that the much more severe limit imposed by this Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has given so much better reasons than I could against accepting this Amendment that I will not attempt to repeat his argument. I do not believe that the clause in the Bill will have the tendency of diminishing voluntary subscriptions. I most sincerely hope that it will not. I think there are a good many cases in which a reasonable subscription, far less than anything that a penny rate would bring in, is almost expected from the local authority and
610
rather adds to the inducements to private people to give. It is with that belief that support the. clause as it now stands. The reason why I put down the Amendment in my name is that, I wanted to meet your Lordships as far as I could and I could not conceive any other safeguard that would be more satisfactory. I entirely agree with the Lord Chancellor that there will be very few cases in which any local authority will dream of giving anything like, a penny rate.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I see that your Lordships prefer the fixed limit proposed by the Amendment of Lord Emmott. I may perhaps say in my own justification that if there is any fear of what might be called preferential admission, I am not at all sure that the present law offers any bar to any such agreements. The real bar to such agreements for preferential admission is that you could never get hospital managers to consent to anything of the kind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) The expenditure under this section of a local authority shall not exceed in any one year, an amount equal to that which would be produced by a rate of one penny in the pound on the property liable to be assessed for the purpose of the rate out of which such expenditure is payable, or such higher rate in the pound as may be approved by the Minister of Health."
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 22, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Emmott).
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I hope that. I shall not appeal to Lord Emmott in vain. Would he be kind enough to leave out the words after "payable." The noble Lord has himself said that it is very unlikely that any local authority would go so far as to impose as high a rate as a penny, yet he says at the end of his Amendment:
"or such higher rate in the pound as may be approved by the Minister of Health."
LORD EMMOTT: I am quite willing to agree to that.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I beg, then, to move, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out those words.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Leave out ("or such higher rate in the pound as may be approved by the Minister of Health").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I understood a moment or two ago that the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, said he was prepared to accept the Amendment in the form in which it stood upon the Paper. Although I do not profess to be an authority upon these matters, I was discussing them yesterday with someone who is and one can conceive of certain exceptional circumstances where it may be very much to the advantage of the public that this permission should be given. If, however, these words are taken out that could not be done. I very much hope that the noble Lord will adhere to the Amendment as it stands upon the Paper. I agree that it is extremely unlikely that any local authority in the normal case would go so far as one penny; but there might be cases in which a hospital is being moved from the centre of a city to the country and where some exceptional expenditure is required and a special effort is being made. It seems rather unfortunate if the local authority cannot make a subscription in the same way as a private citizen can do.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I agree that it is advisable in many cases to restrict the expenditure on matters of this kind by local authorities within limits. In reference to the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, after all the local authority could perfectly well subscribe for two or three years running or, if it wore a very large capital expenditure that the locality wished to indulge in, they would have to borrow and go to the Ministry for leave to do so. Then the amount they could spend would be the interest on the capital suns and not the capital sum itself.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 67:
Notices, lectures, etc., on questions as to health or disease.
67. Any local authority or county council rimy arrange for the publication within their area of information on questions relating to health or disease and for the delivery of
612
lectures and the display of pictures in which such questions are dealt with, and may defray the whole or a portion of expenses incurred for any of the purposes of this section.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT moved to insert the following new subsection:—
"(2) The Minister of Health may, for the purposes of this section, make rules prescribing restrictions or conditions subject to which the powers conferred by this section may be exercised."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to meet the criticism made by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in the course of the debate in Committee. The history of the clause is a little curious. It was put into the Bill by the Standing Committee on the suggestion of the Ministry of Health. It was then criticised when it came into your Lordships' House by the noble and learned Viscount. I do not in any way complain of that. I do not suggest that a great many clauses put in by another place would not be all the better for editing by the noble and learned Viscount. I think he raised a substantial point and the best way of meeting it that I could think of is that which I have adopted here. It is to ensure that the medical teaching given should not be of what I may call a specially cranky type that I have suggested it should be generally under the supervision of the Minister of Health.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 37, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Emmott.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for meeting my objection and I think I shall be able to make my peace with the Minister of Health.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68:
Power to provide parking places for vehicles.
(6) A local authority may make regulations as to the use of parking places, and in particular as to the vehicles or class of vehicles which may be entitled to use any such parking place, as to the conditions upon which any such parking place may be used, and as to the charges to be paid to the local authority in connection with the use of any parking place not being part of a street, and a copy of any such regulations shall be exhibited on or near any parking place to which the regulations relate.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT had on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (6), to leave out" not being part of a street". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I placed this Amendment on the Paper in order that I might move it if I desired to do so. I do not propose to move. So far as I am concerned I am willing to accept the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, if that meets with the approval of your Lordships.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL had on the Paper an Amendment to add to subsection (6):"Where any parking place is part of. a street, regulations may provide for charges to be paid to the local authority in respect of the services of an attendant". The noble Earl said: My Lords, when we were in Committee I promised the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that I would do what I could to assist him in the question of obtaining some charges for the parking of cars. I assured him that motorists as a whole were not averse to paying any proper charge, but that what we objected to, and I am glad to say that the House shared that view, was the idea of charging for the use of the street.
I put down this Amendment with a view really of assisting the noble Lord and I have got into a little trouble with some of my motoring friends because they think I have been rather too generous and have gone somewhat too far. But your Lordships will notice that my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has put down an Amendment to my Amendment. It has been pointed out that there are cases of people driving a motor cycle or a motor cycle and sidecar, a combination or whatever it is called, who want to leave it for a quarter of an hour in the street and that it may be rather hard if they have to pay 1s. or 1s. 6d., or whatever the local authority fixes, just for that period, even if it were in a recognised parking place.
I think Lord Montagu's Amendment to ray Amendment goes a little too far the other way because the charge amounts almost to a tip. It does not go very much further than that. I am very glad to say that we have agreed upon some words which, if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will accept them., would meet the point, and I would propose to move my Amendment in this form. I wish to insert:
614
"Whore any parking place is part- of a street, regulations may provide for charges to be paid to the local authority in respect of the services of an attendant but not in respect of the use of the street. No charge shall be levied for a period of less than an hour."
Perhaps that would meet the wishes of everybody and I think I understood that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would accept it. I will, however, move the Amendment in the form I have mentioned and leave it to your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 26, after ("relate") insert ("Where any parking place is part of a street, regulations may provide for charges to be paid to the local authority in respect of the services of an attendant but not in respect of the use of the street. No charge shall be levied for a period of less than an hour").—(Earl Russell.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had given Notice to move to amend the Amendment on the Paper by inserting "such" after "street" and by leaving out "in respect of the services of an attendant" and inserting "by the driver of the vehicle for any services required by him of an attendant employed by the local authority." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I support the noble Earl. My only object was to avoid what I thought the very dangerous precedent of enabling the local authority to charge for the use of the highway. That would amount to letting out the highway for a period of time for money. The King's highway is free to all subjects and I think it would be a most dangerous precedent to allow a local authority to charge for the use of it. I recognise that where parking places are specially made and entail expenditure the local authority have the right to make a charge; but where a parking place is in the street a notice could be put up directing cars where to wait and they could then be moved away when their owners returned. If the noble Lord in charge of the Bill were not to move his Amendment the noble Earl's Amendment and my own would fall to the ground and that may possibly be the best solution. If the noble Lord prefers to move his Amendment I should not object to it provided the words read out by the noble Earl opposite were inserted as well. That would meet my point.
Take the case of a market town into which farmers drive in their small cars, as they habitually do. A man might

