Sitting of 1 December 1927

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ministry of Heath Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 10) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Sutton Coldfield Extension) Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    HOSPITAL TREATMENT.
    Mr. MELLERasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that it is the practice in calculating the amount deducted from pensions in respect of hospital treatment, for the period during which the recipient is undergoing such treatment, to count broken periods of less than a week as a full week; whether he has received complaints in respect of such deductions; and whether he will take steps to see that in future such deductions are only made for the appropriate number of days of the broken period?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): Payments under Article 6 of the Royal Warrant and any necessary adjustments in connection with them are made on a weekly basis. I am satisfied that this practice which has always obtained under the Warrant is on the whole of advantage to pensioners and makes for convenience of administration. I am looking into the working of the rule in exceptional cases of the type which my hon. Friend has brought to my notice.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases when a man is in hospital for nine days a fortnight's allowance is deducted for those nine day? Is that not rather unfair?
    Major TRYON: It is not, as a rule, a case of deduction. In the great majority of cases the men in hospital are better off financially than those not in hospital.
    Mr. MORRISON: In the case referred to they are not better off. In the case of a man receiving £1 per week, if his employer pays his wages during illness the Minister of Pensions deducts the cost of treatment in the hospital.
    Major TRYON: That is not the point of the question on the Paper; it arises on the next question. But I am going to look into the exceptional case mentioned by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. MELLERasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that deductions for hospital treatment are only made in cases where the recipient of the pension also receives a salary in addition to the pension; and, if so, why any distinction is made between persons who are earning a salary and persons who have no other source of income beyond their pensions?
    Major TRYON: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in thinking that a distinction is made as between the man whose salary or wage is continued during a period of in-patient treatment and the man whose salary or wage ceases on his commencing treatment. In both cases the payments to the man are adjusted in respect of the cost of his maintenance in hospital at public cost.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that where you have cases of treatment in hospital the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides informs the local authority that if they care not to make a charge his Department will continue the full payment to the ex-service man and his wife? If that be so, how does the right hon. Gentleman square that with the answer already given
    Major TRYON: I do not see any relation between the supplementary question and the original question. It is a

    671
    mistake to think that any distinction is made as between men whose salary or wage is continued during the period, and those whose salary or wage ceases.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that ex-service men entering Queen Mary's Hospital at Roe-hampton are asked, on entry, whether their employers are paying their wages, and if they reply in the affirmative, the sum of about 19s. per week is deducted for the cost of their maintenance? If they say they are not receiving wages, the full pension is paid.
    Major TRYON: In every case the same deduction is made. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension.
    Mr. MELLER: Do I understand that my right hon. Friend will look into the particular case I have mentioned and see whether I have been misinformed?
    Major TRYON: Yes, I will gladly look into any particular case.

    DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that in some cases a woman's pension in respect of a son killed in the late War is stopped on receipt of her old age pension; and what is the reason for this?
    Major TRYON: Pensions granted by my Department on a basis of need are subject to adjustment if the pensioner's circumstances improve by an access of income from any source, in the same way that they may be increased if the circumstances become worse.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in these cases notice is given that the pension will be stopped altogether and that in some cases it is more than the old age pension, which makes a person worse off?
    Major TRYON: I made inquiries this morning, and in the particular case the pensioner was better off owing to the addition of the old age pension.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is the case of a woman with 14s. per week, and notice was given to cut it off altogether if she got the old age pension of 10s.?
    Major TRYON: My information was to the exact contrary, but I shall be happy to look into the matter.
    Mr. HAYES: What is the saving to the pensions if deductions are made on account of old age pensions?
    Major TRYON: Undoubtedly, there is a very clear gain to the pensioner under the combined schemes.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Minister of Pensions in how many cases pensions are not yet being paid to the widows or other de pendants of ex-service men whose death as the result of wounds received in the War took place three months or more prior to 26th November, 1927?
    Major TRYON: Pension has been authorised in every case of death established to be the result of wounds received in the Great War in which a claim has been made in the period referred to by a widow or dependant eligible under the Royal Warrants.
    Sir F. HALL: May I say that there is none outstanding on the basis of the question?
    Major TRYON: Yes, on the basis of the question. There are six widows' claims and two dependants' claims, but none of these cases is connected with wounds.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SEAMEN).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the hardship caused to many seamen by the non-extension of the Workmen's Compensation Act to a seaman who suffers from a malignant tropical disease, contracted in the service of the ship, in the same way as it is extended to a seaman disabled by an accident, in order that he may receive compensation; and whether he will consider introducing legislation to allow some extension of the Act to such cases?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have received no representations on this subject except from the hon. and gallant Member, it would not be possible to treat seamen

    673
    differently from other classes of workers in this respect, and it would be necessary, in order to give effect to the suggestion, to extend the Act to all cases of illness contracted as a result of employment. I do not, however, regard such an extension as practicable or desirable, and I find that the Holman Gregory Committee reported strongly against it.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would the right hon. Gentleman initiate inquiries with the Board of Trade and his own officers and look into this matter, in view of the number of people affected?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no knowledge of the number affected, but I will communicate with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  POLICE.

    PENSIONERS' WIDOWS.
    Mr. HAYESasked the Home Secretary whether proposals have yet been formulated for submission to the trustees of the National Police Fund in the matter of the unprovided widows of the police pensioners excluded from the operation of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, and the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925; and, if so, can he indicate the nature of such proposals?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer is in the negative. The trustees have now laid it down that "beneficiaries" under the fund are to be limited to police who served during or since the general strike or their widows, orphans or dependants.
    Mr. HAYES: In view of the fact that the existing widows' relief funds can now be supplemented by the National Police Fund, cannot the grants made be on a more generous scale to those in distress?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is a purely voluntary fund and I am not sure whether it would be right to allow the widows to be purely dependent on this voluntary fund. I shall have to look into the matter very carefully.
    Mr. HAYES: May I communicate with the right hon. Gentleman on the matter?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly.

    CHIEF CONSTABLE, ST. HELENS.
    Colonel DAYasked the Home Secretary whether he has now received the Report of the Home Office inquiry concerning the case of R. A. Ellerington, chief constable of St. Helens; and whether he can make a statement?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can add nothing to the reply which I gave on the 24th November to the hon. Member for the Edge Hill Division of Liverpool (Mr. Hayes).
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has had any communication with the Watch Committee?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, the Watch Committee has communicated with me.
    Colonel DAY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman accelerate this matter?
    Sir W. JOYNSDN-HICKS: I think the matter is taking its course. As soon as I am in a position to make any statement I shall gladly do so.

  TRANSPORT.

    TRAFFIC CONTROL, STREATHAM HILL.
    Mr. WALTER BAKERasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the traffic constable stationed at the corner of Sternhold Avenue and Streatham Hill has a difficult task to control the cross traffic owing to the speed of the vehicles using the main road, and because of his inability to see oncoming traffic from London owing to the line of vision being obstructed by stationary tramcars; and whether he will consider the possibility of 0placing a traffic constable on the opposite side of the thoroughfare at the bottom of Leigham Court Road or, alternatively, place a warning notice on the London side of the cross road?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Arrangements have been made to set back the stopping point for southbound tramcars at this junction, and it is hoped that this will obviate the difficulty to which the hon. Member refers. The question of exhibiting a warning notice is being taken up with the local authority concerned.

    HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES (SAFETY DEVICES).
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Home Secretary whether he will inquire into the desirability of employing the recently-invented safety-roller device for omnibuses and commercial vehicles?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The device to which my hon. Friend no doubt refers has been inspected by myself personally and by the Commissioner of Police, and it is proposed to fit it experimentally on a vehicle in daily use.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: What approximately will be the cost of this device?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot say. Only one has been made experimentally, and I cannot say whether it is sufficiently good until extended experiments have taken place.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it in any way satisfactory?
    Mr. HARRIS: Has the right hon. Gentleman not parliamentary powers to enforce the use of this device on vehicles?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If in the opinion of the Commissioner of Police the device is so good as to make it necessary in the public welfare, I think he would be entitled to make it a condition of a licence for a vehicle. With regard to the other supplementary question, I think that the experiment which I saw was made only with dummy men, and I cannot express any further opinion as to its actual use.

    TAXICAB FARES, LONDON.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Home Secretary whether he is taking any steps to examine the accounts of representative taxicab owners and drivers to ascertain whether the new 6d. rate provides them with a reasonable livelihood?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave on the 28th November.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he favoured me with a reply to a question which I never asked. I asked whether he was preparing data so as to be ready to come to a decision when he does re-open the question—not whether he will re-open it or not?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not going to re-open the question unless much more information than is at present available is placed before me.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: I am trying to find out whether the right hon. Gentleman is taking any steps to get information, such as examining the accounts of some of these drivers to find out what sort of livelihood they earn?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Steps are being taken with great care indeed to ascertain the facts with regard to this matter.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: What specific steps are being taken?
    Colonel DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that many of these drivers are not able to take out their cabs on account of the very heavy repair bills which they have to meet?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not understand the point of the question. The question of repairs has nothing to do with the matter.

    FACTORY INSPECTION (ACCIDENT, HULL).
    Mr. LUMLEYasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the fatal accident which occurred in a Hull factory on 15th November; when the factory was last inspected; and whether he proposes to issue any special instructions to factory inspectors or to require the makers of the machines concerned to take any special action in view of the recommendation of the jury and the remarks of the coroner at the inquest?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have received reports from the Factory Department which show that this accident was due to an explosion of a steam-heated iron plate. The circumstances were of an unusual character and are being further investigated. The firm have replaced all the existing plates by gas-heated plates. The factory was last inspected on the 21st July last. The attention of the staff will be called to the case and the advisability of providing safeguards will be discussed with the makers. No provision on the subject is contained in the existing Acts, but the point will be considered in the next Bill.

    PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
    Major KINDERSLEYasked the Home Secretary the total number of persons eligible to vote at the last three General Elections and the number of persons who abstained from voting?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can give my hon. and gallant Friend the number of votes polled in contested constituencies and the number of persons on the register in those constituencies. He will realise that the difference between the two does not accurately represent the number who abstained from voting, though it is probably a sufficiently close approximation for any practical purposes. I will publish the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:

    STATEMENT showing the TOTAL NUMBER of ELECTORS on the Register and Votes Polled in all Contested Constituencies inclusive of Undivided Boroughs or Counties returning two Members.

    —

    Net number of Electors on Register.

    Total Votes Polled.

    November, 1922.

    England and Wales

    16,751,284

    12,623,685

    Scotland

    2,149,479

    1,568,361

    Northern Ireland

    358,212

    207,886

    Total

    19,258,975

    14,399,932

    December, 1923.

    England and Wales

    17,330,439

    12,802,453

    Scotland

    2,145,326

    1,501,327

    Northern Ireland

    408,169

    242,258

    Total

    19,883,934

    14,546,038

    October, 1924.

    England and Wales

    17,936,947

    14,386,178

    Scotland

    2,239,612

    1,734,727

    Northern Ireland

    522,320

    519,374

    Total

    20,698,879

    16,640,279

    Major KINDERSLEYasked the Home Secretary whether he can state, assuming the existing Parliamentary franchise to be extended to women upon the same terms as men, how many of the electors would be males and how many females?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On the basis of the most recent available figures
    678
    it has been estimated that the total electorate for Great Britain will approximately comprise 12,250,000 men and 14,500,000 women.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the good old English words "men" and "women" would be preferable in questions of this character?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member will see that in my reply I have used the good old English words.
    Sir F. HALL: Assuming that the proposals with regard to women of 21 are carried, we shall have about 2,000,000 more women voting?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If my hon. and gallant Friend had listened carefully to my answer, he would have found that there would be 2,250,000 more.
    Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask the Home Secretary whether he thinks justice has anything to do with sex? Will it make any difference?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that arithmetic has any sex.

    MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT (ELECTION, SMETHWICK).
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a permanent employé on the staff of the borough corporation of Smethwick has been given permission to be nominated as a candidate for election to the city council who employs him, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12 (1) (a) of the Municipal Corporation Act of 1882; and whether he will introduce legislation imposing a penalty in the case of disqualified persons who become members of borough councils?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I may draw the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend to the provisions of Section 41 of the Act he mentions, by which a person who acts in a corporate office whilst disqualified is liable to a penalty of £50.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman take steps in the event of an employé becoming a councillor, as the council already have shown their

    679
    appreciation or, at any rate, have shown that they have no feeling about the matter by saying that they will have no objection to the man becoming a councillor?
    Mr. COMPTON: Is it not a fact that the Act provides for a common informer coming in on such an occasion; and would not this be a good opportunity for the hon. and gallant Gentleman?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSIn any case, I cannot assume that an illegal act has arisen until the case is proved. It may be possible that he will resign his other position.

    LORD MAYORS (TITULAR DISTINCTION).
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Home Secretary if, in view of the long usage of the style of right honourable by several Lord Mayors of the United Kingdom through a misunderstanding which was not definitely made clear until the announcement in July last, he is prepared, in view of the circumstances relating to the misunderstanding, going back in some instances over 34 years, to advise the grant of this titular distinction to be conferred upon Lord Mayors who are not now entitled to use the prefix right honourable?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: For the reasons which I gave in my previous answers on this matter on 25th July, I am afraid the answer must be in the negative.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that prior to 25th July his own Department habitually committed this error and carried it on; and, in face of that fact, can he not reconsider his decision?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to both parts of the Supplementary question are in the negative.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: If I bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman cases of peers who use this title wrongly, will he take similar action in those cases? A large number use it without justification.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should put down another question.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.
    Mr. ROY WILSONasked the Minister of Health whether, in his proposals for the reform, of the Poor Law and reorganisation of the health services of the country, he contemplates that the voluntary hospitals should or would come under the control of the State or the local authorities?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir. On the contrary, I regard the preservation of the voluntary hospital system as a matter of essential importance in the health interests of the country. What has been impressed on my mind is the absence as a general rule at present of any systematic arrangements for co-operation in the various areas of the country between the voluntary hospitals and the hospitals and institutions carried on by the local authorities. I have, therefore, suggested that it is advisable that there should be consultation in the various areas with a view to arriving at an agreed plan for institutional provision which would enable each kind of hospital to play its proper part in meeting the ever-increasing need of the people for hospital accommodation. I should anticipate that under such a plan, the position of the voluntary hospitals would he strengthened and not weakened, but I have never contemplated putting any compulsion upon them to come into an arrangement, their participation in which would be a matter for their own determination.
    Mr. WILSON: In view of the widespread apprehension in the minds of those responsible for voluntary hospitals in this country, who hold the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the right hon. Gentleman does mean to bring voluntary hospitals in some way under the local authorities, will he be good enough to give the widest publicity possible to the very important statement which he has made in answer to my question?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope the fact that I have made a statement in answer to the question of my hon. Friend will have the effect of giving wide publicity to it.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Why does the right hon. Gentleman say that the health interests of the country are bound up with the voluntary system?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is rather too big a subject to be dealt with by question and answer.
    Mr. BARKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the voluntary hospital at Blaina is almost closing for want of funds, and in these cases in necessitous areas, will his Department relieve the hospitals?
    Mr. LUNN: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the dreadful financial position of voluntary hospitals in many parts of the country to-day, and the failure of voluntary hospital boards to extend to meet the requirements of the many waiting patients; and will the Government consider giving further funds to the Cave Commission, so that they can further assist voluntary hospitals in their difficulties?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think a review of the circumstances of voluntary hospitals during the past 12 months will show that they have responded in an astonishing manner to the requirements of the country, and, while at one time it did appear to be impossible for them to meet the need for extension, they are, I am very glad to say, now largely overcoming that difficulty; and not only have they been able to find, in most cases, sufficient money for the maintenance of existing beds, but they have even been able to make very considerable additions.

    PETROL (POISONING).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Home Secretary whether his Department has any knowledge of any case of poisoning due to the use of petrol containing tetra-ethyl of lead?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether in cases of a motorist charged with drunkenness who denies the charge it is not possible to have an analysis made of the petrol at his expense, as evidence in the case?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think I have any power to order an
    682
    analysis of that kind. It is quite clear, unless the hon. Member has information which I have not, the poisoning does not exist.

    CONDENSED SKIMMED MILK.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health when the new Regulations will be issued by his Department modifying the details of the Condensed Milk Regulations of 1923, to make it compulsory for the labels on tins of condensed skimmed milk to bear the words "Unfit for babies" in greater prominence than at present in use?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:The Regulations have been made, and were circulated to local authorities on the 19th ultimo.
    Mr. EVERARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, though he may mark this in larger letters, it does not prevent it being used for babies, and is he also aware that it is a great deal inferior to the home-produced milk?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will give me a suggestion as to how I can prevent it being used for babies.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that wages are increased, so that the people can buy proper milk for their babies?
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Would it not be possible to prohibit the importation of it?

    OFFICE ACCOMMODATION (INSPECTION).
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health whether his suggestion that Metropolitan borough councils should carry out a systematic inspection of offices has been adopted; and, if so, whether any resistance to such inspection has been offered on which a test case can be prepared as to the powers of local authorities with regard to office sanitation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not issued any communication to the metropolitan borough councils on this subject. I am informed that systematic inspection is made in a few of the boroughs, and I have not heard of any case of resistance.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is it not a fact that last year the Minister did suggest that all the boroughs should

    683
    undertake this systematic inspection, as very little was being done, and is it not advisable that he should rather stir them up in this direction?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I have no recollection of making that suggestion.

    MENTAL HOSPITALS (ADMINISTRATION).
    Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Health if lie will institute a public inquiry into the whole administration of our mental asylums, in view of the resignation of many of the staff, including the medical officer, and upwards of 30 of the nurses of the Park Prewett Mental Hospital at Basingstoke?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The administration of public mental hospitals was dealt with in 1922 in the Report of the Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for West Fulham, and again in 1926 in the Report of the Royal Commission on Lunacy. I see no reason, therefore; to institute the inquiry suggested by the hon. Member. As regards the recent incident at Park Prewett Mental Hospital, I would refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne) on the 10th November.

    WATER SUPPLY (MITCHAM).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the frequent curtailing of the supply of water by the Metropolitan Water Board to that part of the Urban District of Mitcham in the vicinity of Streatham Road, more particularly on Sunday; and, having regard to the increased charges, if he will make representations to the Board that the water should be in continuous supply?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I am informed that the Water Board do not know of any curtailing of supply in this area, apart from temporary reductions in pressure due to repairs and the like. If particulars of any reduction of supplies are forwarded to the Water Board, they will investigate the matter.

    FOOD AND DRUGS ACTS.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIESasked the Minister of Health if he will give for the
    684
    last three years for which statistics are available the number of inspections under the Food and Drugs Act; the number of samples analysed; the percentage of adulterations; and the number of prosecutions in England and Wales?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no record of the number of inspections made or prosecutions undertaken under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the number of samples analysed under the Acts, the number reported to be adulterated, and the percentage of adulterations in England and Wales for each of the calendar years 1924, 1925, and 1926.
    Following is the statement:

    Sale of Food and Drugs Acts.

    —

    1924.

    1925.

    1926.

    Number of samples analysed.

    118,000

    118,930

    120,617

    Number of samples adulterated.

    6,987

    7,714

    7,044

    Percentage of samples adulterated.

    5·9

    6·5

    5·8

    INTERNATIONAL PRISON COMMISSION.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Home Secretary when the last meeting of the council of the International Prison Commission took place and when the next meeting is due; and whether there is any public record of its principal decisions at its last meeting?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The last meeting of the Commission was in June, 1926, and it was decided then that the next meeting should take place in two years' time unless the bureau should find it desirable to summon an earlier meeting. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the report of the proceedings at the last meeting.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Do I understand that the report is confidential?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No.

    FRUIT (COLD STORAGE).
    Brigadier-General WARNERasked the President of the Board of Education under whose direction and at what places is research work being carried out in connection with the cold storage of fruit; has it been found that fruit preserved in cold storage is susceptible to any special diseases; and is it proposed to publish information as to the recent results of the investigations made as to the most suitable temperature for the storage of certain varieties of fruit?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): Research in connection with the cold storage of fruit is carried out in Great Britain by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The research is planned and supervised by the Food Investigation Board and its committees, and is directed by Sir W. B. Hardy, F.R.S., Director of Food Investigation; it is conducted mainly at the Low Temperature Research Station, Cambridge, and also at the National Physical Laboratory, the Imperial College of Science and Technology, South Kensington, and the Horticultural Research Institute, Long Ashton. It has been found that fruit in cold storage is susceptible to special diseases, and a special report, entitled "Functional Diseases of Apples in Cold Storage," has been published by His Majesty's Stationery Office. As and when information is available as to the temperatures suitable for the storage of fruit, it is published by His Majesty's Stationery Office either in the Annual Reports of the Food Investigation Board or in one of the series of Food Investigation Special Reports.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is the fruit washed before it is put into cold storage; and, if not, what is the effect of intense cold upon arsenic still retained in the skin of an apple?
    Lord E. PERCY: I must ask for notice of that question.

  EDUCATION.

    COST.
    Sir FRANK SANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Education what is the cost of education per head of the population and per head of the
    686
    scholars in the elementary and secondary schools for the two years ended 31st March, 1914 and 1927, respectively?
    Lord E. PERCY: As regards elementary education, I would refer my hon. Friend to page 11 of the Memorandum on the Board's Estimates, 1927 (a copy of which I am sending him), and, as regards higher education, to page 13. Stated in terms of population as ascertained at the Censuses of 1911 and 1921, the figures are, for elementary education 14s. 2d. and 30s. 10d., and, for higher education, 2s. 5d. and 6s. 10d., respectively.

    ADVANCED INSTRUCTION (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether any of the authorities controlling primary education in this country have submitted proposals to raise the leaving age to 15; and whether he will represent to such authorities as provide technical education for young people between the ages of 14 and 16 that sessions shall be held morning and afternoon so that a child in receipt of pension, or eligible for pension, if remaining full time at school, under The Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, may continue to draw a pension until the age of 16?
    Lord E. PERCY: Four local authorities have by local bye-law raised the age of compulsory school attendance in their areas to 15; no further proposals for doing so are at present before the Board. As regards the second part of the question, there seems to be no need to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion as it is the duty of local authorities under the provisions of the Education Act, to provide courses of advanced instruction in public elementary schools for children who stay at such schools beyond the age of 14, and the Board have for the last three years continually advised authorities to discharge this duty by providing central schools.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Will the Minister be kind enough to name the four authorities and state whether any of them have granted maintenance allowances?
    Lord E. PERCY: The four authorities are Carnarvonshire, East Suffolk, Ply mouth and Cornwall. As to maintenance

    687
    allowances, I know that Carnarvonshire grants maintenance allowances but I have no information as to the others at present.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Does Carnarvonshire grant maintenance allowances in all cases or only in special cases?
    Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member wants details, I must ask for notice.
    Mr. DALTON: Have any local authorities which submitted proposals now withdrawn them as a result of discouragement from the Ministry?
    Lord E. PERCY: No, Sir, not recently. In 1924, two authorities within my recollection submitted proposals which were refused—one by my predecessor and the other by myself.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Will the Noble Lord urge other authorities to do the same as Carnarvonshire and the other three authorities?
    Viscountess ASTOR: The same as Plymouth.

    SCHOOL LEAVING AGE.
    Mr. HARRIS: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has any Reports to show how the raising of the school age is working in the areas where local authorities have adopted it?
    Lord E. PERCY: It is, I think, too early to form a considered opinion on this point. The education advantages of prolonging school life must depend upon the extent to which children are given a real opportunity of entering upon a new stage of advanced instruction at the age of 11, and I am not yet in a position to draw a comparison between the progress made in this direction by authorities who have raised the school age and those who have not.
    Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct his Inspectors to watch closely these experiments, and in due course to make a full report, so that we shall know how they are working?
    Lord E. PERCY: No instructions are necessary. The Inspectors do keep them very closely under their observation.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: In view of the bearing of this question upon unemployment, will the Noble Lord press other authorities to raise the school leaving age?
    Mr. DIXEY: May we take it that it is no part of the policy of the Government to encourage an increase in the age of compulsory attendance at school?

    CONTINUATION SCHOOLS, GERMANY.
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has any reports on the working of the post-War system of continuation schools in Germany; and, if not, whether he will have an investigation made and issue a Report on the subject, so that its effect on employment and industry may become known in this country?
    Lord E. PERCY: A substantial amount of published information is already available about the work and aims of the Prussian continuation schools, but no report of the kind referred to has been made to the Board. I will, however, bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind in considering what special inquiries can be undertaken.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    OIL EXTRACTION (BERGIUS PROCESS).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can state what progress has been made since May last by the Bergius process for the extraction of oil from coal?
    Lord E. PERCY: Work on the Bergius process has continued steadily at the Fuel Research Station and the results have confirmed that large quantities of liquid fuels can be obtained from coal by this process. A beginning has been made in the investigation of the whole question of the action of hydrogen on coal under different conditions, and interesting results are being gradually accumulated. There can be no doubt about the interest and importance of the process referred to by the hon. Member, but, as the House is aware, it is no part of the duties of the Department to offer opinions on the purely commercial aspects of the inventions which it makes or investigates.
    Mr. HARDIE: Why has the Department gone so far out of its way to investigate a German system—though I do not disagree with that—when English systems have been left without aid in the matter of investigation?
    Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member must not assume that to be the case. If he wants to know what other investigations, besides this are being carried out, I suggest that he should put down a question.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is done with the results of the investigations—with the information?
    Lord E. PERCY: A very full statement on the subject was made by my Noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary this summer, to which I would refer the hon. and gallant Member.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was aware of that statement, but is it not obvious to the Noble Lord that these results are not being taken any notice of by the commercial interests involved?
    Lord E. PERCY: No, I do not think that is obvious at all. If the hon. and gallant Member would like to know what notice has been taken of them, I suggest that he should put down a question.
    Mr. WILFRID PALING: Is it intended to publish the results of this process or experiment?
    Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member had better put down a question if he wants to know about publication.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Is there any communication between the Noble Lord and the Board of Trade with a view to advertising and making known the results of these inquiries in his Department?
    Lord E. PERCY: They are not in my Department. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, this Department of Industrial Research is under the Lord President of the Council. As to advertising, I think my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that it is very important that the Government should not in any way commit themselves to an opinion as to the commercial possibilities of any process of this kind.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal mines which were producing coal in this country on the latest available date and for the corresponding date for the years 1924 and 1925; the total wages paid per week to the workpeople employed at the coal mines of this country on the latest available date and for the corresponding date for the years 1924 and 1925; and the number of workpeople employed at the coal mines of this country for the same periods?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): I regret that it has not been possible to collect this information in the time available. I hope to supply the figures to the hon. Member on Monday and to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT on that day.
    Mr. JOHNasked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal mines producing coal in South Wales and Monmouthshire on the latest date available and for the corresponding date of the years 1924 and 1925; the total number of wage-earners employed in the same area on the latest available date and for the corresponding date of the years 1924 and 1925; and the total wages paid to the wage-earners employed in the coal mines of South Wales and Monmouthshire on the latest available date and for the corresponding date of the years 1924 and 1925?
    Colonel LANE FOX: At the middle of November, 1927, 467 pits were producing coal in South Wales and Monmouthshire, and 179,500 wage-earners were employed. The corresponding figures for 1924 were 492 and 220,200, and for 1925, 476 and 199,900. During the months of August, September and October, 1927, the latest period for which information is available, the estimated total weekly wage bill was £430,000. The corresponding figures for 1924 and 1925 were £660,000and. £508,000.

    CENTRAL LIBRARY.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has yet asked for and obtained the views of the trustees of the British Museum and of the trustees of the Central Library on the proposal to reconstitute the Central Library as

    691
    department of the British Museum; and whether he is going to make provision in the next Estimates for an interim grant to the Central Library, as proposed by the Departmental Committee on Public Libraries?
    Lord E. PERCY: I have obtained the views of the trustees of the Central Library, and I understand that the trustees of the British Museum expect to be able to acquaint me with their views very shortly. I am consulting my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as regards the proposal for an interim grant to the Central Library.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    POOR LAW RELIEF.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health the number of persons, exclusive of dependants, insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act, who were in receipt of Poor Law relief at the end of September, 1927, and, for comparison, the numbers at the end of the June and March quarters; and whether these persons were required to sign the register at the Employment Exchanges?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The average number of unemployed persons whose unemployment books had been lodged at the Employment Exchanges and who were in receipt of outdoor Poor Law relief in England and Wales in September, 1927, was 99,556, including 97,085 men and 2,471 women. The corresponding figure for March, 1927, was 118,487 (115,261 men and 3,226 women), and for June, 1927, 104,679 (101,986 men and 2,693 women). No figures in respect of insured persons in receipt of institutional Poor Law relief are available. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to his question on 24th November, regarding persons in receipt of out-door relief.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that 21 out of 26 men receiving outdoor relief who were chosen by the Bermondsey Guardians to learn farming refused to go; what are the ages of these men and the amount of relief which they are re-
    692
    ceiving weekly; whether any of them are in receipt of unemployment benefit; and whether men who refuse an offer of this kind continue to receive public relief?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information upon the subject of this question, but I will make inquiries and communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

    ROTA COMMITTEES (LLANDUDNO).
    Major OWENasked the Minister of Labour whether any representations have been made to the Ministry direct, or through the local authority, about irregularities in connection with the representation on the rota committee of Llandudno; whether he is aware that the workers' representatives on the rota are not called regularly to the meetings and that occasions have arisen on which no workers' representatives have been present; and whether, with a view to securing co-operation between all parties concerned, he will take such action as will ensure that the rota committee will be drawn upon in such a way as to secure an all round representation of the various interests concerned?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I am having inquiries made and will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member as soon as possible.

  HOUSING.

    RENTS.
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Minister of Health whether he is taking any steps to secure the erection of houses to be let at rentals not exceeding 10s. a week, inclusive of rates; and can he make any statement on the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already suggested to local authorities that they should in future especially devote themselves to the provision of houses which can be let at rents within the means of the less well-paid workers, and the reduction which has taken place in the prices of houses is undoubtedly facilitating the erection of this type of house.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in answer to the first part

    693
    of the question, whether he is taking any other steps than making suggestions to the local authorities?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

    HALESOWEN URBAN DISTRICT.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Minister of Health how many houses have been erected this year, under which Act, and whether by private or public enterprise;

    Harlesowen Urban District.

    Statement showing the number of houses completed with State-Assistance during the first 10 months of the current year; the number under construction and the number of houses authorised but not yet started at 1st November, 1927.

    —

    Housing. etc, Act, 1925.

    Housing Financial Provisions) Act, 1924.

    Total.

    Number of houses completed—

    (a) By the Local Authority

    46

    —

    46

    (b) By Private Enterprise

    121

    —

    121

    Total

    167

    —

    167

    Number of houses under construction at 1st November, 1927.

    31

    —

    31

    Number of houses authorised but not started at 1st November, 1927.

    97

    50

    147

    Similar information with regard to houses provided by private enterprise without assistance is not available, but 10 such houses were completed in the district during the year ended 30th September, 1927.

    ELTHAM SCHEME (WAGES).
    Mr. SNELLasked the Minister of Health whether he has received from the council of the metropolitan borough of Woolwich a request for information as to whether the council has a discretionary power to vary the wages paid to workmen employed on roads and sewers on its housing scheme at Eltham up to 10 per cent. above the trade union rates; and whether the council has such a discretionary power?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. As I have informed the borough council, it is for the council to decide what rates of wages shall be paid by them, subject to the conditions laid down in the law. My jurisdiction in the matter is restricted to deciding on its merits any appeal which may be made to me against an allowance or disallowance by the district auditor.
    how many are in course of erection; and how many have been sanctioned in Halesowen, including Cradley and Hill and Cokemore?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    INQUIRY.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Prime Minister what answer he has given to a recent deputation asking for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole housing problem; if he proposes to appoint a Royal Commission; and, if not, whether he proposes to appoint a special committee to report on the subject at an early date?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The suggestions of the deputation which waited on me have been very carefully considered, but having regard to all the circumstances I do not think that the appointment of a Royal Commission or a special committee would assist in the solution of the housing problems. An official report of the proceedings of the deputation was issued on Thursday evening last and subsequently appeared in the Press.
    Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in spite of all the efforts of local authorities to build houses, the slum conditions remain very much as they were after the War?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The arguments were set forth very fully in the speeches, which were reported in the Press.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is it the view of the Prime Minister that the progress that has been made towards solving the housing problem is satisfactory?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It will be a long time before progress is satisfactory, but it is more satisfactory than under any previous Government.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the Prime Minister said that this was one of the greatest menaces this country had to face; and is he satisfied that his Government is fighting that menace just as effectively as the Germans were fought?

    RURAL AREAS.
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Minister of Health whether, in the case of all those county councils who have not submitted schemes under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, before the end of the present year, he is prepared to declare that the rural district councils should be the authorities for the administration of this Act?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In 12 of the 16 cases in which county councils have not submitted schemes, some or all of the district councils have been declared the authorities under the Act; in the remaining four cases the matter is under the consideration of the county councils, and I hope that they will decide to submit schemes; if it should be necessary, my hon. Friend's suggestion will, of course, receive my serious consideration.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
    Major-General Sir RICHARD LUCEasked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to make any statement as to the steps to be taken to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on National
    696
    Health Insurance and, in particular, those relating to the abolition of insurance committees and the provision of a specialist and consultant medical service for all insured persons by means of a partial pooling of future surpluses of approved societies?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The various recommendations of the Royal Commission have now been exhaustively discussed with the Consultative Council of Approved Societies, and it is intended pursuant to that discussion to take the first convenient opportunity of introducing an amending Health Insurance Bill embodying most of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It is not, however, proposed to provide in this Bill for the abolition of insurance committees or for the extension of medical benefit to include a specialist and consultant service by means of a partial pooling of societies' surpluses.

  POOR LAW.

    BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (BERMONDSEY AND SOUTHWARK).
    Viscount SANDONasked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed to apply the provisions of the Board of Guardians (Default) Act, 1926, to Bermondsey and Southwark?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received Reports on the administration of these two boards of guardians which are in some respects disquieting, and I have communicated the Reports to the guardians for consideration. I am not at present proposing to take action on the lines suggested in the question.
    Viscount SANDON: Is it not a fact that the revelations made by the officials of the Ministry showed a state of affairs just as serious as in the case of those other places that have already been brought under the provisions of the Act?
    Colonel DAY: Can the Minister say whether he has had any Report from the Board of Guardians of Shrewsbury?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should like to have notice of that question.
    Mr. THURTLE: What principle guides the right hon. Gentleman in instructing his officers to investigate the

    697
    affairs of particular boards of guardians? What principle guides him in selecting boards?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question must be put down.

    RELIEF.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Minister of Health if his inspectors have instructions to advise boards of guardians not to give out-relief to able-bodied men, single or married, but to offer to take them into their institutions?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The Regulations in force prohibit, subject to a power of departure in exceptional cases, the grant of unconditional outdoor relief to able-bodied persons. Where guardians make an unreasonable use of their power of "departing from" the Regulations, my officers are instructed to endeavour to secure that the discretion vested in guardians by the Regulations is properly exercised.
    Mr. WELLOCK: If I give the right hon. Gentleman a case where it has been done, will he inquire into it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What has been done?
    Mr. WELLOCK: Where this recommendation has been made by inspectors.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, but it does not follow that because it has been done it is contrary to Regulations.

    SCALES OF RELIEF.
    Mr. B. SMITHasked the Minister of Health which boards of guardians have reduced their scales of relief since the present Governmnt took office?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Information on this point is not in my possession. I may, however, point out that the cost of living index has fallen during the period to which the question refers from 80 to 69.
    Mr. SMITH: Has the right hon. Gentleman no figure available to give us the relative fall in relief as compared with the fall in the cost of living?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will see if I can give it.
    Mr. SMITHasked the Minister of Health to which boards of guardians his Department has suggested that the
    698
    scales of relief should be reduced; and in which case the suggestion was made or pressure exercised as a condition of the approval of loans to the guardians concerned?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is my practice to bring the facts to the notice of guardians in any case in which the expenditure on relief is comparatively high, but specific suggestions for the reduction of scales of relief do not necessarily accompany such communications, and I am afraid that I am not in a position to furnish the hon. Member with such lists as he desires. Obviously in all cases in which application is made by guardians for sanction to a loan in respect of current expenditure, I must necessarily have regard to the rate of that expenditure.
    Mr. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that in no case suggestions are made as to the amount of reductions of relief that should take place under the penalty of the imposition of a committee?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That was not quite the question which the hon. Member put. He asked me whether I could give him the boards of guardians to which my Department suggested that the scales of relief should be reduced, and I told him that I was unable to do it.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is is not a fact that boards of guardians that have not been compelled to go to his Department for a loan can pay what scales they like?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can and do draw their attention to the fact that their expenditure is comparatively high, and I use such influence as I possess to get them to reduce it.
    Mr. THURTLE: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the expenditure is comparatively high, what standard of comparison is he applying?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I take the expenditure of other boards of guardians.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Does the Minister really advise boards who are paying what we call a decent scale, to reduce it when they are raising the money themselves?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that I am quite prepared to accept the hon. Member as an authority on what is a decent scale.

    ALIENS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Health what was the amount paid in outdoor relief to aliens in this country in each of the years 1924 to 1926, inclusive?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that this information is not available.

    MANCHESTER UNION.
    Mr. COMPTONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, following reduced scales of relief in the Manchester Union, a number of the guardians have declined to be associated with the administration of relief on the new scales; and whether it is proposed to take any action?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen newspaper reports to the effect suggested in the question, but I have received no representations from the guardians in the matter, and it does not, at present, appear to be one in which there is need for any action on my part.
    Mr. COMPTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it his duty to pee that relief is being properly administered, and is he satisfied that he can reduce the number of guardians who take part in administering relief?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the case of appointed guardians we find that three guardians are sufficient to administer relief.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is his bounden duty to interfere with a scale of relief where that scale is almost starvation rate?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Has the Department had under consideration certain cases where relief is given only in kind and not in money? Where there is no other income for the family and rent has to be paid, is that a method of trying to drive the family into the workhouse?
    Mr. COMPTONasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the booklet issued by the Manchester Union containing Regulations for the administration of outdoor relief; if he is aware that on page 7 it is provided
    700
    that destitute able-bodied single men and women shall, after a limited period, be given an order for the house (institution order), and that in other cases whole-time test work shall be imposed; whether he has sanctioned these measures; and what action it is proposed that the Ministry of Health shall take?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not seen the booklet referred to, but I have sent for a copy. In the meantime, the provisions cited in the question do not appear to contravene any Regulations now in force or to call for any action on my part.
    Mr. COMPTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department has for many weeks past had inspectors sitting along with certain guardians to see that they do not reach the maximum scale in giving relief to poor people?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck.
    Mr. COMPTON: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall take the earliest opportunity of raising this question on the Adjournment.

    IRISH GRANTS COMMITTEE.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Irish Grants Committee considered the claim of a retired captain in His Majesty's forces on the 9th November; that, in view of the circumstances of the case, the Committee intimated that an immediate advance would be made; and whether he can now say if the advance of £500 required to save this ex-officer from financial ruin has yet been made?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The case to which I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend refers is one in which the Irish Grants Committee recommended that an immediate advance should be made, and I understand that an intimation to this effect was made to the ex-officer concerned. An immediate advance of £300 has been authorised and paid. I will, however, give the case further consideration.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this man has

    701
    already been driven out of two homes, and that it was only by giving him a postdated cheque for £500 that he was able to get another residence; and will he go fully into this case, as it is a most deserving case and strongly recommended by the Irish Grants Committee?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Does he live in Bermondsey?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BE NTINCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the admitted need for the elimination of obsolete plant and methods of production in industry, particularly in the coal and iron and steel trades, he will revise the machinery of the Trades Facilities Act for making loans for this purpose?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; the Trade Facilities Act expired on the 31st March last, and there is no intention of reviving it.
    Mr. DIXEY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a necessary precedent to any improvement in the iron and steel trades of this country is a measure of safeguarding for those industries?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That question has been several times discussed in this House, and an answer has been given on behalf of the Government by the Prime Minister.

