Sitting of 22 November 1927

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  PERTH COUNTY BUILDINGS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Perth County Buildings," presented by Secretary Sir JOHN GILMOUR; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

    APPLICATIONS.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of applications for safeguarding that he has received, the number rejected, the number referred to committees, and the results of their recommendations?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The total number of applications received is 46. Seventeen applications have been referred to committees of inquiry; in eight of these cases the committees have reported unfavourably, in seven cases favourably, and in two the inquiries are proceeding. Safeguarding duties have been imposed in all cases where they have been recommended by the committees. In four other cases—touring cars, commercial cars, tyres and carbon electrodes—duties have been imposed in recent Finance Acts. Five applications are under consideration. Of the remainder, three were covered by the Government's decision on iron and steel, and 17 have been rejected by the Board of Trade as
    1566
    failing to establish a prima facie case under the White Paper.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Would it not be a very good thing to replace this committee by one which is more patriotic?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the answer.
    Mr. LOOKER: Does the Minister think that the complicated nature of the procedure which has to be gone through has any effect in deterring applicants from making applications?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question also does not arise out of the answer.

    LACE INDUSTRY.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade how the volume of production in the lace industry now compares with the period before the imposition of the safeguarding duty on lace?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I regret that the information furnished by the trade is still not sufficiently complete for me to give the particulars which my hon. Friend desires.
    Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that there has been a very substantial improvement in this trade since the Safeguarding Duties were imposed?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I quoted statistics recently from a large proportion of the factories—all which were available to me. On the evidence, I think it is certainly fair to say that if the duty was not there the trade which is still maintained in this country would undoubtedly have gone.
    Mr. KELLY: May I ask if that statement refers to the export trade in lace and net?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It refers to the trade generally. The hon. Member knows that there is a limited demand for this commodity, and were it .not for the fact that a duty had been imposed I very much doubt whether the trade could have maintained its position at all.

  COMPANIES BILL.
  Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has re-

  1567
  ceived representations from the Birmingham Law Society and other law societies urging the passing of the Companies Bill during the Autumn Session; and if he is in a position to state the date upon which he will take the Second Reading?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have seen representations from some of the country law societies in the sense indicated. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on 17th November, of which I am sending him a copy.
  Mr. HANNON: Can the Minister give an undertaking that this Bill will be introduced as early as possible in the next Session of Parliament?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not thing I can give an undertaking, but we are anxious to introduce this Bill. The hon. Member will appreciate that it would be very unfair to ask a Committee to devote a good deal of attention to this Bill this Session if there were not time to proceed with it through the remaining stages.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    MOTOR CARS AND PARTS (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of. Trade whether he has received any representations from the motor industry in regard to the classification of imports and exports of motors (complete) and chassis, as set out in the Trade and Navigation Returns; and whether he will consider the possibility, as from 1st January, 1928, of setting forth the Returns under the headings of private cars (complete), commercial vehicles (complete), chassis constructed solely for commercial use, chassis, all other, in accordance with the representations of the trade?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Touring cars and commercial vehicles, complete, are already distinguished in the Import and Export Trade Returns. From 1st January, 1928, chassis also will he classified in the Export Returns in the manner suggested in my hon. Friend's
    1568
    question. In the Import Returns, however, the present classification of chassis will remain unchanged, as, in many cases, the British importer would not be able to declare whether or not chassis imported from abroad were "constructed solely for commercial use."

    SHIPPING RATES.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that all the British steamship lines engaged in the East African trade have agreed to the proposals of the Shipping Conference that they should impose a special surcharge of 5s. per bill-of-lading ton upon all goods shipped by British steamers; whether the German and Dutch lines are free from this surcharge; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation to relieve British trade from this burden imposed upon it by an international body?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I am informed that when goods are shipped from East Africa for continental destinations by British steamship lines which are sailing direct to the continent, no extra charge is made. The British lines charge the extra 5s. per ton on goods shipped for continental destinations only when transhipment between this country and the continent is involved, and the 5s. per ton is charged to recoup them to some extent for the cost of transhipment. If cargo destined for Great Britain is shipped by foreign lines which are proceeding to the continent so that transhipment from the continent to Great Britain is involved, the foreign lines similarly charge 5s. per ton extra. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Arising out of the last part of the answer, is it the case that when foreign lines bring goods from East Africa to this country that 5s. surtax is not charged?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, nor when goods are shipped direct from East Africa to this country. This charge is only made where there is either trans-shipment in this country for further shipment to the Continent, or trans-shipment on the Continent for further shipment to this country.
    Mr. WADDINGTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether four months ago British steam-ship owners did not withdraw this 5s. surtax, recognising that it was injurious to British trade, and whether they have been compelled to reimpose the surtax at the request of Dutch and German ship owners? In that case, will he take steps to protect British traders?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Obviously, I must have notice of a question of that comprehensiveness.
    Mr. HARDIE: Where goods are shipped to the Continent but are not discharged there, having been sold on the voyage and coming on to some port here, is the charge of 5s. which was put on because the cargo was first consigned to the Continent still carried on here?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not sure that I altogether follow that process. I think I ought to see that question on the Paper. The answer I have given covers the specific question I was asked. The answer, shortly, is that, so far as I am aware, the 5s. charge is only made when there is trans-shipment either at a Continental port or in this country.
    Mr. HARDIE: The question I ask is quite simple. In the case of the goods being first consigned to the Continent, and then being sold while at sea and coming on to a British port, is that 5s. still carried on to the price here?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put that question on the Paper.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the freight rate for cotton goods from Antwerp to Alexandria is 15s. per ton, while the freight rate from Liverpool to Alexandria is 55s. per ton, and that this disparity in freights is a severe handicap upon British trade and a cause of unemployment in Britain; whether these freight rates are arranged by the Shipping Conference; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation designed to safeguard British interests in this matter?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The rates quoted are substantially correct, although I am informed that the rate from this country covers certain inland charges which are not covered in the rate from
    1570
    Antwerp. The disparity is due to the fact that as regards shipments from the Continent a rate war is in progress between German, French and British shipowners. There is a Conference for shipments from Antwerp to the Mediterranean, but owing to the rate war the Conference rates do not at present apply. The rates from England are arranged by the Mediterranean Shipping Conference. The matter is not one on which I am prepared to recommend legislation.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not of opinion that it is high time his Department applied to this House for legislation to enable him to deal with a situation which is of manifest hurt to British trade and industry?
    Mr. HANNON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask this further question—whether he is aware that the same set of circumstances arose in relation to our trade with South America, and whether the differentiation in rates is not causing considerable hard-ship to British exporters?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think I had better deal with one trade at a time—with the one part of the world which is referred to in the question. I am not prepared to accept the general premise which the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) advanced, but I think it would be very unwise and very much against the interests of British shippers and British trade generally to invite any Government Department to interfere arbitrarily in the general trade position.
    Mr. WADDINGTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps, not by legislation, but by the reference of these important questions to the Imperial Shipping Committee, a body which already exists to deal with them?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, most certainly, and every case which either traders or the Government of any part of the Empire desire to bring before the Imperial Shipping Committee has been brought before them. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that that is much the best form in which these difficult and complicated matters can be thrashed out.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what power the Imperial Shipping Committee has over