615
stop outside a shop for ten minutes in order to clinch a bargain or make a purchase, then move on and stop again two or three times. That is what normally happens. In each case if he went to the parking place a charge might be made. Your Lordships would not wish that to happen and it would be a rather dangerous power to give to local authorities. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will either withdraw his Amendment, in which case the noble Earl's Amendment and my own will fall to the ground—
LORD EMMOTT: I have not moved it.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Then there is no need for ours.
EARL RUSSELL: On the contrary, I am moving mine in response to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: If the noble Lord does not move his Amendment no charge can be made for the use of a portion of the street. Am I to understand that this is the case?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am rather puzzled by the noble Earl's Amendment. Apparently he proposes that we should enact that if the services of an attendant are required for an hour there shall be a charge of a shilling, otherwise there will be no charge.
EARL RUSSELL: Not a shilling charge, but any charge that the regulations impose.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: How can an attendant be attending on a motor car for an hour? What is the attendant supposed to do? Is he merely to be there and see that nobody interferes with the car?
EARL RUSSELL: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think an hour is rather a curious period of time to fix. I agree that you must fix some period of time if you work upon the lines of the noble Earl, but one would have thought that if you had the services of an attendant for fifty-five minutes and were to pay nothing, but if you had the services of that attendant for in hour and you had to pay, that would be rather a difficult matter to work in
616
practice. I should hardly think in those circumstances it would be worth while moving the Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I am not entitled to speak again, but may I say that I only put down the Amendment in pursuance of a pledge that I gave to the noble Lord to do everything that I could to enable the local authority to make some charge? Personally I prefer the Amendment as it is printed. I have only moved it in this form to meet objections.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should prefer the course which the noble Lord opposite has followed. He has withdrawn his Amendment, and I should think that we might leave the matter now.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, so far as I am concerned I should be glad to do that, but I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether it is a fact that no charge will be made for anything that is part of a street or highway.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, as I understand it no charge would be made for parking in a street or highway, but the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in pursuance of a pledge that he made, put down this Amendment as being the best way of meeting a difficulty that was put to him. He desired that some charge should be made because, as he said, for the most part people who own cars can afford to pay something for this service, and it would only be reasonable, if attendants were required to look after the cars, that some charge should be made. So far as I am concerned, I am quite willing to accept the Amendment as originally printed on the Paper, with the addition of the words "not in respect of the use of the street." The Amendment now moved goes on to settle a charge. I have not the exact words.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: No charge for a period of less than one hour.
LORD EMMOTT: I think that is going rather far. I do not like the idea of stating a time, but if you are to put in a time I think you must put something much less than an hour. I cannot see why a person should be allowed to have an attendant for just under an hour and not pay any charge. I should put fifteen minutes, but