    BRITISH INDUSTRIES AND LEIPZIG FAIRS.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Transport whether any reply has been made to the offer from the German railways that visitors to the British Industries Fair should receive a special reduction of 25 per cent. on their ordinary fares, provided that reciprocity is guar anteed, as far as railway companies in this country are concerned, for British visitors to the fair at Leipzig?
    Captain HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. An offer has been received from the German Federal Railway Company of a special reduction for visitors to the British Industries Fair provided reciprocity were granted in
    702
    respect of visitors to certain fairs in Germany. The matter has been put before the British railway companies, but I am informed that they cannot see their way to grant to persons visiting foreign fairs from this country facilities other than those usually accorded to passengers travelling in parties, which is a reduction of about one-third.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the number of British exhibitors at the international fair at Leipzig in 1927; how that compares with the number in the previous year; and whether he can give any indication of the number who intend to exhibit in 1928?
    Captain HACKING: I am informed that the number of British exhibitors at the Leipzig Spring Fair in 1927 was 42 as compared with 11 in the previous year. As regards the 1928 fair I understand that about 50 British firms are expected to take space.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (GUARANTEED LOANS).
    Sir JOHN POWERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total liability in the event of defaults incurred by this country in guaranteeing the loans raised by certain foreign countries under the auspices of the League of Nations?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The only loan issued under the auspices of the League of Nations in respect of which this country has given any guarantee is the Austrian Guaranteed Loan of 1923, 24£ per cent. of which is guaranteed both as to principal and interest by the British Government. The net capital liability of the British Government in respect of this loan as on 31st March last was for £3,128,601 in sterling and for amounts in other currencies equivalent to about £3,800,000 at the present rates of exchange. Details will be found on page 93 of the Finance Accounts, 1926–27. It should be made clear that, while His Majesty's Government are liable under their guarantee, for the above amount, the Austrian Government have, from the outset, duly discharged the full service of the loan and have already paid off some £21 millions by means of the Sinking Fund, so that no actual payments have at any time been required from any

    703
    of the guarantor States, and there is no reason to anticipate such an eventuality in the future.

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. B. SMITHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount per head of the population expended in 1926–27 in respect of each of the chief ser vices undertaken or contributed to by the State, including the various social services, but excluding the Post Office, and excluding contributions by employers and employed in respect of health and unemployment insurance, and widows', orphans', and old age pensions?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the detailed statement given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. Bennett) on the 28th July last. But as I pointed out in regard to a similar inquiry last Tuesday, any comparison of pre-War and post-War figures per head of population is very misleading and requires to be qualified by reference to the alterations that have taken place, particularly in the value of money.

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (OFFICIAL LIST).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the official published list of previous Members of Parliament is seriously defective; and that all the names for the Parliaments of 1439–40 and 1491–92, as well as some 1.000 other Members of Parliament, are missing; and will he have a revised edition of the return put in hand or appoint a small committee to make provision for and consider the scope of the new edition?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply. I am aware that there are gaps in this list. A few have been filled by recent discoveries, but for the most part they still remain irreparable. The importance of the discoveries is not, I think, sufficient to justify the great expense of a revised edition. A note of the discoveries is kept, and is available for inspection, at the Public Record Office.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last edition of this list was published in 1878, and does he not think that the Mother of Parliaments ought to have as full a record as possible of her former Members?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I agree as to the date, but may I remind my hon. Friend that the Mother of Parliaments is at the present time rather like the cupboard of old mother Hubbard, a little bare.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a committee to obtain material for this publication would cost exceedingly little money, and, further, that the publication itself would be a far better seller than many of the other publications of the Record Office today?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not want to encourage my right hon. and gallant Friend by the appointment of a committee, because I am bound to confess that I have come to the conclusion that in the interests of economy it is not desirable to publish any new edition at the present time, and the discoveries made up-to-date are really very few indeed.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not at all aware of what discoveries have been made? Is he aware that not only have these two complete new Parliaments been discovered, but that there are many misprints in the existing list which have been corrected, and that Messrs. Beaven and Pink, who died recently, left behind records of more than 2,000 Members which are not included at all?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. and gallant Member had better submit that question in writing.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Member will give me those details.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether in view of the recommendations made by the various local pensions committees, he will consider the advisability

    705
    of introducing legislation to provide that uninsured persons at 70 years of age shall have the same privileges as to means as insured persons will have in January next at the age of 65?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The answer is in the negative. On financial grounds alone it is impossible for the Government to propose legislation which would involve an additional liability on the Exchequer of £13 million a year.

    SMALLHOLDINGS AND COTTAGE ALLOTMENTS.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Minister of Agriculture how many local authorities have put into action the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926; and how many small holdings and cottage holdings have been established under this Act?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Twenty-five councils have submitted schemes for the acquisition of land involving contributions from the Ministry under Section 2 of the Act. The area acquired or to be acquired is 2,646 acres, of which 107 acres is to be used for enlarging 17 existing holdings and the remainder for the creation of 136 new small holdings and 16 cottage holdings. In addition, 15 councils have submitted applications under Sub-section (5) of Section 2, which if carried into effect will result in the improved equipment of 32 existing holdings. I have no information at present as to the extent of councils' operations under other Sections of the Act.
    Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the number of holdings provided compares with the number of applicants waiting for them?
    Mr. GUINNESS: We have not any figures as to the applicants.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if preference is given to agricultural workers?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Most certainly. Careful inquiries are made in each case to see that the selected applicant has the necessary agricultural knowledge.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (COMMISSIONS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Air how many non-commissioned officer-pilots of the Royal Air Force have been recommended for commissions since 1st January, 1927; and how many commissions were granted?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Five airmen pilots have been selected for commissions since the date mentioned. Recommendations for commissions are made confidentially to the Air Council and it would not be proper to state their numbers.

    INQUEST, SHEFFIELD.
    Colonel DAYasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence given by a medical practitioner of Sheffield at an inquest recently to the effect that he was convinced that when he was called to see the patient the best thing he could do was to let the man die, as if he had lived his life would only have been a misery; and whether the Public Prosecutor intends to take any action?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have no knowledge of this matter beyond the reports which have appeared in the Press. From these I observe that the inquest has been adjourned for a post-mortem examination; it would obviously be impossible for me to answer the last part of the question while this is the case.
    Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman have this matter watched, and make inquiries as to the statement made?

    JUSTICES' ADVISORY COMMITTEES, GRIMSBY.
    Mr. F. ROBERTSasked the Attorney-General what are the names of members and the interests represented on the advisory committees for the appointment of justices in the Grimsby borough and county petty sessional areas; and the dates of the last meeting of each of these bodies?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As the answer to this question involves a considerable amount of detail, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following are the members of the Grimsby Borough Advisory Committee:

    Sir Francis S. Bennett, J.P. (Chairman), Fryston, Grimsby.

    Alfred J. Knott, Esq., J.P., Temple Rhydding, Grimsby.

    John Collins, Esq., J.P., 8, Riby Square, Grimsby.

    Alderman Thomas Campbell Moss, J.P., Epping House, Eleanor Street, Grimsby.

    Arthur Cook, Esq., J.P., 16, Abbey Drive East, Grimsby.

    The committee are chosen not as representatives of interests, but as persons specially qualified to advise the Lord Chancellor. I am unable to give the date of the last meeting of this committee. The last appointments to the borough bench were made in October, 1924.
    Magistrates in the Grimsby petty sessional area are selected by the Parts of Lindsey Advisory Committee. The Lord Lieutenant is chairman of the committee. The members are as follows:

    The Earl of Liverpool, G.C.M.G., J.P., Hartsholme Hall, Lincoln.

    Henry Nixon, Esq., J.P., Easton Nab, Frodingham Road, Scunthorpe.

    Mrs. M. G. G. Buckle, J. P., Sausthorpe Hall, Spilsby, Lines.

    Stephen Gray, Esq., J. P., Summer Hill, Gainsborough.

    C. H. Robinson, Esq., J.P., Cherry Garth, Barrow-on-Humber, Hull.

    William Dowries, Esq., 34, Garfield Street, Gainsborough.

    John Robert Sanderson, Esq., J.P., la, Little South Street, Louth, Lines.

    Colonel Oliver Sutton-Nelthorpe, D.S.O., M.C., Scawby Hall, Brigg.

    Frederick Acton, Esq., J.P., C.B.E., Miramar, Seacroft, Lines.

    The last appointments to the Lindsey bench were made in May last.

    MAGISTRATES, DARLINGTON.
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware of
    708
    the inadequate representation of workers on the list of acting justices in the borough of Darlington; and whether steps can be taken to increase such representation?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: There are 30 magistrates on the Darlington Borough Commission; and the Lord Chancellor understands from information supplied to him or his predecessors that all sections of the community are represented on the Bench. The advisory committee for this borough includes two representatives appointed on the recommendation of the Darlington Trades and Labour Council.

  KENYA.

    HARRY THUKU (DEPORTATION).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Harry Thuku, who was deported from the Kikuyu country four years ago, has been conducting himself well; and, if so, whether his return will be suggested to the Governor, in view of the visit of the Commission?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have heard that Harry Thuku is well-satisfied with his treatment, and I readily assume that this implies that he is conducting himself well. I am afraid I do not understand what relation his return has to the visit of the Commission, but I will draw the attention of the Governor to the question of the right hon. and gallant Member.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that the evidence of Harry Thuku, who has done so much for the natives of Kenya, would be of value to the Commission when they visit Kenya, as he is almost the only educated native who is capable of speaking for them?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think that is so. I think there are plenty of natives—at least, I found there were when I was there—who are quite capable of speaking for them. I cannot quite accept the suggestion, in view of what has happened in the past, that Thuku would be regarded as in any way representative of the Kenya natives.
    Mr. SKELTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what are the main defects of Harry Thuku when he is conducting himself badly?
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Is it proposed to detain this man indefinitely?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Naturally, I ought to have notice of that question. It is not the question on the Paper. I will ask the Governor what is proposed in regard to Thuku.

    INDIANS (REPRESENTATION).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Governor of Kenya is urging Indians in Kenya to accept community representation instead of pressing for a common roll of electors; and whether, in view of the Wood-Winterton agreement and the compromise effected in Ceylon, and the experience of community representation in India, the Colonial Office supports the Governor of Kenya in advocating community representation?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have seen a report in the Press of a speech by the Governor to a conference of Indian associations at which this policy was advocated. I can only refer the right hon. Member to the decision of His Majesty's Government in the White Paper of 1923 that the interests of all concerned in Kenya would be best served by the adoption of a communal system of representation.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does that decision in the White Paper, which, I think, is contrary to the decision of the Wood-Winterton agreement, apply not merely to elections to the Legislature, but also to all elections to local authorities in East Africa?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly, I think the decision of the Cabinet in 1923 was definitely to reject the Wood-Winterton proposal and substitute communal representation. The question of the representation of different races in Kenya on local bodies is still under consideration, and I do not wish to prejudice the case one way or other.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we be assured that the case will not he prejudiced by the Governor making such a speech?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think that is so. My own view is that communal representation, as it was decided by the Cabinet in 1923, is the best under all the local circumstances.

  SCOTLAND.

    STEAMSHIP SERVICES, WESTERN ISLES.
    Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now able to make a statement regarding the improvements he is making in the steamer services to and from the Western Isles; and when such improvements will be in operation?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): As the reply is a long one, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    As a result of the negotiations which have taken place with Messrs. David MacBrayne, Limited, since the expiry of the last contract, the company have agreed, as a condition of a new contract, to build immediately two new boats for the Stornoway and Outer Islands services. It is intended that the Stornoway boat should be capable of maintaining a speed of 12 knots in moderately bad weather; and should be somewhat larger than the "Sheila," which formerly ran on this service, thus providing improved accommodation for passengers. The second new boat will be similar to the "Sheila" which, if she had not been lost, would have been transferred, on completion of the new Stornoway boat, to the Outer Islands service. The "Plover," now working on the Outer Islands run, will be transferred to the Inner Islands service in place of the "Cygnet." These replacements will, in the Government's view, effect marked improvements in each of these services, but it has also been agreed that within five years at latest, and possibly within three years, a third new boat shall be built to replace the "Plover."
    The question of freight charges has also been discussed with the company,

    711
    who propose to make a reduction of 12½ per cent. on all inward traffic excepting whisky and in some cases livestock. In consideration that the company are prepared to carry out these substantial improvements at the existing rate of subsidy the Government have agreed to enter into a contract with them covering a period of five years from the 1st instant. With regard to the last part of the question, the contract is being prepared with all expedition, and my right hon. Friend hopes that it may be possible to arrange for the two new boats to be in commission next year.

    Particulars with regard to convictions between 26th November, 1926, and 25th November, 1927, for Illegal Trawling and Seine Net Fishing in Scottish Waters.

    Place of Offence.

    Amount of Fine.

    Name of Offender.

    Illegal Trawling.

    £

    Off Bass Rock, Haddingtonshire

    …

    …

    …

    30

    James Taylor.

    Off Neban Point, Orkney

    …

    …

    …

    75

    Patrick Dennis O'Keefe.

    Off Ailsa Craig, Firth of Clyde

    …

    …

    …

    80

    Arthur Jackson.

    Off Noss Head, Caithness-shire

    …

    …

    …

    60

    James Noble.

    Off Ailsa Craig, Firth of Clyde

    …

    …

    …

    100

    John Crewdson.

    Do. do.

    …

    …

    …

    100

    Richard Snape.

    Do. do.

    …

    …

    …

    70

    John Brown.

    Off Noss Head, Caithness-shire

    …

    …

    …

    60

    Peter Henderson.

    Do. do.

    …

    …

    …

    60

    John W. Cowling.

    Off Ailsa Craig, Firth of Clyde

    …

    …

    …

    80

    William Harrison.

    Off Tod Head

    …

    …

    …

    60

    Eden Smalley.

    Illegal Seine Net Fishing.

    £

    Off Burghead

    …

    …

    …

    10

    Robert Campbell.

    Off Findhorn

    …

    …

    …

    60

    John Thomson.

    Off West Wemyss, Fife

    …

    …

    …

    5

    Peter Ross.

    DISARMAMENT.
    Mr. JOHNSTON(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the proposals made by the Russian Government for universal disarmament; whether the Government is considering these proposals; and whether he will make a statement to the House before instructions are transmitted to the British delegates at Geneva?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My knowledge of these proposals is derived from the morning papers. Until we have been officially advised that the Soviet Govern-

    ILLEGAL TRAWLING.
    Mr. LIVINGSTONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of convictions for illegal trawling in Scottish waters for the last 12 months; the places where the offences were committed; the amounts of the fines imposed; and the names of the offenders?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: As regards the first part of the question, the figure for the period referred to is 14. As regards the remaining parts, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate the particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the particulars:
    ment are putting forward such proposals I prefer to make no comment.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that before important proposals of this kind are negatived on behalf of the British Government an opportunity will be given to the House to discuss them?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to what I have already said.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the Russian delegate who made the proposal was guarded by Swiss troops on his arrival in Switzerland?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister if he can inform the House what business will be taken next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: In the event of the House passing the Motion on the Paper to-day allocating time for the Unemployment Insurance Bill, the business for to-morrow and next week will be as follows:
To-morrow: First allotted day in Committee on Unemployment Insurance Bill.
Monday: Second allotted day in Committee on Unemployment Insurance Bill (New Clauses).
Tuesday: Third allotted day in Committee on Unemployment Insurance Bill (Schedules until 7.30). Further progress will be made with the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and Public Works Loans (No. 2) Bill.
Wednesday: Time will be given for a Debate on the Motion of Censure. Thursday: Unemployment Insurance Bill (Report stage).
Friday: Third Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill.
If time permit on any day next week, other Orders will be taken.
The following Motion stood on the Order Paper in the name of the PRIME MINISTER.
"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on the Motion relating to the Business of the House (Unemployment Insurance Bill) (Allocation of Time) be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."
Mr. THURTLE: I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order, that there are two questions raised in the Motion which is down on the Paper, and I think we have the right to claim that each question should be put separately.
Mr. SPEAKER: I will put them separately.
Mr. STEPHEN: I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Motion on the Paper for the allocation of time in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Bill is in order, inasmuch as there has been no notice on the Paper, and consequently hon. Members have not had an opportunity of putting down Amendments to that Motion?
Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite in order.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 116.

Division No. 419.]

AYES.

[3.49 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Briggs, J. Harold

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Ainsworth, Major Charles

Brittain, Sir Harry

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Albery, Irving James

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

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

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Crookshank. Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Apsley, Lord

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

Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

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

Buchan, John

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Buckingham, Sir H.

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

Astor, Viscountess

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Atholl, Duchess of

Burman, J. B.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Atkinson, C.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. stanley

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Balniel, Lord

Campbell, E. T.

Dixey, A. C.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Carver, Major W. H.

Drewe, C.

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Duckworth, John

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S)

Eden, Captain Anthony

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Ellis, R. G.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

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

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Berry, Sir George

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Bethel, A.

Clarry, Reginald George

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Betterton, Henry B

Clayton, G. C.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

Boothby. R. J. G.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Fielden, E. B.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Cohen, Major J. Brunei

Finburgh, S.

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Colfox, Major William Phillips

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

Cooper, A. Duff

Forrest, W.

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Cope, Major William

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Couper, J. B.

Fraser, Captain Ian

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Knox, Sir Alfred.

Salmon, Major I.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Gates, Percy

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Loder, J. de V.

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Goff, Sir Park

Looker, Herbert William

Sandon, Lord

Grace, John

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Grant, Sir J. A.

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Lumley, L. R.

Skelton. A. N.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Lynn, Sir R. J.

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

Grotrian, H. Brent

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Smithers, Waldron

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Macintyre, Ian

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

McLean, Major A.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Sprot, Sir Alexander

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

Macquisten, F. A.

Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Harland, A.

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-

Stuart, Crichton-Lord C.

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Margesson, Captain D.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Harrison, G. J. C.

Meyer, Sir Frank

Tasker, R. Inigo.

Hartington, Marquess of

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Templeton, w. p.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Haslam, Henry C.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Hawke, John Anthony

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

Tinne, J. A.

Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M.

Moor, Sir Newton J.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Nelson, Sir Frank

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

Hills, Major John Waller

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

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W

Hilton, Cecil

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

Warrender, Sir Victor

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

Nicholson, 0. (Westminster)

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Watts, Dr. T.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Wayland, Sir William A.

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

penny, Frederick George

Wells, S. R.

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-

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

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)

peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Huntingfield, Lord

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Hurst, Gerald B.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Preston, William

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Iveagh, Countess of

Price. Major C. W. M.

Womersley, W. J

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

Radford, E. A.

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Raine, Sir Walter

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

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Rice, Sir Frederick

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)

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

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Ruggles-Brise. Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Major Sir Harry Barnston and Major

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Sir George Hennessy

NOES.

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

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Lunn, William

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

Gibbins, Joseph

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

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

Gillett, George M.

Mackinder, W

Ammon, Charles George

Gosling, Harry

MacLaren, Andrew

Attlee, Clement Richard

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Baker, Walter

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

March, S.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Groves, T.

Montague, Frederick

Barnes, A.

Grundy, T. W.

Morris, R. H.

Batey, Joseph

Hall, G H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Murnin, H.

Bondfield, Margaret

Hardie, George D.

Naylor, T. E.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Harris, Percy A.

Owen, Major G.

Broad, F. A.

Hayday, Arthur

Palin, John Henry

Bromfield, William

Henderson, Right Hon- A. (Burnley)

Paling, W.

Buchanan, G.

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Buxton. Rt. Hon. Noel

Hirst, G. H.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Cape, Thomas

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Charleton, H. C.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Potts, John S.

Clowes, S.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Riley, Ben

Cluse, W. S.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

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

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

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

Compton, Joseph

Kennedy, T.

Rose, Frank H.

Cove, W. G.

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

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Kirkwood, D.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Dalton, Hugh

Lansbury, George

Sexton, James

Day, Colonel Harry

Lawrence, Susan

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Dennison, R.

Lawson, John James

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Dunnico, H.

Livingstone. A. M.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

716

717

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Sitch, Charles H.

Thurtle, Ernest

Wellock, Wilfred

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhitne)

Tinker, John Joseph

Westwood, J.

Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)

Townend, A. E.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Snell, Harry

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Varley, Frank B.

Windsor, Walter

Stamford, T. W.

Viant, S. P.

Wright, W.

Stephen, Campbell

Wallhead, Richard C.

Sullivan, Joseph

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Sutton, J. E.

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

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

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

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to the Business of the House (Unemployment Insurance Bill) (Allocation of Time) be exempted, at this day's Sitting,
from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 121.

Division No. 420.]

AYES.

[3.58 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Couper, J. B.

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

Ainsworth, Major Charles

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

Albery, Irving James

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

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

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Apsley, Lord

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

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

Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Astor, Viscountess

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

Huntingfield, Lord

Atholl, Duchess of

Davies, Sir Thomas(Cirencester)

Hurd, Percy A.

Atkinson, C.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Hurst, Gerald B.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Balniel, Lord

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Iveagh, Countess of

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Dixey, A. C.

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

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Drewe, C.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Ellis, R. G.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

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

Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)

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

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Kindersley, Major Guy M.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Berry, Sir George

Everard, W. Lindsay

Knox, Sir Alfred

Bethel, A.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Betterton, Henry B.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

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

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Boothby, R. J. G.

Fielden, E. B.

Loder, J. de V.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Finburgh, S.

Looker, Herbert William

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

Forrest, W.

Luce, Major- Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Fraser, Captain lan

Lumley, L. R.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Briggs, J. Harold

Ganzoni, Sir John

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Brittain, Sir Harry

Gates, Percy

Macdonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Macintyre, Ian

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

McLean, Major A.

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

Goff, Sir Park

Macquisten, F. A.

Buchan, John

Grace, John

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Grant, Sir J. A.

Malone, Major P. B.

Burman, J. B.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Margesson, Captain D.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Meyer, Sir Frank

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Grotrian, H. Brent

Mitchell, S. (Lanark. Lanark)

Campbell. E. T.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Carver, Major W. H.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

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

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Harland, A.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Christie, J. A.

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Nelson, Sir Frank

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Harrison, G. J. C.

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

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Hartington, Marquess of

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

Clarry, Reginald George

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Clayton, G. C.

Haslam, Henry C.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Hawke, John Anthony

Oman, sir Charles William C.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Cohen, Major J. Brunei

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

Penny, Frederick George

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Colman, N. C. D.

Henry, Sir Sydney H.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Cooper, A. Duff

Hills, Major John Waller

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Cope, Major William

Hilton, Cecil

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Pilditch, Sir Philip

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

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Power, Sir John Cecil

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Watts, Dr. T.

Preston. William

Smithers, Waldron

Wayland, Sir William A.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Wells, S. R.

Radford, E. A.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-

Raine, Sir Walter

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Rice, Sir Frederick

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Tasker, R. Inigo.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Templeton, W. P.

Wolmer, Viscount

Salmon, Major I.

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

Womersley, W. J.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Tinne, J. A.

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

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Sandon, Lord

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Sassoon. Sir Philip Albert Gustave D

Wallace, Captain D. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

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

Major Sir Harry Barnston and Majo

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

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Sir George Hennessy

Skelton, A. N.

Warrender, Sir Victor

NOES.

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

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

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

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

Hardie, George D.

Rose, Frank H.

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

Harris, Percy A.

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Ammon, Charles George

Hayday, Arthur

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hayes, John Henry

Sexton, James

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Shaw Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Baker, Walter

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hirst, G. H.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Batey, Joseph

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Beckett. John (Gateshead)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Sitch, Charles H.

Bondfield, Margaret

Hudson. J. H. (Huddersfield)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

Broad, F. A.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Snell, Harry

Bromfield, William

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

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Buchanan, G.

Kennedy, T.

Stamford, T. W.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

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

Stephen, Campbell

Cape, Thomas

Kirkwood, D.

Sutton, J. E.

Charleton, H. C.

Lansbury, George

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

Clowes, S.

Lawrence, Susan

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Cluse, W. S.

Lawson, John James

Thurtle, Ernest

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Livingstone, A. M.

Tinker, John Joseph

Compton, Joseph

Lowth, T.

Townend, A. E.

Cove, W. G.

Lunn, William

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

Varley, Frank B.

Dalton, Hugh

Mackinder, W

Viant, S. P.

Day, Colonel Harry

MacLaren, Andrew

Wallhead, Richard C.

Dennison. R

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Duckworth, John

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

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

Dunnico. H.

March, S.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Montague, Frederick

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

England, Colonel A.

Morris, R. H.

Wellock, Wilfred

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

Westwood, J.

Gibbins, Joseph

Murnin, H.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Gillett, George M.

Naylor, T. E.

Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

Gosling, Harry

Owen, Major G.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

Palin, John Henry

Windsor, Walter

Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)

Paling, W.

Wright, W.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Ponsonby, Arthur

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Grundy, T. W.

Riley, Ben

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

Barnes

MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES OF RELATIONSHIP) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order, under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Renfrewshire County Council (Giffnock Railway Bridges)." [Renfrewshire County Council (Giffnock Railway Bridges) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

RENFREWSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (GIFFNOCK RAILWAY BRIDGES) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords.]
Read the First time, and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [No. 209.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL) (ALLOCATION OF TIME).
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move:
  "That the remainder of the Committee stage, the Report stage, and the Third Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill shall be proceeded with as follows:
  (1) Committee Stage.
  The Committee stage shall be proceeded with on three allotted days, and the proceedings thereon shall be brought to a conclusion as follows:

  (a) The proceedings on the remainder of the Clauses of the Bill shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on the first allotted day; and

  (b) The proceedings on new Clauses shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on the second allotted day; and

  (c) The proceedings on the Schedules of the Bill, new Schedules, and any other business necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion, shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 7.30 p.m. on the third allotted day.

  (2) Report Stage.
  One allotted day shall be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and the proceedings thereon, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that day.
  (3) Third Reading.
  One allotted day shall foe given to the Third Reading, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that day.
  On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.
  After this Order comes into operation, any day after the day on which this Order is passed shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day and then proceeded with, and the Bill may be put down as the first Order of the Day on any Thursday notwithstanding anything in any Standing Orders of the House relating to the Business of Supply.
  Provided that, where an allotted day is a Friday, this Order shall have effect as
  740
  if for references to 7.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. there were respectively substituted references to 1 p.m. and 3.30 p.m.
  For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules; and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and, in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clauses or Schedules be added to the Bill, as the case may be.
  Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Orders relating to the Sittings of the House.
  On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order proceedings for that purpose shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
  On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no dilatory Motion with respect to those proceedings, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.
  Nothing in this Order shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or

  (b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of."

  4.0 p.m.
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Those cheers are the best testimonial to the Motion. Before I proceed to make any observations on the details of the Motion which I have to submit to the House, I wish to remind the House of the position of business and the proximity of Christmas. After this week there are three Parliamentary weeks, and, apart from the Bill which has been for some time under discussion in the House, we have the Audit (Local Authorities) Bill, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Public Works Loans (No. 2) Bill, the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Bill, Supplementary Estimates for the Army, for the cost of the forces in China and for the sugar beet industry, and the consequent Consolidated Fund Bill; the Lords Amendments, whatever they may be, to the Bills proceeding; the Prayer Book Measure, the Motion regarding the appointment of additional Judges, the Motion of Censure, and, we hope very much, that there may be time for the discussion which the Liberal Opposition wish to initiate on agriculture. It is perfectly plain that at the present rate of progress in Committee on the Unemployment Insurance Bill, if these, or only a portion of these Measures are to become law and the Unemployment Insurance Bill is to become law soon, not only shall we have to sit up late every night, but we shall have to meet again in Christmas week. I invited the House earlier in the year to consider the use to which this process called the Guillotine had been put by this Government. The Unionist party have been in power in two Governments for four years. This is the second time that they are putting it in force. The Liberal Government of 1906 put it in force 33 or 34 times, an average of three or three-and-a-half times every year during which they were in power.
  Mr. W. THORNE: How many times did the Labour party put it in force?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am coming to that. There were obvious reasons, which the hon. Member will, be the first to recognise, why it was rather difficult to put it into force at that time. [An HON. MEMBER: "The time is coming!"] The last time that we moved this Motion the Opposition did not debate it. This time, "I gather from the Amendment put
  742
  down, they do desire to debate it, and I shall, I hope, be able to give some information to the House that will facilitate the task of the right hon. Gentleman who is moving the Amendment. The Committee has already sat for the equivalent of 7½ normal sitting, days, and they have got to the end of Clause 5, leaving nine Clauses and five Schedules yet to be debated with 95 Amendments on the Paper, and those numbers are not likely to grow less. Clause 5 has been under consideration for 29 hours, equal to four normal sittings. In all, 7½ ordinary sittings, or, if count be taken of late sittings, the equivalent of 9½ ordinary sittings have been occupied in considering the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee. The Motion before the House allocates three further days for Committee, one for Report and one for Third Reading, which, together with the nine already occupied, make a total of about 14 sittings for the consideration of all stages of the Bill, and, I may say at this point, that if the Opposition think fit to let this Motion go through unopposed, they will have the whole of to-day on which to debate it.
  I am always anxious to do what I can to help any party in this House. I know what a busy man the right hon. Gentleman who is going to move the Amendment is, and I think he may be glad, for the purpose of debate, to be reminded of the procedure which took place in this House under his Act of 1924. That was a Bill of 17 Clauses and 14½ pages. Our Bill is 14 Clauses and 10½ pages. [An HON. MEMBER: "This is more controversial!"] Let us see. The subjects comprised the right of persons to benefit, and the tests imposed—that was three pages longer than the present Bill—conditions as to seeking employment, a trades' dispute Clause, provision for men in the Army, Navy and Air Force, the question of trade union administration, and there was a Clause as to special schemes, and if anything be said about the complexity and difficulties of understanding this Bill, I suggest a reference to Section 3, paragraph (b). If hon. Members will look at that Bill they will find quite as many, or more, difficulties than have been raised by any portions of this Bill.
  How long did that Measure take in this House? The Second Reading took one day. We have given two days. The

  743
  Committee stage took 16 hours. We have already had 50 hours, and we are going to have a good many more. The Report and Third Reading occupied one day. We suggest two. That makes the total for that Bill, which descended from the blue, whereas hon. Members have had the opportunity of studying our Bill for some months—that Bill in 1924 took four days; this Bill, even under the Guillotine Resolution, will take 14, or 3½ times as long. I think it rests with the right hon. Gentleman to explain to the House what has come over the mentality of hon. Members that they should now desire 3½ times as long to debate what they were able to debate in four days three years ago.
  Mr. T. SHAW: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" in line 1, to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
  "this House declines to assent to any limitation of debate, other than that provided by Standing Orders, in respect of a Bill which will admittedly deprive many thousands of unemployed persons of unemployment insurance benefit, in many other cases will reduce the amount of benefit now payable, and, unless its complexities are carefully considered, may inflict further hardships without the knowledge and consent of this House."
  When the Members of an Opposition are to be deprived of their right to discuss matters under the Standing Orders of the House there ought to be a definite case made against them to show that they have been improperly using their position as Members of the House, either wilfully to obstruct or in any other way to prevent the House getting quickly and effectively through its business. The Prime Minister has offered no word of reproach to the Members of the Opposition that they have used their position for factious opposition, that they have used their time in vain repetition or that their criticism has been either ill-founded or wide of the point, so I think we may take it for granted that if the Prime Minister could not find any of those grounds on which to base his case, it must, indeed, be a very weak one and obviously it can scarcely be expected that we, who after all, have as much respect for the traditions of this House as hon. Members opposite, who have perhaps a keener historical appreciation of the sacrifices made to win the liberties of the House, who are determined that we will not sacrifice
  744
  any of those liberties—with all our love of these fine traditions of the House we are scarcely likely to consent to a Motion that asks us to give up our rights when no allegation is made against us that those rights have been improperly used.
  The first argument of the Prime Minister in favour of this extraordinary Motion is that business is in a congested state. Whose fault is that? It is not the fault of the Opposition that the Bill is presented on such a date and in such a way. It is not the fault of the Opposition that the Government has managed its business—I do not want to use an offensive term—in such a way as to get itself in a hopeless mess. It is no business of the Opposition to say that because the Government has made a mess of its business the Opposition must come forward and voluntarily renounce its rights in order to help the Government out of the mess into which they have got. It would indeed be asking too much of any Parliamentary party to give up its rights in order to help its opponents, particularly in a case where the party itself feels that the Bill is one of the most dangerous that has been introduced in the sittings of this Parliament, and even the vague threat of a sitting during Christmas week leaves our withers unwrung and we must face, if need be, that regrettable necessity, and try to face it with a smile. We are told the Government will have only used the guillotine twice. It is no pleasure to the guillotined person that he is only the second man to be decapitated. Why should we hail with feelings of joy the guillotine because not many people before us have been executed by the same Government? That we can scarcely take as an argument. It may be a regrettable necessity that we should be guillotined but certainly we are not likely to be guillotined of our own free will.
  Then we are told the length of time the Bill has taken in Committee. That again is not the fault of the Opposition. Think how the Bill was presented. Think of what it contains. Think of the fact that during its progress we had to have a White Paper to explain it, and that White Paper contained a mass of prophecy and very little facts. Think of the fact that all the criticism has been well founded and that the Minister has found himself in this regrettable position, that with the exception of one

  745
  Member on his own side, who was more of an embarrassment than a help, he has received no assistance from any Member of his Government. As a matter of fact some of the most searching criticism of the Bill has come from the Government side. Why, under these circumstances, should we be asked to give up our rights of full discussion? Certainly there can be no justification on our side for giving them up, and there is no justification on the part of the Government to use its own embarrassment to deprive the Opposition of its right to discuss, without unnecessary obstruction, but thoroughly, everything that this Bill contains. We are told how many Amendments there are. No Member of Parliament, even the most erudite, even the most highly skilled and learned Member, can read this Bill and understand it. There is no man who, by reading the Bill, can understand what the law will be if it is carried into law. Is it any wonder that under these circumstances there are many Amendments. What I am saying is well within the knowledge of every Member of the House, and if there is any Member anywhere on any side of the House who can say honestly that by reading this Bill he or she can understand it I shall be glad to meet that paragon of all the excellencies.
  Some of us have special knowledge of unemployment insurance because we have actually been in contact with its working, not that we have special knowledge and brains or anything of that kind, but we have been interested in the actual administration, and consequently have a specialised knowledge that other Members cannot be expected to have, but not one of us can read the Bill and understand it. I could not read it and pretend to understand it. I am making that open confession for the benefit of the side opposite, and they can use it in the best way they like. There is a great difference between the Bill of 1924 and this Bill. The Bill of 1924 went' through this House without even a suspicion of an attempt to introduce the Guillotine, and though the Labour party was not in a majority, if the Opposition had become factious and unreasonable there were sufficient Members at that time to apply the Guillotine had it been needed. The fact of the matter is that they let it go through comparatively without a fight because it appealed to
  746
  their generous instincts, and they could not oppose it because they were convinced of the justice of it. On the other hand, this Bill contains what we and many Members on the other side consider is the grossest injustice, and one cannot wonder that it is to be discussed, has been discussed, and ought to be discussed at length. In spite of every desire to help in every possible way to do the business of the House, we cannot accept the principle of giving up our rights when we consider that no case has been made out why we should give up those rights, and I am rather surprised that the Prime Minister himself, full as he is— I am saying this in a most respectful way—of sympathy with our own traditions and of the finest sentiment for those old institutions which we are proud to call the Mother of Parliaments, should ask us to break the old traditions simply because the Government has been unable to carry out its business properly.
  Let us see what we are being asked to do. The Prime Minister has told us how many Clauses there still remain to be discussed. What he proposes is that we should finish the Clauses in Committee at one sitting. Can any hon. Member opposite say with any degree of fair play that it is reasonable to ask that nine Clauses of the most vital importance, with all the Amendments to them of which the Prime Minister speaks, shall be finished in a Friday sitting? Is that really showing that respect to the Opposition to which it is entitled? Is that treating us, after all, as the equals of the gentlemen on the opposite side? The right hon. Gentleman is a very mild-mannered English gentleman. His speeches are the essence of kindness. I am told that Nietzsche was a very mild-mannered man, but his philosophy was very ruthless. But, in spite of that, when the right hon. Gentleman gets to grips, there is little difference between his action and the philosophy of Nietzsche. They are pretty much the same. But, really, we are not German soldiers on this side of the House, and the Prime Minister is not a Prussian officer. Not even if he tries to use Prussian methods in the most generous possible way can we accept the meek and mild attitude of the German soldier who is bound to respond to the orders that are given. We cannot be expected to do it.