    1571
    a Mediterranean Shipping Conference upon which shipowners from other countries are in the majority?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Imperial Shipping Committee has the power to make inquiries, and, particularly, inquiries from the point of view of what is in the interest of Imperial trade, and I think the record of the Imperial Shipping Committee and the results which have followed from its inquiries and reports shows that while it has not executive power its influence is very great and wisely used.
    Mr. BECKETT: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to why there is no competition between British shipowners to bring down freights, and, if he knows it is the result of a ring, cannot he take action?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

    The following STATEMENT shows the Value of the TRADE of CHINA with each of the undermentioned Countries during the Years 1925 and 1926 respectively.

    —

    Imports into China.

    Exports from China.

    1925.

    1926.

    1925.

    1926.

    Thousand £

    Thousand £

    Thousand £

    Thousand £

    Great Britain

    16,251

    18,107

    8,413

    8,695

    United States of America (including Hawaii).

    24,866

    29,222

    24,977

    23,377

    Japan (including Formosa)

    52,301

    52,467

    32,512

    32,974

    Germany

    5,672

    7,113

    2,866

    2,766

    For periods other than calendar years, the returns of the Chinese Maritime Customs, from which these figures are derived, furnish particulars only for individual ports, and, consequently, comparable data with those given in the table are not available for 1927.

    MILK (SALE IN BOTTLES).
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that he has suggested to local authorities that they should not take proceedings under the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, so far as the Act applies to milk sold in bottles, he will say for how long a period he proposes that local authorities should not take such action?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is there any reason why these Dutch shipowners who ship from Antwerp to Alexandria at these small rates cannot be brought over to Britain to cut into the extravagant rates which are charged here? Are they shut out from any combination?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question ought to be put on the Paper.

    CHINA.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a return of trade between China, excepting Hong Kong, and each of the following countries, Great Britain, the United States of America, Japan, and Germany, for 1925, 1926, 1927, to the most advanced date possible?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with the permission of the hon. Member, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the table:
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No such suggestion has been made to local authorities. Bottled milk is a pre-packed article under the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, and will be subject to the requirements of that Act on and after the 1st January, 1928. Very large numbers of bottles are in use for the retail distribution of milk, and it has been suggested to local authorities that until such time as there are adequate facilities for milk distributors to provide themselves with bottles or measuring instruments duly stamped by an Inspector of Weights and Measures, no action should be taken under the Weights and Measures Acts in respect of the continued use of unstamped bottles.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: When may we expect the Draft Regulations?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think I can answer that question now. My Department is at present in negotiation with the local authorities and the makers of bottles.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say under what authority he has taken the responsibility of advising local authorities not to carry out an Act of Parliament?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Under the general duty of administering the Weights and Measures Act, which is vested in me by Act of Parliament.

    TEXTILE INDUSTRY.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if having regard to the present position of the textile indutry, he will set up a Commission to in-quire as to the causes of the present depression and the steps to be taken to restore the industry to a satisfactory condition?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As at present advised, I do not think that the textile industries would be materially assisted by the appointment of a special Commission such as the hon. Member suggests.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of applying the provision of the Safeguarding of Industries Act in this case?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question goes beyond the scope of the question on the Paper.

    STEAMSHIP MISHAPS (CONTINENTAL STEEL).
    Sir BERKELEY SHEFFIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any mishaps have occurred lately to steamships directly traceable to the use of continental steel?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, so far as I am aware.

    IRISH FREE STATE (CUSTOMS TARIFF).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give particulars of the duties levied by the Irish Free State on articles manufactured in Great Britain and Northern
    1574
    Ireland which are imported into the Irish Free State; whether similar articles manufactured in the Irish Free State are imported into Great Britain free of duty; and whether the Government are taking any action in this matter?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the Customs Tariff of the Irish Free State, together with a list of the articles referred to which are not dutiable on importation into Great Britain and Northern Ireland. These differences between the Customs Tariffs of the Free State and the United Kingdom, respectively, do not appear to call for any action on the part of His Majesty's Government.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Does my right hon. Friend realise that goods are so heavily taxed on going into the Irish Free State, thereby causing unemployment in this country, whereas the Irish Free State have a free market for their goods in this country?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there not also the case of Canada and Australia?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot pursue this, as it is an argumentative question.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    MECHANISED VEHICLES.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for War whether progress has been or is being consistently made towards silencing the movements of the mechanised force; and to what extent the problem is considered soluble?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I can assure my Noble and gallant Friend that the problem of silencing the movements of mechanised vehicles is one upon which much thought is expended. Within strict financial limits, progress is being made but silence is golden.

    TERRITORIAL ARTILLERY BRIGADE (MECHANISATION).
    Mr. COUPERasked the Secretary of State for War whether the mechanisation of the 43 Territorial artillery brigades during the last annual training proved satisfactory; what is the ap-

    1575
    proximate difference in cost between wholly mechanising and horsing a Territorial field brigade, Royal Artillery; whether an extension of the mechanisation of this arm is contemplated for the next annual training; and, if so, with what nature of tractor?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: From a training point of view, the mechanisation of 43 Territorial artillery brigades proved very satisfactory, and it is the intention to continue next year the present policy, which aims at the full mechanisation, for training purposes, of Army field brigades and of medium brigades and at the mechanisation of at least one battery in each brigade of divisional field artillery. As regards the second part of the question, there is not at present sufficient experience to enable a comparison to be made between the cost of a mechanised and horse Territorial field brigade, Royal Artillery. As regards the last part of the question, the types of tractors at present recommended are light six-wheel lorries for field artillery and medium six-wheel lorries for medium artillery.