617
personally I do not like the words at all, and prefer that they should be left out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the Amendment, as printed, does give effect to the undertaking which was given in Committee, and is a perfectly reasonable proposal. As regards the addition that has been made to-day, I do not think the words "not in respect of the use of the street" add anything one way or another, because it seems to me that it would be open to the local authority to say: "We make these charges for the use of an attendant, and not for the use of the street." It might also be open to the motor owner to say: "Well, I do not want an attendant; I have put this car in this place for so many hours, and as I do not want an attendant to look after if shall have nothing to pay." Such considerations as these indicate the difficulty. I would rather omit these words, but in any case I do not think it would be right, if you are allowing a charge to be made, that you should say that no charge shall be made for a period less than an hour. It would mean that everybody could in fifty-five minutes take their cars away and pay nothing. In those circumstances the local authority, which has incurred expense in providing a parking place and an attendant, would receive nothing from those persons who took their cars away before the hour was up towards meeting that expense. I hope the noble Earl will adhere to what he originally proposed, and consent to the Amendment being reduced to that.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, with great deference to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, may I ask whether it is his opinion that the omission of the words "not being part of a street" do not affect the situation? It seems to me that it is rather a dangerous thing to allow the local authority to charge for a vehicle standing in a street merely on the ground that there is an attendant.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I certainly think putting in the words "not being part of a street" has a great effect on the matter. They prevent the local authority mating any charge for that which is technically a street. I think
618
the words do make a great difference, and this is a proposal to modify the effect of the words.
LORD EMMOTT: If I am in order I would move to leave out the words of the Amendment which do not appear on the Paper.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Leave out all the words after ("attendant").—(lord Emmott.)
EARL RUSSELL: May I say that personally I prefer the words on the Paper, but I am not sure that they satisfy my noble friend opposite?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I am willing to facilitate the business of the House, and to say that after the explanation given by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and the noble Earl opposite, I think we can fall in with Lord Emmott's suggestion. At the same time I confess that I should rather like to have seen a time limit put into Lord Emmott's Amendment, in which case we need not have moved our Amendment.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 73:
Rag and bone dealers not to sell food.
73.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any collector of or dealer in rags or bones or similar articles, or any person carrying of the business of a rag and bone merchant, or any person acting on behalf of any such person, to sell or distribute within the district of the local authority any article of food from any cart, barrow or other vehicle used for the collection of rags, bones or similar articles, or in or from any shop or premises used for, or in connection with, the business of a rag and bone merchant.
(2) Every person who shall offend against this section shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHM0RE THE EARL OF DONOUGHM0RE had Amendments on the Paper to move, in subsection (1) to leave out "any article of food," and at the end of subsection (1) to insert "any article of food or clothing or any balloon or other toy." The noble Earl said: The Amendments standing in my name, I understand, do not meet with disfavour if I omit two words from the second one. I will move the first one as