  747
  Let us look at what has taken place on the Bill in order to consider whether the opposition to this Bill has in any way exceeded, not the hounds of the right of Parliamentary debate but even an implication of any kind that opposition has become obstruction. We are asked, to accept a Bill which, on the showing of its promoter, will, when it becomes operative, throw 56,000 poor people to the wolves. That is on the showing of the Minister himself, and this 56,000 is based on an assumption that a miracle is going to happen before the Act comes into operation. Is it any wonder that we have tried to explain what this means? Is it any wonder that we have tried to amend it in ©very possible way. Can the party opposite really blame us for insisting, so far as we are able to insist, that we must have the right, without factious opposition, of dealing thoroughly with every Clause that the Bill yet contains.
  We finished by the use of the Closure at Clause 5 last night. Let us see what is contained in the other Clauses that we are asked to deal with, to amend, to discuss and to get explanations on in the course of a Friday sitting. Clause 6 makes an alteration which in the opinion of most of us will be an alteration for the worse. Clause 6 will, in our opinion, put a premium on employers who deliberately try to break through an agreement made generally in their trade. Cases have occurred already, in Lancashire, in which an employer has broken through a general agreement applying in the trade, and, if he does it again under the provisions contained in Clause 6, the people who refuse to break the agreement may find themselves deprived of unemployment benefit in consequence. Can the Prime Minister ask us to forgo our right thoroughly to discuss this question in order to get to know where we are? We come to Clause 7. There, again, there are many details that ought to be discussed. It is no fault of ours that the Bill is arranged in such a way by cross references that it is impossible thoroughly to understand it. Really, I want to call the attention, if I may, of the Prime Minister to the fact that even if the Government of 1924 did commit errors, that it is no reason why the present Government should commit errors. I
  748
  never could understand the argument which says: "It does not matter whether it is right or wrong. Provided we can prove that you have done it, it is bound to be right." I never could understand the argument, and I am not going to pretend to understand it.
  We have put down Amendments that ought unquestionably to be discussed. They cannot be discussed if we have to submit to the guillotine which will chop off the heads of our Amendments and give; us no opportunity of making them felt and leave them dead on the floor without a chance of giving an account of themselves. Take Clause 8. There you have a long Clause dealing with all kinds of conditions which deserve the very fullest consideration. As a matter of fact, skilfully amended, Clause 8 could be made to remove a great deal of the difficulties that will exist if the Bill, as it now stands, becomes an Act of Parliament. If we had had, on the Second Reading, an explanation of what these things meant, the Government would have been justified in saying, "We thoroughly explained our scheme. You have had the explanation, and there is no need for you to have it again. You have no right to ask for it again." I will read a few passages from the Minister's speech in introducing the Bill in order to try to show exactly how he explained the difficult and involved Clauses of this Bill. That they are difficult and involved, I think the right hon. Gentleman himself will agree. He begins by making a very long, and, if I may say so, a very interesting historical survey, and he tells us, among other things:
  "You may drive out nature with a fork, but it always comes back again."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 9th November, 1927; col. 206, Vol. 210.]
  That is a very nice way, perhaps, of putting things, but it does not explain anything about the Bill. Listen to this:
  "The Report suggested a periodic investigation into the Fund. We introduce that in Clause 3. The Committee ask for certain changes in the classification of the dependants in respect of whom the 7s. might be paid. We deal with that in Clause 4. There are the two very important recommendations as regards trade disputes. They are dealt with in Clause 6, again following the Report. There is the Clause that deals with the administration by trade unions, in which case, again, we follow the Report. In Clause 7 we abolish the power to set up special schemes, as the Report wished, and in Clause 12 we set out the transi-

  749
  tional provisions based on the recommendations of the Report as to the transition from the existing scheme to the future permanent scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1927; col. 212, Vol. 210.]
  Not a word of explanation of what all this means or a word of justification for it. We have been placed, as an Opposition, in a most extraordinary position. The Minister of Labour has, figuratively speaking, sat at that Box, and every time we have raised an objection he has spoken of the "Gospel according to St. Blanesburgh," and if "St. Blanesburgh" in Chapter 6, Verse 3, said a certain thing he has looked upon us with an air of injured innocence if we have complained that Chapter 6, Verse 3 was not really Holy Writ. Even when we have called attention to "St. Blanesburgh" and pointed out that there were things the "Gospel" did not contain he has looked upon us with holy horror, as if to say: "I am the Political Pope, and I am the interpreter of 'St. Blanesburgh' and you may hold your peace." That really is not the way to deal with a serious Bill, which means either the guardians or starvation. The Minister admitted in his speech that what he had been saying had not been lively, and said that when he dealt with the finance he thought it would be as dry as a diet of cracknels in the Sahara! Well, the Minister has the gift of expression. He perfectly described what he said on finance in a way that left nothing more to be said. But we cannot understand it. It may be our fault, but really it is the business of the Minister to be kind to us and to explain these things. Listen to this as an explanation of a very serious matter:
  "On the other hand, we defer for the time being accepting the Committee's recommendations as regards reduction."
  If the "Gospel" does not please, we do not accept it.
  "The 6 per cent. figure of a normal average of unemployment is being criticcised."
  And so it ought to be.
  "I have taken all the extraneous expert advice I could, and I, personally, have come to the conclusion that it is at least as reasonable to take 6 per cent. for a continuing cycle as any other figure."
  And then another passage.
  "If anyone were to say that it should be 5 per cent. or 7 per cent., I should say it was more likely to be 6 per cent."
  750
  And then the most extraordinary passage of all:
  "Hon. Members opposite laugh at me fox speaking thus cautiously."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1927; col. 214, Vol. 210.]
  He talks of a state of things that means that the live register is going to drop at least by 400,000, and then he says:
  "Hon. Members opposite laugh at me for speaking thus cautiously."
  What would I give to be able to see visions like that. What a pleasure it ought to be. What a pleasure it would be, even to convince myself that in some way 400,000 of our unemployed workers were going to get work. I wish I could believe myself in that way, because it would give me much pleasure if I could. That is the way that the discussion is proceeding!
  Take the financial provisions of the Bill. Surely, the time of this House would be well spent in discussing the figures and the proportions that ought to be paid for Unemployment Insurance. "But, say the Government," you must finish your Clauses to-morrow. What you may have to say may be interesting, but you must finish to-morrow." That is literally the ultimatum. Then we get the advantage of a little more time for other items of the Bill. The Schedules and the Report stage chop off another chunk without any reference at all to the necessities of the case. "That is the time we can give you, and you must be satisfied." Really, to us, that is not quite satisfactory, to say nothing stronger. I believe, with temptation, that I could have said something stronger, but I will leave the words as they stand.
  I am not wasting the time of the House. I am leaving innumerable details of the Bill unmentioned, and taking an item here and there to show the necessity for a thorough discussion; a necessity which is admitted just as much by hon. Members opposite as by hon. Members on this side. I do not blame hon. Members on the Government side or hon. Members on my own side for wanting to know what the Bill means. I do not blame the Minister for not being able to explain it. No man short of a Philadelphia lawyer could explain it. This legislation by reference has got to such a point that the probability is that not more than three men in the whole country could sit down and

  751
  write a fair précis of what the law in regard to unemployment insurance is today. There may be more than three, but I have in my mind three extremely capable servants of the Department who might be able to do it. I might add the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary; that makes five. I will say six men could do it; but I question whether any other man in the land could sit down with this Bill before him and tell us what the law in regard to unemployment insurance will be when the Bill becomes an Act. I am not saying this for the purpose of raising a laugh. I say it because it is the cold and frigid truth. Frankly, I have sympathised with the Minister. He has brought in a Bill by reference, and his own party have sat there helpless and could not defend him against the attacks, simply because they could not understand the Bill. With the exception of one hon. Member who has stood by him, trying to prompt him with information which he did not want, he has not been supported by hon. Members opposite.
  Let us take another matter of vital importance to the unemployed person. Surely, the question of the transitional period between the present conditions and the new conditions demands careful consideration line by line and careful amendment where amendment may be necessary. Is it fair to the House, is it fair to this Parliament to ask us to take this great thing amongst a bundle of others and put it through on a Friday afternoon, obviously without consideration? No man on the Government Benches could get up and say that this thing can be properly considered under the proposals made by the Government to-day. When we have gone through the very vexed and vital principles as to the amount of benefit, we find ourselves again limited strictly to time; limited not to the necessities of the case, but to the necessities of the clock. The importance of the matter is nothing. Under this Motion of the Prime Minister the importance of the matter is like the flowers that bloom, in the spring; it has nothing to do with the case.
  There is another little item which I would mention in passing, just to show what this Bill means. Somebody has thought out a brilliant scheme for putting the unemployed man on oath
  752
  when an inquiry is to be held. That suggestion does require very careful consideration. Whether we like it or not, and I am speaking from the full knowledge of a man who has gone through it, the ordinary working man in this country still leaves school so imperfectly educated that a thing like an oath is to him a thing of terror. I was not one of the worst educated men who left an elementary school. I was fully up to the average of the scholars who left school, but I tell the House frankly that the thought of an oath to me as a young man, with my lack of knowledge of the world and my lack of knowledge of these things, would have been a terrible thing. To find the oath patch worked into a Bill like this is a serious matter; yet it is to go through under the Motion moved by the Prime Minister.
  I do not wish to take up any time which might be available to my hon. Friends behind me or to hon. Members on the Government side who feel keenly about this matter, but I do wish finally to make an appeal. It is a very serious thing that the rights of the Opposition to full discussion should be taken away. I could understand the desire to take those rights away if it could be alleged that the bounds of ordinary discussion and the bounds of ordinary criticism had been overstepped, but in this case I assert that the criticism has been well founded, it has been well grounded, and it has been well informed. The criticism which has come from this side has been the criticism of people who have worked the Acts up to now and know what they mean. Our criticism has been criticism which has not been faced up to, now by the Minister. It is not enough for us to be confronted by the Blanesburgh Report. With all due respect to the Blanesburgh Committee, or anyone else, the responsibility in this House for a Bill which is to become an Act of Parliament is the responsibility of all Members of this House, and none of us can hide ourselves behind any Committee. We are responsible and we alone. Why should we be asked in a Bill which so vitally affects the unemployed to be content to have our rights of criticism taken away? There is just a chance of melting even the stony heart of the Government, although it takes a very high temperature to melt stone. I wish we could apply that heat to the heart of the right hon. Gentle-

  753
  man and melt it. It is possible even yet by adequate discussion in Committee so to modify the provisions of the transitional Clause as to avoid the great danger which many of us see in this Bill. We cannot voluntarily give up our right of criticism.
  We see in this Bill a calamity which is as certain to happen as that the sun will rise to-morrow. We see a possibility in this Bill of nearly a quarter of a million people being cast adrift to make their way as best they can. We see the danger of the distressed areas becoming more distressed. We see a picture of local authorities drifting to bankruptcy and despair. We see the loss of morale, we see deterioration and we see the degradation of the working part of our population coming in the trail of a Bill like this. Believing that these things are true, it would be a base betrayal of every ideal we have on this side to venture even to consent for a moment to the suggestion to give up voluntarily any right we have to criticise and amend and, if possible, improve the Bill now before us. I move the Amendment in the hope that the Committee will rise above party prejudices, and on the merits of the case deal with the situation.
  Mr. HAYDAY: In supporting the Amendment, I wish to submit a few cogent reasons why the guillotine should not be applied to the present Measure. The Prime Minister in introducing the motion mentioned the large number of Amendments on the Order Paper. The reason why so many Amendments have been found necessary is because there never was a Bill so full of complexity or framed in such a manner as to defy real understanding of all its implications as this Bill, which breaks away from the long sequence of Bills which have become Acts of Parliament in connection with unemployment insurance. It is a Bill which introduces new principles which are likely to have a very serious effect upon the working-class population. Were it not for the tragedy behind the Bill, one might feel inclined to look with amusement upon the Prime Minister's request that we should further complicate the position by referring to Section 3 (6) of the Act of 1924. We have had so many cross references in the Bill during the Committee stage that we feel sufficiently
  754
  bewildered without complicating the issue further by hunting up Sub-sections relating to an Act of Parliament not mentioned in the present Bill.
  I should like to say something with respect to the magnitude of the Bill. The Bill affects—this is why I suggest the guillotine is unwarranted at this stage— 12,000,000 of insured persons. It will set up conditions under which these 12,000,000 of people shall pay contributions or receive benefits. Of the 12,000,000, it deals with about 1 ¼ millions of a very unfortunate section of the industrial population, who at the moment happen to be unemployed. It deals with their contributions, with their measure of benefit, and creates such a position as has never been previously created during the discussion of the 17 Unemployment Inusurance Acts which have preceded the present Bill. It proposes a rate of benefit for young persons in a new class from 18 to 21 years of age. That proposal in itself would warrant a whole day's discussion in order to demonstrate the reactionary sentiments that are embodied in such a proposal.
  5.0 p.m.
  Never in the whole history of unemployment insurance has there been such a class as that which is created by this Bill—the class between the ages of 18 and 21—with all the consequences which such a class
  involves. If it took all the remaining period of Parliamentary time between now and Christmas, even if we had to prolong the Parliamentary Session, in order properly to consider this proposal that would be preferable to restricting and curtailing our discussions and deliberations in any way. In introducing the Guillotine at this stage the Government have confessed their inability to deal adequately with the problem of unemployment insurance. It is also a sign of fear at the rising storm of public opinion, which seems to be increasing as the Press of the land conveys to the public the discussions and decisions on this Bill with all the implications they carry. The Government, I feel sure, must be receiving from many boards of guardians resolutions expressing a fear as to the results of this Bill, if it goes through without amendment or alteration. It will mean that many local authorities, which are now on the verge of bankruptcy, will become absolutely bankrupt, or contain

  755
  within their boundaries numbers of unemployed workers, who will suffer to such an extent that any epidemic disease might well be feared in the near future owing to their weakened physical constitution and low resistance power. I believe a resolution expressing this very fear has already been received from one board of guardians. And these are the fears of local administrators, who cannot be called street corner tub-thumpers, or propagandists, attempting to arouse the feelings of the people on party lines. They are really seriously minded men and women who are fearful of the consequences of this Bill.
  No hon. Member on the Government side appears to be able to understand the Bill because of its cross references. If the Prime Minister has read the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that the Chairman of Committees on one occasion said that it would have been much better if it had been a consolidating Bill rather than a Measure containing so many cross references to other Acts.
  Captain ARTHUR EVANS: In fairness to the Chairman of Committees he said that his remarks would apply to all Bills; not to this particular Bill.
  Mr. HAYDAY: The Chairman of Committees was quite right. With all his knowledge he found it difficult at times to follow the trend of the Debate because of the cross references in the Bill, and after the Minister of Labour, or the Parliamentary Secretary, have explained matters we have been more confused than we were before we had their explanation. The fault for the slow progress of the Bill does not lie with the Opposition; it is not due to any attempt to take up Parliamentary time. If you read the OFFICIAL REPORT you will find that much of the time has been taken by hon. Members opposite, who have urged that the proposals should be made clearer, and, therefore, I think the last thing the Prime Minister should have dome was to introduce the guillotine. The Prime Minister has said that this is the second occasion upon which it has been considered necessary to introduce the guillotine during the present Parliament. It is very significant that the two occasions on which it has been introduced have been of such a character as to impede
  756
  the development of a peaceful understanding in the industrial world. The first time was on the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill, and the second occasion is on another Bill affecting the industrialists of this country. On a Bill full of reactionary proposals and restrictive influences, full of added burdens to the already over-burdened industrialists, and harnessed with a proposal for the guillotine, we get a request for peace in industry. Surely this is an occasion when labour should have an opportunity of declaring in measured terms its objection to the various proposals, believing as we do that they will be most harmful and will inflict injury upon the most unfortunate of our citizens.
  Involved in the subsequent Clauses of this Measure, which have yet to be discussed, is the transitional period, which is in Clause 12. That will not be discussed at all if this Motion is carried, because all the intervening Clauses must come up for discussion before Clause 12 is reached. When we get to Clause 12 we have, on the Minister of Labour's own statement, 56,000 persons whom it is intended to clear off unemployment benefit by the end of 1929, or by the 19th of April, 1930. That was the figure given in the White Paper, but, after allowing for certain eventualities and deductions, the Minister said the figure would be reduced to 30,000. That matter has never yet been fully discussed. It comes up on Clause 12, and it deserves a day for itself. I put the number who will be affected, if the principles of this Bill were applied at the moment, at 138,000; that is those who will be unable to fulfil the statutory conditions as laid down. You have the Minister's first estimate of 56,000, then his estimate of 30,000, some of his own supporters put the number at 100,000; I say the number will be 138,000.
  Surely, with all this difference of opinion you ought not to introduce the guillotine on such a Clause and pass it without any explanation from the Minister and without any debate by those who question the accuracy of the figures of the Department. You might as well, as the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) has said, use the guillotine in its full physical sense. The Minister says that only 30,000 will be slung off unemployment benefit on to

  757
  boards of guardians. Where these boards of guardians are bankrupt these people will be slung on to the industrial deadheap. You had far better use the guillotine in its full physical significance than say that these 30,000 are to be sacrificed without rhyme or reason because the Prime Minister of the country has made up his mind that the business of Parliament will not permit of an extra day's discussion being given so that their case might be thrashed out before they are condemned. And if that 30,000 is 138,000, as well it might be, then the crime becomes even more enormous. I am the last person to hope that the rest of the Prime Minister will be disturbed by nightmares, but when we are speaking in terms of the guillotine in its present connection let us try to think of the guillotine in its worst form and all that it means.
  By its introduction to-day the Prime Minister is condemning thousands of the best of the land. He is putting thousands outside the range of human consideration; considerations of common humanity must give place to political expediency. The demand from Conservative supporters of the Government that certain Measures must be rushed through is to have precedence over the lives of men who did more towards building up Great Britain and maintaining her honour than many of those who are behind the Prime Minister to-day, and who are forcing him, because of political expediency, to sacrifice the workers of this country. I suppose the decision is irrevocable. It is forced by Cabinet considerations. It is felt that it will never do to let practical men apply themselves to a thorough search of the philosophical phrasing in this Bill. Under all the intricate and bewildering cross references and wording of this Bill there lies tragedy, and the tragedy is beginning to expose itself, with all its ugly monstrosities. The Government are afraid of it; they are afraid that the people outside are beginning to understand it. If the Prime Minister ever has conveyed to him the mutterings of his own supporters in the Lobbies, in the Corridors, in the Reading Rooms and Dining Rooms, then I am sure he would think twice before introducing the guillotine at this moment upon this particular Measure.
  I have heard many remarks coming from supporters of the present Govern-
  758
  ment, and I think that if they had been free to exercise their own free will and to apply their minds in a humane way in coming to decisions, during the Divisions that have taken place on this Bill they would have walked into a different Lobby from that which they entered. One need not walk about as an eavesdropper to get this information, for such Members openly state that they are disgruntled with their own Government, with the futility and the lack of ability properly to explain the Clauses of the Bill which have been shown by their own Minister. That has left them in such a state of mind that they would like to see the Bill altered in order that all the sooner we may get something like a humane instrument for dealing with the less fortunate people of the nation. It hurts very much to imagine that the introduction of this guillotine Motion might convey the impression that there has been deliberate waste of time and an attempt to impede Government business or the business of the House. There have been no such things. If this matter were under discussion for another three months we should not exhaust all the possibilities of reasoning with a view of protecting that class which, after all, we represent far more than do hon. Members opposite, for we work with those who are affected by this Bill, we are associated with them, and we belong to the same class; the suffering is in our own homes. I never care to make personal references, but I remember an occasion when I had 17 weeks of unemployment.
  Major COLFOX: One for each child.
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw, withdraw!
  Mr. HAYDAY: I would not ask one with so low a level of mentality to withdraw anything. If it will give any satisfaction to the hon. and gallant Member I will tell him that one of my children, because of that period of unemployment, was born in a place little better than a hayloft. Does that give him any satisfaction? Does it give anyone any satisfaction to know that as a result of this Bill there may be thousands of children born under even worse circumstances than those, because the most elementary provisions are denied to their parents under the Clauses of this Bill. It stands ill that there should be any man in this House who could find satisfaction in such

  759
  a state of affairs. We think very little of the Conservative party as a whole, but it comes ill that there should be a member of that party who can hurl such low-browed insults across the Floor of the House. Let me tell the hon. and gallant Member this: I learned during that period to have less respect for constitutionalism and law. I have not been able to appreciate and respect constitutionalism as much because of that experience. Do hon. Members opposite want thousands of men, ex-service men, to have that feeling eating its way into their hearts, not taking thought for the maintenance of constitutional procedure and feeling almost compelled to resort to unconstitutional methods. If I had my life to go through again, and if society warred against me, I would war against society, so that my children should not go short of food, whatever the consequences might be.
  This guillotine Motion is moved to help a Bill which will not add to respect for constitutionalism but will create the very atmosphere that we all desire to avoid. I urge the Prime Minister to consider the proposal more seriously than he has done up to the moment. I do not want him to have troubled rest at night because of the feeling that his act to-day is not the act of a British statesman. The right hon. Gentleman's action is not the action that should be taken by a Prime Minister, unless he puts political considerations before the condition of more than 1,000,000 unemployed. It is all very well to say that between now and 1930 there will be an improvement and that unemployment will be brought down to 6 per cent. Who knows? It may be 12 per cent., as against the 9 per cent. at the moment. Of course it is possible to bring down the percentage by cutting men off the unemployment register and so misleading the people of the country.
  I was hopeful that we should have more time to discuss the Bill, more time to try to bring home to the Ministry the enormity of the crime they are about to commit in carrying this Bill through in its present form. Whatever may be the financial emergency that the Government have to face, whatever may be other considerations, let us start from the only true basis which deserves consideration, and that is the helping of the lame dog over the stile, the bringing
  760
  forth of humane instincts, the giving of a helping hand to those who require it in times of diversity; not the wet-nurse position but the tiding over of the difficult time of the men and women who want to do good by the nation and the race to which they are proud to belong— men and women who, if this Bill becomes an Act, will have less consideration and respect for their race and nation, for they will find themselves condemned to starvation or distress.
  Major COLFOX: I look upon this Motion as a great tribute to the Opposition, because it shows that the Opposition, whose duty it is to oppose, have managed so far to delay the proceedings on a Bill of importance as to make the guillotine a necessity. But now that the Opposition have had the tribute and the compliment paid to them by the Prime Minister, I would like to make a suggestion to them. If there be any sincerity in the speeches to which we have listened —to the effect that more time is necessary for consideration of the Bill—if, in fact, the Opposition wish to amend the Bill so that in their judgment it will be a more suitable and a better Bill, let them cease this discussion on this Motion and get on with the discussion of the Bill, since the Prime Minister has said that if the Motion be disposed of early the rest of the day can be devoted to the discussion of the Bill.
  Mr. THURTLE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman forgive me intervening for a moment?
  Major COLFOX: No, I will not. Every speech delivered on this Motion by the Opposition can have no real or lasting effect, but speeches delivered on the Bill may very likely have some effect in moulding the Bill into the form in which it will leave the House. Therefore, since this Motion will be carried, whatever the Opposition may say, and since discussion can be of no good to anyone, I suggest to the Opposition that they allow the Motion to go through in order that discussion of the Bill may continue.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I wish to support the Amendment. It has been suggested to me by my colleagues that I should "go for" the individual who has just sat down, but I must honestly confess to the House that I consider him a foe-man not worthy of my foil. We view

  761
  very seriously this guillotine Motion, because we who represent the workers in this House are very much interested in the Bill, and the Motion will thwart our criticism of the Bill. If it were an ordinary Government that brought forward a guillotine on a Measure of this kind it would not hurt us so much, but this Government, from the Prime Minister down, has posed and is always posing as a body of nice, kind, philanthropic, Christian gentlemen. They are bringing in a Bill which will be the most brutal Measure on the Statute Book. Moreover, they are doing it in cold blood. When they come, as they will come, before the Judgment Seat, the great Bar, when they have to give an account of their deeds done unto the people of this country, they will not be able to stand forth and say that they did not know. The Author and Finisher of the Christian faith said:
  "Father, forgive them, for they know-not what they do,"
  when they were crucifying him. Members of this Government will not be able to stand forth and say that they did not know, because we from these Benches have told them. We have done our best to tell them of the hellish life lived by the working-classes of this country as a result of unemployment. They have sneered at us; the back benchers opposite have sneered at us and tried to belittle those who have risen on this side to explain their point of view to the best of their ability. My comrades here have risen and paid compliments to the other side, but the words that were spoken across the Floor a few minutes ago prove that we ought not to pay compliments to the other side at all. They do not treat the working folk of this country as human beings like themselves. The guillotine in this case is being used in order to thwart us and to prevent us from letting the country know the type of men who are ruling us at the moment. Madame Roland, who was among the first to be guillotined, said as she looked at the statue of liberty:
  "Oh, Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name!"
  It is the same thing here to-day. The Government usher in this Motion pretending that it is for the good of the country, but such is not the case. What is it they are trying to rush through? Take Clause 4 of the Bill and what do we find?
  762
  The Minister of Labour, who comes to this House with a great record as a decent. Christian gentleman, and who stands at that Box representing the richest and most powerful Government in the world, is in Clause 4 using all that power, to what end? Is it to ameliorate the awful conditions of poverty in our country? It is not. What is being done by this powerful Government in Clause 4 of the Bill, not to Germans, not to Russians, but to Englishwomen, Scotswomen, Welshwomen and women of Northern Ireland? I ask the House to look at the proposals of Clause 4 concerning young women at the age of 18 to 21—the young women of my class. There is nothing more wonderful and nothing more beautiful in the world than a good young woman. They are far away beyond any of your wonderful works of art. Those are as ashes compared with a good woman. What is the Government proposing to do? The Government propose to offer these young women the sum of 10 shillings a week when they are unemployed, and the Government admit the possibility of tens of thousands of them being unemployed.
  Clause 4 offers these young women from 18 years to 21 years eight shilling to 12 shillings per week! I ask the House to note the age. It is just at that period in life when womanhood is blossoming forth and when it is the most natural thing in the world for a young woman to desire to be as well dressed as possible and to look her very best. No women in this country, including Prineesses or Duchesses, have any better right to be well dressed than these young women who are unemployed. Here is this Government, which pays reverences to the Royal Family, &c., and who believe that they have a right to a good living, and I believe, I honestly believe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—Mr. Deputy Speaker will tell me if I am out of order. Do not think you will put me off because you cannot. You cannot put me off to-day. I will drill you before I am finished. I will get right under your skin. You are treating my class in this fashion, and this day I am going to go for you. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] There is no withdrawing for me to-day. I have taken the highest authority on this matter. I made sure this time. You, Sir, may have been right last time, but I am right now in

  763
  what I have said. I was discussing Clause 4 when Members opposite at tempted to put me off—but they are not fit for that job. I say that this Clause 4 is going to condemn tens of thousands of these young women to misery and drive them on to the streets. That is some thing of which this Government ought to be proud. Why should the Prime Minister be part and parcel of an organisation which is going to force these young women on the streets? There is no other way given among men whereby these women can live. Tell me, Sir, how is it possible for a young woman, here in London, never mind in Glasgow—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. Member is entitled, up to a certain point, to discuss the Bill, but he must not deal with it as if this were the Second Reading of the Bill. The question now before the House is the Motion for the allocation of time.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I know that perfectly well but that is why we are so anxious that the Guillotine should not operate. I think you will agree with me that it is perfectly in order to show why the Guillotine should not operate and I am busy doing so. As I was saying, I put it to any man here—I put it to the Prime Minister: "Do you honestly believe, before God, that ten shillings a week can keep a young woman in London?" [Interruption.] I am addressing the Chair!
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must address me, but he must do so in an orderly manner and he must not refer to questions which I have told him are not in order in this discussion. He is not entitled to discuss the Bill in detail.
  Mr. THURTLE: May I submit a point of Order. This Motion is intended to facilitate the passage of the Bill through all its stages. Therefore, in resisting the Motion we are, in fact, attempting to resist the Measure as a whole, and surely in doing so we are entitled to discuss the nature of the Measure.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Up to a point that is true, but hon. Members cannot develop this discussion into another Second Reading Debate on the Bill.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not in order for the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) to argue that the Guillotine is being applied because the Prime Minister does not want a discussion on certain points? If so, is he not then entitled to bring out the points on which, in his opinion, it is being sought to prevent discussion?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It would be quite in order for the hon. Member to use, as an argument, that the Government did not want certain points to be discussed but it does not follow that we need discuss all those points now.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not in order that the hon. Member should bring out the points on which he says the Government do not want discussion?. If the hon. Member says that the avoidance of discussion on this matter relating to the young woman is one of the purposes of the Prime Minister in this Motion, is he not in order in bringing out that point and in suggesting reasons why the Government do not want it to be discussed?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: He can do so to a certain extent, but I repeat what I have said. I will not allow a Second Reading Debate on the Bill.
  Mr. MACLEAN: This Motion is brought forward to stop discussion on a certain Bill and is it not the case that objectors to such a Motion should give their reasons against it? My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is giving certain reasons why the Motion ought not to be put into operation and why a free and unfettered discussion should be allowed on all the Clauses and Schedules of the Bill. I submit he is in order in giving his reasons.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Is it not the case, Sir, that under your ruling the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is only precluded from making Second Reading references to these matters? He is not precluded from referring to them, as long as he does so in such a way as to show that inadequate discussion of these Clauses will lead to great hardship to the people concerned. I think that is all the hon. Member wants to do.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Exactly so, and with your consent, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will

  765
  now proceed. I will leave the young women. I will leave that part of the Bill, because I think I have said as much upon it as will make the Government think. I have said as much upon it as will worry them. We were sent here not to make friends with the other side, but for the express purpose of worrying this Government out of their lives if we possibly could. That is what we are here for and not to make friends with them at all. I now come to the young men. Under Clause 4 young men are going to get 12s. per week.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a point which I have already told the hon. Member would not be in order in this Debate, and he must not continue to deal with it.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to be perfectly clear with you, Mr. Deputy- Speaker. You say I am not in order because the guillotine does not affect that, but I hold a point of order there for you. We are not past the Report stage yet, and therefore the guillotine will apply to every Clause. You will agree that I got the best of you that time. As I was saying, you have the young men being offered from 10s. to 14s. a week, and just think what that means for a young man—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member persists in disregarding my ruling, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I will take Clause 5, and try to accommodate you. That is the Clause dealing with the question of "genuinely seeking work." This is another Clause that affects my constituency and the trade at which I worked before I was a Member of this House. It affects shipbuilding and engineering very much, and particularly the skilled artisans. It will affect miners, because they are highly skilled men, engineers, joiners, plumbers, shipwrights, rivetters, platers, coppersmiths, blacksmiths—all the tradesmen. I take this phrase "genuinely seeking work" as a direct attack on the standard of life of the artisan section of the community. It means that if a highly skilled man is unemployed, he is sent by the employment exchange to take what is commonly called an unskilled man's job, although we, as Socialists, do not believe there
  766
  is such a thing as unskilled labour; the only individuals who are unskilled are those who do not do any work, and we are not interested in them; but it means that the tradesman will be sent to what is commonly called unskilled work, and that would not be so bad, but it means that he will have to accept the unskilled man's wages, which means a reduction in his wages. If he does not accept the job, it means that he is cut off, and that is one of the worst things that could possibly happen.
  Think of the dignity of labour and of the struggle. The Government do not understand what is at stake here. Think of a young man who has finished his time in the shipbuilding or the engineering trade and is now a journeyman. Probably he is the son of one of those individuals commonly called unskilled and of a mother who had a great ambition in life that her boy would be a tradesman. It was her dream that her boy would be a fitter, a turner, or a joiner. Oh, if she could only get him a tradesman —her darling, clean boy, the greatest asset any country can possibly have. When he finishes his time, what happens? It has happened in thousands of cases in every big shipbuilding and engineering centre in this country. He is turned adrift. The word "journeyman" has been put into operation because it means that when their time is out they have to journey. It has been put into operation these last two years in a manner never seen before. They are forced to journey out on the street, and all that mother's sacrifice and all her ambitions go to the winds. Think what it costs everyone included in the community to make the young man who was specially trained into a highly skilled man, and then this dirty Government—because they are a dirty Government—will not give adequate time in order that we might discuss the pros and cons of the business.
  It is all right for people with £100 a day, like the Attorney-General, to sit there, to "smile, and smile, and be a villain" all the while. But it is a different matter for the family that is being put right up against it by this Clause. In constituencies where you have factories where there is a great amount of what is, called semi-skilled labour employed—that simply means skilled labour with a cheap wage, skilled

  767
  labour only getting unskilled labourers' wages—there may be alongside big works where there are skilled men, and it means that those highly skilled men, when they are unemployed, will be sent to take the place of the semi-skilled men; and we are going to get no adequate discussion of a situation such as that. Such a hypocritical, unchristian Government never held sway in this country to treat our people in that fashion. Further, it really means a scientific method, designed by subtle brains, to crush the workers of this country further down the scale of human degradation. Instead of those outstanding abilities that these men have being used as they ought to be used, as they were given to them by an all-wise and loving Father in heaven to use, namely, to defend those who are not able to defend themselves, they are using them to crush those people down further in order that some of the Government might get honour and become rich. They have sold themselves, the British Government at the moment, like Esau of old, for a mess of pottage.
  There is another point that I wish to deal with before I have finished, and that is the question of the 30 stamps. When this point was under review we did roast the Minister of Labour; there is no doubt about that. Both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary were made to sit up, because it means that there will be thousands of men and women who will be cut off as a result of this provision and who will never get on to benefit again—both men and women, and ex-service men at that. It was not only our own benches that drew the Minister's attention to that fact, for from the Government's own benches the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson) distinctly pointed out that this would mean that there would be thousands in his own constituency who would be cut off, and hundreds of them were ex-service men. Could anything go further than that? Yet the Guillotine is being used in order to prevent us from having adequate discussion of that question also, trying to cover it up, trying to get away with this before the country will know it. We are satisfied that when once the British people understand the part that the
  768
  Government are playing, as soon as they get an opportunity, they will never send back this Government again.
  6.0 p.m.
  With whom are they dealing thus inhumanely? It is the unemployed, and how did they come to be unemployed? Does that question never dawn on the Tory Members of this House? Why did they become unemployed, and what section is it that is being dealt with here? It is the poor unemployed, and it is the poorest of the poor who are going to be the most heavily hit. Fancy this wonderful, powerful Government using all that great following that they possess to attack the poorest of the poor in our own country! Who are the unemployed, and why are they unemployed? They are unemployed because there is no work for them to do. Is that their fault? No. The lories say they have no right to starve, but why do they not agree with our proposal, that is, that when the workers are denied the right to work, they ought to be given full maintenance as far as this country can give it? I know what it is to be unemployed. I never was lazy. There is not a lazy inch in my body, but I know what it is to go from day to day with a wife and family dependent on me, a highly skilled man with the best of credentials and yet turned adrift. This Government says that a man of that description is only to get a mere pittance. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) drew attention to the fact that the money the Government were going to give to the young women was not enough to keep body and soul together, and the Minister of Labour said that it was never intended it should keep them. He went further. You have to remember he is a human being—he appears to be, at any rate, and it was human beings he was talking about, young women who are as good as his own daughters, and I know he has two. He said he hoped that the Government never would give an allowance that would maintain these women. Could anything be more inhuman? It appears to me that the reason this Guillotine is being put into operation is because the ruling class in Britain would treat the unemployed as they would an army of criminals. They are not criminals, these men who are

  769
  going here, there and everywhere looking for a job. In the words of our national bard:
  "See yonder poor o'erlaboured wight,
  Sae abject, mean and vile
  Who begs a brother of the earth
  To give him leave to toil.
  And see his lowly fellow-worm
  His poor petition spurn,
  Unmindful the a weeping wife
  And helpless offspring mourn."
  But he went further and put into me the spirit that is animating me to-day, when he said:
  "If I'm designed yon lording's slave
  By nature's law designed,
  Why was an independent wish
  E'er planted in my mind?
  If not, why am I subject
  To his cruelty and scorn
  And why has man the will and power
  To make his fellow mourn?"
  Captain A. EVANS: Whenever the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) intervenes in Debates in this House, he introduces a wealth of sincerity and a knowledge of matters such as this, which the whole House respects; but after the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, it is difficult for Members on this side of the House to appreciate the sincerity of Members of the Socialist party in supporting this Amendment, because they propose to waste six hours of Parliamentary time which could be usefully employed in discussing the very difficult Clauses in which they are interested in this Bill.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I would like to ask the hon. Member what he means by that? Does he mean to say that this Debate may not influence Members on the other side to support us in getting this programme extended, and that they are absolutely impervious to reason?
  Captain EVANS: The hon. Member's knowledge of Parliamentary procedure is surely enough for him to realise, whether he likes it or not, that this Amendment is going to be defeated before the night is over. Therefore, surely they would be much better advised to allow the House to get back to the Bill and discuss line by line and word by word the Clauses in which they are really interested. As one who has endeavoured modestly to support the Government in debate on
  770
  this Bill, I would like to make an appeal to the Minister of Labour. There cannot be the slightest doubt in the mind of the House that the point that is worrying not only the Opposition, but hon. Friends of mine on these benches, is the one dealing with depressed areas. My hon. Friends and I feel that that is a question that should not be discussed when you are discussing a contributory insurance scheme. We believe that is a state of affairs that should be discussed apart, and introduced by the appropriate Minister. There is no doubt that that is the chief anxiety, at least in the minds of the Opposition, and I feel that if the Minister or a responsible representative pf the Government were in a position to make a pronouncement on this matter it would go far to facilitate the passage of this Bill. There is not the slightest doubt in the judgment of the Government that the gloomy picture of the industrial future which has been drawn by Members of the Opposition parties will happily not be realised, but if, for instance, in April, 1930, the industrial prospects of this country are not what we on this side of the House feel they will be, and the conditions in necessitous areas are such as to call for Government intervention, it would relieve the minds of some of us if the Government would say that, if such were the case, they would take whatever steps were necessary, through boards of guardians or other machinery, to deal with the situation. Every Member knows that whatever party is represented on the Government Front Bench it cannot afford to see men and women who are genuinely seeking work through no fault of their own—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member appears to be discussing the Bill. We must dispose of this Motion before we can get back to the Bill.
  Captain EVANS: I must apologise for not keeping within your ruling, and I apologise to the House for intervening in this Debate at all. My only reason was that if the Minister of Health will get up and say that if the conditions are not altered at such time as he thinks necessary, steps to deal with the situation will be taken, I venture to think that this Debate will be ended sooner, and the passage of the Bill will be facilitated.
  Mr. THURTLE: I rise to a point of Order in regard to the range of this

  771
  Debate. As I understand it now, we are discussing the Amendment which was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw). May I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the terms of the Amendment, which says that the Bill
  "will admittedly deprive many thousands of unemployed persons of unemployment insurance benefit."
  May I submit that on that phrase it is competent for us to discuss the effect on the unemployed? Then the Amendment goes on to say,
  "in many other cases will reduce the amount of benefit now payable."
  May I submit on that, that it is competent for us to discuss the scales of benefit that will be paid Further, it says,
  "unless its complexities are carefully considered, may inflict further hardships without the knowledge and consent of this House."
  Does not that general phrase enable us to discuss the whole ramifications of the Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It enables hon. Members to emphasise the importance of these points, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) said in opening the Debate, but it certainly does not enable hon. Members to argue the pros and cons, which can only be done on the Bill itself. There is a clear line between the two things.
  Miss LAWRENCE: Bearing in mind your ruling, I desire to give some reasons why we imperatively desire more time to discuss the Clauses of the Bill. We have not yet really done half the Bill, and many of the most difficult and intricate subjects lay before us. We are on the threshold of Clause 6. I will not say anything about the merits or demerits of Clause 6. I would only remind the House of the very long history which had to be gone through and the amount of Parliamentary time that had to be taken before this Section referred to in the Clause came into existence. The Prime Minister gave a sort of time table of the Act of 1924. If I followed his example and distributed that time table into subjects, we should find a very large proportion of the time, both on Second Reading and in Committee upstairs, and, above all, on the Report stage, was taken
  772
  in arguing out what should be done to meet certain difficulties in trade disputes. That problem was originally believed to be insoluble. I am not dealing with the merits, but the amount of Parliamentary time needed to deal with it. In 1911, when it was discussed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) pronounced the question to be insoluble. In an analysis of some length he said that a provision of that kind might enable a trade union to call out the key-men and allow the rest of the members of the union to draw unemployment benefit. After discussing that point of view, he came to the conclusion that nothing could be done with a Clause like the Clause it is proposed to amend in Clause 6. As late as 1924 the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health said:
  "Throughout the whole of the time this matter has been confronting the House and the country, the difficulty has proved insurmountable."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1924; col. 2397, Vol. 175.]
  Then a curious thing happened, a thing that does sometimes happen in Parliament. In the processes of discussion all parties came gradually together, and in the first Debate on Report we had the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley approaching the question. He did not get there all at once. In the course of that Debate, after his words in 1911 had been quoted, he said that the passage of time, and particularly the occurrence of the mouders' dispute, had caused him to direct his mind to the question again. The moulders' dispute, as will be remembered, was one in which the skilled men struck and the labourers were out of work four weary months, and in a condition of extreme poverty—all through a dispute in which not one of them had any interest, nor from which he could gain anything. After his meditation upon this subject, we bad what I call a creative speech from the right hon. Member for Spen Valley. He said:
  "It may be—and I have been puzzled on this subject and have been much interested in it for years—
  it takes a great deal to puzzle that eminent gentleman—
  "that it is not easy to devise a more satisfactory arrangement, but it is no good beginning as though the present situation was one which worked manifest justice for everyone."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July 1924; col. 2402. Vol. 175.]