    VOCATIONAL TRAINING CENTRE.
    The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. LAWSON:
    15. To ask the Secretary of State for War why the Army Vocational Training Centre at Catterick has now been removed to another part of the country; if so, how many men are now in training at the new centre; and the ranks of such men and the conditions now attached to the training?
    Mr. LAWSON: There is a, mistake in the first line of the question. It was my intention to ask "whether the Army Vocational Training Centre at Catterick has now been removed," and not "why" it has been removed.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Catterick Vocational Training Centre was moved to Chisledon because the facilities for agricultural training at Catterick were not adequate. There were on 1st November approximately 290 men under training at Chisledon of whom some 66 per cent. were privates or lance-corporals. There has been no change in the conditions attached to training as the result of this move.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the Secretary of State for War say how the numbers now in training compare with the numbers before they were moved?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Approximately, they are the same as before they were moved.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Has any additional charge been placed upon the men in attendance?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, the charge was increased before they left Catterick.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Is it not a fact that the men who go there are restricted mostly to non-commissioned officers?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, I did not say that. We have not to make this service self-supporting but it must not be made too costly; otherwise, it would restrict the number who could be trained.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Is not the point of this training to train those who particularly want employment, and is it not the case that it is far more difficult for the rank and file to get employment as a rule than for those who hold higher rank?
    Mr. LAWSON: Has this additional charge been put on since the Army Estimates passed through the House?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I must have notice of that question.

    UNIFORM.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Secretary of State for War whether any changes have recently been made or are about to be made in the issue of full-dress uniform or walking-out dress to units in the British Army?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir.

    SIGNAL SERVICES.
    Mr. WALTER BAKERasked the Secretary of State for War whether consideration has been given to the question whether the needs of the Signal Services of His Majesty's Forces will be prejudiced in any way by a subtantial reduction in the number of male telegraphists employed in the Post Office service; whether any comparable body of men is being trained in methods of signalling suitable

    1577
    to active-service operations; and whether he is causing the problem of the future of the signals to be closely examined?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, Sir; machinery has been established for enabling the military authorities to keep in close touch with the General Post Office on this question. But adequate Army arrangements are already in force for training the wireless operators and telegraphists required for the establishments of the Royal Corps of Signals, and the problem of the future requirements of the Corps is kept under constant review.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY.
    Mr. COUPERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that apprehension exists in the Territorial Army at the possibility of further reductions being made in the Territorial Army Vote in the next financial year; and whether the Council of County Associations has reported indicating any directions in which further economies can be secured?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, Sir. There are natural apprehensions not only in Territorial Army, but in other quarters at this season of the year. I have received suggestions from the Council of County Territorial Associations for certain minor economies which I am considering in connection with the Estimates for 1928.

    PRE-WAR PENSIONERS (WAR SERVICE).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Secretary of State for War if he will have inquiries made into the case of Mr. W. Fisher, pensioned as a warrant officer and subsequently enlisted as a trooper acting warrant officer for a period of five years in the Indian Forces, who has been refused a pension for the additional five years' service after the award of pension (Reference 7/F223 (F/s.); and, seeing that Army Order 445, 1920, provides that a re-enlisted pensioner on discharge shall receive, in addition to his pension already awarded and suspended during re-engagement, an allowance covering the additional service, if he will authorise an addition to the pension of Mr. Fisher of the sum of 7½d. a day, being 1½d. a day for each year of the additional five years' service after the completion of 21 years' service and the award of pension?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have given a great deal of personal consideration to this case, which is a hard one, but I regret that under the Regulations Mr. Fisher is not eligible for any higher rate of pension than that which he receives. I have no power to deal with the taxpayers' money except in accordance with the Regulations.

    OFFICERS (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War what steps, if any, he has taken to apply the Order-in-Council of 25th July last to officers and soldiers of His Majesty's Army respecting their future political activities; whether officers of His Majesty's Army on half-pay will be permitted to become candidates for Parliament; and whether such officers who are peers will be permitted to sit and vote in another place?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Order-in-Council of 25th July, 1927, was applied to the Army by a Royal Warrant of 21st September, 1927, amending the pay warrant, and by Army Orders making appropriate amendments to the King's and Territorial Army Regulations. As stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the question of the Parliamentary candidature of officers on half-pay is to be further examined, and consideration will at the same time be given to the question of issuing Regulations in regard to public servants who are peers of Parliament.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if these Regulations apply to officers who are peers?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better wait until there has been further consideration. It is very inconvenient to deal with this matter piecemeal.

    ARMISTICE DAY SERVICES.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for War whether at future Cenotaph services on Armistice Day the Rise Soldiers Rise reveille can be used in the place of the one used at present; whether the last post can be sounded immediately before the silence and the reveille immediately after it, flags being

    1579
    kept at half-mast till the first notes of the latter; and whether the detachments on parade will be wholly or principally in steel helmets and gas masks instead of in bearskins, etc., in order to emphasise the spirit of the occasion?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary sees no reason for making any change in arrangements which have met with universal approbation, and could not recommend the adoption of any of my noble Friend's suggestions. I would point out to my noble Friend that the British Empire celebrates Armistice Day not as a day of national mourning nor as a celebration of victory, but rather as a commemoration of a great occasion in the national history.
    Viscount SANDON: Has the War Department discussed this matter with the British Legion, and does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not think that the last part of the answer is in itself a strong recommendation for the proposals which I put forward?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I am afraid that I did not hear the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question.
    Viscount SANDON: My supplementary question was that I thought the last part of the answer given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was in itself a recognition of the proposals which I put forward.
    Mr. BECKETT: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not think that memory becomes a mockery when they have all these bearskins and nonsense of that kind? The men did not die in bearskins.

    FIGHTING FORCES (COMPARATIVE STATISTICS).
    Commander WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War what was the cost of the French, Italian, and British Armies in all forms of salaries and pensions in 1913 and what they are to-day?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The total amount provided in Army Estimates, 1927, for pay, marriage allowance,
    1580
    national insurances, gratuities, pensions, salaries and wages is about £33,200,000. The corresponding figure in Army Estimates, 1913, was about £17,750,000. I regret that I have not the information as regards the French and Italian Armies.
    Commander WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War what were the numbers of the French, Italian, and British Armies in 1913 and what are the relative figures for 1927?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have had the figures set out in tabular form and I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Commander WILLIAMS: May I inquire if the salaries in the British Army in proportion to their numbers are not very much higher than those of other armies on the Continent?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Undoubtedly.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Do the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has set out include trained reserves who occupy such a prominent place in Continental armies, and does not that alter the value of the figures which have just been given?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman wait and see?
    Captain GARRO-JONES: No, Sir. I want to know whether the figures referred to make any reference to the trained reserves.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Is it not better that these figures should be given to this House rather than to the Press?
    Mr. SPEAKER: They will be given to the House.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I press the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer to the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones). Will he say whether the figures include the Reserves; otherwise, they are of no value to us.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have answered the question on the Paper, and, if the hon. and gallant Member will

    1581
    look at that question, and then look at my answer to-morrow, he will be able to answer his own question.
    Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy: Does the Secretary of State for War not know the answer?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Oh, yes.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members can pursue this matter by further questions.
    Following are the figures:

    Numbers of British, French and Italian Armies.

    —

    British(exclusive of India).

    French.

    Italian.