619
it appears on the Paper, and then I will move the second one with the omission of the words "or clothing." I do not press for those words as they have been criticised, and subject to that I will not detain your Lordships by explaining the point at length, though I am quite ready to do so if challenged. I beg to move the first Amendment on the Paper in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 18, leave out ("any article of food").—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 22, at end insert ("any article of food or any balloon or other toy").—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule:
LORD EMMOTT: The Amendments which appear on the Paper in my name to this Schedule and also to the Second Schedule are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 49, line 9, leave out ("20") and insert ("21")
Page 49, line 10, leave out ("21") and insert ("22")
Page 49, line 13, leave out ("43") and insert ("44").—(Lord Emmott.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Second Schedule:
Amendments moved—
Page 49, line 20, leave out ("16 to 18") and insert ("17 to 19")
Page 49, line 21, leave out ("20") and insert ("21")
Page 49, line 22, leave out ("21") and insert ("22")
Page 49, line 23, leave out ("23") and insert ("24")
Page 49, line 24, leave out ("34") and insert ("35")
Page 49, line 27, leave out ("43") and insert ("44").—(Lord Emmott.)

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Newton, I am asked to move that the Commons Amendments to the Advertisements Regulation Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments to the Advertisements Regulation Bill be now considered.—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. 75.]
Clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out ("village in rural districts") and insert ("any village within the district of a rural district council").
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("elsewhere than in a rural district") and insert ("except within the district of a rural district council").
Clause 2, page 2, lines 8 to 27, leave out Clause 2 and insert as a new clause:
Delegation of powers by county councils to district councils.
(" .—(1) Without prejudice to any other powers of delegation, a county council may arrange with any urban district council which is not a local authority within the meaning of the principal Act for the delegation to that council of any of the powers of the county council under the principal Act, and may arrange with any rural district council for the delegation to that council of the power of enforcing any byelaws made under the principal Act by the county council, and, where any such arrangement is made, the county council may delegate its powers accordingly."
"(2) A county council may at any time cancel any arrangement made by them under this section, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder, and where any such arrangement is cancelled any bye laws made thereunder by the urban district council shall, until varied or revoked by the county council, have effect as if they had been made by the county council.
(3) Any arrangement made under this section delegating to an urban district council the power to make byelaws shall provide for the notification to the county council of any byelaws made under the arrangement.
(4) Any expenses incurred by a district council in pursuance of an arrangement made under this section shall be repaid to that council by the county council by which the arrangement was made, and any expenses so repaid by a county council shall be defrayed by the county council as part of their expenses in carrying the principal Act into effect:
Provided that—

(a) if any such expenses incurred by a district council exceed any limit which may have been imposed by the arrangement made by the county council, the amount of the excess shall not be repayable to the district council unless it is so resolved by the county council; and

621

(b) any expenses properly incurred by a district council in pursuance of the arrangement shall, so far as they are not repaid by the county council, be defrayed as part of the general expenses of the district council; and

(c) for the purposes of section four of the principal Act a district council shall not by reason of any arrangement made under this section be deemed to be a local authority under that Act.