  773
  Then there was a good deal of the sort of conversation that happens sometimes and then the Debate was adjourned. The Debate was resumed on the 18th July, and was mainly occupied with hammering out a formula, and finally, after these two discussions, and after reflection by every person concerned for more than 20 years, the right hon. Member for Spen Valley struck out a formula. So happy was the formula that the House was nearly united upon it. There were very few dissentients. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Very few. I would like to recall the names of the few of those who agreed to that Clause. As I look down the list these are some of the names that strike me among those who voted for the Clause:
  "Baldwin, right hon. Stanley; Betterton, Henry B. Bridgeman, right hon. William Clive";
  and fraternally mixed with those names were some of our own names:
  "Shaw, right hon. Thomas, Macdonald, R."
  I should think it was the only Division in the House where I could read among the Ayes the names of the Leaders of the House all fraternally voting together on one Clause. It is not very often that such lions and such lambs lie down together. After having thus decided upon an arrangement we are going to amend it in what I and other Members here regard as a violently controversial manner. I am perfectly certain that if we had time enough to talk round and round this new Clause as we talked round the original Act, it would end with the Government dropping it, because, in a matter which is so intricate and so technical, when you have once arrived at a working arrangement and harmony amongst the Members of the House everybody who has any business sense knows that it is a very bad thing to disturb it. If that arrangement is to be upset we shall need a great deal of time to consider what is being done. We may well take another 20 years before resettling the point again if we upset it.
  There are many other provisions in the Bill which need a great deal of time, though I will not go through them all. Clause 8 is an exceedingly difficult one, and needs to be thoroughly explored and examined. Clause 10 though, as the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) said, a small thing, is a controversial one. Having got so far, we
  774
  have done with one Insurance Bill and we begin a new one, because with Clause 12 we enter on the provision for the interim period cases. That is, in all essentials, a new Insurance Bill, to apply to the next two years. No one knows better than the Minister in charge how technical, complicated and controversial many of these proposals are. The Prime Minister spoke of the 95 Amendments that remain on the Paper. They are not frivolous Amendments. They are technical Amendments dealing with excessively difficult points, matters on which, in ordinary circumstances, we should spend eight or nine days in Committee upstairs. They are not Amendments of the kind ordinarily dealt with on the Floor of the House; they are essentially upstairs Amendments. This Bill is being considered on the Floor of the House because it involves important points of principle, and matters which the House as a whole must settle. But it also involves matters which, I say it with all respect, are hardly suitable for the House itself, many of them being so technical and complicated that they usually go upstairs. Everybody knows that when we are dealing with business of this sort, time in Committee upstairs goes much further than time on the Floor of the House.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland)indicated dissent.
  Miss LAWRENCE: The Minister shakes his head, but when it comes to these details you can get at them in Committee in a way in which you cannot get at them in a great House, with hundreds of Members. How are we to do justice to the business side of this problem—I put aside the principles involved, and consider only the excessively intricate problems which Clause 6 raises, and which the Clause relating to the carryover period raises? I have a great deal of sympathy with the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans). I wish we could press the Government a little more about the Clauses which ought to be in this Bill but which are not in it. Anyone can see how the feelings of hon. Members opposite are touched in this matter. Anyone who is in communication with any manufacturing district knows that the alarm and the anxiety over this Bill are not confined to the Members on this

  775
  side of the House. All classes in the industrial districts look upon the Bill with nearly as much fear and as much alarm as we do.
  I have spoken before of the feelings of employers. It is not to be wondered at that employers look upon this legislation with anxiety, in view of what has been said about the 56,000 cases which will be affected. In the industrial districts those who support hon. Members opposite are not thinking in terms of cases, but they are thinking of the workmen whom they have known, all their lives, perhaps, for whom they now have no work and for whom they are unlikely to have any work. There is a feeling of remorse. Employers do not like continually to refuse the requests of men who have lived by their trade and worked in their trade for so many years. They are feeling very unhappy about the business. I do not know whether I am going beyond the bounds of order, but I am not going beyond the words of our Amendment when I join with the hon. Member opposite in asking whether we cannot persuade the Government to give us some indication of what else they propose to do. Order or no Order, that is the point. If this were an Unemployment Insurance Bill to deal with the classes to which it is applicable, we could sit down and knock it into shape and come, perhaps, to as happy a conclusion as was come to in 1924. What causes alarm and bitterness is that this Bill throws out of court a great number of insured persons, and we do not know what is to become of them, because we do not know what other Measures the Government intend to bring forward. We are very much afraid they will not want to bring anything else forward.
  If we had a list of Measures dealing with people who will not come under any Unemployment Insurance Bill, then we could settle down to this Bill without spending very much more time. We could send it upstairs, as the 1924 Bill was sent upstairs, and we could get on with the details of an insurance scheme. What is hanging this Bill up, and why every Clause needs debating, is that the situation is much beyond an Insurance Bill. This is not an Unemployment Insurance Bill; this is an Unemployment Dis-insurance Bill, and that is precisely why we need so much time for it, that
  776
  is what causes passions to rise and makes it almost impossible for us to settle down, to a discussion of insurance details. The Prime Minister could secure a passage for this Bill much more quickly, even than under the Guillotine Resolution, if we could have from him a declaration of policy with respect to what are called the distressed areas and with regard to local burdens, and, further, as to what is to happen to the men who are cut off unemployment insurance. If he would do that, I believe we could all agree with him that the time offered was ample— if that dreadful consideration were taken off our minds. If we are to get the Bill through and to waste no more words, we ought to have a statement of policy. That is what the House asks for, and has a right to expect.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: I intervene for a few moments to join in the very sincere appeal which has been made from the Opposition side of the House. Of course I have been in this House long enough to know that a controversial Bill of this kind affords scope for a very large number of Amendments, and such a Measure has often to be brought under some timetable. It is always a matter of regret when that has to be done, but it has been done by many Governments. I, for one, do not join in this appeal merely because we find ourselves on the Opposition side, and consequently are expected to denounce the time-table as a thing which is intolerable. It is always a temptation to Chief Whips to try to secure that the Government business is got through with the shortest possible consumption of Parliamentary time. I am quite aware that the majority of those who support the Government can carry this time-table in spite of any demonstration on the part of the Opposition, but no good is going to be done as a result of the Division, and I am not really interested in the demonstration.
  For a long time I have had a very close association with questions affecting unemployment insurance. I have read a good deal of the Debate, and I am familiar with the main points which have been raised. I happen to be one of the Ministers chiefly responsible for the original Unemployment Insurance Act and the hon. Lady the Member for North East Ham (Miss Lawrence) has referred to the small part

  777
  I took in regard to that Measure. Therefore, I can. claim to have taken a continuous and a serious interest in this subject. I want to ask, are we really going to be asked to dispose of the rest of the-Clauses of this Bill at a single sitting when the sitting in question is to be a Friday sitting of five hours? Even a full sitting would be a matter of only seven hours. I think that is a very serious proposition even for a powerful Government to put forward. I am not in a position to say whether there has been in the course of these debates anything which could be fairly described as actual obstruction. Very often a Government thinks that things are obstructive which the Opposition thinks are quite justifiable. I know that on this Measure there has been a very great deal of useful debate. I am aware, also, that some of the declarations made by the Minister of Labour and by the Parliamentary Secretary have been of real value, because those speeches have put on record the view which the Government have, and as such they are a source of satisfaction to all of us.
  Nobody can say that these debates have been a waste of time from any point of view. Every hon. Member is aware that of all the questions with which a Member of Parliament has to deal in his correspondence with his constituents, to whatever party he belongs, there are no questions that involve more detailed consideration than those connected with the Unemployed Insurance Act. I have learned a great deal from listening to the debates on this subject. Therefore, of all subjects, this is the sort which the ordinary Member of Parliament feels it worth spending time to follow in order to understand the details. In this Measure you have one of the most unhappy examples of legislation by reference, and one needs to be a most accomplished master of the Statute Book and have the advantage of the explanations of everybody before he can follow it. I think one is entitled, in considering questions like these, not to an extravagant or unlimited amount of time, but at any rate to sufficient time. Here we have a proposal that in five hours we are, willy-nilly, to dispose of every Clause remaining in the Bill.
  I do not say that all the questions raised in the Amendments on the Papers
  778
  are equally difficult or important. But the Clause referred to by the hon. Lady the Member for North East Ham is one in which I take a special interest. I cannot believe that you can justify the possible changes, revision and alterations in that most difficult Clause about the relations between trade stoppages and unemployment insurance being disposed of between 11 o'clock on Friday and the time hon. Members go to luncheon. Take Clause 12. I am not at all certain that there may not be complete justification for amending it, but at any rate, it is right that we should do all we can to understand what it means. Looking back upon what has taken place, I cannot believe that five hours is enough to dispose of all these Clauses. Then there are the new Clauses which during the Committee stage offer every possible opportunity for putting forward misguided suggestions. No doubt many of the new Clauses will be found to be out of order. But I notice that there is a new Clause down in the name of the Minister of Labour which deals with vocational training. This is a question which affects Conservatives just as much as the Members of other parties, and we can hardly be expected to get through the discussion of an important question like that at a single sitting. I do not agree that that is a reasonable suggestion.
  I willingly admit that I have not taken, from moment to moment, the part which I sometimes take in these discussions, and to that extent perhaps I am open to some criticism, but my reason is that I have had a rather heavy task to arrange for during the last few days. Nevertheless my interest is not in the least abated. I agree that you cannot abandon your whole idea of a limitation of time, and nobody expects that anybody is going to abandon that idea. I do ask the Prime Minister to take the advice of those in his service as regards the new Clauses, because I think that there should be some extension of time which will give a better opportunity of having an intelligent and reasonable discussion upon them. I may be criticised for being halfhearted and mealy-mouthed, but I would far sooner see the House of Commons putting itself to the inconvenience of sitting for another couple of days than anyone should be able to say that we have got through this Bill without a fair

  779
  consideration of the complicated issues that remain to be discussed in regard to this Measure.
  Mr. CLYNES: The right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the House has emphasised in terms which, I am sure, every part of the House will welcome, some of the points submitted earlier to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw). The right hon. Member for Preston drew special attention to the terms and nature of a number of the Clauses yet to be disposed of, and as both the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary are present, and have heard the appeal which has been addressed to the House by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), I would like to emphasise that appeal, and invite some statement, before the Debate is very much prolonged, on the question whether the House is to be called upon to dispose of the remaining Clauses of the Committee stage during one short sitting. Those of us who have had some years' experience will be ready to accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley has just stated, namely, that there must come a time in the life of almost every Government when some form of Closure is necessary for the purpose of concluding necessary business.
  We are now considering the extremest form of Closure which it is possible to submit to the House of Commons, and the question we are entitled to ask is, whether that extreme form is justifiable in relation to the business which we are now considering. We answer that question in the negative. If there had been any degree of obstruction, or any sort of obstruction that could possibly be called indefensible, then some rigid form of Closure could be defended, but I doubt whether even the Minister of Labour, who has attended these Debates throughout, would assert that there has been any real obstruction from any quarter of the House. Some of these criticisms have come from hon. Members opposite representing working-class electors, and, consequently, they take almost a personal interest in this question, no doubt due to the fact that they have received many letters referring to the details of this Measure. The Prime Minister did not
  780
  even imply, in the course of his rather perfunctory speech, that there had been any obstruction, but at any rate there has been nothing to justify such an extreme form of Closure as this Motion will impose upon the Opposition, should it be carried. I have listened to a good part of these Debates on the days when the Bill has been considered in Committee, and I cannot recall, in the course of a fairly long experience, speeches of a more constructive character, more definitely designed to be helpful as speeches of exposition and suggestion than those which have been delivered in the course of these discussions.
  One of the statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) emphasises the underlying motive which prompts us in appealing for more time to deal with the details of this Measure. My hon. Friend said that which is true, namely, that this is a matter which touches, not only human considerations, but real and deep matters affecting actual privation, conditions of privation which often make a man choose between the guardians and prison. This Measure deals with human and intimate matters which ought not to be dismissed with a statement like that which has been made by the Prime Minister, who said that shortly we shall be approaching Christmas. I suggest that if this subject is not adequately dealt with, the Christmas of a few hundred thousands of men affected by it will be a very gloomy and unsatisfying Christmas indeed. Our own tables will be heavily laden, and we shall have the usual festivities of the season to please us. We should remember that we are now dealing with the homes of the very poorest people who have suffered for years through unemployment, and in these circumstances we ought to give unusual consideration and an unusual amount of time to a Bill of this nature.
  The character of the Bill, then, is our justification for demanding not less than the usual time, but much more than what would be the normal amount of time given to an ordinary Bill in this House. The Prime Minister did try to adduce some little argument by comparing this Bill with the Bill of a like name considered by the House in 1924, but there is all the difference in the world between the two. The Bill of 1924 secured an easy passage for itself through

  781
  the House because of its general acceptability, because it was differently drafted; and in that case, by the way, the Committee stage of the Bill was dealt with upstairs, so that there is scarcely any point of likeness, and there is no real ground for comparison between the two Measures, although they deal with the same subject. The only other argument which I can trace in the speech of the Prime Minister, and to which I will briefly allude, was the argument that, in this remaining period of the life of this Session, there is no time to deal adequately with this matter. Who is to blame for that? Let the Government throw their mind back to the earlier months of the Session, when weeks of precious Parliamentary time were wasted by unnecessarily forcing through a Bill attacking the trade unions. I say that that was a deliberate waste of time which might well have been reserved for the much more human Measure that we are now considering.
  This Bill deals with the most baffling of all our domestic problems. It is not a matter which ought in any circumstances to be dealt with in any scamped manner; it is work which should be given the fullest possible Parliamentary time; it is not work that we can sub-let to anyone else. It is true that the Bill does not deal with the problem, but it deals with an essential aspect of the relief which men must receive who are suffering acutely because the problem continues to be with us. Indeed, the figures in recent months show us that, in spite of the platform forecasts of leading Ministers of the Government, the clouds do not disappear, and every prophecy of a leading member of the Government is belied by the statistics which the Ministry of Labour must continue to publish. If anything, the condition is being hardened, and the difficulties for the masses of the workers are being increased. I would, therefore, join my appeal to that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the House, and would again ask the Prime Minister, while he is here, is it really intended to compel the Opposition to get through the larger number of the Clauses of this Bill in one day of Parliamentary time, and that a short day? If that be the intention of the Government, I say that it is the worst of the Parliamentary outrages which
  782
  have been committed by those who are now charged with the destinies of our country.
  Mr. MACKINDER: As one who has been almost silent during the Committee stage of this Bill, I was very interested to note that at all events we have to thank the Prime Minister for one gracious act, and that is that he did not accuse us of wasting the time of the Committee, or deliberately holding up and obstructing the work of the Committee. I would like, however, to say to the Prime Minister that the reason for the introduction of this guillotine Motion is very largely the action of the Minister of Labour himself. I have sat quietly during these Debates, and if the Minister had given, us the least little bit of help, if he had offered any little concession, I should have been glad; but he has been hard, he has been adamantine, and he has not helped in the passage of this Bill. We have asked for things of very urgent importance, we have tried to discuss matters in a fair way, but even the Closure has been applied on Clauses which we considered ought to have been argued for many hours longer. I think the worst feeling I had during the whole course of the debates on this Bill was at about half-past three on Tuesday morning, when the Minister said that he never intended that the sum of eight shillings a week would be able to keep a girl between the ages of 18 and 21. I think there were more indignant Members on the other side, or almost as many, as there were on this side; but, despite the fact that only seven speeches were delivered on the question of the payment to a girl of eight shillings to keep her body and soul together and keep her virtue, the Minister got up and asked for, and got, the Closure.
  I do submit to the House that that was not an adequate discussion of so important a subject, and one which so closely affects the flower of our country, our girls between the ages of 18 and 21, who are dismissed so airily by the Minister with the statement that he never intended that the sum allowed for them in unemployment pay should be able to keep them. We asked where, if eight shillings will not keep them, are they going to get the remainder? The Minister would not answer. That is one example of how inadequately the Bill has been discussed. There were Members here who wanted

  783
  to raise questions of training. We wanted to show to the Minister that a boy of 16 or 17 who has gone wrong can be sent away to a school and get an exceptionally good training which would enable him to be a useful citizen in this society of ours —a training under good conditions, with good food, and his body and his mind educated, so that when he came back from the school he would be useful; but the boys between 18 and 21, the boys whom we know and for whom we fear, are left, as has been said during the Debate, to hold up the street corners, and nothing is done for them. Nothing is done to help to keep the moral of these boys, and, when we see boys who have never worked since they left school, I fear and I tremble for what is going to happen in the future.
  Again, I submit that it is quite impossible to say that the question of ex-service men has had either an adequate debate or an adequate reply from the Minister. When I think of ex-service whom I know, who cannot get a job, who have but a miserable pension, who are going through torment owing to what they have done for their country, and when I think of the callous reply of the Minister that they must at least work 10 weeks and have 10 stamps as a qualification, I wonder what is going to happen to those who cannot obtain that qualification. I have in my mind a soldier whom I know very well. He lost an eye at Lady smith, but he joined up in the Great War in 1914, and served in the trenches for nine months, although he was blind in one eye. He came home, and a year after his discharge found that he had rheumatism; and, while he was being treated for rheumatism, a cancer was discovered on his tongue, and his tongue was taken out; but, because he could not prove that that was due to his army service, he got no pension. How is he going to get a job? That man is my brother. With rheumatism and cancer, how is he going to get a job? Nobody can give him a job, and he cannot get enough food into his system to enable him to work. I say seriously and sincerely that it is harsh to impose any qualification on this kind of man which will prevent him from getting relief.
  784
  Who, if he cannot work, wants to go to the guardians? Why should you put our best men to the degradation of going to the guardians?
  Some of us feel that, even without the Guillotine, the Clauses already passed were not adequately discussed, and that the Clauses which are to follow will be discussed even less adequately. Tomorrow, in four hours, nine Clauses are going to be disposed of. I wonder how many Members who are listening to this Debate, and who will vote for the Guillotine, will vote for, say, Clause 6. You cannot adequately discuss Clause 6 to-morrow. Section 4 of the Act of 1924 says that the disqualification shall not apply where
  "the stoppage is due to an employer acting in a manner so as to contravene the terms or provisions of any agreement,"
  and so on. Those words are going to be deleted by Clause 6. It may be that the Minister has an adequate reason, but I really cannot understand why those words are being taken out. At present the law is that, if a dispute takes place because of an employer contravening an agreement, the workpeople will be allowed unemployment benefit, but that is now going to be taken out, and no reason is given for doing so. The Minister has not given us any reason, and no reason is stated in the White Paper. A Clause like that requires at least half-a-dozen hours' discussion, because it is an important Clause to those in this House, and it is an important Clause to the people in the country. I submit very sincerely that, if the Government are short of time, they ought to have brought us back a little earlier in the year, instead of insisting on the three months' holiday which some of did not relish. These matters of State ought to be discussed in the House of Commons.
  Then we have the Schedules. There are five Schedules to this Bill, dealing with the rate of contribution, the rate of benefit, and other matters, and we are going to discuss those five Schedules on the last day of the Debate in four hours. I submit to hon. Members opposite that, when they next meet their constituents, and are asked how they voted on this or that subject, they will know how they voted, but they will not know why they voted. I feel that the lack of assistance which the Minister has got from the

  785
  other side ought to indicate to the Government that they are not doing the thing which in the opinion of their own supporters they ought to do. There is any number of cases which ought to be discussed. Many a man cannot get his benefit because he has not the 30 stamps, and he cannot get Poor Law relief owing to the instructions of the Minister of Health. What is he going to do? There is the casual ward. I wonder how many Members opposite have been unemployed, not to mention having to go to the casual ward. If there is one thing that is enough to break the heart of any man, and make him sorry he is an Englishman, it is to be unemployed, to be hungry, and then find that he has to go to the casual ward, where he gets treatment that is worse than being in prison. We find that guardians are asking people to go inside. It costs 32s. a week to keep a pauper, and 8s. is to be paid in the case of bonny girls between the ages of 18 and 21. I submit that this is not the proper way to deal with the matter, and that some of us are prepared to forego our Christmas holidays if we can only have adequate consideration of something that affects the lives and the interests of millions of people.
  I do not want to make the question of unemployment a party matter; I would accept the assistance of any party or any man who would find some method of helping these people, who cannot help themselves. For God's sake, think of the man who is unemployed, with his wife and bairns. If some hon. Members opposite had had to go out and leave a piece of dry bread in the House, when they were hungry themselves, for the sake of their kiddies, they would not be so ready to closure these discussions, and would at least show a little more sympathy with the unemployed men and women, and the dependants of the unemployed men and women of this country. I ask the Prime Minister, I ask the Minister of Labour, to reconsider their decision and let us have a discussion and consideration of this Bill. For Heaven's sake, let us have some sympathy for the unemployed man or woman. The Minister of Labour has shown not a scrap of sympathy, and I do not think he understands his Bill. I ask Members on the other side to give us some sympathy in the opposition that we are trying to put up, and to let us have consideration of the
  786
  Bill, let us have the sympathy and support of people inside this House, and, at all events, let us give the people whom we represent outside at least the prospect of a decent time in the New Year that is coming.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. SEXTON: I desire respectfully, but none the less vigorously, to enter my protest against such a monstrous imposition upon the liberties of the House generally as is represented by this Motion. I wish to go much further than that. The Prime Minister has spoken of the mentality of the Opposition, but what can be the mentality which accepts such a suggestion as is made here? Mentality is a question of degree. The Prime Minister's mentality lives in a particular sphere, while ours lives in an entirely different one. I have sat in this House, and I do not think I have intervened more than once or twice in the Whole of the Debate, because I was reserving myself for a special occasion which is now threatened. It is on a question which affects a body of men with whom I am closely associated. This Motion excludes me from intervening in the general Debate. I did not see during the whole of the Debate any justification whatever for the introduction of this monstrous imposition on the rights and privileges of people like myself on this side of the House. I do not want to be discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, but I do want to use a phrase which fits the case.
  "He jests at scars that never felt a wound."
  We on this side of the House have felt the wounds for years and have borne the scars. We strongly object to more wounds being added, and having more scars to carry. If the Prime Minister would only study the Bill, he would see that one of the great causes of the waste of time—if he likes to call it a waste of time—or at any rate one of the reasons the Debates have been lengthened, is this. I will give one example. We, as laymen in the House, are expected to sit on these benches and have an Order Paper put into our hands in the morning, take a Bill from the Vote Office, and, with no other guide than the mere printed matter, to endeavour to unravel a legal scheme which is thrown at us without any explanation at all. Let me give one

  787
  example. In Clause 7, Sub-section (2), are these words:
  "(2) Section 13 of the Unemployment Insurance No. 2) Act, 1921, shall have effect as if a reference to Sub-section (1) of this Section were substituted therein for the reference to Sub-section (o) of Section twenty-two of the principal Act."
  In the name of commonsense and logic, how can any layman be expected to sit down on these benches and unravel that legal rigmarole which is placed before us without any explanation as to its meaning? I have seen some of my colleagues trying to do it. I, myself, have been to the Library, and I could not find books there or Acts of Parliament to interpret what that particular Section means. Yet we are expected to accept the words of the Minister of Labour when even he could not tell us what the thing meant. That is not the only one Section, or illustration in the Bill. In every Clause of the Bill, from beginning to end, there is some unnecessary rigmarole. No one can understand it and I venture to doubt whether even the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) could understand it, and everybody knows that his legal acumen is superior to anyone's.
  I am very much afraid that the limits placed on the remainder of the Clauses —and on the one in which I am particularly interested, Clause 9—will not give an opportunity for me or for the Minister of Labour to deal with the matter, if I can induce him to accept the Amendment. I hope I shall be excused if I deal particularly with this phase of the situation, and if I do repeat myself, at least I will try not to do so. From the beginning of this legislation I have endeavoured to point out that the position of the casual labourer who is employed by more than one employer, sometimes by five or six during the week, is entirely different from that of the man who is employed by one employer, though perhaps not employed always. Our difficulty has been to endeavour to fix this round peg into a square hole, because this legislation was never intended for men situated as casual labourers are. For 40 years I and my colleagues have endeavoured to raise them up out of the slough of despond in which they are. Personal experience has taught us and I have sat here, and,
  788
  I think I may say, with exemplary patience have listened to the sneers and gibes thrown across the House by young Members of this House who have never had any experience in the matter at all, until I have felt my blood boil. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley will come back, because I want to refer to him and the assistance he gave us during the time of our trouble. For 40 years what did we find? Chaos and confusion! You talk about genuinely seeking work. You have only to go down to the docks and see the men standing behind one another pushing one another in the back, trying to get a miserable day or half day a week.
  For 40 years we have struggled and fought to bring these men nearer human civilisation in industry. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley will remember it. For seven months we travelled all over this country and at every seaport tried to get—and eventually did get with his assistance—some kind of legislation to protect the lives and interests of the men who were asking for it. They wanted a ready-money job, for men will work an hour to get paid at the end of the hour. We found men not looking for work once, but four and five times, day and night, even at midnight, or two o'clock in the morning. We found no organisation, but bit by bit we brought them up to this position, and with the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour to-day we have got a machinery—not quite complete or all that we would wish it to be—but at least which puts a man on a human level with his fellows in more fortunate conditions. Having done that, and got so far, we want to put the coping-stone on the edifice. What do we find? The right hon. Gentleman has issued 12 commandments on the very eve of the possibility of our success. Even Moses was satisfied with 10, but the Government, by the introduction of this Guillotine and this Bill, has broken one of the most important.
  What we ask is an opportunity now to finish the job which hate taken 50 years of hard labour and personal sacrifice. We want to help the Minister of Labour. We have a machinery in Liverpool the existence of which, thanks to the assistance of good employers like Sir Alfred Booth and Mr. Laurence Holt, and my-

  789
  self and my colleagues, has brought about a wonderful revolution. A man used to be paid for the half-day and had to collect his wages. We have done away with all that. Where a man used to have to travel about from Saturday morning to Sunday midday hunting his boss to collect his few coppers or shillings, the right hon. Gentleman has a machinery which he has put into our hands, and which gives the men a chance of finding the jobs. The Minister collects the wages from the employer, and pays our men over the counter in a lump sum instead of their having to travel all over the docks. Further, he takes the man's national health insurance card and, instead of the man having to take this card in the morning to one employer and, when he gets the sack at dinner time, to take it to another, the Minister of Labour keeps it for him for six months, and automatically deducts from his full week's earnings his contribution to the national health insurance. All these things he has done, but we are asking him to help us to do one more thing.
  At present we are one of the most costly elements—I frankly admit that— inside unemployment insurance. We are drawing more than twice over what we are putting in, and that is because of the unfortunate eccentric nature of our employment. Other trades are paying our benefit, and we are being subsidised by more fortunate trades in the country. We frankly recognise that. We say to the right hon. Gentleman that we do not want to get outside the legislation. We want to keep in, but we want it to be uniform and we will do our best not to be any more a burden on other organised trades of the country. We say that this legislation was never intended to apply to our situation. We say it was only intended for men in constant employment. Our employment is not constant. It is intermittent. Therefore we want him to accept the principle. Under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman again we appointed a Committee known as the MacLean Committee to go into all the details of this scheme of de-casualisation and administration. What we ask the right hon. Gentleman to do is to suspend judgment until the MacLean Committee makes its Report and, when it makes its Report, to reserve his right to make a scheme which will keep us
  790
  within the law and enable us to control and administer the unemployed benefit of our own men. That is all we ask, and I hope you, Sir, will allow us to put this down as a new Clause so as to let the right hon. Gentleman take it into consideration and help us who have struggled for 40 long years, at great sacrifice and with some energy, to bring our poor chaps whom we have brought so far out of the land of bondage at least within sight of the promised land.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have listened throughout the Debate to the reasons that have been given by Members of the Opposition why this Motion should not be carried. As I listened, I wondered whether they themselves have the same confidence in their statements that would appear from their outward bearing. I think there is no one on any side of the House who in his heart of hearts does not think that there has been obstruction; that is to say, a lengthening out of debate far beyond the time necessary to reach a sensible conclusion on the points at issue. If anyone doubts it, I would ask him to cast his mind back to what happened either on Clause 1 or Clause 3. The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) referred to mutterings in the Lobby that he heard from Members usually sitting on this side of the House. I am not certain whether anyone ought to take mutterings in the Lobby as evidence one way or the other, but, if they are to be taken as evidence, there are many of us who can testify to mutterings, also in the Lobby, not by people on this side of the House, as to how successfully they had spun out the discussion beyond ordinary limits. I take Clause 3. It was a point so ordinary, so right, so necessary, that no one could doubt the propriety of it. The meaning of it was perfectly clear. I think it is because that was so generally admitted that there was no Amendment put down during the first days after the Bill was printed, and, yet there were hours of debate, and over that business of Clause 3 an hour and a half was consumed before we could get to a Debate of any substance whatever.
  The hon. Member for West Nottingham said that he was hurt very much to imagine that there had been deliberate obstruction. The answer was given a

  791
  little later by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), who said, "We consider that we are here for the express purpose of worrying the life out of the Government." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]
  That sentiment is cheered. At any rate, it does not give the impression that hon. Members come here with a desire for conciseness in debate. At the same time, the Prime Minister has no wish to say that discussion should be burked or unduly shortened if time be really necessary. The most remarkable speech that has been made, at any rate in favour of any lengthened Debate, was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley Sir J. Simon). I certainly did not wholly agree with him about the new Clauses, but, if it be thought that for the remaining Clauses of the Bill some extension of Debate is necessary in order to allow an adequate expression of opinion for two Clauses of importance, like Clauses 6 and 12, I think we should be prepared, if the House desires, to give for the discussion of the remaining Clauses an extra half-day, in which much can be said by those who wish to keep concisely to the point. The existing time table is this. For the re mainder of the Clauses of the Bill, Friday; for new Clauses, Monday; and for the Schedules, Tuesday up to 7.30. The revised time table, if it be accepted by hon. Members opposite, would be as follows: Clauses 6 to 9 on Friday, Clauses 10 to 14 to be completed by Monday at 7.30, new Clauses from 7.30 Monday to 7.30 Tuesday, and Schedules by 10.30 on Tuesday evening. If that meets the wishes of hon. Members opposite, we are willing to give it, but no more. We consider that no more, in the light of circumstances, is either necessary or desirable, and, if hon. Members wish it, the way in which it can be obtained is that at a suitable time they should be willing, if they like under protest, to withdraw their Amendments and allow the necessary Amendment to achieve this alteration of the time table to be put down.
  Mr. A. GREENWOOD: At the very outset, I wish to say we reject this compromise. It is even more offensive than the original suggestion. To ask on a Bill of this character that we shall be satisfied with three more hours than we are already getting is not meeting us in any spirit of compromise at all. We are
  792
  driven to the position now that the Schedules are to be disposed of in three hours. Even with the utmost conciseness, you could not fairly discuss the Schedules in three days, because they are among the most complicated portions of the Bill. The Government can therefore take their guillotine and use it as they like. I have no fundamental objection at all to the application on the Closure on a Bill of this kind. To all Oppositions all Governments are tyrannical. That, I think, is a general rule that everyone would accept. I am not, on principle, against the guillotine. If the Government, acting with the mandate of the people behind them, are deliberately obstructed by an Opposition and determine that they are going to have their will they are entitled to do so, but that is not the case here. This is a first-class Measure. The Government had no right to introduce it in an Autumn Session at all. There was no urgency in the matter. The Government themselves are not at all sure that they will adopt the Bill this year. They have taken the precaution of extending the operation of the present Bill in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. There is no reason why they should not withdraw the Bill to-night. The point is the complexity of the Bill. The Prime Minister referred to Clauses 1 and 3 of the Act of 1924. I admit its meaning is a little obscure, but almost the whole of the present Bill is obscure. The Prime Minister quoted one instance of the obscurity of the Act of 1924. I am prepared to quote 20 from this Measure. Clause 2 reads:
  "Nothing in this Section shall be taken to prejudice the operation of Section 15 and Section 16 of the principal Act."
  I imagine, if the Minister of Labour were deprived of his skilled assistance and put through a viva voce examination as to what that meant, he would be ploughed, and that would be so on many parts of the Bill. This obscure Sub-section is one of very considerable importance. It is safeguarding the right hon. Gentleman's right to alter without further legislation contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Act. That point has never been mentioned in the course of the Debates on the Bill. That is because Clause 2 was passed by the operation of the Closure before we had an opportunity of dealing with it. It is unfortunate that we have never been able

  793
  to consider the reactions and the possible developments of the right hon. Gentleman's administrative action on Sections 15 and 16 of the principal Act in relation, to the operation of this Bill. We do not know, and we ought to have been able to ask him, whether if all his hopes are falsified he intends to increase the contributions or not. That is a very important point, and we shall not get another opportunity of discussing it in Committee because there are so many equally important points that it is likely to be crowded out.
  The Prime Minister told us that 29 hours had been devoted to the discussion of Clause 5. The right hon. Gentleman himself regarded that Clause as one on which many questions could be raised. I have tried unsuccessfully time after time to raise important financial considerations, and have always been told by the Chairman that it would be more appropriate to deal with the matter on Clause 5. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour when he found himself, on earlier Clauses, driven into an awkward corner, invoke the aid of Clause 5. These things were to be discussed on Clause 5, and when we arrived at Clause 5 we found ourselves unable to discuss all the implications of Clause 5. I take one particular point which is of very great importance. There was some discussion as to the effect of the statutory conditions relating to the receipt of benefit. It is a most complicated Clause and a good deal depends, in our view, on what is a reasonable period before a man can be driven from his normal craft into a job of another kind. The whole of the discussion, I remember, was on an early Amendment, and we never had any discussion about what was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind as to the meaning of the term "reasonable." As far as I can see, under the operation of the Guillotine, we are not likely to get a discussion.
  This point is one of very considerable substance. I know that it is difficult to put definite periods of time into an Act of Parliament. You may create difficulties, but this point about a reasonable interval created a certain perturbation in the minds of hon. Members opposite, and they had Amendments down to insert a definite period, because they saw a difficulty. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman an illustration of what I mean. Sup-
  794
  pose a miner happens to have been employed in a pit, and has fallen out of work. It is perfectly clear that in the coalfields to-day there is no reasonable prospect of that man, and other unemployed men, getting employment again within any short period of time, and the Insurance Officer might well say after a coalminer had been unemployed for three days, "That is a reasonable time. If you are here three months, you will never get any work. You may be here three years and you will never get any work." On that, the Insurance Officer would be perfectly justified in compelling this man to take a job in a different industry at a very short period of time.
  The right hon. Gentleman dealt with one particular case, but that was the only illustration that he really made. This has created a good deal of apprehension in the minds of Members on this side of the House, and other Members of the House will bear me out when I say that this question of what is a reasonable interval was not discussed when this Clause was under discussion in Committee. And one could go on. We passed a Clause last night referring to partially disabled ex-service men, and all the information that we were given by the right hon. Gentleman was that there were between 17,000 and 18,000 of them out of work. We know nothing about them. We do not know what their past occupations were. He told us that unemployment had declined among partially disabled' ex-service men, but he did not tell us the kind of occupation to which the men had gone. I suggested that in many cases these men had gone to uninsured trades, and the right hon. Gentleman had no information either to confirm it or deny it. Here we were dealing with 17,000 to 18,000 partially disabled ex-service men and the Committee were entitled to have a sufficiently full discussion to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman all the facts relating to partially disabled ex-service men, and we never had it.
  These questions refer to matters that have already passed beyond the realm of Committee discussion, and it is suggested that we have been guilty of deliberate obstruction in having devoted 29 hours to Clause 5; that we have gone beyond the due limits of discussion. Personally, I deny that, but if that be

  795
  true, it is the right hon. Gentleman's own fault. Why did he not move the Closure earlier if we had passed beyond the bounds of legitimate discussion? The Chairman would certainly have granted it. If there has been any waste of time, which I deny, then part of the responsibility rests upon the right hon. Gentleman himself. He referred specially to the discussion on Clause 3, where he said there was wilful obstruction, but the question of the financial condition of the Fund and the frequency which reports on it were to be made were matters of very substantial importance in this Bill. After all, the amount of discussion on that was relatively short as compared with the importance of the subject.
  We are faced with a number of new Clauses. This Bill, we have repeatedly been told, is a Bill to put unemployment insurance on a permanent basis. That is the purpose of the Bill. It ought, therefore, to be regarded as a comprehensive Measure of unemployment insurance, but as a permanent Measure it is the most incomplete Unemployment Insurance Bill that has ever been put before the House. It omits a very large number of questions of first-rate importance, and it has been necessary, therefore, to submit a number of new Clauses. Some of these new Clauses are very vital in unemployment insurance schemes, and to say that you may have half a day more to discuss them is simply playing with the problem, which is one of far greater importance than the right hon. Gentleman appears to think. Now we are left with three hours of Parliamentary time at the end of the day next Tuesday in which to discuss the Schedules to the Bill. I think that the allocation of the time is bad, but no part of it is worse than the allocation of three hours to the Schedules to the Bill. The Fourth Schedule, which deals with what are called minor Amendments, raises some points of very real substance. I am not at all sure that certain alterations of the law made in that Schedule can rightly be described as minor Amendments, and certainly some of the questions raised in the Schedule are questions of very fair-reaching importance from our point of view. I refer, for example, to the alteration which is
  796
  to be made to Section 47 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, dealing with the arrangements by which Poor Law authorities and local authorities provide actual work. That raises a question which is worth three hours' discussion in itself, apart from any other question on Schedule 4, and yet for the whole of the Schedules we are to be limited to a three hours' discussion.
  I say that, with the utmost brevity, with the greatest possible conciseness for which the right hon. Gentleman has asked, it is humanly impossible to discuss one tenth of Schedule 4, let alone all four Schedules in three hours of Parliamentary time. I submit that this proposal is not treating the House fairly. There are Members on the other side of the House who know perfectly well that this Bill is going to be a very serious matter for a large number of people. To say that we have had so many days and we are going to have so many more days in order that we may get it through because of a crowded Parliamentary programme leaves me cold, when I remember that in the right hon. Gentleman's own admission he is going to cast off the unemployment insurance problem 56,000 people in addition to those who are already not in receipt of unemployment benefit and are unemployed and others who are not on the register. That is a very serious action to take, and I think no time ought to be grudged the House to discuss fully the implications of a Bill of this kind. The Bill is so complicated that nobody fully realises what the implications of the provisions are when taken in relation to the various other Acts of Parliament since 1920.
  The right thing to have done would have been for the Government first to have introduced a Consolidation Bill and then, next year, to have proceeded with their new legislation. They have chosen however, to bring in an unwieldy and incomprehensible mass of legislation which very few people in this country understand. The implications of the new Measure, and the remaining part of the legislation which still stands, are so far-reaching and so complicated that the House has not yet had an opportunity of appreciating the importance of those implications. That makes it all the more important that there should have been, subject, of course, to the Standing Orders of the House, unfettered discussion on

  797
  the Bill. This Bill is not a Bill for which hon. Members opposite are clamouring loudly. The majority of hon. Members opposite would have preferred that the Government had left this question alone. They did not desire it. One can see what the feeling of the Government supporters is about this Bill when the real army supporting this Bill and supporting the right hon. Gentleman has consisted of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams; the hon. member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) and the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans). They have brought all their intellectual powers and all their great experience of unemployment insurance to bear to assist the Government. But, apart from these three hon. Members, there has hardly been a voice raised on the other side of the House in support of the Bill. Why? It is not that they do not regard this Bill as being a Bill of importance.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: My hon. Friend says there were three hon. Gentlemen. Does he forget that last night there wa6 a very important speech made by an hon. Member for one of the Birmingham Divisions?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I apologise to the hon. Member: I had forgotten that. Even then the articulate support which has been given to this Bill in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters is small in volume as it has been small in value. I put it to hon. Members that it is because they feel that the Government ought not to have touched this question in the Autumn Session, and, secondly, that, having touched it, they have made a most awful mess of it, and their feelings are feelings of disgust. They realise, I am quite sure, that the Bill is important enough to warrant a much fuller discussion and more deliberation than it is likely to get. Every minute that has been spent on the consideration of the Bill up to the end of Clause 5 can be justified. If that be so, we are simply going to skimp the rest of the Bill in an unseemly fashion, not in the interests of the unemployed, not in the interests of unemployment insurance legislation but in the interests of the right hon. Gentleman's Christmas dinner. I received a tentative invitation last night to lunch in the House on Christmas Day, on the assumption that the
  798
  House would be sitting. I should be glad to come if this Bill were under consideration, and I think that is the view of most hon. Members in Opposition.
  I do suggest in all seriousness that so far from the right hon. Gentleman's new suggestion being an offer and a compromise it really increases the indignation of those who sit on this side of the House. Having landed himself in this most unfortunate position through his own act, deliberately, he ought to stay the course and give the House full opportunity of improving his Bill. We are most anxious to improve the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had accepted all our Amendments the Bill might have been through Committee by now and well on its way to the House of Lords. The Amendments have been put down in every case either for the purpose of elucidation or for the purpose of improvement. I ask any hon. Member to point to any single Amendment which is of an obstructive nature. All the Amendments have been put down either with the view of raising discussion on some of the obscurities in the Bill or with the definite intention of improving it; but we are to be left with a large number of those Amendments undiscussed or inadequately discussed.
  We are to be left, even with the three extra hours, with a number of important new Clauses receiving no word of explanation. We are to be rushed through the Report stage, notwithstanding the fact that large sections of the Bill have never been discussed. This Measure is to receive the maledictions of the House on the Third Reading after another short day's debate, merely 4 1/2 hours on a Friday. That is treating the House unfairly; it is treating the Opposition unfairly and it is treating the unemployed unfairly. If the right hon. Gentleman were to take off the Whips in the Division on the Guillotine Motion and hon. Members opposite were to act honestly and in accordance with their own wishes the Guillotine Motion would never be passed, because I am sure that many hon. Members opposite feel with us that this Bill, affecting nearly 12,000,000 of people in this country any one of whom may come within its provisions, is a Measure which deserves to receive the fullest amount of Parliamentary time. We would not willingly obstruct the Bill did we not feel that we have a right in the interests of the unemployed and in the