    1913

    …

    181,233*

    645,000‡§

    250,000‡

    1927

    …

    152,501†

    715,000§‡

    246,00‡

    *This figure excludes additional numbers (3,300), Royal Flying Corps (1,005), and Central Flying School (62), as well as the Territorial Force and the Reserves.

    †This figure excludes additional numbers (11,999) and Native Indian troops in the Middle East administered by the Air Ministry (2,000), as well as the Territorial Army and the Reserves.

    ‡Approximate figures

    §Including Gendarmerie in France, Colonial Garrisons abroad and North African Iregulars, but excluding Syrian levies.

    Commander WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War what was the pay of the French, Italian, and British private soldier in 1913 and what it is in 1927?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The pay of an infantry recruit in the British Army was 1s. a day in 1913, and is 2s. a day now. In the French and Italian Armies, I believe, that the rates were 5 centimes and 10 centesimi, respectively, in 1913, and are 25 centimes and 40 centesimi now, but the values of the French and Italian currencies are much reduced.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Prime Minister the number of men under arms in Europe to-day under the several heads of Army, Navy, and Air Force?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): It is not possible to state the number of men under arms in Europe to-day under the several heads asked for. The
    1582
    latest and most comprehensive information on the subject can be obtained on reference to the Armaments Year Book of the League of Nations—Third Year, 1926–27—which was issued in January last.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept those figures as official?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should like notice of that question
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Where did the Secretary for War obtain the figures which he published?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That does not arise out of this question.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir G. DALRYMPLEWHITEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, seeing that our expenditure on armaments is calculated to have increased by 8 per cent. since 1913, he will state how much of this increase is due to increased rates of pay to officers and men of the Navy, Army, and Air Force; and what is the total estimated reduction of expenditure since that date when allowance is made for the decreased value of money?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. A. M. Samuel): The calculation to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers appears to be that of the League of Nations. In regard to that calculation, I would refer him to the reply, of which I am sending him a copy, given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 16th November last to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power). I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures of the net Service Departments' Estimates in 1913 and 1927 including Supplementaries, showing separately the effective and non-effective Votes. The total increase is £38,050,700, of which the non-effective charges account for £9,749,800. The increase on effective Votes is £28,337,900, or 40 per cent., which would be more than accounted for by the altered value of money, even if no account were taken of the large additional sums necessitated by the development of the Air Force.
    It is not practicable to separate increases of pay from increases due to re-organisation and re-grading, but a comparison of the main Pay Votes (Vote I)

    1583
    shows on the gross figures an increase of £14,327,000, or 71 per cent. on a personnel (Vote A) reduced from 331,600 in 1913 to 302,000 in 1927, by 9 per cent.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can my hon. Friend say whether the non-effective services of £10,000,000 include pension?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir. I am speaking from memory, but I think the £10,000,000, the sum which I have mentioned, does include pensions.

    Estimated Expenditure on Defence, 1913 and 1927.

    1913.

    —

    Effective.

    Non-effective.

    Total.

    £

    £

    £

    Navy (original estimate)

    …

    …

    43,332,400

    2,976,900

    46,309,300

    Navy (supplementary estimate)

    …

    …

    2,500,000

    —

    2,500,000

    Army

    …

    …

    24,281,000

    3,939,000

    28,220,000

    Total estimated Defence Expenditure

    70,113,400

    6,915,900

    77,029,300

  SCOTLAND.

    BLIND PERSONS ACT.
    Mr. WESTW00Dasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many authorities have exercised their powers under Section 2 of The Blind Persons Act, 1920; and, if any, the names of such authorities?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): Of the 66 county and town councils that are authorities in Scotland for the purposes of the Blind Persons Act, 1920, 62 have in operation schemes approved under Section 2 (1) of the Act. I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate a list of the names of these 62 authorities
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the administrative staff of the War Office the number has approximately doubled and that in the case of the Admiralty the number has nearly trebled, and has he given up all attempts to reduce expenditure in that direction?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise here.
    Following are the figures:
    in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Under Section 2 (6) of the Act, as applied to Scotland by Section 4 (1) (b), all the 37 education authorities make or secure provision for the technical education of blind persons resident in their areas, as suitable cases arise, and so far as accommodation is available.
    Mr. WESTW00D: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that reasonable provision for training is made by these authorities, and that reasonable allowances are made to the blind persons who come under the schemes referred to?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I should say that considerable progress has been made in dealing with this subject.
    Following is the list

    County Councils:

    Town Councils:

    Aberdeen.

    Aberdeen.

    Argyll.

    Ayr.

    Ayr.

    Kilmarnock.

    Berwick.

    Rothesay.

    Bute.

    Alloa.

    Caithness.

    Dumbarton.

    Clackmannan.

    Dumfries.

    Dumbarton.

    Edinburgh.

    Dumfries.

    Elgin.

    Fife.

    Dunfermline.

    Forfar.

    Kirkcaldy.

    Haddington.

    Arbroath.

    Inverness.

    Brechin.

    Kincardine.

    Dundee.

    Kinross.

    Forfar.

    Kirkcudbright.

    Montrose.

    Lanark

    Inverness.

    Linlithgow.

    Airdrie.

    Midlothian.

    Coatbridge.

    Moray.

    Glasgow.

    Peebles.

    Hamilton.

    Perth.

    Motherwell

    Renfrew.

    and Wishaw.

    Ross and

    Perth.

    Cromarty.

    Greenock.

    Roxburgh.

    Johnstone.

    Selkirk.

    Paisley.

    Stirling.

    Port Glasgow.

    Sutherland.

    Renfrew.

    Orkney.

    Hawick.

    Zetland.

    Galashiels.

    Falkirk.

    Stirling.

    GAME AND DEER FOREST LAWS.
    Mr. WESTW00Dasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received a request from the National Farmers' Union of Scotland to meet members of their Game and Heather Burning Committee to hear reasons for amendments to game laws and laws affecting deer forests; will he meet the deputation and when; and, if not, will he state the reason?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on the 16th instant to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy).

    SANITARY CONDITIONS, GOREBRIDGE, MIDLOTHIAN.
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ask for a Report from the sanitary inspector of the Gorebridge district of Midlothian
    1586
    as to the sanitary conditions associated with the houses in Castle and Office Rows and other houses leased or owned by the Arniston Coal Company with a view to having better sanitary arrangements given effect to in this district?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The Scottish Board of Health have received reports on the sanitary condition of the houses leased or owned by the Arniston Coal Company in the Gala Water district and in the Lass-wade district of Midlothian. An opportunity has not yet occurred for these reports to be considered by the district committees concerned, by whom, as public health local authorities, any action with a view to improvement will fall to be taken, but the Board will keep in touch with the whole matter.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: While these reports are being considered, will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that at least the ash-pits shall be cleaned out twice during the week in that district, in the interests of the health of the community? May I press for an answer, as I have put these questions several times, and the situation in that area is disgraceful?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As the matter has not yet been considered by the local authorities, who are responsible, and the Board are keeping in close touch with the matter, I cannot say more.
    Mr. WESTW00D: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, pending the consideration of these reports, he will see that elementary sanitary conditions are applied in that district?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The Board have instructions, as I have informed the hon. Member, to keep in close touch with this question. I will draw their attention to what the hon. Member has said.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take steps to get the matter brought forward and the position expedited?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am satisfied that there is no delay in considering it.