(5) This section shall not apply to Scotland.")
Clause 3, page 2, lines 28 to 42, leave out Clause 3.
Clause 4, page,3, lines 1 and 2, leave out Clause 4.
Clause 5, page 3, line 7, at end insert:
("(2) References in this Act to the principal Act shall be construed as references to that Act as amended by this Act.
(3) In the application of this Act to Scotland references to the district of a rural district council shall be construed as references to a county exclusive of any burgh situated therein.")
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, the Amendments sent back are either purely drafting, or apply portions of the Act to Scotland and make technical alterations, or they are Amendments putting in different words the arrangements which were proposed to be made between county councils and district councils with regard to dealing with advertisements. I have no quarrel with these. The promoters of the Bill desire that your Lordships should agree with all the Amendments made by the Commons, but they wish to disclaim any interest in the Amendment to Clause 2, which says that any expenses incurred by a district council in pursuance of an arrangement made under that clause shall be repaid to that council by the county council by which the arrangement was made. They are of opinion that each donkey should bear its own burden and that the countycouncil should not pay for matters in which the district council is specially interested. They do not wish to risk the passage of the measure, however, and therefore I move that your Lordships agree with the Commons in the Amendments made to the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (EXPLANATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I should like to raise a point with regard to an Amendment which I propose to move but which is not on the Paper, a matter for which I apologise to the noble Earl. I also apologise for the fact that I was not, unfortunately, able to be present on the Second Reading and notify him then of my intention to move it. If your Lordships will look at Clause 1 you will see that it states that the expression "transmission" where used in subjection. (7) of Section 1 and Section 2 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904, "includes, and shall be deemed always to have included, the reception and well as the sending of messages." If that is so then I take it that the provisions of Section 1 of the Act of 1904 will apply to any person who has a wireless reception apparatus. I ask jour Lordships to look at the provisions of Section 1, subsection (3), of the principal Act. I will read it. It says:
"If any person establishes a wireless telegraph station without a licence in that behalf, or instate or works any apparatus for wireless telegraphy without a licence in that behalf, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and be liable, on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds and, on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding twelve months.…"
That means that the owner of a crystal set who has not taken out a licence is, as the result of this legislation by reference, liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for twelve months.
That is not what this Bill is intended to moan or what it was explained to us is to mean. We were told that it was simply to enable the Postmaster-General to have proper legal authority to collect licence fees. I am entirely with the Post-master-General in that matter; I am anxious that he should have the fullest power to collect fess from people who use unlicensed sets. I am not even against the powers of search under Section 4 of the principal Act. Those are quite legi-

623
timate in the case of people who are breaking the law and who are enjoying something which they have no right to enjoy, and who are defrauding the Post Office. I am giving the noble Earl notice now that I shall move an Amendment to Clause 1 after "liable" to insert the words "on prosecution on indictment under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904." I want to raise the question now in order to give the noble Earl as long a notice as possible. It seems to me to be of some importance.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I am very sorry that I am entirely unable to answer the noble Earl. He only told me five minutes ago that he was going to bring forward this point, and I told him then that I have not had time to communicate with the Postmaster-General and that I shall have to ask him to postpone his Amendment to a later stage of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DOXOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Explanation of certain expressions in 4 Edw. 7, c. 24, ss. 1 (7) and 2.
1. For removing doubts as to the meaning of certain expressions in the Wireless Telegraphy Act. 1904, it is hereby declared that:

(1) The expression "transmission" where used in subsection (7) of Section one and Section two of that Act in relation to messages includes, and shall be deemed always to have included, the reception as well as the sending of messages:

(2) The expression "rent or royalty" where used in Section two of that Act in relation to licences does not include, and shall be deemed never to have included, fees (whether periodical or of any other kind) charged in respect of the grant or renewal of licences:

Provided that nothing in this Act shall render any person liable in respect of any act or omission prior to the twenty-second day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, to any penalty to which he would not but for this Act have been liable.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, at the end of the clause, to insert" on prosecution on indictment under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904."The noble Earl said: I shall really have to press your Lordships to
624
insert these words now even if they require reconsideration at a later stage—which, however, I do not think they will. It is perfectly clear that this is not the intention of the Postmaster-General and never was the intention of anybody connected with this Bill. It has never been made plain that this will be the effect of it. I hope your Lordships will not allow this matter to slip through. It is something far beyond what this Bill did, as explained to us. I have the greatest sympathy with the Postmaster-General in getting these fees, but I do not want to see these absurd penalties imposed on offenders almost by accident. I beg to move.
Amendment moved:—
Clause 1, page 1, line 24, at end insert ("on prosecution on indictment under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904.")—(Earl Russell.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not propose to deal with the merits of this question; no doubt my noble and learned friend beside me will deal with that in due time. But really the noble Earl is taking a very unreasonable course and a very unusual course for him. He is generally most reasonable. He was not present on the Second Reading, no doubt for good reasons, and therefore did not warn us of this particular point. He did not put down an Amendment on going into Committee, for reasons which he has not disclosed but which no doubt are very good reasons; and at the last moment he expects us to deal at once and insert an Amendment which is not on the Paper, to which he has not referred before and of which he has given no notice whatever to the Postmaster-General. I know he will allow me to say this because we are old antagonists and have always got on well together. I do not think he is very reasonable in the course he has taken. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill made an answer which I think any Minister would make—namely, that he would have to ask the noble Earl to postpone his Amendment to a further stage. That is a simple matter, and the noble Earl will be quite able to move his Amendment on the Third Reading of the Bill.
EARL RUSSELL: I am sensible of the justice of what the noble Marquess has said, and I confess that I entirely deserve the blame that he imputes to me. There are reasons why I could not be here on

625
the Second Reading; otherwise I should have given notice, but I confess that I am afraid there is no good reason, except my own carelessness, why I did not put the Amendment on the Paper. It is not quite the case that I have not given notice to the Postmaster-General, because I was in communication with him when the Bill was introduced. It may be difficult: to deal with the matter now, but I do not think that it ought to be. Your Lordships have the Bill, and I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount opposite quite understands the position. I should be very glad if it could be dealt with now, though I do feel that I have been to blame in the matter, and I must confess that the noble Marquess is quite justified in what he said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl stands, as we say, "in mercy," and I think he ought to withdraw his Amendment to-day and put it down later. I could deal with the point shortly, but I would rather not do so without consulting with the Postmaster-General, because the objections which I see to the Amendment might possibly disappear after conversation with him. Consequently I would far rather leave the discussion on the matter to a later stage.
EARL RUSSELL: I feel that I have really so little merit in bringing it on with this suddenness that I must yield to the appeal which the noble and learned Viscount has made, though I ought to say that I fear I may not be here at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining Clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

SEEDS ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
MENTAL DEFICIENCY (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTERS OF RELIGION (REMOVAL OF DISQUALIFICATIONS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARYSECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE): My Lords, this Bill comes to us from the House of Commons certified as a Money Bill. It adumbrates the coming into force of the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act, 1915, which was passed during the War and has been held in suspense for the last ten years. That Act prohibits the sale of tuberculous milk and, therefore, indirectly compels the slaughter of tuberculous cattle. To enable such slaughter to take place the Tuberculosis Order of 1914, which was similarly suspended owing to the War, is about to be revived, with some modifications, at the same date as that on which the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act is brought into operation, that is, on September 1, under the new title of the Tuberculosis Order, 1925.
The Bill that I am now submitting for your Lordships' consideration gives power to the Treasury to refund to the local authorities seventy-five per cent, of the compensation which will become payable to stock owners under the Tuberculosis Order. I think your Lordships ought to know—and it will interest those who are stock owners—that one-quarter of the total value of animals condemned for tuberculosis will, in the case of animals that are found to be in an advanced stage of the disease, be paid to their owners as compensation upon slaughter, while three-quarters will be paid if the animals are not in an advanced stage of the disease. It is estimated that the total gross compensation will amount to something like £67,500 a year, and of this no less than £50,000 will come out of the Exchequer. The local authorities will bear the whole cost of administration, but this cost will be offset to some extent by the proceeds of the salvage of carcases, which the local authorities will keep for themselves.
In this connection I think I ought to tell your Lordships, and particularly those