  799
  interests of the insured workers to say that a Bill of this importance intended to be the model of permanent legislation affecting them should receive unfettered discussion in this House.
  Sir J. SIMON: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the suggested extension of time, however inadequate it may be, could be moved if the Amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition is put to the vote, or whether on the other hand, supposing that Amendment were put to the vote and not carried, it would be possible for Amendments to be moved to extend the time?
  Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the suggestion that more time should be given to the Clauses of the Bill, that could only be done if the present Amendment were withdrawn and we go back to earlier words in the Resolution than those I have put to the House. Hon. Members could then vote against the Motion as a whole, with the Amendment in it. The suggestion made from the Government bench with regard to an extension of time cannot go further without the leave of the Opposition, who have moved their Amendment. That is the position.
  Sir J. SIMON: Further to that point of order, does your ruling mean that the only opportunity of getting further time for discussing the Clauses depends upon whether the present Amendment is withdrawn?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is so as far as the Clauses of the Bill are concerned. I have promised that, if the present Amendment be disposed of in reasonable time, I will select the Amendment next on the Paper, which would give an extra three hours on the third day. That would affect the Schedules, but not the new Clauses. I think I have put the matter clearly as far as the new Clauses are concerned.
  Mr. SHAW: I am in doubt as to the forms of order, but if I am allowed now to make a statement, I say here and now, after hearing the Minister of Labour, quite definitely, that we shall press our Amendment to a Division.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. In connection with the Government of
  800
  Ireland Bill, a similar Motion allocating time was put down by the Government of the day, and moved by the Prime Minister, and an Amendment was moved on behalf of the Conservative Opposition, under the late Mr. Bonar Law, by Lord Robert Cecil. That Amendment was in terms somewhat similar to our Amendment, and I think the Speaker on that occasion allowed Amendments to be made to each part of the Motion, holding that the original Motion could be amended. I respectfully ask whether any part of the Motion cannot be amended.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Not any part of it, because I preserved the first Amendment on the Paper by the way I put the Question from the Chair. I put the Question "That the words proposed to be left out, down to '7.30' in line 15, stand part of the Question."
  Mr. STEPHEN: Could the difficulty not be resolved by the Question put reading simply from the word "That," and that it should not be taken as down to line 15? If an alteration could be made in the form of the Question put from the Chair, it might be that it could be simply from the word "That." On a previous occasion when a guillotine Motion was put, the Question was put from the word "That," and in that form it allowed Amendments to be made.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It depends what the second Amendment on the Paper is. In the usual course I put the Question that the words of the Motion stand part down to the first Amendment, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Hayday).
  Sir J. SIMON: If someone handed in an Amendment to the Prime Minister's Motion, in line 6, to omit the words "the remainder of the" and to insert after the word "Clauses," the words "six and nine," would you not consider it within your discretion to put the question on the present Amendment "That the words stand part" down to a point which would enable that manuscript Amendment afterwards to be moved?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No, I could not do that. That would lead me to make a precedent for the future which I do not desire to do. The House has been for four hours debating the Question, "That the words down to '7.30,' in line 15,

  801
  stand part," and therefore I cannot go back unless the present Amendment be withdrawn.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to say something in regard to our Amendment. One hon. Member stated that he does not, in principle, object to the Guillotine. Others of us take the same attitude that we do not object in principle to the Guillotine. It all depends on the circumstances of the case. We say that if the Guillotine is proposed, it ought to be proposed in a rational and not in an irrational manner. Hon. Members opposite object to the principles of the Guillotine. On a former occasion Lord Robert Cecil, on behalf of his party, moved a Motion which said:
  "This House declines to continue the practice of passing Procedure Resolutions to deal with the later stages of particular Bills, and calls upon the Government to lay before it proposals for settling the procedure of this House upon a permanent basis."
  That would appear to me to show that hon. Members opposite are now going against their own principles, in bringing forward a Guillotine Resolution. They are against the principles, and yet this is the second occasion within their most modern term of office that they have thought fit to bring forward a Guillotine Resolution.
  One of the complaints which I have in connection with the Resolution is the irrational manner in which it has been proposed. Evidently, this Government has such a belief in symmetry that they proceed in accordance with their love of symmetry, quite apart from the importance of the various parts of any particular Measure. They allocate one day for this, one day for that, one day for the remaining Clauses, a day for the new Clauses, part of a day for the Schedules, part of a day for the Third Reading. That is their arithmetical method of dealing with the matter, quite apart from the substance of the proposals contained in the Measure. I am strengthened in my contention by the way in which the Prime Minister introduced the Motion. For him it was simply a question of arithmetic. If the Labour Government in 1924 introduced an Unemployment Insurance Bill and a certain number of days were taken for it and! a certain number of hours, then if the Conservative Government in 1927 introduce
  802
  an Unemployment Insurance Bill it must be done in a certain number of days or hours. The Prime Minister based himself on the question of proportions in arithmetic quite apart from the substance of the Measure. There is no sense in debating in such a way. It is not a question of what has taken place in the past; it is the amount of time that will allow for adequate discussion. After this discussion had gone on for some time there came the intervention of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). I am reminded] of what happened last year. In 1926 there was a great crisis, and the right hon. and learned Member made a speech which the Government felt must be answered at once. They felt that they must do something, in answer to that speech, to settle the differences between the contending parties, the miners and the mine-owners, who were engaged in a deadly struggle. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made an important speech in connection with the general strike, and the Government said, "We have to do something to settle the differences between the contending forces. We must arrive at a mediating policy "; and so they passed the Eight Hours Act. That was their idea of a compromise as between the mineowners and the miners.
  To-day, when we are discussing the fortunes of over 1,000,000 unemployed people, the Government say, again after a speech by the right hon. and learned Member: "Well, we shall have to agree upon a compromise. We have been impressed by what he has said. His speech is a notable one, unlike the other speeches which have been made, and we must have a compromise." Just as the Government were anxious to be reasonable last year, and added to the hours of labour in the mines, so their idea of being reasonable on this occasion is to give three more hours for discussion. I do not agree with all that has been said by hon. and right hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench. I do not think it is an insult to the Opposition. I think it is an insult to the right hon. and learned Member, whom the Government have appointed as Chairman of their Indian Commission. It is an insult to him, after the case he put forward. To my mind the Government would have treated the right hon. and

  803
  learned Member more reasonably if they had said that they must stand by what the Prime Minister had said, that there was only a, limited amount of time, they wanted to get the Bill on the Statute Book, and they were sorry they could not do anything to met his request. The suggestion that three hours more discussion will really meet the case put forward by the right hon. and learned Member was simply to treat the right hon. and learned Member contemptibly. I have no objection to the Minister of Labour treating the right hon. and learned Member in that fashion. Possibly it is the due reward for the assistance which on occasions he renders to the Government. It is what one might expect from the Government; but it does not meet the situation he put forward.
  Whilst this is an amending Bill, a continuation of the principle of legislation by reference—and possibly the worst example we have ever had of that kind of legislation during the three Parliaments of which I have been a Member—it involves the introduction of new principles. It is a Measure which is to put unemployment insurance upon its final basis in this country. One cannot contend that the 1924 Act was the final form of unemployment insurance. Quite obviously, it was a Measure to tide over a period, and gave the Government power at any time to waive certain parts of it until there came a time more suitable for its definite adoption. This Measure is to put employment insurance in its final form, and yet this House is to be denied the opportunities it ought to have for a full discussion of proposals so important to so many members of the working class. I do not think any hon. Member can have any sense of comfort in accepting this Guillotine Motion. The Minister of Labour said that every hon. Member in the House, even the Labour party, knows that there has been a certain amount of obstruction on this Measure. I may not be so intelligent as some hon. Members, perhaps I am not so intelligent as the Minister of Labour, although I think differently myself. I hope I am as intelligent as the Minister of Labour, even if I am not as intelligent as the Home Secretary, who is now the representative of the Government on the Front Bench. So far as we have had instances of the
  804
  intelligence of the Minister of Labour, it is no great standard for anyone to set.
  I have not observed, and I have sat through all the discussions on this Bill with the exception of a couple of hours, that there has been any obstruction. There has been a lot of legitimate criticism, and practically no Amendment has been discussed which hon. Members on the Government side, as well as hon. Members on the Opposition side, have not pressed the Minister to accept, or some modified form of it. Surely that is a point of great importance when dealing with the legitimacy of the action of the Government in trying to force this Bill through by means of the Guillotine. There has not been a single Amendment on which some hon. Member on the other side has not felt it necessary to plead with the Minister to try and meet the case put forward because of the interest some of his constituents have in unemployment. No one can say that the Amendments have not been well founded.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Should I be in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in moving the adjournment of the Debate because the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary, who are responsible for this Measure, are not present?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): No, the hon. Member would not be in order. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) must be allowed to proceed undisturbed with his speech.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I thank you, Mr. Hope, for your protection. I also appreciate the kindness of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in desiring to move the adjournment of the Debate in order to draw attention to the discourtesy of the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I am surprised at the Home Secretary taking the place of the Minister of Labour.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) to allow the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) to resume his speech without interruption.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Again I take advantage of the protection you have afforded me, and will continue my argument. I was pointing out that the

  805
  Amendments which have been moved to this Bill have been so well founded that they have received support in all parts of the Committee. There has been just as much pressure from hon. Members on the Conservative Benches to persuade the Government to accept them as there has been from the Opposition. On Clause 3 only one Amendment was taken, and there was a good deal of discussion on it. The Minister of Labour said it was not an important matter, and that it was only some time after the Second Beading had been carried that the Amendment to that Clause was put down. Still, that does not say that it is not an important Clause, and the Minister of Labour always had means in his power to deal with any lengthy discussion on what was evidently not a matter of importance. He had to fall back on the suggestion that there was a revolt in the ranks of the Opposition in regard to this Bill. There is not a single Member of the Opposition who is not in accord with the majority in trying to make this a far better Measure than it is at the moment. There have been mutterings on the other side, and to some extent they have found expression in the Committee. The mutterings, possibly, have taken place in the Dining Boom, but sometimes they have found expression in the Committee. The Minister of Labour has referred to a speech which has been made to-day. After trying to make full use of the allegation that there have been mutterings in the Opposition in regard to this Bill, he said, "Well, one does not want to deal with mutterings in the House." After having extracted the last ounce he could, he then tried to qualify it, and said he did not want to make anything of it. I do not want to use an unparliamentary expression in connection with that just now; I may have occasion to use it before this Bill is concluded.
  Referring to a speech made to-day by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) the Minister of Labour said that it was a notable instance of the fact that the Opposition had come there with the definite intention of worrying the Government. So we are put into the position that if the Opposition worry the Government they are guilty of obstruction. If there be necessity for this guillotine Motion, it is not
  806
  due to obstruction on the part of the Opposition. The instance I have given shows that, if it is due to anything, it is due to the obstruction of the mental processes of the Minister of Labour. Our worrying may be absolutely concise, pointed and definite, but it is called obstruction. The fact is that the need for this guillotine Motion has been caused by the way in which the Minister of Labour has handled the whole business from the Second Beading onward. I have here the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debate on the Second Beading, and I find that the Minister, in seeking to explain the Bill, gave us a retrospect of insurance legislation, a historical resume of the subject, and then he practically read to us the Memorandum in front of the Bill. We did not get very far in the Committee stage before it was pointed out by the Chairman of Committee and others that we should not pay much attention to the Memorandum^ because it was so badly drafted.
  The discussion of the Bill has taken a certain amount of time in Committee. The Minister has said, in effect, "Look how long we took over the first Clause and the first Amendment." As the Debate has gone on it has become more apparent that we have hot had nearly enough time on the first Clause. Then take Clause 5 and consider the time spent on the 30 contributions proposal. The Prime Minister has complained that we spent 29 hours on it. Yes, and after two Amendments from this side had been disposed of, hon. Members on the Government side felt that the position to be created by the Bill would cause so much discomfort and suffering to their people that they brought forward another Amendment to save the situation for the Government, but the Minister had not the sense to take the help that was offered, and we had to spend more hours in discussing the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. R. Hudson) and seconded by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson). Much of this 29 hours' discussion was due to the fact that there was a revolt in the Conservative party itself. To-day, evidently, the Government are not going to allow free discussion of the Bill, because Members opposite are beginning to know what the Bill means, and if the discussion goes on a few days longer,

  807
  what is at present a minority in the ranks of the Government party might become a majority, and we might have a new Minister of Labour, a new Prime Minister and new men on the Treasury Bench.
  As I have said, this is only the second time in the three Parliaments of which I have been a Member that I have had experience of a Guillotine Motion. I must add that in those three Parliaments I have never seen a greater exhibition of unrest, and of dislike on the part of Members supporting a Government of their own Government's policy, as is shown in connection with this Bill. With regard to the allocation of time, the Government have said "Yes, the right hon. Member for Spen Valley is right. We should give a little more time to the remaining Clauses of the Bill. We are wrong. We did not think and we did not know. We will give a little time longer. We will take half-an-hour off the time for the Schedules. We have been allowing far too long for the Schedules." Three-and-a-half hours for five Schedules, which are spread over ever so many pages! I wish hon. Members would look at the Fourth Schedule and see the alterations that are involved. The Minister of Labour in drafting the Bill did not put them under the heading of minor Amendments. They seem to me to be anything but minor Amendments, but we are to get only three hours for their discussion. That is to play fast-and-loose with the House and with free discussion. This most important part of a Measure affecting the fortunes of a million poor people is to be allowed only three hours for discussion. It is an intolerable position into which the Government has put us. The Prime Minister's capacity for addition has, obviously led him astray.
  I can understand that the Minister of Labour has found it difficult to meet the arguments of people on his own Benches, not to speak of the arguments of those on this side of the House. He has been obviously in the position of one who has not understood his own Bill. He has not been able to meet the arguments of those in his own party who are interested in unemployment insurance. So he has proceeded by this method of giving one day for the remaining Clauses, one day for the New Clauses, part of a day for
  808
  the Schedules, a day for the Report stage and part of a day for the Third Beading. Some attempt ought to have been made by the Government to deal with the most important part of this subject which has yet to be discussed. But this arithmetical Government must keep to the arithmetical form. It is dangerous for them to get away from arithmetic and into the world of ideas, because they seem to be destitute of ideas.
  I cannot help recalling the occasions in the past when the guillotine method has been used and when hon. Members, now on the other side, have spent themselves in fury against it. When a less important Measure and a Measure affecting fewer people was under discussion they demanded and they got a certain number of days under a Guillotine Motion. Those were in the days when the present Home Secretary was ready to use bad language, when Members of his party were ready to "damn the consequences" and when one of them who is now a Noble Lord, was ready to throw a volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT at one who is now a fellow-member of his own Government. Hon. Members opposite would be grievously affronted if some of us were to follow their example. There would be the utmost indignation in their minds. I feel the utmost indignation at the action of the Government. I have seen more time devoted to a paragraph or two in the Finance Bill affecting the Income Tax payments of rich people, than is now being allowed for all the Clauses all the New Clauses and all the Schedules in connection with this Bill. The Government in this Motion is true to its faith in the fact that there is a war of classes and that their business is to protect the rich and the well-to-do and put the burden on the shoulders of the poor.
  Most Members on these benches, if they have not had personal experience of unemployment, have kinship with those who have had that experience, and know what suffering it entails. It is because we know that this Measure is going to cost our people great sacrifices that we protest most vehemently against the Government's action. The Prime Minister said that when the Labour party's Unemployment Insurance Bill came before the House it came out of the blue. What was probably in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, though it was not in his mouth, was that the Measure now about

  809
  to be guillotined on to the Statute Book was born in the nether regions. It has all the characteristics of Sheol or Hades or that region which goes under various names—the most easily stated of which it is not in order to pronounce in this House. I believe the policy embodied in this Motion belonge to those regions. I believe it is a Bill out of those regions which is being put on the Statute Book by the method of the Guillotine and I believe that method applied to such a Measure is a method of those regions. The Bill is being put on the Statute Book by a Government which, no doubt, came out of those regions itself and will, I believe, soon go into those regions again leaving only a wretched memory among the people of thi6 country. There are already indications. The Canterbury bells have sounded a knell—it may be a little before its time—over the Government which is imposing this intolerable Measure upon the unemployed people of this country.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Can I not move the adjournment?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No.
  Mr. RILEY: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood), earlier in this discussion, said the Motion ought not to be accepted because the Bill might affect the security of 12,000,000 people. That ie a consideration sufficiently serious to warrant the most careful attention being given to the Measure, but I think the hon. Member did not state the objections as strongly as they might have been stated. This is not merely a matter affecting 12,000,000 working people, it affects the whole nation because of its reactions in regard to the burdens resting upon the community. It is not disputed, even by the Minister, that a substantial number of those who are now protected in their unemployment benefits by the existing laws will lose that protection. As to the extent of that effect, there is a good deal of difference of opinion. If I may suggest an additional reason why this Motion ought not to be carried it is that neither the Government themselves nor hon. Members in any part of the House know what the effect of the Bill will be.
  There is a general uncertainty as to how far-reaching the effects of the Bill will be. The Minister of Labour ad-
  810
  mitted the other day that from 56,000 to 60,000 people who are now entitled to protection would cease to be protected when this Bill became law. On the other hand, we had from the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson) the other day evidence, based on an actual examination of figures taken this month in his own constituency, that so far as Sunderland was concerned the number who would be affected by the Bill and would lose their protection, upon the test case taken, amounted to no less than 56 per cent. of the total persons who were receiving unemployment benefit. I am not going to say that one could apply that high percentage to the whole country; no doubt that is not the case, but
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member should not devote time to discussing Clauses that have already been discussed.
  Mr. RILEY: I am trying to suggest the seriousness of what is involved without discussing the merits of the Clauses, and I am suggesting that the reason why this Motion should not be carried is because of the serious consequences which are already anticipated and which are common ground of objection to the Bill. We have had testimony in his House that in one case as many as 56 per cent. of the people receiving benefit would be affected, and if it is not too extravagant to carry that argument to its logical conclusion, it means that, if that percentage prevailed throughout the country, we should have 500,000 people at least affected by the Bill. The right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) put the figure at 200,000, but, whatever the figure may be, it concerns a population which for years has been suffering keen deprivation, with economic conditions unbearable, and I submit that before taking any further step to accentuate that continuation of insecurity, adequate time ought to be given for the examination of the Bill.
  Further, not only is this Bill admittedly going to have a very detrimental effect upon many thousands of working people, but it is also admitted that it is bound to have a detrimental effect in increasing the local burdens in all localities, because of the additional liability which will be thrown on them to provide for those deprived of benefit

  811
  by this Bill. On more than one occasion I have gone to the trouble of trying to ascertain what are the burdens which are borne by localities at the pre sent time and which rest upon the trade and industry of a district, and—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that would be in order even on the Bill itself.
  Mr. RILEY: I submit again, very respectfully, that I am giving a reason why this Motion should not be carried, because of its possible consequences, not only to the unemployed, but to the localities. I shall how to your ruling, but I submit that that is a sound reason against this Motion. I take it, therefore, that I am in order.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No. The hon. Member may say that large issues are raised, but he cannot debate those issues on this Motion.
  Mr. RILEY: I am not debating them. I am only referring to the consequences which are likely to occur, which are not disputed, and which have been referred to over and over again. I am not discussing the merits of any particular Clause, but I am stating reasons why the House should afford adequate time, because of the seriousness of the consequences that will follow the passage of this Bill into law. I hope, for these reasons, that the Motion will be rejected.
  Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I hope that what is left of the House will give some consideration to the terms of the Amendment to the Motion that has been submitted. I am not going to discuss the detailed allocation of time in the Government's proposals, but I am sure that any impartial witness of the proceedings here in the last few days would agree with us that there has been no waste of time and no obstruction, but that we have sat here discussing the Bill till the early hours of the morning with every desire to improve the Bill; and we find that we have only reached Clause 5 in a Bill of 14 or 15 Clauses. Now the Government propose to cut down the time and to curtail the possibilities of examination and of exposure, and it is very important that we should have an opportunity of exposing the Government's intentions and the shortcomings
  812
  of the Bill. This Amendment protests against the limitation of the Debate in any degree, and we cannot afford to allow this Motion to pass unchallenged. I do not know if the Government are capable of offering any reply, but no attempt has yet been made to do so. The Amendment was moved three or four hours ago, and no speaker on the Government side has yet attempted to give any reply at all to the reasoned Amendment put forward from these benches. I do not know whether the Government are going to treat the House to-night with the same contempt that is implied in the Resolution. If to-night we are to divide at eleven o'clock after a Debate occupying several hours, and we find that while the great majority of the Tory supporters in this House are away, totally disregarding the matter under debate, they will come back at a stated hour to vote blindly in favour of the Resolution, that will be an even greater insult to the House than is the Motion itself.
  How does the Government attempt to square their action in bringing this Bill forward with the growing extent of unemployment and the increasing alarm of the public in regard to the figures published by the Government in the last six or seven weeks. Constantly increasing numbers of people are shown to be unemployed. The regions of unemployment are sinking deeper into despondency and despair, bankruptcy is universal, individual persons and families are in the depths of despondency and misery, and yet the Government bring in a Bill under the title of an Unemployment Insurance Bill which is going to cut out from all possibility of insurance and benefit a number estimated by some at 50,000, by others at 200,000 and by others at a still greater number. What are the Government really going to do? Are they going to pass the remaining Clauses of the Bill which will determine what class of persons are going to get benefit? Even now I can imagine the possibility of this Bill being interpreted in a way that will deprive of benefit perhaps one half the persons now receiving benefit unless it is carefully examined and careful stipulations inserted. The real position of the country calls for something much more elaborate with much wider provisions than this Bill; and further opportunities of discussion would give an opportunity for the insertion of new Clauses in order

  813
  to make the Bill, as near as it possibly can be made, into an Unemployment Insurance Act which will give benefit to all unemployed workmen.
  We have been discussing the first five Clauses, and certain categories of un employed workpeople have been receiving the attention of the House, but Clause 6 and Clause 12 are in my opinion much more important than the whole of the first five Clauses put together. Clause 6 is of vital importance to every person connected with a trade union, and who recognises that here is a danger of men who have paid for benefit from 10 to 15 years and being deprived of it because of a technical insertion in the Bill. This Bill has been brought in to save money on the original benefits, which are to be reduced. The number of per sons qualifying for benefits is to be reduced in proportion, and we are given to understand in the White Paper that it is intended that the Government contribution to insurance shall be reduced by nearly £2,000,000 per annum. This is a very serious thing. That £2,000,000 reduction in benefit will not mean so very much to the Government; £2,000,000 of Treasury receipts each year is an in significant proportion, but £2,000,000 drawn from individuals will mean cutting out the whole of the income of perhaps 200,000 families, denying any relief at all from these sources to men who have been unemployed. The worst feature about the Bill is that the men who have been longest—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going into the merits of the Bill.
  Mr. GRENFELL: I am anxious not to go into the merits, but only to say that the merits should be properly examined. The demerits are more remarkable than any merits. There are very few merits in the Bill, because it is retrogressive legislation. I would urge the Government not to impose the weight of their majority against a minority of workmen's representatives. After all, we on this side do directly represent the working people of this country in this sense, that, wherever they have a collective voice, they consult us. We are the direct representatives of the working people, and we feel much more clearly than hon. Members on the other side can
  814
  feel how much injury is going to be inflicted upon our people by the passage of this Bill. The injury is not going to be confined to individuals, but it is going to react upon local authorities. When the Government pay some attention to the reports issued by their own Departments, and when Members on the other side realise the true nature of the problem, I am sure they will not give their assistance to pass the Bill in its present form. Let the Bill be examined line by line. It makes references to more than a dozen previous Acts. Let all these references, let all the implications of the Bill be examined, and it will not be a wiste of time. This Motion to-day is a real waste of time. If the Government are really anxious, they would not have brought in a Measure which they know well enough that no party on this side of the House can accept. We protest with all sincerity against the decision to curtail discussion, and to make discussion absolutely ridiculous. The intention to pass through nine or 10 Clauses to-morrow in five hours makes debate a farce, and we protest against the lowering of Parliamentary standards and against the abuse of majority power. We protest against the injustices that will be pushed through by this means, reflecting on the people we represent.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. JAMES HUDSON:The charges that have been frequently made to-night and repeated by the Minister of Labour, that our speeches have been in the nature of obstruction, are begging the question, because, after all, most of us who feel strongly about any subject tend to look upon the speeches of hon. Members on the opposite side, whatever may be our party, as very much beside the point, as very obstructive, and as failing to deal with the issues that we believe to be the main issues. As a matter of fact, we have come to the interesting point to-night when this charge that the speeches delivered against the Government's Bill are of an obstructive nature now rebounds against the supporters of the Government. I remember very well that when one of the Conservative Members, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. B. Hudson), was speaking—extremely well, I thought— on the merits of this Bill—naturally I thought it was a good speech, because it was delivered from my point of view,

  815
  whereas Members opposite did not think it was a good speech—you found it necessary, acting from the Chair, to call him to order; and I observed when you did so how generally delighted Members on the other side were, probably feeling that it was purely an obstructive process, although we on this side felt that greater opportunity should have been allowed to him. I am not saying that as casting any reflection on your ruling, but rather to point out how readily people get into the habit of regarding the opposing point of view as an obstructive point of view when it suits their purpose so to do.
  One reason why we ought to have had the maximum opportunity for discussing this question is because the issues have not only been under consideration in the last few days in Parliament, and in the month or two when the Blanesburgh Committee were examining them, but have been turned over and over for some two or three years, especially in the newspapers upon whose support the party opposite largely depend. For years past papers of the "Daily Mail" type have been making charges against the unemployed, saying the workers have been too much dependent upon what they have been pleased to call the "dole," until gradually the view has developed that most of the workers are not to be trusted, and in the long run will seek to get something from the State rather than to work for themselves. We knew all the time that those charges were wrong. They were based, possibly, upon one or two exceptional cases, for there always are exceptional cases, but exceptions were made an excuse for lodging a general charge against the workers which we hoped would at some time or other have been fully discussed in the House and backed up by those who made the charge. What have we found during this Debate? The Conservative Members who have made those charges, who have repeated on platforms the statements made in papers like the "Daily Mail," have sat absolutely quiet throughout this Debate. Even when they have spoken they have made no attempt to withdraw the charges. Certain hon. Members opposite, who now begin to realise the facts as we realise them, have been found playing their part in objecting to the
  816
  proceedings of the Government, but the Conservatives who are most to blame for the introduction of this legislation and for the appointment of the Blanesburgh Committee have never said a word throughout the proceedings. They have shown a cowardly attitude, and on that account, too, I think the Government ought to give more opportunity for those of us who do know the facts to try to force those gentlemen to back up the charges they have made and to produce some sort of effective evidence, if they can do so.
  We Labour Members, especially those who for years have taken part in the actual administration of unemployment benefit and have been constantly confronting these problems, have made speeches during this Debate which, in my humble opinion, have been better than almost any speeches made on these benches or on any benches for many months past. We know the truth of what we are putting forward. When I speak on this issue I have in mind the facts which are brought to me every third week when I go down to my constituency to hear the complaints of unemployed folk who have been driven off the registers or are being neglected by the Employment Exchange. There are people who have been driven stage by stage towards starvation. It is difficult to make a bad speech, it is difficult to waste time, when one knows what are the actual conditions amongst the people on whose behalf we are speaking. I have listened practically to every speech which the Minister of Labour has made while he has occupied that office, and I have felt every one of them to be an absolute waste of time in view of the situation confronting the country, and for him to suggest now that we are wasting time in bringing forward this issue is a charge which is quite intolerable.
  9.0 p.m.
  What is happening at this moment is this. Hon. Members opposite have discovered that the voice of the poor, who have been driven off the registers and who will be neglected when this Measure is running its course, is now reinforced by the voice of property. Property is realising that the burdens upon it will be very much increased by this legislation. Property is at last speaking in the ears of the Conservative Members, and I think greater opportunities ought to have been

  817
  given to them to say what they know, which is that this legislation will place upon the community burdens which will react not only against the poor but against all other classes in the community. One of my hon. Friends has just reminded me that at the present moment the burden upon the rates of this country represented by Poor Law relief and other local activities is equivalent to Is. in the £ on all the wealth that the community annually produces — rather more than Is. in the £.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is getting a little wide of the Amendment.
  Mr. HUDSON: I respectfully submit that if it can be shown that a burden which is already intolerable will be greatly increased by this legislation, I ought to be allowed to claim that more time should be allowed us in which to emphasise that point. If hon. Members opposite have read the letters sent to them they will know that they, in common with us, have had communications from boards of guardians uttering warnings against the likely increase—the certain increase as they see it—of the rates if this legislation is passed. I have in mind a very powerful memorial from the Birmingham Board of Guardians—not a Labour board of guardians.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is quite in order to say that this raises the whole question of local burdens, but we cannot go into details of what those burdens may be.
  Mr. HUDSON: I must, of course, at once bow to your Ruling, but I was trying to show to you personally that I had good grounds for asking for more time for the consideration of this problem, as I felt that perhaps you, as well as hon. Members opposite, did not fully realise the nature of the demands being made by this board of guardians, that board of guardians and tie other board of guardians. I thought I had very good grounds for developing that argument, although I see I am mistaken; therefore I will leave that matter and pass on.
  We are more concerned about the humanitarian claims that are constantly put to us as the result of the conditions into which the poor people are driven than the claims of property. At the
  818
  present moment unemployment, perhaps more than any other factor, and even more than the brutality of the capitalist class, has helped to drive down the wages of the workers. I believe that the continuance of the hard lot of the unemployed will lead in its turn to driving the wages of the workers still lower. We are not now considering merely the one million or the million and a quarter who are unemployed; we are not considering even the 56,000 people referred to by the Minister of Labour as being driven off the insurance fund on to the local rates, but we are considering processes, as the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) so well showed last night, which, in the long run will lead to the breaking down of the health of the wage-earners of this land. We feel that the Government have definitely set out with a design to produce, those results. We know what was the attitude of the Government during the coal dispute. We believe that the Government, as was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, made themselves a sub-committee of that particular section of the capitalist class, and in their legislation regarding the unemployed the Government are still a sub-committee of the capitalist class. They are still working for the reduction of the wages of the worker, and we claim that more time ought to Eave been given to us to assail the fundamentals of the Government policy. I still hope that some further consideration will be given to our appeal for longer time to discuss this Bill.
  Mr. JOHN: I have listened with interest to those who have spoken against the Motion put forward by the Government. We can understand on certain occasions the Government taking the extreme measures in order to facilitate the business of the House. There are occasions when the Government find that the opposition are obstructing, and then they are forced for want of time to introduce the Guillotine. I do not believe that any representative of the Government, neither the Minister of Labour nor the Parliamentary Secretary, nor anybody else, on this occasion can complain that there has been any obstruction from this side of the House. I do not think it can be argued that any of the Amendments on the Order Paper are frivolous or unnecessary, and every one of them has a close relation to the

  819
  Bill under discussion. Under these circumstances, we must come to the conclusion that the real purpose of the Government in introducing this Motion is to burke discussion upon the very important Measure which is now before the House. The intention is to prevent hon. Members discussing the pros and cons of the Measure introduced by the Government, and to curtail and limit the amount of time for discussing the nine remaining Clauses.
  The Government themselves have appointed a Committee to go into this question which has taken 12 months to consider the pros and cons of this problem and to advise ways and means to lay down a basis that is going to meet the perplexities of this problem. The real purpose of this Bill is to lay down some permanent basis upon which to meet the difficulties of the unemployment problem. This Measure is to have a certain permanency in its character, and will deal with the unemployment question for a considerable number of years, but nevertheless it is to be rushed through the House of Commons in the course of two or three days. Surely this question is of sufficient importance to warrant much more time being given for its discussion than that which is going to be allotted to it by the Government under this Motion. Some of the Clauses have been discussed already, but the remainder of the Clauses are of great importance. Is the work of the Blanes-burgh Committee and the calling of evidence to be counted for naught? Is all the money that has been expended by that Committee not to be considered at all, or is it a question that the recommendations of the Committee are such that this House has to pass legislation without discussion simply upon the recommendations of a certain Committee?
  The worst recommendations of that Committee have been selected and inserted in the Bill. Take the transitional provisions which are incorporated in Clause 12. They mean that a large number of workpeople or unemployed will be prevented from coming upon the insurance fund for benefit purposes. They also mean that a large number who are at present receiving benefit when this Bill passes will be prevented from receiv-
  820
  ing that benefit. Let me take as an example the case of the miners. This Bill is to be passed presumably on the ground that the percentage of unemployed will be reduced by the year 1930 to about 6 per cent. The people who believe that are very optimistic. Take, for example, the case of South Wales. You have three counties there where the percentage of unemployment is 28 per cent., 26 per cent., and 27 per cent. There is one county which has 71 per cent. Does the Minister of Labour really believe that in the course of the next three or four years those percentages are going to be reduced to 6 per cent.? Does he believe that the 28 per cent. in Glamorganshire is going to be reduced to 6 per cent.? If he does then he is very optimistic.
  What is the position in the mining areas? You have large areas and whole villages of unemployed men. When this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament you have to face the fact that these men have been unemployed for the last 18 months. In the Rhondda Valley there has been an average of 8,000 men unemployed for over two years, and when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, through its operation in the Rhondda Valley alone 8,000 men will be prevented from receiving benefit. They cannot go to the board of guardians, because the boards of guardians are carrying out the Merthyr judgment, and refuse to give relief.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not in order; it is really quite outside the scope of the Motion.
  Miss WILKINSON: Before the hon. Member resumes, may I call attention to the fact that the temperature in this part of the House—I mean the physical temperature—is getting very low indeed? Is it possible for it to be increased?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It shall be seen to.
  Mr. J. JONES: Let me speak; it will be warmed up then.
  Mr. JOHN: My purpose was to point out the effects of the Bill upon certain areas, but, as that would appear to be outside the scope of this Motion, I should like to point out the absolute necessity for a longer time in which to discuss this Bill. In the first place, there is the differ-

  821
  ence between certain Members of the House and the Minister of Labour with regard to the number of those who will be disentitled to receive benefit under the Bill. The Minister of Labour says that the number will be 56,000, and that in the course of three years that will be reduced to about 30,000. Members of the Conservative party, who have analysed the figures and have had expert evidence on this question, say that the number will be 100,000; and Members on this side of the House, who are equally well versed in the insurance question, say it is going to be 130,000. The very fact of there being that difference of opinion in regard to the number of people who are going to suffer in consequence of the introduction of this Bill, is sufficient to demonstrate the necessity for a longer time for the discussion of this important matter.
  Again, the Minister of Labour said that, if it should be found that this Bill, after it had become an Act, would inflict greater hardship than was anticipated, the Minister of Labour would be prepared to consider those cases as the occasion arose and as the circumstances demanded. That in itself is an indication that the Minister has not fully realised the consequences of his own Bill. If he had, he would have taken cognisance of all these facts, he would have taken into consideration all the effects of the Bill and its real scope, and, in attempting to lay down a permanent Measure, he would have satisfied himself that that permanent Measure was going to meet all the conditions that could possibly arise. Instead of that, the Minister himself is doubtful as to whether this Bill is going to meet the eventualities of the future and cover all the circumstances that may arise, and he suggested the other night that, should it be found that the Act would not meet all the circumstances, it might possibly be incumbent upon him to discuss some other Measure or introduce some other suggestion. That demonstrates very clearly that the Minister of Labour himself had not fully considered this Bill before it was introduced, and it naturally follows that, in order to discuss all the pros and cons, in order to discuss all the effects of the Bill, not only during the coming year but in the future—because it is laid down as a fundamental basis to meet the problem of unemployment in the future—this
  822
  House should devote much more time to-the discussion of this question.
  The last time the Government asked for the introduction of the Guillotine was in the case of the Anti-Trade Union Bill. They introduced the Guillotine then because they were short of time, in order that they might make as much haste as possible to reach this Unemployment Insurance Bill. Possibly the objective that they have at the present time, in introducing the Guillotine, is to get rid of this Bill in order that they may reach the Audit (Local Authorities) Bill. Every time they introduce the Guillotine, it is upon Measures that are going to crush the working class lower. The Anti-Trade Union Bill took away the political liberty of the working class, and the Guillotine is again being introduced in order to weaken the economic condition of the unemployed. Therefore, this question is of sufficient importance to-cause us to press the Government to reconsider their Motion, and to give as much time for the discussion of the Bill as the importance of the question warrants.
  Mr. J. JONES: Listening to the various speeches that have been delivered in this Debate, one is almost compelled to remark on the beggarly array of empty benches on the side of those who pretend to be the governors of this country. Here we have a Bill which goes right down into the homes of the people, which affects the lives, not merely of men, but of women and children; and, while we are discussing it and trying to get down to bedrock facts and conditions, we discover that nearly all those who are supposed to be in authority are conspicuous by their absence. This reasoned Amendment of ours raises the whole issue of the Bill, and I think it is not a tribute to the intelligence or the political honesty of the party opposite that their benches should so so deserted, particularly by those who are principally responsible. Moreover, there is not present a single representative of the great party that is going to be the dominating factor in the future; they have all gone, I suppose, to search where the funds are going to, and who is going to be in eventual control; and they have to depend, for giving them at least some semblance of respectability, on the presence on their benches, of one of our own Members.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a considerable departure from the question of the reasons for this Motion.
  Mr. JONES: There is no reason; that is why I did not refer to it. Most hon. Members are interested in the problem of unemployment, or, if they are not, they will have to be, and the object of this Bill is supposed to be to deal with the problem of unemployment from the insurance point of view. I understand insurance in this sense, that, when I join an insurance, I expect to receive certain benefits when I have joined; but the workers of this country have been compelled by law, if they work in certain trades and occupations, to pay whether they like it or not. Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to pay and hope— hope that they will draw their benefits when the time arrives. Every Bill that has been introduced since the original Measure was passed has been a Bill to rob the workers of their benefits, to cut down the original promises made to them; and, this Bill having now reached a certain stage, we are told that we must keep our mouths shut about it. You have robbed the Insurance Fund so far as the National Health side is concerned. You are not doing a direct robbery in this case, but you are committing a crime against the people who contribute.
  I do not care much about figures, because I do not know much about them. The figures in the books I have never been able to understand; I have seen so many cases tried in the Courts, and have read about them, where figuring people have been at work, and the more you read about them the lees you understand them. But I know something about the figures in the streets; I know what is going to happen under this Bill to the people in my constituency. I know the casual worker, who will not be able to get 15 stamps in the year. Some people look upon it as though it were a joke. They muster at the docks twice a day on the off chance of getting half-a-day's work, men between the ages of 40 and 60, who go down for it when there is no hope for them. They can go on for the next two years, and they will not qualify for benefit. Where have they to go? They have to go to the relieving officer and, when they get there, they find themselves confronted by gentlemen
  824
  who have been appointed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. When we get cases of hardship, we go to him, and all we get is, "I cannot interfere with the discretion of the appointed board." I claim that is absolutely false to what was originally proposed in the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is no longer an insurance against unemployment; it is an assurance that you are going to use one body of workers against the others for the purpose of reducing the general standard and conditions of labour. Then we are told that work was going in one part of the country and not in another. The manager of an Employment Exchange can suggest to a skilled or semi skilled man that there is work for him in another industry—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is taking this discussion a little wide.
  Mr. JONES: I was only referring to the time when the present Government will go out of existence like they are trying to put the unemployed.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It must have some relevance to the discussion on the Motion.
  Mr. JONES: I was drawing the relationship between them and those people who under this Bill are going to be sent down to get work outside their own locality. This is in the Bill and is affected by the Amendment which we are supporting. Our Amendment is to cure that position. I do not pretend to be an expert in the technical sense—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The purpose of this Amendment is to deal with the time limit fixed for discussion on the whole Bill. The hon. Member is now introducing administration.
  Mr. JONES: All I can say is that, when it comes to shifting men from one place to another without making proper provision for their maintenance, then you are not carrying out the provisions of the original Insurance Act.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: I rise to support the Motion to deal with this Bill under the Guillotine system, not because I think it is a perfect Bill, but because I think there are a good many ways in which it can be amended. It is because of that that I say to my hon. Friends

  825
  above the Gangway that we have been wasting far too much time on detailed matters that are not going to affect the working-class in the slightest degree and have been leaving the real essentials to be debated at the fag-end of the evening when everybody is tired and unable to devote their minds properly to them. I hope that those essential Amendments put down—many of them in the names of the Labour party—will be debated and that we may have a chance of supporting them if we think fit. There are certain anomalies in connection with unemployment insurance which I hope will be discussed, and if hon. Members, after passing this Motion, concentrated on those anomalies they would get a large amount of support from the whole House. Take the case of the man who, simply because he is desirous of work, goes into an un insurable occupation—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going into the merits of the Bill.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: I apologise, but I think I have pointed out to the hon. Members where they could have got a little support. I am suggesting that the Government ought to consider some of these Amendments of such importance that, I hope, we shall have an opportunity of debating them under the Guillotine system. It is because I want to see the minor Amendments, which could be described as obstructionist Amendments, out of the way so that we may get down to the real things that I support this Motion. There is an Amendment down in the names of several Members and myself dealing with the barring from benefit of a man who has accepted work in the nature of relief work. I hope it will be selected. If it be not, I shall be very disappointed. I should like to impress now the reason why I am supporting this Amendment. My experience is this. Before ever there was any such thing as unemployment insurance—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a speech now which it appears he may be debarred from making later on.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: I submit that that is not an unknown thing in this House. It has been done on many occasions. I should like to know if I am in order in discussing any Amendment that may be left out.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member may review what he hopes may be discussed; he cannot go into their merits but may indicate their nature.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: The Amendment I am very keen about is the question of debarring a man who has taken work partly in the nature of relief work from benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and, if, owing to the protracted nature of the Debates on this particular Bill, we are to be debarred from discussing that Amendment, I shall be very sorry indeed. I am absolutely certain that Mr. Speaker himself will select it as a very important Amendment, because it deals with a subject which is of great importance to the men who will be affected if this particular Clause be passed. My point of view is that these men who have accepted work—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has made his point and seems now to be rather too ingenious.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am supporting this Motion, because I am certain that it will do away with a large number of Amendments which have been placed on the Order Paper, not with the idea of improving this Bill or of making it more useful to the unemployed, but simply with the idea of blocking progress and defeating the Bill altogether. It is because I am so keenly interested in certain Amendments, put down not only by Members of my own party but by Members of the Labour party, that I wish to see this Motion carried, so that we may get to the essential part of the Bill and make it a real workable Bill, if possible.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to '7.30' in line 15, stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 107.