    STEAMBOAT SERVICES, WESTERN ISLES.
    Mr. MACKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding improvements in

    1587
    the Western Isles steamboat services; and when he expects such improvements will be in operation?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Negotiations for a new contract are almost completed, and, if the hon. Member would repeat his question in a week's time, I hope to be then in a position to say what will be done.

    BETTING OFFENCES, GLASGOW.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons convicted of betting offences during the past year in the City of Glasgow, and the number in 1926 and in 1920?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The numbers of persons convicted of betting offences in the City of Glasgow during the 12 months ended 31st October, 1927, 31st December, 1926, and 31st December, 1920, were 833, 777 and 252, respectively.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the first figure includes those who have been convicted of betting without licences?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I should require notice of that question.

    ILLEGAL TRAWLING, TIREE.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that illegal trawling has been taking place within the last two weeks in Gott Bay, in Tiree, and that two boats were caught on a Monday morning yet were not prosecuted; and if he will see that greater protection is given to the fishermen of Tiree against these illegal actings?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No complaints of illegal trawling in Gott Bay have recently been received by the Fishery Board for Scotland, and the hon. and learned Member's question, apparently, has reference to fishing for herrings by means of ring nets, which method of fishing is legal outside the weekly close time. The offence of the two boats referred to, which took place last year, was that they engaged in herring fishing during the weekly close time. I understand that it was considered that, as this was a first offence, a strict warning would, in the circumstances, be sufficient. It is not to be assumed that similar offences in future
    1588
    will not be dealt with more severely. The waters off Tiree will continue to receive careful attention from the fishery protection vessels.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that many of the people in Tiree live partly on their crofts and partly on their fishing, which is part of their food, stored in their larders; whereas these people who come in and invade in this way are engaged in an ordinary commercial enterprise? What right have they to be robbing these people's larders?
    Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Is it not a fact that these questions are largely put down with the idea of discrediting the trawling community?

    GLASGOW VETERINARY COLLEGE.
    Mr. COUPERasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the continued usefulness of the Glasgow Veterinary College by the high standard of individual successes in the latest examinations; whether he is aware that the withdrawal of the State grant is restricting its development; and especially in view of the fact that women are now matriculating at this college, one of them achieving the distinction of receiving a diploma from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, if he will consider a renewal of the grant?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: My attention has not been specially directed towards this matter, but I have seen statements in the Press. As my hon. Friend is aware, the decision to withdraw the State grant from the Glasgow Veterinary College was based upon the considerations that funds were not available for the assistance of two veterinary colleges in Scotland and that two colleges were not in fact required. I regret that the question of restoring the grant cannot be reopened.
    Mr. COUPER: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that large numbers of the students of the Glasgow College come from the Highlands and Islands and the West of Scotland, and that, if they are directed to go to the East Coast to study, it entails upon them severe hardship and expense, because their relatives largely live in Glasgow?
    Sir J .GILMOUR: That matter has been fully considered, and the position cannot be departed from.

    SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, GLASGOW.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if in the arrangement reached between the Glasgow Education Authority and his Department for the building of new schools, it is intended to build a new school in place of the present Greenside Street School; and, if so, when the proposed building will be proceeded with?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No proposal for the rebuilding of Greenside Street School is included in the programme approved by the Glasgow Education Authority.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nearly 12 months ago he admitted, in answer to a question in this House, that this school was condemned for educational purposes, and is he going to take any steps to have it replaced by a modern school properly equipped for educational purposes?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have had a recent inspection made of this school. It is true that it is not suitable in every way, but it is not overcrowded and the tuition is efficient; and the authority and the Department must consider those areas where no schooling facilities exist at the present time.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if this school were situated in his Division, it would not be tolerated—that the main-line railway which runs adjacent to this school makes teaching impossible in it, and that, although in a very crowded part of Glasgow, it has practically no playground available; and will he not take steps to bring it up to the same standard as would be demanded in his own Division?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: This question has been very carefully considered. The duty of the education authority is to make provision, in the first place, for those areas in which no schooling is available. and while this school is admittedly not what everyone would desire, it is still not so bad as some people describe it.
    Mr. MAXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman no power to say to the education authority that he will withhold their
    1590
    grants if they do not put down in this area a school in which the work of education can be reasonably and decently carried on?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: After taking all the circumstances into consideration, I have cone to the conclusion that it is not necessary at the present moment to close this school.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter, if possible, to-night on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

    PARISH RELIEF (SCALE).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has consulted his medical advisers as to the scale of 29s. allowed for father, mother, and three children by the parish councils in Scotland, as advised by the circular issued by his Department last year; and if the medical advisers are of opinion chat this scale is an adequate one?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Before the recommendation in regard to the scale of relief referred to by the hon. Member was made by the Scottish Board of Health, the matter was carefully considered by the Board. Neither the Board nor their medical advisers have any evidence that the operation of the scale has resulted in injury to the health of the recipients. I may mention that the Circular in which the Board's recommendation was made specifically provided for the scale being exceeded in cases in which sickness or other special circumstances justify an increase. If the hon. Member can give me the names and addresses of any families in which it is alleged that there is injury to health on account of the operation of the scale, I shall have immediate inquiry made.

    HOUSING SUBSIDY.
    Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total amount of State subsidy under the different housing schemes, respectively, which has been spent in Edinburgh since 1918?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As the statement desired includes a number of figures, I propose, with the right hon. Member's permission to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Seeing that Leith up to recent years was not a part of Edinburgh, will these figures include Leith throughout?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Perhaps the hon. Member will wait and see the figures.
    Following is the statement:
    The total amount of State subsidy paid from 1918 to the close of the financial year ended 31st March, 1927, in respect of the various housing schemes in Edinburgh was £301,889 18s. 10d., made up as follows:

    £

    s

    d.

    Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919

    260,166

    18

    7

    Housing (Financial Assistance to Builders) Scheme (Scotland), 1920

    19,880

    0

    0

    Housing, etc., Act, 1923:

    Houses erected by the local authority

    437

    0

    0

    Houses erected by private enterprise

    3,796

    0

    0

    Slum clearance schemes

    15,520

    10

    3

    Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924:

    Houses erected by the local authority

    2,089

    10

    0

    £301,889

    18

    10

    The whole of the above payments were made between the financial years 1920–21 and 1926–27, no subsidy having been payable during the years 1918–19 and 1919–20.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount of subsidy that has been spent in Scotland, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen, respectively, in connection with the various housing schemes from 1919 to the end of October, 1927?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: A tabular statement containing the desired information is being prepared, and I shall send a copy to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the importance of these figures to Scottish Members, will the right hon. Gentleman not take steps to have them published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: If the hon. Member desires it.
    Following is the statement:
    The amounts of subsidy paid during the period in question in connection with housing schemes in Scotland and in the four burghs named as as follow:

    £

    s.

    d.

    Scotland

    …

    …

    5,755,677

    6

    6

    Glasgow

    …

    …

    880,670

    15

    0

    Edinburgh

    …

    …

    309,936

    8

    10

    Dundee

    …

    …

    269,417

    19

    9

    Aberdeen

    …

    …

    39,430

    4

    2

    HOUSING SCHEMES (EXPENDITURE).
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total amount expended on housing schemes by local authorities in Scotland since 1919 to the latest available date this year, and, in particular, the amount expended by the Lanarkshire County Council, Ayrshire County Council, Renfrewshire County Council, Stirlingshire County Council, and the Corporations of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, and Aberdeen?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not in a position to give the information asked for by the hon. Member up to any date this year, as the Abstracts of Accounts of local authorities for the financial year ended in May last are not yet available. Particulars are, however, being extracted for the period from 1919 till 15th May, 1926, and I shall send a statement to the hon. Member as early as practicable.

    STEEL HOUSES.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of steel houses that have been erected in Scotland?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As at 31st October last, the latest date for which information is available, the number of steel houses that have been erected with State assistance in Scotland was 2,583.
    Mr. EVERARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Press the fact that the Labour party opposed the building of these houses?

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    NECESSITOUS AREAS, SCOTLAND.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is giving special consideration to areas where unemployment has unduly increased the

    1593
    rates; and does he intend to ask the Government for an increased grant to meet such cases?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Special consideration has been and is continuing to be given to areas which have had to incur heavy expenditure on account of unemployment. At present there appears to be no ground for placing on the Exchequer further burdens in respect of such expenditure.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman keeping in view, in those areas where the rates have become so high through Employment Exchange schemes being put on the rates and where the ordinary services of a community like that are being curtailed by money going in poor relief, the menace that this is to the community so far as social progress is concerned?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have informed the hon. Member, careful consideration is being given to all the circumstances.

    ROAD SCHEMES.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Transport the number of persons employed on road schemes assisted by the Ministry for the relief of unemployment in October of last year and at the present time?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The question is one which falls to be answered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who has asked me to reply on his behalf. According to returns received, 16,108 men were employed on the 30th October, 1926, on major schemes of road improvement and construction approved by the Ministry of Transport for Government grant. The number of men employed at the 29th October, 1927, was 12,354.
    Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the main reason for this decrease?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The reason for the decrease is that the programme is approaching completion, but we have still considerable work to carry out.
    Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that the number of local authorities who are asking to be allowed to proceed with work under these schemes is growing, and that scores of the schemes are turned down?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The schemes that are turned down are what I may call the 100 per cent. schemes, in which the Road Fund has to find all the money and the local authority finds none.
    Mr. PALING: Is not the reason why they are turned down, that the local authority has not the money?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir.
    Mr. BATEY: May we expect an increase in the number of men employed on road schemes during the winter?
    Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Member will put down a Question, I will give him an answer.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. GRUNDYasked the Secretary for Mines, in view of the increase of fatal and non-fatal accidents in the mines, if he proposes to revise the legislation that has produced this result or introduce new legislation to deal with the matter?
    Mr. PALINGasked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware of the increase in the number of fatal and serious accidents in mines since the introduction of the Eight Hours Act last year; and whether he proposes to take any steps to deal with the serious position now existing?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that the number of fatal accidents per thousand persons employed in the mines of Great Britain increased in 1927 by 11 per cent as compared with 1925; that the number of serious accidents increased by 16 per cent.; and, if so, what steps does he intend to take to deal with the situation?
    The SECRETARY FOR MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The increase in the actual number of deaths is from 923 in 1925 to 943 in 1927, or just over 2 per cent. The actual increase in serious injuries is from 3,607 in 1925 to 3,889 in 1927, or nearly 8 per cent. I deeply regret these increases, but mining ,accidents have always fluctuated considerably in number from month to month and from year to year. The increases this year do not exceed previous limits of fluctuation. A period of only 10 months, and especially a period

    1595
    of such irregular work following a long stoppage, is too short to enable any reliable inference to be drawn as to the possible effect of longer hours. If the increases were attributable solely to this cause one would expect to find them more or less evenly distributed among the different classes of workers. But the statistics do not show this. They show increases in some respects and decreases in others. For instance, deaths from falls of ground have increased while deaths due to haulage accidents and on the surface have decreased.
    Mr. GRUNDY: Has the Department fixed any percentage of non-fatal accidents to the mine workers before they intend to revise that legislation and to take some steps to stop this slaughter of workers?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I hope that the number will come down and that with improved conditions and more steady and regular work accidents will become fewer.
    Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in giving the percentage he is comparing deaths and serious accidents alone and leaving out the decrease in the number of men? Further, in his answer last week where this percentage was asked for and the decrease of men has been taken into account, the increase in deaths amounted to 11 per cent. and the increase in serious accidents to nearly 16 per cent. Is he further aware that if he takes into account also the decrease in the number of shifts worked per week as against 1925 the increase will be more than 11 and 17 per cent. respectively, and what is he going to do about it?
    Colonel LANE FOX: The hon. Member is, I think, correct in comparing the percentages when he says that there has been an 11 per cent. increase, but that is a misleading statement by itself. If that went out without contradiction it would certainly be interpreted that there had been actually an 11 per cent. increase in the number of deaths. I have given the corresponding figure to correct it.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are only approximately 80 per cent. of the miners working now as compared with 1925, and, apart altogether from fluctuations in the
    1596
    normal number of deaths, compared with the normal number of workers, the death rate would have been down by at least 150 this year instead of being up 11 and 16 per cent. respectively, and are we to understand that the only contribution the Government can make to the unemployment problem is to murder more men?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a proper way of putting a supplementary question.
    Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand from the reply that there has been an increase and that the Government are indifferent to the increase of fatal and non-fatal accidents and does not intend to do anything to remedy it?
    Colonel LANE FOX: The hon. Member is to understand nothing of the kind. If he had listened to my answer he would have heard that these fluctuations do not necessarily convey the imputation that is suggested. There have been previous fluctuations of at least as great a character,