627
who sit on the Front Opposition Bench, that, in deference to an appeal which was made by Mr. Alexander, one of the representatives of the Labour Party in another place, the Minister has decided to issue a supplementary Order to the effect that no animal which is killed under the original Order shall be used for human food unless its flesh has been found to be sound and fit for human consumption by the medical officer of health. That supplementary Order has been agreed between the Minister of Agriculture and the Scottish Office and will very shortly be issued as supplementary to the original Order. I ought, perhaps, also to mention, as being of prime importance so far as this main Order is concerned, that in future all animals that are found to have tuberculous udders, to be emaciated with tuberculosis, to be suffering from chronic cough and showing definite clinical signs of tuberculosis, will have to be slaughtered after notification to the police, as the officials of the local authority. I do not think that it is necessary for me to say any more in relation to this Bill except to mention the important fact that the Order has special reference to animals imported in a tuberculous condition from other countries, including Ireland. These will be excluded under the Bill from the operation of the Order, so that no compensation will be paid for imported animals found to be in a tuberculous condition. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I should like to say a word to welcome this Bill and to express my thanks to the Government for bringing it in. The importance of preventing the extension of tuberculosis, and the possible connection between the human and bovine forms, is so great that it ought not to be left to local authorities to bear the cost. This Bill establishes the principle, which we welcome, that where services are of national importance they should be supported by national funds, and not left so much to the efforts of the ratepayers, as they have been in the past.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ALLOTMENTS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (SUPERANNU ATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PEERAGES IN ABEYANCE.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR rose to call attention to the Return of Peerages called out of abeyance, made in March, 1923, and to move, That a Committee of this House be set up to inquire into the subject of Peerages in abeyance and report to the House on the matter. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, in the month of March, 1923, my noble friend Lord Askwith moved for a Return of Peerages called out of abeyance, and in doing so called attention to the practice which had arisen more commonly in recent years of calling out Peerages which had been in abeyance for a very long period and sometimes for centuries, and in favour of the holder of a fraction only of the hereditament. That Return was granted, and if your Lordships will look at it you will see that it bears out what was said on that occasion. There is the case of a Peerage which was called out after 547 years, and in another case it was called out in favour of the holder of one-twenty-fourth, or (on one view of the facts) of one thirty-sixth of the title. It was intended at the time that after this Return was obtained your Lordships would be asked to direct some inquiry into the practice. The matter, of course, touches the Royal Prerogative and I am authorised by His Majesty to say that he consents to the constitution of a Committee for the purpose described in my Motion. I am persuaded that the time is ripe for the inquiry suggested and I accordingly move.
Moved, That a Committee of this House be set up to inquire into the subject of Peerages in abeyance and report to the House on the matter.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I moved for this Return in consequence of having made a study of the curiosities of the Peerage. If any of your Lordships will look at the Return you will see that a very remarkable state of affairs has come into existence—that different principles have governed different Prime Ministers during the last one hundred years, and that it is of advantage that the question should be again investigated. It is now, I think, one hundred years or more since Lord Redesdale's Committee reported, and went into many questions affecting abeyance, but the practices which have grown up since have not been inquired into, nor has it been decided whether an Earldom can be called out of abeyance, whether a person having a very small portion of descent can claim as of right, because he has been the claimant for the calling of the Peerage
630
out of abeyance in his favour, of whether a larger portion of descent ought to be a condition to his obtaining the Peerage. I aril glad to hear from the noble and learned Viscount that he has received His Majesty's approval, because undoubtedly it is a matter which touches the Royal Prerogative.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House it would perhaps be convenient if I say that it is understood there will be a Royal Commission to-morrow at 12 o'clock, and therefore the House will not commence public business before 12.15. I am also asked to say that the Unemployment Insurance Bill will reach this House to-morrow, and that it is proposed to take the First Reading to-morrow and the Second Reading on Monday.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before six o'clock.

HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
CLYDEBANK BURGH EXTENSION BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported, without Amendment.

BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliament's had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Air Ministry (Cattewater Seaplane Station).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

GLASGOW BOUNDARIES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
SUMMER TIME BILL.
Third Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Tuesday next.
DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Bill had been endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that it is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
AIR MINISTRY (CATTEWATER SEAPLANE STATION) BILL.
To be read 2a on Monday next.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (EXPLANATION) BILL.
To be read 3a on Monday next.
SEEDS ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL.
To be read 3a on Wednesday next.