  Division No. 421.]

  AYES.

  [9.36 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

  Balniel, Lord

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

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

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Albery, Irving James

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Berry, Sir George

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Pitcher, G.

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

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

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Blundell, F. N.

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Hilton, Cecil

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

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

  Remer, J. R.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

  Brooke. Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

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

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Burman, J. B.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Rye, F. G.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Salmon, Major I.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Cassels, J. D.

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

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

  Sandon, Lord

  Christie, J. A.

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

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

  Clayton, G. C.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew, W.)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Skelton, A. N.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Philip

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Cope. Major William

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Long, Major Eric

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  streatfeild. Captain S. R.

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

  Lumley, L. R.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Dawson, Sir Phillip

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Templeton, W. P.

  Drewe, C.

  MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Maclntyre, Ian

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

  McLean, Major A.

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

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Tinne, J. A.

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Fielden, E. B.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Ford, Sir P.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Forrest, W.

  Malone, Major P. B.

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

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Merriman, F. B.

  Watts. Dr. T.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Wells, S. R.

  Ganzoni, sir John

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Gales, Percy

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Grace, John

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

  Womersley, W. J.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Oakley, T.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Harland, A.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Perring, Sir William George

  Major Sir Harry Barnston and Captain

  Bowyer.

  NOES.

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

  Buxton. Rt. Hon. Noel

  Gardner, J. P.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

  Clowes, S.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Amnion, Charles George

  Cluse, W. S.

  Gillett, George M.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Gosling, Harry

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Connolly, M.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Baker, Waiter

  Cove, W. G.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Barnes, A.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Groves, T.

  Batey, Joseph

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Grundy, T. W.

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Dennison, R.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Duncan, C.

  Hardie, George D.

  Broad, F. A.

  Edge, Sir William

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Bromfield, William

  Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Buchanan, G.

  Evans, Capt Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Hayes, John Henry

  828

  829

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Palm, John Henry

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

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Paling, W.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Potts. John S.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Riley, Ben

  Townend, A. E.

  Hudson, J. H. (Hudderifield).

  Ritson, J.

  Varley, Frank B.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

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

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

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

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

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

  Rose, Frank H.

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

  Kennedy, T.

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Kirkwood, D.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Lawrence, Susan

  Scurr, John

  Westwood, J.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Sexton, James

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Lowth, T.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Lunn, William

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

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

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Mackinder, W.

  Snell, Harry

  Windsor, Walter

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Wright, W.

  March, S.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Murnin, H.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Naylor, T. E.

  Strauss, E. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Oliver, George Harold

  Sullivan, J.

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. B. Smith.

  Owen, Major G.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Hayday.
  Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. I submitted two manuscript Amendments, one dealing with line 9 and the other with the succeeding paragraphs. I wish to know whether they have been ruled out of Order, because they were drafted in the same form as the original Order that appeared in 1911 for the same class of Motion on the National Insurance Bill.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I put the Question on the last Amendment down to "7.30" in line 15, and that prevents the hon. Member's Amendments on lines 9 and 12 being discussed.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Has it not been the custom where an Amendment has been handed in, that the Amendment before it is put down to the line preceding the one to which the manuscript Amendment is to be proposed?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Not neces-sarily—not if the hon. Member does not call the attention of the Chair and ask that the Amendment shall be saved. Even so, Mr. Speaker is by no means bound to save it.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I am not saying that Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy-Speaker was bound to do so. I was simply saying that this had been the custom in the past. As these two Amendments are very important Amendments, I was under the impression that they would naturally come within the particular form of the original Order.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot say what view Mr. Speaker would have
  830
  taken. The hon. Member should have raised this point when the last Amendment was first moved. It is too late now.
  Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to move, in line 15, to leave out "7.30," and to insert instead thereof "10.30."
  This, as the House will know, deals with the time allotted to the Schedules. I do not think there should be any difficulty in the right hon. Gentleman accept ing—
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member is anxious for this Amendment, and from what I have heard of it from the opposite side of the Floor, I should be willing to accept it.
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, in line 17, to leave out the words "One allotted day," and to insert instead thereof the words "Three allotted days." This has reference to the Report stage of the Bill, and it is perfectly clear from the discussions which have already taken place in this House that one day for the Report stage of the Bill will not merely be inadequate but positively farcical in view of the points liable to be raised when the Bill emerges out of Committee; points that ought to be raised in order to try to make this Bill intelligible and workable when it becomes an Act. We have heard frequent references to the Blanesburgh Report, and the great criticism I have to offer in regard to this Bill is not with regard to its substance, but with regard to the time of its introduction. It has been, introduced out of

  831
  its right order. It has been introduced without the necessary accompaniment of a general programme, without which the Bill is, obviously, utterly inadequate to deal with the situation with which we are confronted. I direct the attention of the House to the Blanesburgh Report, in page 23, where they lay down one chapter in the historical survey and deal with the principles of unemployment insurance. They start, in paragraph 42, with "The origin of Unemployment." I can say for the Members of that Committee that there was no side of the question that impressed us with such dramatic force as the aspect which presented itself to us when we had to make a survey of the origin of unemployment.
  We discovered that it was divided roughly into three cycles. In the first cycle we saw this country plunged from a peasant people into a manufacturing people. That was bad enough. The second cycle was worse, not merely in its gravity but in the nature of the changes created in the environment and lives of the workers. But this aspect with which we are dealing is the cycle which began when, in 1911, the attention of the country was called to the problem of unemployment. It shows that we were faced with new forces which were of our own creation, new forces of steam power and the development of mechanical science which created not merely an intensification of the problem in the matter of science but in the matter of speed. Things happen to-day, disaster overtakes the workers' lives and families to-day with such rapidity that it is simply impossible for the old ideas of thrift to put by for a rainy day to operate under modern conditions. That has created an entirely new situation with which Governments must deal. The Report, after sketching this period of the development of the unemployment problem, goes on to deal with measures to reduce unemployment, and I venture to urge that this is one of the sides of the whole problem upon which we need time on the Report stage of the Bill in order that the attention of the country as a whole may be drawn to the nature of the neglect of the Government to deal with this in the proper sequence. The Report goes on to say:
  "It would be unfortunate if pre-occupation with the task of ascertaining how best
  832
  such unemployment can be insured against were to weaken any concerted effort to get rid of unemployment itself."
  Then on page 24, paragraph 46, it says:
  "We are, however, of opinion that organised and unremitted effort to reduce the volume of unemployment should always be a leading feature of the industrial policy of the country. With the limitations described above we believe that, if the right arrangements can only be devised, useful work can be found for a very large population of capable and willing workers."
  Going to the summary of recommendations, what do we find? Although it was outside the terms of reference, the Poor Law authorities' representative, the employers' representative, and the workers' representative on that committee, all affected from three separate angles, were so impressed with the overshadowing importance of this question that they put it in the forefront, as No. 1 of the Recommendations in the Summary. It was never intended to dissociate the constant and unremitting effort on the part of the central authority to tackle the problem of unemployment. It was never intended that they should be dissociated from the proposals dealing with insurance, and unremitting effort on the part of the Government for 18 months would at least give us some indication as to whether the hope expressed in this Report that there is work in the country to be done, and that work can be organised, and ought to be organised, would be falsified. What do we find? We find that subsection of the Report dealing with insurance has been acted upon with indecent haste. A Bill has been introduced which contains only certain features of the Report, and which, if there had been an unremitting effort to get rid of unemployment, would be very largely satisfactory in its working, but we find that that section of the Report, which has been taken out, is now brought before the House and is to be hustled through the House, while there is no attempt on the part of the Government to see that any of the other relevant matters that should take precedence of this are going to have any time spent upon them at all. We have no guarantee of what the Government programme is going to be to fill in the gaps in the plan which alone can get this country out of the difficulty in which it finds itself.
  It seems to me a most amazing situation. We have in the Report itself atten-

  833
  tion called to the overworked condition of the Employment Exchanges. Attention is specifically called to the fact that those Exchanges were set up for the expressed purpose of finding work for people, but they have been overwhelmed with the details of paying benefit to people out of work and have been largely prevented from carrying out the statutory duties for which they were primarily set up, namely, that of finding work. It is pointed out that greater co-operation is needed between the employers and the Exchanges. We urged that committees should be set up to investigate different industries and to ascertain the degree to which in each industry efforts could be made to absorb the unemployed into industry, or, at least, to give us some indication to what extent they are to be permanently shut out from industries. What has been done on those sides of the question which would help to prepare the ground for dealing with a permanent scheme of insurance which in its largest application was intended as an assistance to the normally unemployed man in conditions where normal industry is restored.
  Here we are faced with a situation of abnormality. We are faced with a situation of grave national emergency, and the Government bring in a Bill shorn of many of the provisions which ought to be in it, even on the strength of the Report, and expecte us to agree to its passage through this House in the few days that have already been devoted to it. On behalf of the party to which I belong I move the Amendment and ask the Government seriously to consider that on the Report stage there will be a great desire, I think in all parts of the House, still further to explore the ground, to see if we can understand what has emerged from the Committee stage and see if we can understand the extent to which the Amendments that have been agreed upon will in any way affect the situation, and to what extent it may be possible even on the Report stage to find out what other parts of the Government policy can be) counted upon to fill up the obvious gaps which are left as a result of the drafting of this Bill.
  Reference has been made to the Poor Law authorities. I think the evidence shows perfectly clearly that the Poor Law authorities were anticipating a further pronouncement from the Government with
  834
  regard to what the Government were going to do, particularly in the distressed areas. The Poor Law authorities are, quite obviously, disappointed to find that their expectations have been dashed to the ground. There is no hope for relief for the Poor Law authorities in distressed areas under this Bill. There can be no hope for the Poor Law authorities in distressed areas until the Government are prepared to say that unemployment is a national responsibility, and until this House is prepared to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this is a matter of such grave emergency that every question must stand aside and the necessary expenditure must be incurred, so that not only- will the unemployed people be kept in a state of physical and mental efficiency but also that that part of our Government to-day of which we are all very proud, that Local Government machinery which has been built up in this country, shall not break down under the great load which it is asked to carry at the present time. I do urge very definitely that the Amendment which I move shall receive the support of the House, and be carried.
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  There is need for a fuller discussion on the Report stage than is contemplated by the Government in their Resolution. I would like the Minister of Labour to tell me what kind of guarantee he can give me that I shall have an opportunity of discussing the question of the married men between the ages of 18 and 21. He will remember that in the Committee stage he promised that there would be no prejudice to my right to raise the subject again, as he was going to look into the matter. I hope that when the Report stage comes on under the guillotine Motion I shall not be put in a worse position than I should have been had the discussion been allowed to go to its full length in the Committee stage and had been thoroughly thrashed out at that time. I take it that the Minister of Labour will make some arrangement whereby my rights in regard to that Amendment will not be prejudiced. I have not very much faith in the right hon. Gentleman but I have sufficient faith in him that he will see that my rights in respect to the Amendment are not prejudiced by the guillotine being applied

  835
  to the Report stage. I would be prepared to make a bargain with the right hon. Gentleman. If he will accept our Amendment and give the two additional days for the Report stage I shall be prepared to say that if I do not get time to raise the matter during the Report stage I shall not feel such a great grievance against him as I might otherwise do in respect to my having been cut out of my rights on the Amendment.
  The proposals of the Government in the Bill will have a very harmful effect upon that section of the working class who have had to bear the brunt of the time of depression, and have had to suffer unemployment, and I do not think it is asking too much of the Members of the Government and their supporters to give an extra two days at this part of the Session in order that as much of the wisdom of the House as possible may be devoted to trying to make this Measure less harmful than it is as the Bill is now drafted. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson) smiles when I say that. I have no doubt that he thinks that the Measure is practically almost beyond improvement, because it is such a horribly bad Bill. If it is as bad as he seemed to suggest during the Committee stage, and as his smile of derision just now indicates, then I am sure it is all the more necessary that we should have these two days in order to put some little good into the Measure.
  It is not a big sacrifice which we are asking from the supporters of the Government. It is only to add two more days to the Session. There might be a little hurry in their going to their Christmas dinners, but they at least have the prospect of a Christmas dinner. This Bill deals with people who have very little hope of any good cheer at Christmas time; they have been living in the midst of dire circumstances for so long. The shadow of want has been over their homes all the time, and for people in comfortable positions to refuse adequate discussion to a Measure like this, because it is going to prevent their plans being realised in connection with their Christmas festivities, seems to be a very grave reflection upon the type of individual who is now responsible for the govern-
  836
  ment of this country. The Opposition have stated definitely that they are quite prepared to undergo this sacrifice of giving two more days to this Bill. They are willing to come back for as many days as the Government desire. Surely it is not too much for the Government to accept this offer.
  This Bill, as I have said before, is to be the permanent form of unemployment insurance in this country. It is going to affect the people unemployed at the present time and in 1929, and 1930, and for a longer period than that; and we are not asking too much in proposing three days for the Report stage of such an important Measure. When I spoke on a previous Amendment, I had not the advantage of the presence of the Minister of Labour or the Parliamentary Secretary. I made a complaint, as did some of my friends, about the lack of courtesy. I have a clear conscience so far as taking up the time of the Committee is concerned. Many of the arguments I have put forward have not been answered by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, and I have been "Closured" in the middle of a speech by the Minister, because he was unable to answer the argument. I accept the description of the Prime Minister. He made a contrast with the Bill of 1924, and said that that Bill came out of the blue. This Bill did not come out of the blue; it came out of the nether regions, and the proposal of the Government in attempting to put it through Report stage in one day is a further indication as to its place of origin. I hope that, ultimately, it will take this Government to the place where the Bill came from.
  I have no objection myself to the principle of the guillotine. I hope we shall be able to apply it in the future to hon. Members who are now forcing this proposal upon us, and that they will then have sufficient rectitude left to admit that what they did to others should be done to them. I hope we shall not have such an exhibition as when we asked for the White Paper, when the Minister of Labour became almost frantic with excitement that anyone should ask for the White Paper. He himself was white with excitement when he wanted a White Paper in connection with the Russian Treaty, brought forward by the Labour Government. The records of Parliament in connection with this guillotine Motion

  837
  are interesting, as they show the rage of hon. Members opposite when they have been in the position of having to face its effects. I hope the time is not far distant when we shall be able to apply this instrument ruthlessly and with effect to those people who are now by its means forcing this imperfect Measure upon the Statute Book; a Measure which will cause much misery and suffering to the people of the land.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has made a touching appeal to me which was somewhat spoilt by his concluding remarks. He besought us, under a mistaken idea of our purpose, to forgo the idea of our Christmas dinner, because he was willing and able to hibernate himself. I can assure him that he was mistaken in his impression of our intention. In the next place, in connection with the discussion of the position of married men, he evinces a faith in me which is somewhat of a tender plant, but which I hope, by the careful attention of his kind wishes, will grow. If his faith in me is not great, I am sure that his confidence in his own friends is sufficiently well-established to make it certain that he will get a chance in the time that is allotted to this part of the subject.
  Mr. STEPHEN: My friends did not promise me a place. The Minister promised me an opportunity. I hope that he is not going to fling me back on my friends now.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As far as I have been able, I have always been very precise in my speeches. Unfortunately, the hon. Member's prolixity has contributed to the present situation. His own friends, no doubt, will be able to give him the opportunity that he deserves. At the end of his speech, on the other hand, having besought us to treat these requests in a reasonable spirit, the hon. Member said that he hoped some day to be in a position to deal with an Opposition ruthlessly in return. In other words he indicated that if he got the chance he wouldadopt the same method to meet the situation. However, let me deal with the statement made by the hon. Member who preceded him, who dealt lightly with the question of the three days for the Report stage. She based her speech mainly on references to paragraph 47 of the Blanesburgh Re-
  838
  port. I admit at once that she ought to know that Report better than I do, but at the same time I think her reference to it was either somewhat mistaken or somewhat misleading. Section 47 of the Blanesburgh Report deals with" some detailed suggestions ' for dealing with the problem of unemployment.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I referred to paragraph 46.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member dealt also with some items in paragraph 47. Paragraph 46 is a general exhortation to see whether the Volume of unemployment can be reduced, and paragraph 47 goes on to amplify that subject in detail. But I am not sure whether the hon. Member gave her adherence to paragraph 47 or not.
  Miss BONDFIELD: Paragraph 46 deals with the general principle, and paragraph 47 gathers up recommendations which some Members of the Committee thought might be passed on.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Whereas the hon. Member is all in favour of the general principle, she is not so much in favour of specific application of the general principle to meet the situation.
  Miss BONDFIELD: That is a quibble.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: With all respect it is not quibble. Take one specific recommendation in paragraph 47:
  "Some of us have been impressed by the difficulty which certain growing industries experienced in meeting their labour requirements, even though there are unemployed men in other industries where their services are not likely again to be required, at any rate for a considerable time. Employers in the expanding industries, or portions of an industry, are anxious for larger numbers of skilled men and would readily employ workers from other trades, even though their experience is confined to their previous work. Where, however, they are not possessed of the requisite experience to make their work at once of adequate value, employers have difficulty in paying immediately to these men wages at the full standard rates. What is desired is that such men should be willing and should be permitted to work at a wage somewhat less than the standard rate, in the assurance that by the end of that time they will become sufficiently experienced to be worth the full wage. There can, we think, be no doubt that, if arrangements were made on the lines indicated, they would be found to be to the benefit of the men and of the industry as a whole."

  839
  I do not know if the hon. Member would give her adherence to that, which was the expression of opinion of some of the Committee.
  Miss BONDFIELD: The position which I took up in the Committee in that connection was that a suggestion of that kind could never be carried out except through the trade unions who would have to make arrangements with the employers. The paragraph to which I did call attention was:
  "We are, however, of opinion that an organised and unremitted effort to reduce the volume of unemployment should always be a leading feature of the industrial policy of the country."
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That illustrates exactly what I said a minute ago. The first paragraph lays down a general principle and the second indicates different ways in which effect can be given to that general principle. When it comes to the actual question of giving effect to the general principle, then I do not gather that there is precisely the same adherence on the part of the hon. Member to the suggestions made. I am only dealing with this subject because the hon. Member addressed herself to little else in her speech. That is my only reason for travelling what seems to be a considerable distance from the question of three days instead of one. But I must point out that to refuse to accept this Bill and to complain that the Bill has been brought in because we did not accept a general principle of that kind is a position which cannot be sustained. As far as I can gather the critic who makes that criticism has not expressed her complete adherence to the methods by which some people on the Committee thought effect should be given to the principle, and I think her argument constitutes a very weak criticism of the of the Bill as a whole.
  The point with regard to the three days is that we have divided the time table for the Committee stage into three sections—one for the remaining Clauses of the Bill, one for the new Clauses and the third for the Schedules. We made an offer to extend the time for the remaining Clauses by an extra half-day in response to the urgent appeal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). Had
  840
  hon. Members opposite been willing at an earlier stage to curtail to-day's Debate—in which not a large number of new points have been raised—they could have had the best part of another half-day for dealing with these remaining Clauses. Not only did they refuse to take that course, but when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member fop Spen Valley appealed to them to make it possible for him to move an Amendment to allow for an extra day, by withdrawing their own previous Amendment, they ruled him out although they could have done what he suggested under protest in order to get the half-day. Not only did they not accept the half-day themselves, but they made it impossible for anyone else to accept it. As far as the Schedules are concerned, I said to the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) that we were perfectly ready to give an extra half-day, and we have extended the time for the Schedules.
  As regards the subject matter of the Bill, I am within the memory or the reading of anyone who has taken cognisance of these Debates, in saying that the main questions in the first part of the Bill have been very fully discussed. The rates of contribution, the rates of benefit, the tests by which it is ascertained, whether a person is in the insurance field or not, have been fully discussed. The 30 contributions rule, the question of genuinely seeking work and other points of importance have been fully discussed. We have now offered in addition an extension of time for the remaining Clauses of the Bill, which offer has been refused. We have given an extension on the Schedules and, in these circumstances, I say it is not reasonable to ask us to extend the time for the Report stage, and I regret I am unable to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. T.SHAW: I do not want to enter into the passage of arms between the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and the Minister. I suspect that in that passage of arms there was hidden away some of that subtle Scottish humour that my Scottish friends assure me exists, for I was afraid that in the Minister's handling of the Bill there was a subtlety that was removed beyond the comprehension of a mere Sassenach, and I asked my Scottish friends if that were the case, hoping

  841
  that, if it were so, they would enlighten the poor heathen, but I found that that was not the case and that the Minister really was not using a subtlety that was beyond the comprehension of the Sassenach. I take it for granted that the argument of the Minister is, without decoration and trimmings, that this Bill has been thoroughly explored and that three days are quite unnecessary for the Report stage. That conclusion is scarcely justified by the facts and less justified by the arguments, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is under no great necessity to rush this Bill through the House. No cataclysm, of which he spoke, can arise if he gives a fair amount of time for the discussion of the Bill on Report, though in any case I understand that he has safeguarded himself by having his Bill in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and consequently nothing wrong could happen.
  The only thing that is at stake is the question as to whether or not the Opposition have had a fair exercise of the rules of discussion on this Bill. That is the point at which we come into conflict. Our contention is that we have not had a fair opportunity thoroughly to discuss this Bill in all its bearings, that the question of what the Minister is going to do, for instance, with the transition period is of tremendous importance, that by his own action in presenting this Guillotine Motion to the House he has absolutely prevented any full discussion of that vitally important question amongst others, and that we are asking for the merest justice in requesting that at any rate on Report we should have a full or at least a better opportunity than he is prepared to give us. There does not need to be any whipping of a dead horse in connection with this Bill. Everybody, I think, will admit that the Opposition have reasonable grounds for complaint, the first ground being that the Minister, sheltering himself behind the Blanesburgh Report, never even attempted to explain why a thing should be done. He simply treated us to a reading of passages, and if a certain Report said this thing, that was his justification, without any explanation whatever.
  I say nothing about the way in which the Bill has been drawn. I have been an unfortunate Minister myself, with a Bill by reference, and I can sympathise pro-
  842
  foundly with him, although his case has been much worse than my own, but it is a fact, which no one in the House can contradict, that on this Bill the House for three-quarters of its time has been arguing in the dark. Scarcely any person in the House, except those with actual day-to-day connection with the administration of unemployment insurance, has known really what the discussions were about. The Minister must know that his own party would not have allowed him to fight the Bill absolutely on his lone hand if they had understood the Bill. The fact of the matter is, and it is notorious in the House, and everybody who has sat in Committee knows it, that the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary have had to bear the brunt of this Bill, with all its intricate details and important principles. We have pointed out over and over again that certain things on which the Minister based his Bill are not true at the present moment and are highly improbable for the future.
  It might be possible, with a reasonable amount of time in discussing the other Clauses, even to convince the Minister that it is better for him under his transitional Clauses, for instance, to adopt a certain line which, in view of certain eventualities, will, at any rate, prevent a catastrophe happening. But no one can say that, with a Bill full of intricate details, to which there are scores of technical Amendments, all of them of substance, technical Amendments that in many cases are supported by Members of the Minister's own party, the Opposition are getting a fair chance. I am not appealing to the goodness of heart of the Minister, but to the sense of justice of the Government, who themselves some day may expect justice from others, to realise that the Opposition have a right for which they ought not to have to appeal, and that the breaking of the traditional rights of the Opposition to fair play is a serious matter. I do not look forward, like the hon. Member for Camlachie, to the time when it may be a Labour Government that will apply these things mercilessly. I detest the idea of any important Bill in this House going through without a reasonable chance of discussion, whatever the Government and whatever the Opposition. I do not myself believe in obstruction, and never

  843
  have believed in it. I believe that the first Opposition that is big enough to say that it will have nothing to do with it will be an Opposition that will be a credit to the country. Therefore, I am not speaking from the point of view of one who believes in Parliamentary obstruction, for I detest it. With this Bill there has been no obstruction at all. There has been plenty of opposition, but no obstruction in the real sense of the term.
  If the discussions have taken a long time, that is not the fault of His Majesty's Opposition; it is the fault of the Minister in not taking the trouble to explain the Bill, in not accepting the responsibility for the principles in the Bill and in sheltering himself behind four or five people who have signed the Blanesburgh Report. It is the fault also of the fact that the Bill itself is so drawn as to make it impossible to understand it. The Opposition have a right to expect fair play and fair dealing. If the Conservative party ever happens to be in Opposition when a Bill is proposed, which, in its opinion, hits at certain vital interests of what it considers to be its constituents, the Conservative party will fight as keenly as any party to have the right of full discussion of the provisions, so long as that discussion is not wilful obstruction. If it does so it will be right. We on our side have the right, by virtue of the fact that we are His Majesty's Opposition, to say that, in the case of a Bill like this, which is of tremendous importance, which is dealing with intricate and difficult details, which is introducing absolutely new principles in insurance, we are entitled, not to ask as a favour, but to demand as a right a reasoned, fair and adequate discussion. I am not going to appeal to the generosity of the Minister, but to ask him as a mere effort at justice to give us, at any rate, this small concession of three days for the Report stage, in order that the Government, if they cannot argue in support of the Bill, may at any rate preserve a semblance of fair play towards the Opposition.
  Mr. SCURR: I have heard in my time of the peace which passeth all understanding. To-night the effrontery of the Minister passes all understanding, for he complains of the Opposition discussing a
  844
  Motion which his own Government have themselves put down. If the Minister had been anxious to get his Bill through he would not have put down this Motion, and we would have been discussing the details of the Bill, and yet he has the effrontery to complain because we have dared to assert our right to discuss the Motion. I think that after all, the Debate has been most useful, because it has shown the country, if there is still any illusion as to what the Government stand for, that the Government are really in every sense of the word standing for the starvation of the poorest of the poor. They come forward and talk about the Blanesburgh Committee, a Committee which did not in any sense of the word satisfy us who sit on this side of the House, and they want to make out that everything in the Bill is in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee. The Bill is a farce. Every essential recommendation of that Committee which was of benefit to the unemployed they have left out; but if there was anything to the disadvantage of the unemployed, then the Government welcomed it with open arms and included it. I have listened to this discussion with a very sore heart indeed. No matter what sympathy there may be on their lips, I feel that the majority of the Members of the House have nothing in common with the unemployed. None of the hon. Members or right hon. Members who sit on the opposite side of the House have any knowledge of what it is to be unemployed. Most of us who sit on these benches have had to go through that painful experience in the course of our working career.
  If I may, I will relate a personal experience which I had some years ago when, though I was qualified as an accountant in every possible way, I found myself out of a situation because the firm by whom I was employed were unable to carry on, one of the great trusts in the iron and steel trade having killed it. For seven months I walked the streets of this city of London in a vain endeavour to get a job. Day after day I was replying to advertisements in the "Daily Telegraph" newspaper, with never an answer coming to me. Day after day did I wander to the employment agencies, begging and praying of them to get me something to do, because I had three children at home for whom I

  845
  was responsible. Aye, Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, I think that perhaps my dear wife might be with me to-day if it had not been for some of the sufferings which she had to undergo during that time. And now we have this Government coming forward with this miserable Bill, all the time treating the unemployed workman as if he were a fraud and a rogue, all the time asking, "Ah, yes, but are you genuinely seeking employment?" Is there a single hon. Member opposite who has genuinely endeavoured to seek employment? These are the men who built up your country, who in your factories and workshops built up this great nation, and now you are treating them as frauds. You did not do that when a member of your own class made a false declaration to the effect that he could not keep up his position as an ex-Cabinet Minister. You paid the late Lord George Hamilton a pension of £2,000 a year under those circumstances without asking him whether he was "genuinely seeking work," and you did not ask if he had 30 stamps on his card. I am told that Lord George Hamilton died worth £50,000.
  This is a Bill for the starvation of the workmen, and it is one of the worst examples of class legislation that was ever introduced into the House of Commons. As a matter of fact it is worse in many respects than the Trade Unions Bill because all the time this Measure deals with the poorest of the poor. In considering the procedure of this House what is the Report stage for? It is for the purpose of giving further consideration to the arguments used during the Committee stage when the Minister has refused to accept certain Amendments. We are going to have six days in Committee, and one day for the Report stage is absolutely insufficient. I think we ought to have at least three days for the Report stage. The Government know that they are committing a crime by pushing forward this Bill, and they are doing all they can to injure the poorest of the poor. I know the Government will use their mechanical majority to vote us down, but let them do it. The time is coming when Members sitting on the Government Benches will be sitting on these benches, and when that time comes we will take care to work for the class which we represent.
  Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: I was very much disappointed with the reply given by the Minister of Labour to the very modest request that there should be an extension from one day to three days for the Report stage. I had a feeling that the right hon. Gentleman would at least be prepared to compromise on this point. I think the very important arguments which have been used in the discussion fully justify our claim for an extended period to consider the important proposals which are embodied in this Measure. I had the experience of taking a very active interest in the 1924 Measure, and if there is anything we could learn from that year as to the necessity for a revision of unemployment insurance on a contributory basis the eight years which have elapsed have shown us the difficulties which have arisen. The complicated nature of the Unemployment Insurance Acts have been emphasised by the experience of the past three years. Many hon. Members in years gone by have had experience on rota committees dealing with the claims of men who have, through unforeseen circumstances, been deprived of their employment, and they have to go through the process of making applications for claims so that they may receive their benefit. The experience of those years has only proved to us time and again that we must have a simplified system, under which we can appreciate definitely and fully the conditions under which unemployed people are entitled to benefits, when they are able to make application, and when those benefits should be paid.
  When we come to the more important portion of this Bill, dealing with the rate of contributions, the conditions under which benefits will be paid, and the very diverse Regulations that will deprive men and women of benefits under certain conditions, on all these things, even during the Committee stage, we were closured time after time, before many of us had an opportunity of expressing our views, and at least we should have, on the Report stage, the opportunity of trying to amend in many material directions things that will be essential if we are going to deal with this problem. This Measure, when it comes into operation in two years' time, will go on through a decade of uncertainty as regards the conditions of industry. It is all very well to be optimistic and hope

  847
  that employment may gradually diminish until it reaches the percentage estimated by the Minister of Labour, but those of us who have had experience in industry know that, by the very development of the scientific methods applied in industry, we are not merely de-skilling the craftsmanship of the skilled worker, but establishing the position of the unskilled worker, and even making it possible that the unskilled worker will become a mere automatic part of the machinery. This simplification of industry is likely to cause ultimately, in the case of thousands of people, even greater unemployment than has existed in the past.
  Many claims have been made from the Conservative side of the House, in other spheres of industry, for the discussion of unification and the wiping out of various agencies in industry, and we cannot but recognise that, as a result of these methods of gradual unification or trustification, the workers are going to suffer, and they must demand protection to meet the position that we are bound to face until these things are established, either under the control of private interests for the protection of private interests, or for the development of the side of the protection of the worker. Many of these things will arise from this Measure as it stands to-day, after having passed through part of its Committee stage, and we appeal to the Minister at least to give us the opportunity of discussing those developments and possibilities which will arise in the years which this Measure will cover, and will make essential and necessary those steps to protect the workers equally with the employers, so that, in this contributory
  method of insurance, the interests of the workers may be safeguarded from some of the worst evils that are likely to overtake us in those years.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: Twice during this afternoon the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) has taunted the Government with the fact that they have not received support on this Motion from those who sit upon the Back Benches. I would remind him that sometimes the best support that can be given is silence, and that they also serve who only wait and vote. I would like to say, on behalf of the Back Benchers, that I hope the Government will not make any further concessions as to time. Any concessions that are made are only thrown back at them. I have been thinking a good deal this afternoon, after reading through the Motion, that it goes to the extreme limits of generosity, and then, seeing the time hon. Gentlemen take in discussing it and the apparent bitterness which they feel towards it, it rather throws me back to the days of my childhood, when one, like all children do, sometimes cried for nothing. I remember my nurse saying to me, "If you do not stop crying I will give you something to cry for." I want to say to the Government that, next time they put down a Motion of this sort, after the exhibition which we have had this afternoon, they should give them something to cry for.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes,112.

  Division No. 422.]

  AYES.

  [10.54 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

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

  Campbell, E. T.

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Blundell, F. N.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Albery, Irving James

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Cassels, J. D.

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

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

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

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A.

  B. Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Christie, J. A.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve

  Clayton, G. C.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Balniel, Lord

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R.

  I. Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Barnett, Major Sir R.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Buchan, John

  Cooper, A. Duff

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

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Cope, Major William

  Bethel, A.

  Burman, J. B.

  Couper, J. B.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Rye, F. G.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Salmon, Major I.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Loder, J. de V.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Long, Major Eric

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Looker, Herbert William

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Drewe, C.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Sandon, Lord

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

  Ellis, R. G.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Shepperson, E. W.

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

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

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

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Skelton, A. N.

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Fielden, E. B.

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

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Forrest, W.

  Maclntyre, Ian

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Maclean, Major A.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

  Streatfield, Captain S. R.

  Gates, Percy

  Malone. Major P. B.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfird

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Tasker, R. Inigo

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Thom, Lt.-Col. JG. (Dumbarton)

  Grace, John

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

  Tinne, J. A.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Moreing, captain A. H.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

  Morrsion, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Morrison, Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Harland, A

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carilsle)

  Harrison G. J. C.

  Neville, Sir Reginald J

  Watts, Dr. T

  Hartington, Marquess of

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

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

  Wells, S. R.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Oakley, T.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Norhtern)

  Headlam, Lieut. Colonel C. M.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  William, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L.(Bootle)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Willson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Hilton, Cecil

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Wolmer. Viscount

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

  Perring, Sir William George

  Womersley, W. J.

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Hopkinson, J. W. W.

  Pilcher, G.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W)

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

  Pildich, Sir Phillp

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Price, Major C. W. M

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Remer, J. R.

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

  Rhys, J R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

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

  Major Sir George Hennessy and

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

  NOES.

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

  Cove, W. G.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Adamson, W. M, (Staff. Cannock)

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Hardie, George D.

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

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Ammon, Charles George

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Hayes, John Henry

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Dennison, R.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Barnes, A.

  Duncan, C.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Dunnico, H.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Edge, Sir William

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Broad, F. A.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Bromfield, William

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

  Buchanan, G.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Kennedy, T.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Gillett, George M.

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

  Charleton, H. C.

  Gosling, Harry

  Kirkwood, D.

  Clowes, S.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Lansbury, George

  Cluse, W. S.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Lowth, T.

  Compton, Joseph

  Groves, T.

  Lunn, William

  Connolly, M.

  Grundy, T. W.

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

  850

  851

  Mackinder, W

  Scurr. John

  Viant, S. P.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Sexton, James

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  March, S.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

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

  Murnin, H.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Naylor, T. E.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Oliver, George Harold

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Westwood, J.

  Palin, John Henry

  Snell, Harry

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Paling. W.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Strauss, E. A.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Potts, John S.

  Sullivan, Joseph

  Windsor, Walter

  Riley, Ben

  Sutton, J. E.

  Wright, W.

  Ritson, J.

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

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

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

  Tinker, John Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Rose, Frank H.

  Townend, A. E.

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Henderson

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Varley, Frank B.

  Main Question, as amended, put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 110.

  Division No. 423.]>

  AYES.

  [11.2 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

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

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Huntingfield. Lord

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)

  Albery, Irving James

  Crookshank, Cpt. H,(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

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

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

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

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

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

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Atholl, Duchess of

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

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Balniel, Lord

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Lamb, J. 0.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Drewe, C.

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Ellis, R. G.

  Long, Major Eric

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

  Looker, Herbert William

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

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Bethel, A.

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Ford, sir P. J.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

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

  Forrest, W.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Blundell, F. N.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  McLean, Major A.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Gates, Percy

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Goff, sir Park

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Broun-Lindsay. Major H.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Margesson, Captain D.

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

  Grace, John

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Buchan, John

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Merriman, F. B.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Burman, J. B.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Carver. Major W. H.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

  cassels, J. D

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

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

  Harland, A.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cilve

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Christie. J. A.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Hawke, John Anthony

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

  Clayton, G. C.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

  Oakley, T.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hilton, Cecil

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Colman. N. C. D.

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

  Penny, Frederick George

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Cope, Major William

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Couper, J. B.

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

  Perring, Sir William George

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

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

  Pilcher, G.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Smithers, Waldron

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wells, S. R.

  Renter, J. R.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Rye, F. G.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Salmon, Major I.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Womersley, W J.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Sandon, Lord

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Tinne, J. A.

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

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Major Sir George Hennessy and

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

  NOES.

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

  Groves, T.

  Rose, Frank H.

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

  Grundy, T. W.

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

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

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hardie, George D.

  Scurr, John

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Sexton, James

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Barnes, A.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Batey, Joseph

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Hirst, G. H.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Snell, Harry

  Broad. F. A.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Bromfield, William

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Buchanan, G.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Strauss, E. A.

  Cape, Thomas

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

  Sullivan, J.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kennedy, T.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Clowes, S.

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

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

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Clynes. Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lansbury, George

  Townend, A. E.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lawrence, Susan

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Connolly, M.