    REMEDIAL MEASURES.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the surplus labour in mining areas, the Government will carefully consider the possibility of raising the school age in those areas, of providing for the earlier superannuation of miners over 60 years of age, of encouraging the employment of mine workers in coal bye-product processes, and of expediting the housing schemes in districts where the housing shortage is a serious obstacle in the mobility of labour?
    The PRIME MINISTER: All these aspects of the problem have already engaged the attention of the Government, but it would not be possible within the short compass of an answer to a Parliamentary question to discuss the merits or practicability of my Noble Friend's suggestions.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the letter of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) in yesterday's "Times," in which he stated that the Government could no longer remain aloof and indifferent to the serious crisis in the mining areas?
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: As the right hon. Gentleman will not give an answer to this question at Question Time, could he see his way to give an answer in, the course of Debate?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask the Prime Minister, in view of the answer given by his right hon. and gallant Friend, whether he does not think now that it becomes his plain duty to do something towards solving the mining problem. Has he no statement to make?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Are we to understand from the Prime Minister's first answer and his refusal to answer the supplementary question, that it is the seriousness of the mining situation that has made him speechless on so many occasions?

  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS COMMISSION.
  Viscount SANDON—asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will grant an increased allotment to the Historical Manuscripts Commission to enable them to make more adequate progress in publishing papers of great national and historical interest?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The grant to this Commission, which had been only £200 in 1919, was increased to £500 in 1920, to £600 in 1921, and to £700 in 1924, and later years. This last amount was fixed as a reasonable maximum for the work under present conditions, and the Treasury have received no application for its increase. In existing financial circumstances I fear I can hold out no hope of a larger provision.
  Viscount SANDON: Is it not a fact that the amounts voted barely cover the salary even of the head official alone?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINISTRIES (REORGANISATION).
    Sir FRANK SANDERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, with regard to the proposed abolition of the Ministry of Transport and the Department of Mines and the termination of the separate existence of the Overseas Trade Department during the present financial
    1598
    year, he will state what progress has been made in this direction; and what he estimates will be the total saving in expenditure effected when the arrangements contemplated are completed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister on the 8th November to the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison). I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend in the course of the statement which he intends to make on this subject at a later stage of the Session, will be in a position to give an estimate of the savings which will result from the adoption of such detailed changes as His Majesty's Government may think it right to recommend.

    STAFF INCREASES.
    Sir F. SANDERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the increase in the staffs of the Revenue Departments, amounting to 3,326, and in the Ministry of Health, amounting to 631, during the past 12 months; and whether these increases are caused by the amount of additional work undertaken by the respective Departments?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware of these increases which, as explained in the statement presented to Parliament, are due, as was foreseen, to the growth of postal and other revenue business and to additional work placed upon the Ministry of Health and Scottish Board of Health by the Widows' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925. As stated in the reply given to the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) on the 16th November, there has been a substantial decrease in the total staff of Government Departments in the 12 months ending 1st October, 1927, notwithstanding an addition of 2,684 to the staff of the Post Office on account of the healthy growth of postal and telephone work.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is it not a great deal better that there should be an increase in the staff of some of these offices than that there should be so much overtime worked in some of the Departments, thereby depriving a large number of men and women of a means of obtaining their living?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a somewhat different point of view from that contained in the question.
    Mr. E. BROWN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether 400 of this increase in the Revenue Department is due to the appointment of new Customs officers, 100 of whom are in the Royal Mint in London?
    Sir F. HALL: May I press my right hon. Friend to be good enough to look into the question of overtime in some of these Departments?

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (CLERKS).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the established complement for Customs and Excise departmental clerks has not yet been filled, he will say when it is anticipated the vacancies will be filled; from what source it is proposed to draw the candidates; and by whom the normal departmental clerical work of the Department is being performed pending the filling of the vacancies?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The authorised complement of established basic grade clerks in the Customs and Excise Departmental class is 1,452. and there are 1,417 established departmental class clerks at present in post. In addition to these there are employed at present 227 permanent nonpensionable clerks and 48 temporary clerks. Pending the completion of the reorganisation of the outdoor Department of the Customs and Excise, which is at present proceeding, it is not practicable to determine the full complement that will ultimately be required.
    Mr. KELLY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he has any idea as to the date when they will know?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir, I have no knowledge of the date.

  AGRICULTURE (IMPORTED BARLEY).
  Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the need and demand of the agricultural industry for an import duty on barley; and whether he will consider the question of publishing the Report of the Treasury Committee which investigated the subject of a duty?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Sudbury (Colonel Burton) on the 10th November, of which I am sending him a copy.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman for an answer to the last part of the question about publishing the Report of the Committee?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That is the point most specifically covered by the answer to which I have referred.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Can the right hon. Gentleman circulate a White Paper giving the full reasons for his refusal to grant a duty?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it is much better that some such statement should be elicited in debate.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that a former Conservative Minister of Agriculture has emphatically stated that this is possible?

  FOREIGN STOCKS AND SHARES.
  Mr. MAXTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to introduce legislation to stop the raising in this country of loans for foreign countries and capital for foreign business enterprises?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.
  Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that a country can go on having its resources drained to develop the enterprises of its foreign competitors?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have always been led to understand that these loans must leave this country in the form of British goods.
  Mr. EVERARD: Does my right hon. Friend consider this applies to a loan to Russia?
  Mr. MAXTON: I am quite aware that is what the right hon. Gentleman was taught to believe formerly, but does he still believe that now?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I believe in principle that is substantially correct. But with regard to the question asked on the subject of Russia, in all these questions

  1601
  of giving loans you must, not only think of the beneficial process which attends the departure of your goods from your country, but you must also think of that other process to which you are entitled to look forward when some repayment is made.

  PROHIBITED PLUMAGE (SEIZURES).
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer

  The following is a LIST of BIRDS, the Plumage of which was illegally imported and was confiscated by the Customs Authorities under the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921, during the period 1st July to 30th September, 1927, together with the approximate quantity of plumage involved in each case.

  Name of Bird.

  Approximate Amount of Plumage

  Name of Bird.

  Approximate Amount of Plumage

  Bee Eater

  1 stuffed bird.

  Kingfisher

  2 millinery mounts.

  1 skin.

  Bird of Paradise

  6 millinery mounts.

  1 brooch containing a small portion.

  Crane, African, Crowned.

  2 heads.

  Lory

  10 wings.

  Crane, Crested

  1 crest.

  4 tails.

  3 heads.

  Egret

  112 single feathers.

  Parrot

  26 single feathers.

  2 small bundles.

  4 artificial flowers.

  2 wings.

  1 feather ornament.

  8 millinery mounts.

  Peacock

  95 single feathers.