  Lowth, T.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lunn. William

  Viant, S. P.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

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

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Mackinder, W.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  MacLaren Andrew

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

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Dennison, R.

  March, S.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Duncan, C.

  Murnin, H.

  Westwood, J.

  Dunnico. H.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Edge, Sir William

  Oliver, George Harold

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Palin, John Henry

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Gardner, J. P.

  Paling, W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Windsor, Walter

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wright, W.

  Gillett, George M.

  Potts, John S.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Gosling, Harry

  Riley, Ben

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Ritson, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

  Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Charle

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

  Edwards.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Ordered,
  "That the remainder of the Committee stage, the Report stage, and the Third Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill shall be proceeded with as follows:
  (1) Committee Stage.
  The Committee stage shall be proceeded with on three allotted days, and the proceedings thereon shall be brought to a conclusion as follows:

  (a) The procedings on the remainder of the Clauses of the Bill shall, if not pre-
  854
  viously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on the first allotted day; and

  (b) The proceedings on new Clauses shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on the second allotted day; and

  (c) The proceedings on the Schedules of the Bill, new Schedules, and any other business necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion, shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on the third allotted day.

  (2) Report Stage.
  One allotted day shall be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and the proceedings thereon, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that day.
  (3) Third Reading.
  One allotted day shall be given to the Third Reading, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that day.
  On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.
  After this Order comes into operation, any day after the day on which this Order is passed shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day and then proceeded with, and the Bill may be put down as the first Order of the Day on any Thursday notwithstanding anything in any Standing Orders of the House relating to the Business of Supply.
  Provided that, where an allotted day is a Friday, this Order shall have effect as if for references to 7.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. there were respectively substituted references to 1 p.m. and 3.30 p.m.
  For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules; and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and, in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clauses or Schedules be added to the Bill, as the case may be.
  Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Orders relating to the Sittings of the House.
  On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order proceedings for that purpose shall not be; interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
  On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order,
  856
  no dilatory Motion with respect to those proceedings, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.
  Nothing in this Order shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or

  (b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of."

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Bristol Gas Company, which was presented on the 8th November and published, be approved."—(Sir Burton Chadwick.)
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Chelmsford, which was presented on the 8th November and published, be approved."—(Sir Burton Chadwick.)
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Harrogate Gas Company, which was presented on the 8th November and published, be approved."—(Sir Burton Chadwick.)
The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, (pursuant to the Order of the House, of 8th November, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
  AUSTRALIAN PREFERENCE (FELT HATS).
  AUSTRALIAN PREFERENCE (FELT HATS).
  SHIPPING RATES (COTTON GOODS).
  SHIPPING RATES (COTTON GOODS).
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES REGULATIONS.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES REGULATIONS.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (COMMISSIONS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (COMMISSIONS).
  HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS).
  HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS).
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  MILK (PUBLICITY MEASURES).
  MILK (PUBLICITY MEASURES).
  PORT WINE.
  PORT WINE.
  EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.
  EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  CLOSED MINES.
  CLOSED MINES.
  COMPANIES (LIQUIDATION).
  COMPANIES (LIQUIDATION).
  LANARK (STATISTICS).
  LANARK (STATISTICS).
EDUCATION.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, LONDON (REMODELLING).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, LONDON (REMODELLING).
  UNSUITABLE SCHOOLS.
  UNSUITABLE SCHOOLS.
  WATER SUPPLY, ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  WATER SUPPLY, ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
ROYAL NAVY.
  SUNKEN SUBMARINES (EXPERIMENTS).
  SUNKEN SUBMARINES (EXPERIMENTS).
  SHIPS (CONSTRUCTION).
  SHIPS (CONSTRUCTION).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  ADMIRALTY (PENSIONS DUTIES, STAFF).
  ADMIRALTY (PENSIONS DUTIES, STAFF).
  LAND REGISTRY (MESSENGERS).
  LAND REGISTRY (MESSENGERS).
  IMMIGRATION LAW (EVASION).
  IMMIGRATION LAW (EVASION).
  YOUNG OFFENDERS COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS).
  YOUNG OFFENDERS COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS).
  MOTOR TRAFFIC.
  MOTOR TRAFFIC.
AGRICULTURE.
  SUGAR BEET.
  SUGAR BEET.
  MARKETING OF PRODUCE
  MARKETING OF PRODUCE
  DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).
  DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).
  ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  PERSIAN GULF (SLAVE TRAFFIC).
  PERSIAN GULF (SLAVE TRAFFIC).
  BRITISH TRAWLER "ESCALLONIA."
  BRITISH TRAWLER "ESCALLONIA."
  RIVER DANUBE.
  RIVER DANUBE.
  ANGLO-PERSIAN RELATIONS.
  ANGLO-PERSIAN RELATIONS.
EGYPT.
  BRITISH RELATIONS.
  BRITISH RELATIONS.
  TARIFF POLICY.
  TARIFF POLICY.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (ROTA COMMITTEES, LLANDUDNO).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (ROTA COMMITTEES, LLANDUDNO).
Preamble
The House met at quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BRISTOL GAS ORDER, 1927.
  CHELMSFORD GAS ORDER, 1927.

    HARROGATE GAS ORDER, 1927.
    THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Peel, I beg to move the Motion that stands in his name upon the Paper.
    Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 8th of November last be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (No. 2) BILL.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion, moved by Lord Harris on Tuesday, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor on the Second Reading of this Bill, by the clear manner in which he explained its principles, almost persuaded me to change my opinion of its merits, but when my noble friend Lord Harris moved his Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee I was still more deeply impressed by his arguments. I am not going to repeat those arguments at any length, but what is the gist of them? In the first place, the noble Lord brought forward an example of hasty legislation in what is popularly known as the People's Budget of 1909. Your Lordships are well aware that agriculture in this country is not in so flourishing a condition as it might be, and one of the reasons which Lord Harris adduced for this fact was that, by the operation of that Budget, many of the landlords of this country, and especially of the larger landlords, have now given up their holdings, with the result that the land is possessed by smaller people who have no capital.
414
I note in this connection that various remedies are proposed. In the first place there is the programme of the Leader of the Liberal Party, advocating the holding of land by the county councils, and there is the proposal of the Socialist Party that the whole of the land should be nationalised. I am not going to discuss agriculture this afternoon, but I think that the example of what has happened to agriculture as the result of hasty legislation in the Budget of 1909 may well be a warning against rushing too quickly into specious legislation. I come to another point which is also, I think, germane to the subject. By the operation of that Budget, as everybody knows, building by private builders was enormously restricted. The consequence was that houses were not erected, and at last, we reached such a position that we have been able to house the people of this country only by vast subsidies which have had to be granted by successive Administrations. This all points to the necessity of not deterring people by legislation from investing their money by lending their capital for the building of houses. If, by this Bill, you make conditions too stringent you will not get people to invest their money in buildings to be let for business purposes.
I have two main objections to this Bill as it stands at present. In the first place it has never been clearly explained what is meant by goodwill and what is meant by improvements. It seems to me that this question of goodwill is a sort of elusive will-o'-the-wisp which you cannot grasp. There seems to be immense confusion on this subject, and if I may for one moment refer to the Budget, I would say that it is equally difficult to impress that upon some of the people. A friend of mine who was electioneering heard two men in a public-house discussing the merits of the Budget and one who was listening said: "What is this Mr. Budget? Be he blue or be he yellow?" In this House when I heard the discussion between the Secretary of State for India and Lord Sumner as to goodwill, I myself felt not at all certain what this goodwill was, whether it was red or black. It is one of my main objections to this Bill that these matters have never been clearly defined. My second objection

415
is the tribunal. Lord Sumner spoke about private judges and Lord Phillimore, at the conclusion of the debate the other night, not only expressed his views about goodwill but said he did not like the idea of the tribunal, that is to say, a single arbitrator from whom there is to be no appeal except upon points of law.
The reason that has actuated the Government in not allowing these cases to go before the County Courts is one of expense. I have carefully looked into this matter of expense and the estimates prepared by the permanent secretary of the Lord Chancellor. The other evening the noble Viscount, who is First Commissioner of Works, when we had that little mishap with the electric lighting the other evening, said he was not in favour of ninepence for fourpence. When I tell you that from these estimates, so far as I can gather, with the appropriation-in-aid the cost of the County Courts is £10, I do not think that it is much to complain of and if it were necessary to have more County Court Judges I do not think that the country would grumble. I might remind your Lordships that the last Committee which sat on this question, the Select Committee on Business Premises, recommended that the tribunal should be the county court with an assessor.
Reference has been made in this House to one whose name is familiar to all of us in connection with this question, and that is the name of the late Lord Long. Lord Long took a tremendous interest in the matter, upon which he made a big speech in 1914, and one of the points which he laid down on this subject met with the full assent of the leaders of the Unionist Party at that date. He said this:—
"It will be necessary to establish a competent tribunal with legal power and training, and equipped with local professional knowledge and training, which are also required. Take as your model the Wreck Commissioner's Court, which is presided over by a great lawyer and who has beside him practical men as assessors drawn from the naval or mercantile marines. Have your great lawyer and assessors—men trained in the practical knowledge with which the cases are connected and drawn from the districts in which the cases arise. Make that tribunal wholly independent either of Government or of Parliament or of the public."
This was the opinion of the leaders of the Unionist Party of the day. I am
416
not going to refer to the speech made by Sir Henry Slesser, Solicitor-General in the late Government, in the House of Commons, but he showed himself clearly in that speech against the proposed tribunal.
I want to go from those two points to the real reason why I am in favour of Lord Harris's Motion. I am not at all against this Bill. On the contrary, I am in favour of the principle of it if properly applied. I was asked, in conjunction with the late Lord Downham and Sir Philip Pilditch, then Mr. Pilditch, to go on a small committee to see what could be done to remedy the alleged and no doubt just grievances of town tenants, and therefore I cannot be accused of being in any way against this matter; and it was on the recommendation of that small committee that Mr. Long made that speech of his, with the full approval of the Unionist Party. It may be asked; Why then oppose this Bill? I should like to point out that this Committee sat as long ago as 1920. A great many things have happened since then. There was a tremendous scarcity of building at that time. I know very well it may be said: "You have plenty of time before the end of the Session to pass this measure in Committee of the Whole House." We are not at all sure that the Government are going to agree to any of these Amendments. And supposing they do, everybody knows that our time here will be fairly well occupied. There are three days allotted, I understand, to the great question of the revision of the Prayer Book, and the Secretary of State said the other night that we could well sit after dinner. I am sure we can if we are called upon, and I am only too ready to do so, as are many of my colleagues. But what will happen if these Amendments, even if they pass, are sent down to the House of Commons, tired and somewhat jaded, especially after the late nights that they have lately been enjoying? There will not be proper time at the end of the Session to discuss them. Then we shall be told: "You cannot have your Amendments; the Bill must be passed at any cost this Session."
Really, what is the danger about this Bill? Both Houses of Parliament have passed the Second Reading. It is perfectly true that nearly everybody on both

417
sides of the House is agreed that the Bid is not as well drafted as it might be. It requires a great deal of amendment. It really is a monumental measure. It is the thin end of the wedge. Noble Lords of the Opposition or their Party in the House of Commons made no secret that this Bill is only a stepping-stone. At the same time, if there is going to be a great change I think it ought to be made with some foundations. And what are the objects of those who are interested in the matter? From a personal point of view I should welcome this Bill. My lease is up, I shall have to pay dilapidations very shortly, and it would be to my interest to take advantage of Clause 17 of the Bill. Apart from that, the greatest grievances are those felt by the town tenants. This Bill does not come into operation until September, 1928, because September, 1927, is already past. If a Select Committtee is set up and goes into the whole matter with experts, it will be very easy to get the Bill through in both Houses of Parliament, as one House has already fully expressed its opinion upon if and this House has already given it a Second Reading. I see the noble Earl the Leader of the Liberal Opposition (Earl Beauehamp) sitting in his place. He has always been and rightly enjoys the reputation of a champion of the rights of this House. Does he think it right, when he comes to examine a Bill of this kind apart from any Party feeling, that it should be allowed to pass without proper revision? I have tried to make it clear that I do not think it is humanly possible this Session to give adequate attention to this important measure. For these reasons and with the hope that the Bill may eventually pass into law, I trust that your Lordships will agree to the Motion made by my noble friend Lord Harris.
LORD ERNLE: My Lords, this Bill seems to me so eminently a lawyers' Bill that if the lawyers were united upon its construction I think I should follow their opinion. But they are divided. At the present moment I think we have two Judges on each side and one noble Lord who not only has been a Judge but is a great landlord sifting on the fence, and I believe a third Judge, sitting near me, is coming down on the side of Lord
418
Harris's Motion. Therefore, not having any clear guidance from the lawyers, I venture to hope that an ounce of practical experience may be of some slight service to the House. On the whole I welcome this Bill. I am very glad that there is practical unanimity on the point that no tyrannical use of their powers has been made as a whole by landlords. But hard cases do occur and to my knowledge they occur with considerable frequency. And therefore I welcome this measure because, as it seems to me, it is going to apply a remedy. And though I think it can be greatly improved in Committee and though my support is given subject to one very strong objection, I hope the Bill may pass though your Lordships' House in the ordinary course. Of course, in the management of any property containing a multitude of inhabitants the larger, more permanent and more collective interests of the neighbourhood have again and again to override the more private, personal, piecemeal interests of the individual tenants. I hope that this inevitable clash of interests will be remembered when the House comes to consider the removal of restrictive covenants on which I have grave doubts; but for the present moment the clash of interests must sacrifice the weaker man, and that weaker man is the individual tenant. This measure gives him what I think he ought to have, the right to some form of compensation. I cannot believe that the concession of that right to compensation will impair the sanctity of property. On the contrary, I believe that it will fortify that sanctity.
I am not going to discuss the legal provisions of the Bill, partly because my knowledge of it is derived from its having been read to me by a young lady who did not make it altogether clear. Perhaps that is her fault and not that of the learned draftsman. However, it seems to me that cases of hardship occur whenever the occupation of a tenant is interfered with, if by his own improvements made on the business premises he has improved their letting value, or if by his skill and capacity he has worked up a business which gives what is called a goodwill value to the premises. Often he ought to receive compensation. Those are the two cases with which, as I understand, the Bill is mainly concerned. When you come to define

419
in an Act of Parliament the processes by which that compensation is assessed you naturally make them look extremely complicated and difficult. As a matter of fact those processes are acted upon every day in the year. They are fully understood and, as far as I understand the Bill, no novelty is introduced into the process. Of courts the question of goodwill is a thorny one. I think that the noble and learned Lord on the Opposition Bench made a very useful contribution to the subject; but the thorns remain.
May I suggest one point which I do not think is guarded in the Bill? Supposing a landlord wishes to restrict the number of public-houses in a street—had Lord Sumner boon here I should have said the number of fish shops, which would be equally appropriate—and determines that there shall be only one, he eliminates the element of competition and the man who holds that public-house has an opportunity of working up a business which he derives from the landlord's policy of not having more than one in the street. It is plain to me, and I think it must be plain to your Lordships' House, that the landlord is entitled to a very considerable share of the goodwill which he has himself created by his policy.
So far as those provisions are concerned I am in sympathy with them; but I come to what to my mind is a very grave objection and that is the tribunal. We know nothing of the members who are to compose the tribunal, nothing of their age, nothing of their experience, nothing of their qualifications, nothing of the rules by which their procedure is to be governed. We are told that they will be appointed by certain persons for whose judgment we have the greatest respect; but we are not told what their qualifications will be and, in the case of surveyors, who, I presume, will obtain some of the appointments, we are not told whether they are to be allowed to continue in practice or whether they must give up practice. That is a very important point. It is important in several ways. It is important because the surveyor who is not in practice rapidly loses touch with the conditions around him. If he is in practice he may be a judge to-day and a witness to-morrow—a condition which no one can say is altogether satisfactory.
I cannot help thinking that to impose a tribunal of this sort, so uncertain, so
420
unproved, and necessarily so inexperienced, upon one of the great industries of the country—that is, the building industry—is most unfortunate. It is peculiarly unfortunate at the present moment. The building industry is at last recovering. Recovering from what? From the state of uncertainty into which previous legislation had thrown it. Now you are going to introduce a new element of uncertainty. Think of what it means. It means that every investor of private money (and it is by private investment that most of the great buildings are raised in this country) will feel doubt as to his security. He will not put his money in except at higher rates of interest. You are turning out the private investor and introducing the speculator into building operations.
The analogy of the Agricultural Holdings Act seems to me wholly misleading and false. In farming, I am sorry to say, there is no inflow of capital from outside. You are dealing simply between one individual and his landlord. What passes before the agricultural assessor, or whatever he is called, does not interfere with the flow of capital. The effect of a man's improvements is obvious to any experienced eye, and to apply that analogy to a great industry which depends for its life-blood upon attracting capital into it seems to me wholly misleading. Therefore, I hope that we may hear from the Government, before this debate comes to an end, more information about this tribunal and some promise that they will carefully consider all the alternatives that can be suggested to a form of tribunal which, as I say, will introduce into the building trade of this country this element of uncertainty. If I get more details, if I get more information, and if I receive a promise that all reasonable Amendments that may be moved in Committee upon the subject will be carefully considered, I shall oppose the Resolution of Lord Harris.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I received a Whip this morning asking me to vote against the Resolution, upon the ground that there was no time for, and that the Bill would be lost if it was examined by, a Select Committee. It is the old story. That is the ignominious position in which we find ourselves towards the end of the Session in this House. It is said: "Above all things we must get our Bill

421
this Session. We have done without it for nineteen hundred and twenty-six or twenty-seven years, but we must get it this Session." The Government, a Conservative Government, or a so-called Conservative Government (I suppose it is the best) kind of Conservatism we can have under the present system) tell us that this Bill is so important that no matter how it is to be examined or whatever its defects may be, it must not go to a Select Committee. I should have thought the speech of my noble friend who has just addressed your Lordships was a very strong one and gave very strong reasons for sending this Bill to a Select Committee. He said a good deal about the tribunal. He said a good deal about goodwill. He told us there was no analogy between this case and the case of the Agricultural Holdings Acts which have given compensation. He is perfectly right. We are setting out on an entirely new method in this country.
I claim to have some little right to speak upon the subject because I spent a number of years in trying to administer—and when I say "administer" I merely mean acting as counsel—in connection with the first of the Irish Land Acts, which related no doubt to agriculture and had in it a great many of the provisions of this Bill. It was the Bill which someone said put the landlord and tenant into one bed. There was a subsequent Bill which somebody described as giving the tenant liberty to keep the landlord out. No doubt we shall have a Bill subsequent to this one. The whole issue in this case is not on the principle of the Bill. The Bill has passed its Second Reading. It is not necessary, to be repeating, as everybody thinks they ought to do, that this is a good Bill and then proceed to show there is not a good clause in it, or that it is a bad Bill and condemn it with faint praise. The only thing before us is: Should the Bill be sent to a Select Committee? What I propose to do, without expressing any of my own views in regard to the Bill, is to show your Lordships that it is a Bill of great magnitude and the foundation of legislation which cannot stop here; that it is a Bill which ought not to be passed by your Lordships' House unless you feel perfectly certain that it can be moulded at the end of the Session, during the ordinary proceedings of this House, without
422
a Committee calling for evidence on behalf of both landlords and tenants so as to ascertain whether we have hit upon the best solution of the principle to be enforced.
What is the principle of this Bill? The first principle is that it breaks all leasehold contracts in relation to business buildings and premises and in some respects in relation to professional premises. Is it a light matter to break all contracts? It may be a good thing or a bad thing. Does that give confidence? Will that tend to people putting their money into the building of houses? What is a lease of premises? It has nothing to do with the letting of bare walls. What a lease means is this. A man who has no capital says: "I want to start a business." He goes to a man who has much capital and who is able to build premises and says: "What will you take as a rent and what conditions will you give?" That man is lending his capital and the tenant can pay him the interest upon it. That is what a lease of premises means. You are going to lay down by this Bill that every contract made in consideration of the loan of that capital is to be interfered with by an Act of Parliament. I daresay that is a very good thing to do—at all events I will assume that it is—but does it not require examination by a Select Committee? What will be the effect of it? Have your Lordships thought of what will be the effect of it? Not only does it break contracts, but it provides in Clause 8 that no one in future can contract out of this Bill, No man can make a contract without being subject to this Bill and without knowing that his contract will be broken.
That means this. Two persons, perfectly competent and perfectly qualified, come together. One of them, the owner of the building and the land, says: "I will be quite willing to let you these premises to start your business upon." The tenant, fully advised by solicitors and other experts, says: "That is exactly what I want to do." "Yes," the landlord says, "but I do not want to get implicated in all the provisions of this Bill. Are you willing to give them up under the advice of your solicitor and your surveyor and other experts?" "Well," you have to say, "I cannot." The Bill provides that two men on an

423
equality cannot enter into a contract in regard to the lease of buildings without involving themselves in the complexity of this Bill. Is that a matter worth thinking out in a Select Committee? I note from a pamphlet that was sent to me by the Auctioneers' and Agents' Council that they say they hope nothing will be done which will in any way put an end to the leasehold system. If this Bill once passes and if I have premises nothing on earth would induce me to lease them. I would keep them and sell them. But the man who wants them to start business in may not have capital and, therefore, he will have to go to somebody else to get the money if he has to buy. That matter, as you will see later on, is interfered with by the Bill. When you debar people from entering into contracts even in the future—people perfectly qualified and knowing what they are doing—I say you are raising one of the most serious problems with which Parliament will have to deal in the future.
If this Bill is allowed to pass as it is, you are going to put an end to all idea of people investing their money in such property as is dealt with by this Bill. With our present taxation and our present rate of assessment, is this a time to put additional burdens on property? Will that encourage building? Will that encourage transactions of this kind? What will be the state of mortgagees? Under this Bill the rent on improvements is to be capitalised as compensation and the charges for goodwill are assessed. You are putting them in front of the mortgagor who has lent his money as a first mortgage on the land. Will anybody ever again lend money on mortgage? Will people call in their mortgages? My own view, for what it is worth, and I believe it is backed by a great many of those who are accustomed to deal in this class of property, is that this Bill will more or less put an end to the leasehold system, and that it will be disastrous to the men who are willing to become tenants and have no capital to start business.
What has happened from the rent restriction legislation? I know something about it because I wanted to buy for a relative of mine the lease of a small house in one of the suburbs. I never was so astonished in my life as I was by what happened. I went to the Norwood
424
district, then to the Ealing district and also drove out to other districts. The first agent I went to was at Norwood. I said to him: "Will you please let me have a list of a few small houses at £60 or £70 a year or something of that kind?" He roared with laughter and said: "Lease a small house! Do you think anyone is fool enough to lease a house now with the Bent Restrictions Act in force?" I said: "Do you mean to tell me you have no houses to let" He said: "Not one. I will give you a list of plenty that are for sale." I suggested: "But that requires capital." He said: "Yes, but you won't get a house in any other way." I saw another agent and exactly the same thing occurred. In the end, instead of paying £70 or £80 a year, I had to put up with the freehold value of the house. That is exactly what is going to happen if this Bill is passed without qualification. We have accepted the principle of the Bill and we are not concerned with that at present, but what I have indicated to your Lordships is exactly what is going to happen when this Bill is passed.
The next matter on which I say it is worth consulting a Select Committee is this: this Bill sets up a system of fixing fair rents. Now, if there is one thing more than another which I know about it is the fixing of fair rents. I have been in at least 3,000 cases. I think that is a very moderate estimate. I have spent many of my days in helping rents to be fixed and I made some money out of it. A landlord and a tenant both have to pay. It all has to come out of the property. Do not forget that when you proceed to fix a fair rent which is not an easy thing, the money has to come out of the property. I find that in half a dozen different cases in this Bill as regards these leasehold premises you have to proceed under certain alternatives to fix fair rents.
I remember well when fair rent fixing was started in Ireland. The first day the tribunal sat—I will refer to the tribunal in a moment and contrast it with the tribunal set up under the Bill—a very eminent Judge of the High Court presided. All that the Act of Parliament, the Land Act, 1881, said was that the tribunal should fix a fair rent. It gave no other indication of any kind and he proceeded to do what Parliament had

425
found it impossible to do—to define what a fair rent was. He said that a fair rent could be defined as a rent which would enable a man and his family to live and thrive. Next day he was bombarded with this sort of question: If a man has three children is he to pay one rent, and if he has a dozen children is he to pay another rent, and if he has no children at all is he to pay a third rent? If the rent is only £2 a year is it to be reduced so that he may live and thrive? So it went on, and you will find dozens of reported cases involving points of law as to how to get at the fixing of a fair rent. But you will not find even that definition for leaseholds because how can you define a rent, say, for buildings and land and shops as a rent on which the tenant is to live and thrive? Nor do I think you will find any of the matters laid down in the Irish Courts of the least help.
All I say is that all these are points which require a most minute examination. Yes, and they require something more. They require the evidence of people who understand the question. It is all very well to fix a fair rent. I remember once when I was leaving the place in which I used to live, I had a cottage to sell, and I said to the best estate agent I could come across: "Will yon look over that cottage for me"—it was a small cottage—"and tell me what it ought to sell at?" He did and he said: "If you get £600 for it you will be doing well." I said I did not think I would like to let it go for that, and he said: "You will not get any more." I sold it next day for £800, and three months later the lady who bought it sold it again for £1,200. I do not know what the fair rent would be.
Now I come to the second branch of the matter that makes it so important that it should be sent to a Select Committee. It is what my noble friend has been talking so much about. I make the strongest protest, having been engaged in the law for many years, forty-five years until five or six years ago, when I am sorry to say I left it and became a miserable Judge—I do protest with all the power I can against this growing system of legislation which debars His Majesty's subjects from going' to His Majesty's Courts. That is an objection which is vital to the maintenance of confidence
426
in the administration of the law. I see in this country so often these mushroom courts growing up. They always strike me as being more or less political. When the Fair Rent Court was set up in Ireland everybody knew that whether you had let property at a high rent or a low rent, it was intended that something should be taken off because there was an agrarian agitation going on at the time. What was the result? The men who had let properties at a low rent got off worst. Going round the country the Commissioners simply reduced rents more or less by twenty-five per cent. It did not matter one bit whether the rent was high or low. They thought their mission was to reduce it by twenty-five per cent., and the next time they went round they took off another twenty-five per cent.
I knew one case of a man living on £5,000 a year, which in Ireland we used to think a very large fortune. You do not think much of it over here. That was the remnant he had out of a rental of £20,000 a year, because unfortunately Irishmen sometimes put mortgages upon their property—or they did at that time; I do not suppose anyone would lend them money now. What happened? The Commissioners came round and took off twenty-five per cent. He had not much left and he went to live in a stable. I only mention that in passing. But, I do impress upon the House that, of all the matters that ought to be examined in this Bill, this question of taking away from His Majesty's subjects, if they wish to go there, the right to have their cases heard and adjudicated upon by His Majesty's Courts, is most important.
My noble and learned friend Viscount Sumner asked to whom these referees are to be accountable? They are really a most remarkable body. They do not seem to me to be accountable to anybody. But what is more remarkable is that they only require one qualification. I had perhaps better read the clause so that there should be no mistake. Clause 20 says:—
"The tribunal for the purposes of this Act shall be such one of a panel of referees appointed for the purposes of this Act by the Reference Committee hereinafter mentioned as may be selected in manner provided by rules made by the Reference Committee."
The clause goes on to say—
"The Reference Committee may make rules as to the manner of selection of the

427
referee to whom any application or matter under this Act is to be made or referred, regard being had to the knowledge of the locality possessed by such referee."
That is the only qualification required of the referee who is to have these enormous powers entrusted to him; he has to know the locality. If he has only gone walking about the place and has had nothing to do with it, that is about the best qualification he could have. He must know something about the locality, but I cannot find anything else.
There may be something else. You are leaving it probably to the Reference Committee to lay down what is to be his qualification. Is he to be a lawyer? A lawyer at any rate has the habit of sifting evidence. Or is he to be an auctioneer, or is he to be an estate agent, or is he to be a doctor as a specialist in a case where a house has been taken in which a doctor has had a practice? Are you going to have a man appointed according to a particular case? It really is ludicrous. How on earth any Government could make such a proposal I do not know, except that the greatest calamity that ever happens in this country is when a Government have an overwhelming majority, because then they listen to nobody, and if they are only Conservative then all they have to do is to come down to the House of Lords and say: "We must have this Bill and we cannot have it examined by a Select Committee. We are the infallible Conservative Party and we are upholding the dignity of the House of Lords."
Then it is said that we shall have experts. I can find nothing about that in the Bill. But let us assume that there are experts. Has anybody ever heard a difference between experts? I see my noble friend Lord Reading preparing to speak. I gather this from his look, which I know of old. Did he ever hear a dispute between experts? I remember hearing a case, I think about the value of a site for a reservoir at Staines, where the difference between the valuations of either side was in the proportion of £1,000 to £100,000. Experts: Why, valuation is one of the most difficult things in the whole world. The Government think that it is as easy as possible, but I have had some experience of it in my own case. I once bought a little house in the country.
428
The man who was there before me was very nearly bankrupt, and that is why he sold. He was valued at a particular rate, but the moment I went in they doubled the valuation, though I had done nothing whatever. They were not valuing the house; they were valuing me.
That is what is going on all over the country, and all this is to be left under the Bill to somebody whose qualifications we do not know, who is to be selected on some principle that we do not know, but who is to have a local knowledge. The Bill does not say who is to pay. That does not appear, though it is an important matter. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Sumner that there can be nothing worse than the system under the Land Clauses Act. When I was Solicitor-General I contested those cases as well as I could, but what happened was that each side appointed a valuer—or a "valuator," as we used to call him in Ireland—and then an umpire was appointed. Next day we found the umpire, who was acting in a judicial capacity in a matter which perhaps concerned £30,000 or £40,000, acting as a witness for a tenant or a landlord. What I generally found was that these umpires who gave evidence from time to time laid themselves out to be "landlord's men" or "tenant's men" or "claimant's men," as the case might be, and they got a reputation for that purpose. Then they were put into a judicial position, and of course they cast all that aside and became absolutely fair arbitrators! Is not that point worth examining into before a Select Committee? Ought we not to hear something about that?
My noble friend the Lord Chancellor referred with considerable pride to the success in Ireland of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Act. 1906. No doubt he has information that I have not, but my information is entirely the other way. My information is that since the Bill passed you cannot get people to build these shops for others, and they have to get the money in other ways, by mortgages and so on. Be that Bill good or bad, I might remind my noble friend that he voted against it, if I may take him back to old times when we were both Conservatives in the House of Commons: whereas now we are both—I do not know what. Let me remind my

429
noble friend of that Bill. I had forgotten about it until he mentioned it, although I remember taking some part in the matter. Let me remind him of what that Bill did. After all, England is as important as Ireland. I make that frank admission as an Irishman. There are as great interests here as there are in Ireland.
What did that Bill do for Ireland? It says:—
"The court for the determination of all matters under this Act shall be the county court having jurisdiction where the holding is situate."
Then it goes on:—
"Any person aggrieved by any determination of the county court under this Act may appeal either—

(a) to the Judge of Assize or a Judge of the High Court, as the case may he, in accordance with the provisions of the County Courts (Ireland) Acts, 1851 to 1889, relating to appeals in the case of ordinary civil bills; or,

(b) to the Court of Appeal in accordance with the rules of the Supreme Court;

Provided that, if in any proceedings appeals are taken both to the Judge of Assize or a Judge of the High Court and to the Court of Appeal, the appeal shall be heard together by such Judge, and a further appeal may be taken from his determination to the Court of Appeal in accordance with rules of the Supreme Court."
At all events the county court is one of our substantial courts. I wish that it had more jurisdiction, but that is another question. There are most excellent Judges there.
Why should not these cases be heard by the county court? Why should not an appeal go to the Supreme Court? Are the interests hero less? I do not think that I have ever known, in relation to property, any more important questions than will have to be tried. My noble friend Lord Sumner gave one or two instances of questions that will have to be tried. But your Lordships will note that you are allowing this tribunal, or whatever it is called, to legislate. Take this one case—it is only one in a thousand. The Bill says:—
"Any contract …. made whether before or after the commencement of this Act, by virtue of which a tenant would be, directly or indirectly, deprived of his right to obtain compensation or the grant of a new lease under this Part of this Act, shall be void unless the tribunal, having regard to all the circumstances of the case,
430
is of opinion that the contract was reasonable."
What are the matters that make a contract between two parties—two people perfectly able to contract with each other in relation to contracting out of the lease—reasonable or unreasonable? No indication whatever is given. All is left to the sweet will of the referee.
The referee may not like the appearance of one party or the other, he may not like his history, he may not like his politics, he may not like his nationality. I know what it is to suffer for your nationality and so I mention, that point. But there it is. Are you going seriously, without reference to a Committee and without a moment's consideration of what you are doing, to say to a referee: "You may smash a contract entered into by these parties with the help of their solicitors and their experts, each of them wanting to carry it out"? You are going to smash the contract on the mere statement of a referee that in his opinion the contract was unreasonable. I do not think you are acting fairly to the referee, or even to a court, to lay down this kind of matter. I know well what it was when the Acts were passed for Ireland. So expensive did the whole thing become as regards the administration of the Acts in Ireland, that I believe that a great deal of the misfortune of Ireland came out of those Acts; for this reason, that the tenants, who were expecting to get, and did get, reductions of rent on their holdings, never in fact, in many cases, received the benefit for ten years, because the whole thing was swallowed up in the costs. True the whole of the costs have to come out of the estates, which at the present time can so badly afford them.
I do not want to touch upon the merits of the Bill. For my own part I think there is a great deal of difference between a claim for improvements and a claim for goodwill. Lord Birkenhead, I see, said that everyone knows what goodwill is. He knows everything, and therefore I am sure he knows that, but goodwill requires examination of books, examination of customers, examination of the district, examination of the competition, and a dozen different things. It will be said that we must leave it to the referee—that he knows everything—although we do not know what his qualifications will be. I tried to look up a short definition

431
of goodwill and I came across one dictionary in which it was stated that Lord Eldon had defined it as "The chance of retaining customers." I found several other definitions, but they are all too long to read to your Lordships. I think these two things, goodwill and improvements, stand upon different footings, but I think it is worth while, as a precautionary matter and as an argument why this Bill should be referred to a Committee, to refer to what was said on an Irish Bill by the then Irish Chief Secretary, who was not a Tory like myself, but was the late Mr. Bryce, who afterwards became a distinguished member of this House.
I do not think that anyone would accuse him of over-sensitiveness with regard to landlords, but here is what he said about compensation for disturbance, measured by the loss of goodwill:—
"The second part of the Bill was Clause 5, which provided for compensation for disturbances, and tin's, he confessed, appeared to be entirely unworkable. He believed it was said by the Attorney-General that as proposed by the Bill, it would mean a system of fixing fair rents, and he thought the machinery would be very costly. He entirely dissociated himself from any approval on the part of the Government of the principle of fixing fair rents, or compensation for disturbance as proposed in the Bill. That principle as applied to agricultural holdings by the Act of 1881 was based on a different set of facts."
How we are progressing! That was in 1906, and one of the most extreme Radicals in the House of Commons warned the Government, which then had a majority larger even than the. Conservative Government has at the present time—it was just after the election of 1906, when three or four of us tried to keep the flag flying in desperate, circumstances—that the principle of fixing fair rents or compensation for disturbance, as proposed in that Bill, would be entirely unworkable. As I said before, we all of us, who are now trying to support what used to be at that time the principles of the Conservative Party in relation to property, voted solemnly against the Bill, which had no chance of being passed.
All I am asking now is that the whole of that question should go to a Select Committee. Do your Lordships really think we shall be doing our duty to the country—to the tenants as well as the landlords—if we pass this Bill now.
432
All these things seem so plausible when you are talking of doing something for the tenant, but take care you are not taking away from the tenant the very matter which has often enabled him to extend his business. We hear it said that hard cases make bad law. It is just the same here, and I ask your Lordships to say that this matter shall go before a Select Committee. I remember when I brought forward in this House a Bill relating to moneylenders. To interfere with a contract, even of a moneylender, was considered so terrible by this House that your Lordships would not do anything until the Bill had been sent to a Select Committee, presided over by a Judge, where moneylenders could be given a hearing with regard to their contracts. It was only after that. Bill had been sifted on evidence, and after two Sessions had elapsed, that the measure was allowed to become law.
I submit that we have made out a case. The Lord Chancellor said in his opening speech that he was relying upon precedent. Yes, we always do rely upon precedent. Is that not another reason why this Bill should go to a Select Committee?—because your Lordships are now asked to create the greatest precedent of all, and that precedent will be cited, either by the present Lord Chancellor or by some other Lord Chancellor in the future, as a precedent for many other things of which your Lordships are not now thinking. Surely the time has come when we ought not always to be asked to shirk our duty, and to be dealing with these matters as if they were of no importance in this House, solely on the question of time. The Bill stood over the long vacation. Would it make any difference if it stood over till the next meetings of Parliament? You may say that there is no rule which enables you to do that. If not, why not? If this House is not able to throw out Bills, as apparently it is not; if this House is not able to amend Bills, as apparently it is not; if this House has not time to examine Bills, as apparently it cannot with proper evidence before it, I ask your Lordships, in all seriousness, what are we for?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I confess to a feeling of regret

433
that I am unable to follow my noble friend in his denunciation of the Government. It is a temptation when divided into political Parties to find some opportunity of agreeing with a member, or former member, of the Ministerial Party who is attacking the Government. For some little while I admit that the temptation was great, but then I had to revert to the real matter before the House. When my noble and learned friend began his speech I thought that he would' address himself merely to the question before us. He proceeded to tell us—and certainly he was expressing a thought in my mind for some time—that we had already passed the Second Reading of the Bill, that we were committed to the principle of the Pill. Everybody who has spoken, whether actually dealing with the particular clauses of the Bill or with the Motion now before the House, has blessed the Bill, although I confess sometimes perhaps rather indifferently. Baton all sides it is said that this Bill in principle is right and should pass the House of Lords on its Second Reading. No one has ever suggested that there should be any pledge by any member of your Lordships' House, or any Party, to accept the Bill as it stands without amendment, without, modification, without introduction of new clauses. That is not the point before your Lordships. The real question we are considering, and, I submit, the only question, is whether we shall take this Bill in Committee in your Lordships' House, or whether it shall be referred to a Select Committee.
But that is not all. There is much more behind it than that. My noble and learned friend Lord Carson, who has a very keen perception, as I well know, of the relevancies of argument, having stated in terms that we have agreed to the Bill in principle, proceeded, as I understood him, to formulate at least five points which were arguments in favour of its rejection, and he dealt with them just as if each of them was before your Lordships, and as if he were opposing it on Second Beading. I find exactly the same state of affairs in reading—as I had the misfortune not to hear—Lord Sumner. And indeed the noble Lord who moved the Motion now before the House began by saying that the Bill was right in the circumstances, that it
434
had to be introduced, that it had received much consideration and so forth, but he then gave reasons why it should be referred to a Select Committee. Your Lordships will forgive my saying it, and you know it as well as I know it myself, your object is not for one moment to refer the Bill to a Select Committee for the examination of expert witnesses or for argument then;. The object of your Lordships, as has been said in this House, is to stop the Bill passing, in other words to kill the Bill.
Several NOBLE LORDS:No.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I say that emphatically, and it has been said by the Secretary of State for India. He said most definitely that that would be its effect, and indeed it has been said by speaker after speaker that it is known that the effect of the Motion now before the House, if carried, will be to kill the Bill for this Session.
LORD CARSON: For this Session.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Yes, but those who have passed years in the House of Commons, as I have, and as the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, did, know quite well what it is to postpone a Bill till another Session. It is an old device. I am perfectly certain it is not used by him with that intention, but nevertheless it is a well-known device, familiar to anybody who has passed any part of his life in the House of Commons, to try to postpone a Bill, to try in some way to get it away from what is called the floor of the House, to send it to some other place, where it may be buried or smothered quietly, where no one will really see all that is happening when it is being done to death. The point that I desire to make, and to emphasise, is that it will be regarded in the country as an act done by this House for the purpose of absolutely destroying the Bill.
Who can say what will happen next year? Who will attempt for a moment to tell us what will be the condition of things twelve months hence, when the Bill might again come before your Lordships? Can anyone be quite sure that the present Government will be in power? Do we not all know that, when you come to the last year of a Parliament before a General Election—which certainly must come after next year—

435
there are many legislative measures which must be introduced by Government, and which may cause this Bill to be postponed still further? And the Bill does not come before your Lordships' House simply as a bolt from the blue. It is introduced by a Conservative Government after consideration.
LORD CARSON: Hear, hear!
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I go further than my noble and learned friend, and I would go further than a Conservative Government with regard to a measure of this kind. But nevertheless I recognise that there is a real hardship, and that there must be a redress of grievances. Here again I would venture to remind your Lordships that there is no difference between us in the House. Speaker after speaker has said there is an admitted hardship. There are good landlords, of course, and nobody would attempt to legislate if all were good landlords. But there are exacting landlords, and there are great hardships. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, gave perhaps as good an instance as could be given of the enhancement of values. Not by any means because of anything the landlord had done, but merely by the fact of his taking a house its value was doubled because the goodwill of the premises was enhanced, no doubt because it could be said that Lord Carson had inhabited it.
He went on to argue, to my great surprise, that the leasehold system really exists in this country because the lessee, or intending lessee, has not capital. Surely that is a mistake. Has my noble and learned friend ever heard of the cases in which the landlord is the holder of the freehold and refuses to grant leases for any lengthy period because he is well aware that, as time progresses, the property must increase in value, and consequently when the improvements have been made by those business tenants, who come in and build up in a thoroughfare a great shopping or business centre, the landlord can increase the rent when the lease falls in? He can make it what he pleases, he can drive the tenants out of the premises to which they really have attached the business. And is that because of want of capital? Why, for most of the owners of the businesses—leaving aside for the moment the small shopkeepers, who, again, are not in great
436
difficulty for want of capital—the difficulty is not to find the capital, the difficulty is in being unable to purchase the freehold and consequently get the benefit of improvements. I should have thought there could be little doubt of that.
Take, for instance, the classic case of Regent Street, to which reference was made, I think, by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, who said that that was the reason why there was so much agitation now. Take the firms that were in business there. Does any one doubt that any of them, certainly the vast majority of them, are able to find capital for premises of any extent, or that they would be ready to purchase them if they could? The difficulty is that they cannot purchase them. A leasehold system has been built up in this country by which the landlord, the reversioner, gets the benefit of all the improvements that are made while he does nothing and has not earned one penny of the money that forms the aecretion of value. It is in that respect that the Bill is intended to give relief. Is there any member of your Lordships' House, I would ask, who would say that in circumstances I have described the tenant who has built up the value of the premises by making them a good centre, indeed, by raising the value of the goodwill, as he necessarily does, should not have some relief when he finds an exacting landlord at the end who demands an increased rental—increased by the extent to which the tenant by his exertions and his energy has increased the value? I should be surprised if this contention was advanced.
It may be said, and truly said, that there are many landlords who do not do this sort of thing. It is not in respect of those landlords that this legislation is brought forward. The difficulty arises because of the exactions made, of which one could give instances. Anybody who is familiar with cases of this class is capable of repeating instances of the sort one after another. It is because it is admitted that there is a hardship that this attempt is made to remove that hardship. That is all this Bill proposes to do in that respect. It deals with the improvements that may be made and with the goodwill built up. I do not propose for one moment to argue about the meaning of goodwill. That

437
may be necessary before a tribunal but it is quite unnecessary here. I was rather amused to hear my noble friend Lord Carson making fun of the meaning of the word "goodwill," as if it was such an impossible thing to understand. Is there any member of your Lordships' House who does not know what is the meaning of goodwill? I agree that it is difficult to define with precision so as to cover every possible point. But that is a different matter, and I think it would apply to almost anything.
One might raise the same question with regard to depreciation and so on. All these questions are susceptible of argument. But nobody can doubt the meaning of "goodwill" in its general aspect, and I should be surprised if those who are familiar with business have any doubt about it. It is a well known expression in the City, you may get a certain number of years purchase of the goodwill of a business. There was a statement in the newspaper this morning regarding the amalgamation of certain banks or the purchase of one bank by another. The whole of the transaction is based upon the goodwill, upon ascertaining the value of the goodwill by reference, of course, to the profits and certain, matters of that description and by multiplying the figure so ascertained by so many years purchase. Then comes the question of how many years purchase shall be taken. I think it is idle to suggest that there is some magic in the word "goodwill" which we do not understand; though I must say, as I have already indicated, that there are cases in which it is difficult to define exactly what shall be, taken as goodwill and what shall not be taken; just as there are difficulties in almost every conceivable set of circumstance that might be brought before a Court of Justice.
My noble friend, again, made a great attack upon the clause which prevented contracting out. I should have thought that was most familiar to him. It is nothing new. I am not quite sure because I have not looked at the Act for a good many years, but I feel pretty certain that in the Moneylenders Act there is either an express clause prohibiting contracting out or that by words used in the Act itself there is a prohibition against it. If
438
such a provision as that were not made the Bill would be of no use. It is just as it would be with a moneylender. If a moneylender said: "You shall pay me thirty, forty or fifty per cent. interest and you shall agree with me never to go to the Court to have that interest reduced," the Court would say at once: "That is void." All that this Bill does is to provide that there shall be compensation for improvements or for goodwill, and when compensation is provided, there shall be no contracting out of it but that what Parliament said shall remain.
One's flesh almost crept when my noble friend talked of what would happen if the sanctity of contract was interfered with. As if we were not doing it every day. As if we had not done it in the year 1881 when questions of this character with regard to landlord and tenant were dealt with. As if we had not done it with regard to almost every conceivable thing. Sometimes, there is over-reaching. That means that there are a number of men who may be exacting and extortionate. The moment they come to the fore and are able to practise their wiles the result inevitably is that Parliament legislates to prevent the hardships which arise.
My noble friend who immediately preceded me referred to the tribunal. I am, perhaps, move in agreement with him in his arguments concerning the tribunal than with anything he addressed to your Lordships. But I do not propose to discuss it to-day. Indeed, I would very much prefer to have an opportunity of studying it and of coming to a conclusion as to a better tribunal if it can be found and as to the disadvantages of the one proposed. My observation is that this is the very question we ought to discuss in your Lordships' House when we come to the Committee stage. On the whole, I think, the stage, strongest arguments used in favour of the Resolution now before your Lordships' House were with regard to the tribunal. Is that a difficult subject for us to discuss in your Lordships' House? Would a Select Committee be a better tribunal? Have we not in this House a number of distinguished, learned and talented lawyers who are capable of bringing their minds to bear upon this question? Have we not, further, a number of your Lordships who are experienced

439
in matters of this character, not as lawyers but as practical men of affairs? Why, then, should we send the Bill to a Select Committee?
Is it for the purpose of hearing expert witnesses? I was rather amused at hearing my noble friend upon the expert witness. One could tell stories indefinitely in connection with expert witnesses. My noble friend pointed out how ridiculous it was to make judges of experts of this character. He told us that sometimes a man was a landlord's man, that sometimes he was a tenant's man—as a witness, of course. We have some experience of men of this character sitting as tribunals to determine different matters. When they sit as a tribunal they exercise their judicial functions with fairness; it may not be with a complete knowledge of the law, but nevertheless with fairmindedness and with a desire to come to a proper conclusion. All my learned friend's observations about the expert witnesses seem only to prove how ridiculous it would be to have expert witnesses, because if his argument meant anything it meant that you could not rely upon them. He suggested a case in which an expert on one side put the value at £1,000 and an expert on the other side put it at £100,000.
Those are not the questions I should have thought we desired to discuss on this Bill. The Bill undoubtedly is an important measure and we ought, I think, to proceed to deal with it by means of the wealth of knowledge that there is in your Lordships' House. There is no House better qualified to deal with it than this House. Here we have an abundance of knowledge and can make suggestions. As I understand it the Government would be ready to listen to and consider any Amendments that may be proposed. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor told us so when he addressed your Lordships in explanation of the Bill. If that is so, what is it that has to go to the Committee upstairs? I defy any member of this House to suggest a better tribunal than this House to deal with a subject of this character. Your Lordships' House is in truth the supreme tribunal of the land. I therefore urge your Lordships to reject the Motion, for the reason that we can deal with the questions in
440
this Bill much better in the House than if they were sent to a Committee.
May I remind your Lordships of all that has happened in connection with this Bill? Committees have sat upon the grievances. There have been deputations and representations from various associations and—I would lay stress upon this—those representations have been from bodies of a non-political character. Men of all shades of politics have joined in the representations for the purpose of bringing about this Bill. Now the Bill, limited as it is in its scope and operation, comes before us. However wrong it may be to suggest it, however unfounded may be the suspicion, it will be suggested again and again outside this House that some of your Lordships have joined together for the purpose of delaying the Bill in the hope that it can never be brought forward again, and in the hope that in consequence you will have done something to prevent a remedy being applied to the hardships which admittedly exist. I do not for a moment myself make any such suggestion; on the contrary, I am sure it is not true. I am certain that those of your Lordships who may take a different view from me do so because you have convinced yourselves that it is right. That does not alter the fact that people outside will say what I have already suggested.
Something that fell from my noble friend Lord Carson I quite agree with—namely, the protest that he made against the practice of bringing Bills to your Lordships' House almost at the last moment when there is not sufficient time to consider them adequately. I would point out to your Lordships that it is a Conservative Government which has considered all the questions that are raised in this Bill and that a Conservative Government has accepted the Bill introduced in the House of Commons, where it was altered and amended. After so long a time has passed and after all the difficulties have been confronted and surmounted, will your Lordships, when it comes before you, allow a dilatory Motion to be passed not, as will be said, upon its merits but in truth because it will help to kill a Bill which is disliked?
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I desire to enter a protest on behalf

441
of those responsible for this Motion against the innuendoes and suggestions made by the noble Marquess who, in the course of his last few sentences, gave two totally divergent views of the action we have taken. He was good enough to say that he did not himself believe that this Motion was being moved from any malice or from any ulterior motive, but a moment later he proceeded to say that it was desired to send the Bill to a Select Committee not really on its merits. I repudiate that from every possible standpoint. I will endeavour in the very few moments which I shall occupy of your Lordships' time to show the noble Marquess and the House that there is no other course open to us than that which we are taking.
The noble Marquess went into the question of the tribunal. I would like to challenge him upon that. There are two points of view from which I think he underestimated our difficulties. The first one was mentioned by Lord Carson when he impressed upon your Lordships the magnitude of this Bill. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Parmoor, made an observation which was most helpful from this standpoint. He mentioned that one surveyor had settled a matter involving, I think, £13,000,000 worth of property. That is exactly the argument which was used on the Irish Land Bill for three or four months. Nobody knows that better than my noble friend the Earl of Balfour. We were told that three individuals were going to deal with the cases, that they would settle test cases, and that then there would be general agreement. Instead of that courts had to be established all over the country. I submit, notwithstanding what the noble Marquess and the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, has said, that this will not be a case of one man being competent to settle many million pounds' worth of property, but it will mean appointing two or three hundred surveyors to deal with the vast number of cases which will arise, and they will not have the knowledge and possibly not the impartiality which were suggested as desirable by the noble Marquess. How are we to deal with that question here?
The noble Lord, Lord Carson, made out a good case for legal consideration. How can we put in a legal clause here? We should at once be debarred by the House of Commons on the ground that we had
442
provided for the expenditure of a large sum of public money and our Amendment could not even be considered in that House. We are absolutely powerless to put in any tribunal, as I understand it, except one paid by the parties; and, if I read the Bill aright, the payment to be made is to be assessed by the very man to whom it is to be paid. Did anybody ever hear of such a suggestion as that in a matter of this kind? I will take another point with which we have not the requisite information to deal. The noble Marquess, speaking from the other side, was very careful to leave out of consideration and, indeed, the Government speakers have refrained from mentioning, one of the most important points in the Bill. The original proposal was that leaseholders should come under the Bill. In the last few days in the House of Commons it was further provided that all tenants from year to year, or even for less periods, were to be brought under the Bill. I challenge any member of the Government to give me any idea of the numbers of persons who will be included by that Amendment. You can only estimate that it will swell the work of the courts as compared with the work which would have been entailed on the first decision of the House of Commons. That is one thing.
But look at the inequity which will be brought about by this Bill as it stands, inequity as between classes of persons who are equally deserving, and its want of finality. I firmly believe that this Bill must be supplemented before it is five years old by one of a much more far-reaching character if there is to be equity done in this country at all. I will take two cases if I may. I will take first the case of a man who is a tenant from year to year. The general view always held is that a landlord who lets upon a lease does so because he wishes the tenant to expend what is necessary. The man who lets from year to year may desire the property to continue to be occupied but never expects the tenant to lay out large sums. But five years from now any number of tenants from year to year or from month to month may go to the Courts and say: "If I may not make these improvements I cannot occupy the house to my advantage." If the case goes against the landlord he must either pay compensation or give a lease. In

443
other words, it is plain that a great number of persons who have temporary possession will acquire permanent possession of property if the surveyor decides to give it to them.
A man who has expended sums running into tens of thousands of pounds in making improvements which are unexhausted at the end of a lease, if those improvements were not made after the passing of this Bill will be debarred from any compensation whatever. The inequity between these two classes of individuals, I submit, cannot possibly continue. There will be a further Bill which will extend compensation from improvements made after the passing of the Bill to improvements made before its passing. There is another inequity which has not been referred to yet in the debate. A professional man is to be allowed to claim for any improvement which he has made. But if the professional man, why not the private individual? Houses want modernising. At this moment there are probably four or five times as many motor cars in this country as there were four or five years ago. A man requires a garage. Is it not a hard thing to say to a man: "You must not have a garage, or if you do, at the end of your lease you will have no compensation"? It is not merely the professional man, but every tenant, in my opinion, if one has a right, should have a right to compensation. There are many other things which are required in private houses. Servants nowadays will not live in the quarters that they used to live in. I went into a house the other day, not a very large house, and found that the sole apartment for seven or eight servants to have their meals in had no access to the outer air. Such things cannot continue. But is it fair to tell a tenant that because he has not got a profession the structural alterations for which he pays very large sums are to be taken from him?
I feel that this Bill cannot stand as it is. There is no finality about it. It must be developed and will be developed. Though from the very bottom of my heart I agree with the Lord Chancellor's dictum that it is the business of the Conservative Party to take responsibility for social improvement and to be in the forefront of such responsibility, I think we have a right to ask at least that a measure which we are called upon to pass
444
in a great hurry should not only have some measure of finality but should be equitable as between classes. This measure certainly is not. I do not see how it is possible on the floor of this House either to settle the tribunal or to get the information which will enable us to say whether this is a question of 5,000 cases a year or 100,000 cases a year. We have no evidence, and the Government cannot give it.
We are told that delay will be fatal to the Bill this year. But if your Lordships are unable to take the responsibility of checking a Bill which you have neither time to debate nor power to amend, the sooner this House is closed the better. I wish the Earl of Oxford was present. He said—if I do not quote his exact words it is the sense of them—that when a Liberal Government was in power their measures were carefully overhauled and revised in this House. When a Conservative Government is in power, my Lords, we are asked to turn ourselves into a register office. We are not given time and we are told that we should be misconceived outside if we do anything to thwart the progress of a Bill. Time is short and I will not advance other arguments which I should have liked to bring forward in answer to the speech just delivered, but I make this suggestion to the Lord Chancellor. We have no desire that a Select Committee should be appointed for such protracted sittings as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has done us the honour to suggest we should like to see in order that the work might be competently done upstairs. The principle of this Bill has been accepted, rightly or wrongly. Some people think it has been rightly accepted and some people on these Benches think it has been wrongly accepted. I suggest that the instructions to the Select Committee, which no doubt would be drawn up by the Government if it is appointed, should not include any inquiry into the principle of the measure but should be limited to the definite questions to which reference has been made, specially in the speeches of the two noble Lords who have just spoken—the question of the tribunal and the question of the class of tenants who should be included and in what numbers they are likely to come before the tribunal. It is useless to refer questions to county courts, which are already overburdened,

445
if there are to be tens of thousands of cases.
I hope you Lordships will understand that the observations I have made were not made for debating purposes. If the principle is accepted, I think the Bill ought to cover all the cases which are really serious cases. I believe that a Select Committee, appointed early next year and applying itself to all these cases, could produce a Bill which would be almost in the nature of an agreed Bill and which might be passed with celerity through this House and, if the Government were so disposed, with certainty through the House of Commons. I ask that the measure should be a well-weighed measure, which this is not; an equitable measure, which I submit this is not; and a comprehensive measure, containing some kind of finality, such as, I submit to your Lordships, is not to be found in the measure before the House.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: My Lords, this debate has been largely in the hands of noble Lords who are not only learned in the law but most learned in the law, and I should be the last to wish to contend with them in the interpretation of clauses which surely might better be left for the Committee stage. The principal reason why I venture to take part in this debate is that forty-one years ago in another place I moved for the appointment of the first Select Committee which examined the question of town holdings. There are only three members of that Committee now surviving. One is my noble friend Lord Selborne, and the third is a gentleman who does not at present sit in either House. The Town Holdings Committee sat for six years in succession and produced six volumes of evidence which are, I believe, the longest record of any Select Committee in the whole history of Parliament. Your Lordships will thus have some idea of what the inquiries of a Select Committee into this question might mean. There was associated with this Inquiry what was then the moving matter of leasehold enfranchisement, and for four years I introduced in another place a Bill to carry it out. I am afraid that the Bill was far more drastic than that which your Lordships are now considering. The credit of defeating that Bill and that movement belong, I think, more than to anybody else to my noble friend Lord
446
Haldane, who then wielded great authority in another place and who was set upon what was called municipalisation of town values in order that the unearned increment might be taken by the community at large.
Considering the amount of inquiry that has taken place into this question, I think it requires some hardihood on the part of those who have supported this Motion to suggest that there should be yet another. I shudder to think when the Bill would come finally back to your Lordships for consideration. I think it is fairly evident from the very able speeches to which we have listened that, whatever the intention of those who are opposing the Government, the effect of their action would undoubtedly be to destroy the measure, not only for this Session but for this Parliament. Everybody knows that obstruction in another place has been carried to so perfect a pitch that it would be absolutely certain, considering the complexity of the Bill and, in addition, the other measures that the Government have in view, that there would be no chance of its coming up again for the consideration of your Lordships' House. I admit that the Bill seems to me, if I may say so with all respect, a triumph of bad drafting. On the other hand, it is drafting which could be dealt with by a Committee of the Whole House, and ought to be so dealt with. A Select Committee is appointed, not to redraft a measure, but to consider it on its merits.
My noble friend who has just spoken said that he and those with whom he was acting were willing to accept instructions that the Committee should not interfere with the principle of the Bill. I do not know whether any of your Lordships with longer experience of the proceedings of the House know of such a case, but I cannot conceive of a Select Committee which did not inquire into the principle of a Bill. Nobody is more anxious than I am to preserve the rights and privileges of this House as a revising Chamber, but I submit that the arguments do not ring true which suggest that your Lordships have not ample opportunity of revising this Bill in Committee. It is impossible, no doubt—
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: How would my noble friend revise the tribunal?
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: My noble and learned friend behind me [Lord Merrivale] has told me that he has already drafted a clause, which he can suggest to your Lordships, which he thinks would meet all the objections that have been urged in this respect. What is the difficulty, in those circumstances, in asking him to submit it to us in Committee? I wish to say a word later on the subject of the tribunal, but I wanted to deal specially with the manner in which it is proposed that the Bill should be treated. If there were any reality in this argument, then I think your Lordships ought to compare the suggested procedure in the case of this Bill with that of which we have had to complain in so many other instances. Nobody feels move strongly that I do about the rights and privileges of this House as a revising Chamber. Three weeks of the Parliamentary Session are yet unexhausted and there would be no difficulty, especially considering the number of great lawyers who sit among us, in satisfactorily re-drafting the Bill in such a way that it could be made a practical measure of reform.
My noble and learned friend Lord Carson, who always delights the House, spoke a great deal about Irish land. He pronounced a striking eulogy of the leasehold system. With all his great experience, I do not think he has come much in contact with local government in our great towns, and especially in the County of London. I am bound to say that, if you examine the housing question, you will find that the worst scandals in connection with the housing of the people have arisen because of the leasehold system. It is the want of security at the fag-ends of leases and the state of disrepair into which small tenements are allowed to fall because of the impending loss that account for a good deal that we are now trying to set right in regard to the housing of the people, especially in London. The leasehold system is everywhere known as the London system, and it is a great mistake for your Lordships to think that the grievances which it is sought to meet in this Bill are fictitious or imaginary. There is hardly a street of traders in London in which hard cases are not occurring every month and every year, and although it is true, as Lord Carson has said, and as we often
448
hear, that hard cases make bad law, hard cases also make bad feeling.
I should not support this Bill unless I believed that it strengthened and justified the rights of property and that it would bring up the practice of the bad landlord—and it is said that the Crown is the worst landlord; I do not say so, but it is said here freely—to the standard of the good landlord. I do not want to trouble your Lordships with hard cases, but I heard only the other day of a wretched dressmaker who during five years had had her rent raised from £200 to £600 in one of the West-end streets, simply because of the goodwill that she had created and that attached to the premises in which she was carrying on her trade. It does not, as the noble Marquess, Lord Beading, said, admit of doubt that there are such cases, and it has not in any way been controverted in the course of the debate.
When we come to details, what is the Committee stage for except to examine the Bill in detail? It has been said, I think with great reason, that the tribunal which it is proposed to set up does not meet the necessities of the case and might produce some unfortunate conclusions. I still think that the county courts of the country, assisted by expert assessors and valuers, might even now be substituted for the special tribunal of experts, the establishment of which is contemplated by the clauses of the Bill. At any rate that is a matter which ought to be argued on the floor of this House. It is emphatically not a matter for inquiry by a Select Committee, and because I believe that I urge your Lordships, with all this time at your disposal, when no doubt you can consider the Bill adequately, to reject this Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. Your Lordships will all recollect the words of Coleridge in his "Table Talk," that the three ends which a statesman ought to propose to himself were security to the possessors, facilities to inquirers, and hope to all. Because I believe, although imperfectly and with many faults in point of form, this Bill goes to establish those principles of legislation, I support it this evening.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I have no intention of making a speech this evening on the details of the Bill, but because of the interest which many eminent

449
members of my own profession have declared in this Bill, and because for now a very great part of my lifetime I have been familiar with these questions, I do not feel at liberty to allow the House to pass to a Division, which might perhaps upon a narrow majority be fatal to the Bill, without declaring my views. I am going to state in half a dozen words a few facts. I remember well the agitation about the Agricultural Holdings Act which led to its being passed by a Conservative Government, and I remember various discussions which have occurred since. I practised at the Bar during a very great part of the intervening time, and became intimately familiar with these questions. I sat in the House of Commons, off and on, for the best part of twenty years, and I knew the hardship which was experienced by many, who regretted that no one grappled with it.
In view therefore of my own acquaintance with the matter, and considering the view I formed that it ought to be dealt with in the interests of social order and fair play, I did not feel at liberty to be silent when eminent members of the legal profession, and the heads of the Judiciary were expressing strong views. With regard to this Bill, I refreshed my mind by reading the very short speech with which the Lord Chancellor introduced it. I can only say, with great diffidence, that if I made a speech on the subject I should be glad to be able to make that speech. If it comes back to your Lordships you will know what he said about it. He identified certain glaring evils, such as the unjust deprivation of increment due to unexhausted improvements, the deprivation of the benefits of goodwill, the harsh and mischievous abuse of covenants of right contrary to their intention, the scandalous instances in which discredit is brought upon our system of property, and the mode in which we carry on our social life. They are matters of common knowledge, and matters so well known that hardly anybody who has proposed a course with regard to this Bill which may be fatal to it at present, and may be fatal to it in the future, has denied the existence of these hardships.
That is the way in which the matter stands, and so, not minimising the force of the criticism there is about the drafting of the Bill—the draftsman seems to
450
have been an enthusiast, and perhaps a little exuberant—I ask your Lordships not to push aside a Bill to which the House of Commons has given a unanimous Third Reading for causes of that kind. As to the evils, and as to the proposals, there is very little real criticism. The real criticism has been addressed to the tribunal. I do not believe anybody who admires our system of law, under which it is the boast of our countrymen that all of us can go to His Majesty's Courts and insist upon our rights or get redress for our wrongs—I do not believe anyone who takes that view is contented with this tribunal. It is described as, at best, a bureaucratic tribunal. I do not believe it deserves that credit. It is a tribunal composed of irresponsible persons. I do not know if the men who are delegated to select these judges know of persons qualified to be the final judges on these questions of fact, as well as capable of deciding matters of law, but the real question here is not whether any noble Lord likes the tribunal, but whether, with a tribunal capable of amendment, you are going to throw all the labour of the House of Commons in this matter to the winds, and are going to take a Bill upon which infinite labour has been spent and refer if to a Select Committee in the face of His Majesty's Government. One noble Lord spoke of a small Bill of his which had been before a Select Committee for two years, and another noble Lord referred to a question which occupied five or six years. There is no limit to this inquiry.
In order to have a definite view about it I read the Bill and particularly the clauses about the tribunal. The clauses as to the tribunal now contain one proviso which can bring many subjects to the High Court, and I am satisfied that a competent draftsman could introduce other provisos which would restore to the Courts that authority in grave matters between subject and subject which all of us think the Courts ought to hold. If that is so, really to send the Bill to a Select Committee would, I venture to suggest to your Lordships, be a disappointment to many people who look forward to this Bill, something in the nature of a grave injury to His Majesty's Government, and an affront to the House of Commons, and one which is quite needless. A noble friend in

451
front of me said that I had had the temerity to draft a proviso. I have read the clauses and jotted down something on the lines of which I thought you could secure the authority of His Majesty's Courts. For my part I would secure their authority, even if it involved some sacrifice, which I am glad to think it does not.
I will read the proviso which I have jotted down, not because I expect the Government to adopt it but because I think it shows a line of advance which can be taken advantage of by the whole House, and on consideration of which I think it will be clear to any lawyer that this Bill can be dealt with not in an unfriendly spirit but in a public spirit in Committee of the whole House. It is as follows:—
"Provided further that a proceeding before the tribunal shall be deemed to be a proceeding in the High Court of Justice, and that upon application made by the claimant or any other person affected by the claim the High Court of Justice or a Judge thereof may give directions as to the conduct of such proceedings, review any finding or findings of fact, with power to direct a rehearing in respect of the same, or to rehear the same and to make such final order in the proceeding as the Court or Judge shall deem proper to be made, subject always to such provision as to costs as the Court or Judge may see fit to require before or during the proceeding or in such order as aforesaid."
It has been suggested that tenants ought to be terrified at the prospect of being ruined by costs. I see that prospect. That is why I put in the concluding words there, which should enable His Majesty's Courts to take precautions as to costs and to visit them upon the right people.
Then I drafted in the same spirit a further proviso:—
"Provided further that on the application of a party the High Court of Justice or a Judge thereof may direct that a Judge of a county court to be therein named shall exercise in respect of the proceeding in question like powers in all respects to those conferred by the preceding proviso upon the High Court of Justice or a Judge thereof."
I may be wrong as to that, but to suggest that with goodwill this House cannot in the course of the next two or three weeks put this Bill into a reasonably satisfactory form is to my mind to suggest something which is wholly unfounded.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I think you are nearly ready to come to a decision on this Motion, and I will not keep you for very long, but I think it would be worth while for us to consider for a few moments exactly where we stand, and with that view I will lay down four propositions. The first is that this House has accepted the principle of this Bill, the principle, namely, that a tenant who leaves behind him unexhausted improvements or goodwill which he has attached to the premises shall receive compensation. I think there is no speaker among those who supported this Motion who denied that principle. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, who moved the Motion, said in terms that there were considerable merits about the Bill, and that something of the kind was necessary to be done. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, said that there were considerable hardships, and even considerable extortion to be dealt with. My noble and learned friend Lord Jessel was in favour of the principle of the Bill. I think that even Lord Carson allowed it some merit. And what is conclusive is this, that your Lordships without a Division, and without a dissentient voice, have passed the Second Reading of this Bill.
Secondly, I do not think I shall be contradicted in this, that if you pass this Motion you will kill the Bill. That is plain to every one of us. We are within three weeks of the end of the Session. In that time no Select Committee can meet or do any work, so that at the end of the Session, about Christmas, the Bill will fall to the ground and the whole process, which has occupied months in another place, must be begun over again. Some noble Lords have spoken as if that meant only a delay for six months or a year. I assure you that is not so. The time of next Session is already very fully mortgaged, and no one can promise that, if your Lordships destroy this Bill now, it will see the light again, either next Session or in the present Parliament. And so if you accept the Motion, the effect will be—I say nothing about the motive of noble Lords, which I fully understand—but the effect will be that, with words of approval of the principle in your mouths, you will in fact have destroyed this Bill.

453
I am rather surprised that my noble friend Lord Harris, who has the reputation of wielding a straight bat, has consented to take a part in such a manœuvre.
Thirdly, I will add this, that if you do so destroy the Bill you will not only defeat the deliberate policy of His Majesty's Government, which was announced to the country a year ago by the Prime Minister, and which found a conspicuous place in the gracious Speech at the beginning of the Session, but you will deal a blow at the credit and influence of this House. I do not believe that any noble Lord is going to give a vote for any selfish motive, but, for all that, it will be said, and very widely said, that this House, while unwilling to meet with a direct negative a Bill which is earnestly desired by tenants throughout the country, and which has the unanimous approval of the other House, has yet been willing under cover of this Motion to destroy it. I think that if you take that course you will inflict a grave, perhaps an irretrievable, injury upon this House itself.
My fourth proposition is this, that there is another course open to you, not perhaps that which some noble Lords would prefer, for they would like a Select Committee, but still preferable to the course which I have just described. It is open to you—for there is ample time, more time than we shall require, even for a Bill of great importance—to examine this Bill in a Committee of the Whole House. And, having quite lately had the experience of conducting two Bills through that Committee, I mean the Companies Bill and the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill of the present Session, I know how effective that examination is likely to be. I said in proposing the Second Reading of the Bill, and my noble friend the Secretary of State for India has repeated, that we are ready in that Committee to consider with an open mind any reasonable Amendment which may be proposed by any member of this House. I hope that I may be allowed to say that your Lordships will know from experience that, when I make that promise, it is no idle promise, and that I shall consider such Amendments with an earnest desire to give effect to every reasonable proposal that may be made. Surely, with those four propositions
454
before you, the course which should be taken by everyone who desires that justice should be done, both to tenants and landlords, is clear, and you cannot, if you have that wish, accept to-day the Motion proposed by the noble Lord.
I might almost stop there, but it is desirable, as some points of importance have been raised, that I should go a little further. Now, in my opinion, setting aside arguments against the principle of the Bill, which have somehow crept into the debate, one big point has been made. That is the question of the tribunal. It has been made by noble Lords sitting in every quarter of the House. I want to say a few words about that point. When we were considering the frame of this Bill we had, or thought we had, three courses open to us. One was to remit these questions to the Courts. I am not pronouncing a final opinion upon that course, but we thought it would overload the Courts with a great deal of business which could be better done elsewhere. Our second possible course was to follow the precedent of the Acquisition of Lands Act, 1919, under which permanent whole-time referees are appointed to decide between the Government and the subject when land belonging to the subject is taken. There are to-day three such referees; but we thought it undesirable to add to their number because it was impossible to know how much business would arise for decision under this Bill.
Then there was the third course which we have embodied in the Bill. That is to say, we set up a very powerful Committee called the Reference Committee, consisting of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Law Society and the President of the Surveyors' Institution. We ask that Committee to make rules governing these references and the procedure in regard to them and we ask them to set up a panel of referees. Those referees may be surveyors, they may even be lawyers, but they would always be men whom the Reference Committee think to be the best and most experienced in their several districts. They would appoint these men not only from London but from all over the country so that they may be near the places where they will have work to do. It is not proposed that these

455
should be whole-time appointments. It is proposed that they should be men in active practice and therefore having daily experience. But our view was that an Englishman who is put in the position of a judge always succeeds in being fair. Once these men are asked to adjudicate between landlord and tenant they will do what is fair. They will have to deal with questions of value, structure and so on, matters which they are far more able to deal with than any court that could be named; because they have knowledge and the court, of course, would need to be instructed. When you are dealing with questions of amount it is the daily practice to refer such matters to an official referee or a special referee. So it appeared to us, rightly or wrongly, that this was the kind of tribunal which was required under this Bill.
Further, we do not leave that tribunal without a check. The Bill provides three ways in which their decisions may be brought before the Courts. The first is to be found in subsection (1) of Clause 20. If it appears to the High Court on the application of either party that on account of the magnitude of the claim and the questions of law involved the case is one which it is desirable shall be tried in the High Court, the matter may be transferred to the High Court for trial. In a later subsection of the same clause there is power to the referee to state his award in the form of a special case to the Courts. That is to say, he will state the facts and ask the Court to determine the law in cases where he has any doubt or where the parties apply to him to take that course. Thirdly, if he should decline to take that course, and referees do not often decline to do so, power is given to the High Court to direct the referee to state his award in the form of a special case and so send it to the Courts. Those are the three alternative checks upon the referee, and any of your Lordships who has experience in these matters will know them to be not without great value.
We are not without experience in this matter. The same procedure has been followed under earlier Acts, not only under the Agricultural Holdings Act, but under the Acquisition of Land Act, 1916, and the Law of Property Act. Rules have been made under those Acts which have given us valuable experience. Those are our proposals and I am not yet convinced
456
that we are not right. But I have been impressed, of course, as your Lordships must have been impressed, by the criticisms of these proposals which have come not only from those who are actively opposed to the Bill but from those who are supporters of the principle of the Bill, such as my noble friends Lord Ernle, Lord Phillimore, Lord Reading, and Lord Burnham. We are all impressed by what we have heard from those noble Lords and I am quite prepared to say that the Government are ready to listen in Committee to any proposals which may be made with regard to the procedure or to the tribunal to be appointed. I would say more than that. After what has happened in this debate I will make it my business to consider with my colleagues whether we can ourselves make a proposal which would meet so far as possible the objections taken and which may be consistent with the rules of order. I do not think I can say more than that we are willing to consider it and to do our best in the matter.
As to the other criticisms, putting aside those which attack the whole principle of the Bill. I hope I shall not be wrong in saying that they seem to me to be minor criticisms and not of any great importance. Many of them were founded on a misunderstanding of the provisions of the Bill. The misunderstandings were so many that I despair at this hour of dealing with them all and will only mention one or two instances. One noble Lord (Lord Harris) said that a tenant for a few months could get compensation. Of course that is not true. He must have been there for at least three years before he gets compensation for improvements and he must have been there for at least five years before he gets compensation for goodwill. Again, the same noble Lord suggested that the compensation charge would take priority over a mortgage. There, too, I think he was mistaken. There is no suggestion that any charge for compensation shall come before an existing charge.
The noble Viscount, Lord Sumner, who dealt very faithfully with the details of the Bill, fell into certain errors of which I will mention only two. He thought, apparently, that the referees would be selected in rotation and, therefore, that you might not get the best men. That is not so. The referees will be chosen according to rules to be made by the

457
Reference Committee, and the rules made by that Committee under earlier Acts have provided that the referee shall be chosen by the Reference Committee itself, who will see that the best man that can be had is chosen for the purpose. The noble Viscount also thought that the referee would direct how the costs were to be taxed. That again is not so. The costs are to be taxed in such manner as may be prescribed; that is, prescribed by rules made by the Committee. Then the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, thought that we had provided that the refered might fix his own fees. Of course that is not so either. Those fees, too, will be fixed by an independent authority—namely, the Reference Committee.
I do not want to go now into all these details. I think I have said enough to show that a few minutes in Committee, when such points as these may be raised,
will suffice to clear the air and disabuse noble Lords of the misapprehensions under which they lie. As to the other matters they are, I think, all proposals to amend the Bill in detail and they can be easily dealt with by your Lordships in Committee on the Bill. I can see nothing, I have heard nothing, except the point relating to the tribunal, and even that can be dealt with in Committee—I have heard nothing which would justify a virtual rejection of this Bill, and I hope, indeed, that your Lordships will think twice and three times before you take the very serious step of accepting this Motion and so postponing indefinitely all chance of legislation on the lines of this Bill.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be referred to a Select Committee?
Their Lordship? divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 109.

CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hindlip, L.

Northumberland, D.

Novar, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Sumner, V.

Hylton, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Jessel, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Lindsey, E.

Aldenham, L.

Lamington, L.

Lovelace, E.

Ampthill, L.

Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Carson, L.

Leigh, L.

Midleton, E.

Deramore, L.

Mowbray, L.

Morton, E.

Erskine, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Northbrook, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Sandys, L.

Selborne, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Sydenham of Combe, L.

Faringdon, L.

Wittenham, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Harris, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

De La Warr, E.

Dunedin, V.

Denbigh, E.

Falmouth, V.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Fortescue, E.

Haldane, V.

Grey, E.

Peel, V.

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Harrowby, E.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Howe, E.

Durham, L. Bp.

Sutherland, D.

Iddesleigh, E.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Wellington, D.

Iveagh, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Leven and Melville, E.

Atkinson, L.

Bath, M.

Lichfield, E.

Avebury, L.

Camden, M.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Bethell, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Mayo, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Boston, L.

Queensberry, M.

Onslow, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Reading, M.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Charnwood, L.

Russell, E.

Clwyd, L.

Airlie, E.

Scarbrough, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Ancaster, E.

Spencer, E.

Danesfort, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Stanhope, E.

Darling, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Strafford, E.

Daryngton, L.

Buxton, E.

Ernle, L.

Cavan, E.

Burnham, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Clarendon, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Churchill, V.

Hampton, L.

Dartmouth, E.

De Vesci, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Hayter, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Southwark, L.

Hemphill, L.

Olivier, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Howard of Glossop, L.

Parmoor, L.

Islington, L.

Phillimore, L.

Stanmore, L.

Kilmaine, L.

Rathereedan, L.

Strachie, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kylsant, L.

Riddell, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Lovat, L.

Roundway, L.

Swaythling, L.

Marshall of Chipstead, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Teynham, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

St. Levan, L.

Thomson, L.

Mereworth, L. (L. Oranmore and Browne.)

Sandhurst, L.

Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

Shaw, L.

Merrivale, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Wargrave, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

Warrington of Clyffe, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Southborough, L.

Resolved in the negative and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, we propose to take this Bill in Committee on Thursday next, but I cannot hope with any great confidence that we shall get the Committee in one night and in that case I shall ask your Lordships to sit on the Friday following.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have no objection, but I hope the noble Marquess will allow us to sit after dinner on Thursday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Most certainly.

CHINESE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE CASUALTIES.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether, without giving particulars prejudicial to the force, they can give information as to the casualties (1) from disease, and (2) from wounds suffered in the Chinese Expeditionary Force.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I will give the figures as to casualties divided under three heads—the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. I take it that is what the noble Earl wishes. In the Army the casualties from accidents, etc., are: 6 British other ranks died, 4 British officers injured and 2 British other ranks injured. From disease: 1 British officer, 27 British other ranks and 1 Indian other rank died. Then as to wounds, 1 British other rank and 1 Indian other rank died of wounds. The number wounded not fatally were: 2 British officers, 9 British other ranks and 2 Indian other ranks. In the Air Force there has been no casualty as the result of enemy action, but 1 officer and 3 airmen died as the result of accidents, etc., and 3 officers were injured as the result of accidents. In the Navy there were no casualties in action, and from available records it has not been possible to distinguish between casualties from disease which may have occurred as the result of service in China and those which may have been expected under normal conditions. With regard to the Twelfth Royal Marine Battalion, there were no casualties in action and no deaths.
House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.