  Emu

  20 single feathers.

  16 millinery mounts.

  1 millinery mount.

  103 fans.

  Flamingo

  18 wings.

  2 tails.

  2 skins.

  2 feather whisks.

  Grebe

  1 skin.

  2 imitation made-up birds.

  Pheasant, Argus

  7 single feathers.

  Heron

  3 millinery mounts.

  Pheasant, Copper

  1 feather-work picture,

  1 tail.

  19 fans.

  Hoopoe

  1 stuffed bird.

  Pheasant, Reeves

  1 fan.

  Humming Bird

  2 millinery mounts.

  Rook

  1 feather-work picture.

  Indian Roller

  4 wings.

  Stork, Leptoptilus

  1 small bunch of feathers.

  8 single feathers.

  4 small bundles.

  1 feather-work picture.

  Stork, Adjutant

  1 fan.

  Jay, Blue

  12 single feathers.

  Woodpecker

  2 skins.

  Jungle Cock

  2 small bundles.

  Woodpecker, Golden

  12 single feathers.

  In addition to the above two parcels containing a small quantity of plumage not identified but clearly within the prohibition were seized.

  TRANSPORT.

    SIGN-POSTS.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the many accidents that have occurred during the last 12 months owing to the ineffective sign-posts that are placed on country roads and highways; whether he will take steps to advise all local authorities to provide bold sign-posts with effective lettering which can
    the species of birds, together with the approximate amount of plumage, illegally imported and confiscated under the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921, between 1st July and 30th September, 1927?
    Mr. SAMUEL: As the answer is long, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    more easily be read by cyclists and motorists approaching cross-roads; and whether he will consider the introduction of legislation to appoint a central authority to deal with and control this matter?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am not aware of the extent to which accidents may be attributable to ineffective sign-posts, but I do all in my power, by means of grants and otherwise, to encourage local authorities to erect signs conforming to

    1603
    patterns approved by my Department. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the circular which was issued to all local authorities on the subject in 1921, the principles of which have been extensively adopted. The appointment of another Central Authority to deal with the matter appears to me unnecessary.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that no notification has been sent to local authorities since that circular was issued?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, not since 1921. The local authorities have the circular by them, and they are very extensively carrying out the requirements.
    Colonel DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that on account of the great increase in motor traffic during the last six years further action should be taken?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir, because I disagree with the hon. Member. I think that the erection of sign-posts up and down the country is going on remarkably well.

    ROAD CONSTRUCTION.
    Sir EDWARD ILIFFEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the completion of so many of the principal roads in the arterial road programme is throwing an increasing number of workpeople out of work; and whether he will expedite other works of new construction necessary to relieve the congestion on the approach roads to the great centres of population and provide the necessary road space for the daily increasing number of motor vehicles?
    Colonel ASHLEY: In spite of the completion of many of the principal items in the, arterial road programme, there re-mains a balance of about £15 millions to be met in respect of road works expedited for the relief of unemployment and still in, progress. Of this total about £10 millions remain to be paid in grants from the Road Fund. There are other large works in progress or in prospect which are not included in the above figures, and it must also be borne in mind that in allocating the revenues of the Road Fund it has been necessary to have regard to the growing burden of maintenance which falls upon the local authorities. In all the circumstances, I am not disposed at
    1604
    the moment to press local authorities to initiate fresh schemes for the construction of new arterial roads.

    MOTOR ACCIDENTS, CHESTER AND BELGRAVE SQUARES.
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the continuance of motor accidents in Chester Square and Belgrave Square, and what steps does he propose taking to minimise them?
    The SECRETARY of STATE to the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have been asked to reply to this question. No serious accidents and only six slight accidents (four in Belgrave Square and two in Chester Square) were reported to the police during the quarter ending on 19th instant. I may add that additional refuges have recently been erected at Belgrave Square and the street illumination has also been improved. I do not think the figures I have quoted suggest the need for any special action on the part of the police.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Is it intended to make them permanent? At present they are only temporary, and they are not very sightly.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They are not very sightly for the moment, but if they have the effect which the hon. Member and I hope they will have, in completely doing away with accidents, they will be made permanent.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Has the right hon. Gentleman heard of one accident which occurred four clays ago, a serious one?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Four days ago was after the hon. Member had put down his question. I got the information up to the date of his question.
    Lord APSLEY: Have any of the police who used to be on duty there been with-drawn?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Honestly, I cannot answer that question without notice.

    TRAFFIC CONGESTION, VICTORIA STATION APPROACH.
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the growing congestion of traffic at the approach to Victoria

    1605
    Station; and if the advisory committee has made any suggestions for the improvement of the existing conditions?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware of the traffic congestion in this neighbourhood, and various schemes have been examined with a view to affording relief. I have now approved a proposed "roundabout" system at Grosvenor Gardens, and I am in communication with the Westminster City Council with a view to arranging for it to be put into experimental operation. I hope that this scheme will provide substantial relief.
    Mr. ERSKINE: My question deals with the Victoria Street approaches to Victoria Station. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on that?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question, or I will communicate with him privately.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any alteration is to be carried out in Grosvenor Gardens itself before he introduces the roundabout system?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Speaking without having gone into the matter, I think no change is to be made.
    Commander BELLAIRS: It is much needed, especially in the pavement space.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEGRAPH MONEY ORDERS.
    Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOKasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the inconvenience caused in rural areas in cases where money is sent by telegram, owing to the Regulation that the addressee must himself collect the sum at the post office; and whether, in cases where the post office is situate some miles from the addressee's residence, arrangements could be made to forward the amount to his address by registered letter and thus enable him to get the money sooner?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The answer is rather long and perhaps my hon. and
    1606
    gallant Friend will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer :
    When money is transmitted by telegraph money order the sender can either direct that it be called for at a post office or that it be sent to the payee at a given address. In the former case the sender must advise the payee of the despatch of the remittance and payment will only be made at the named post office to the payee upon proof of identity or to some person duly proved to be authorised on his behalf. In the latter case the telegraph money order is delivered by telegraph messenger at the payee's address. In this case also it is not necessary for the payee to attend in person at the office of payment, and if the order is properly receipted by the payee it can be presented by another person, but that person must be able to furnish the name of the remitter. I am afraid that the conditions under which the money order service is carried on in this country render impracticable the introduction of any arrangement for the delivery of the money at the address of the payee by registered post or otherwise.

    TRANSATLANTIC TELEPHONE SERVICE.
    Colonel DAYasked the Postmaster-General the number of telephone calls that have been passed either between this country and the Dominion of Canada or vice versa since the inception of the service, and the average duration of each call?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The totals up to 18th November were:

    Calls.

    To Canada

    28

    From Canada

    13

    41

    The average duration of these calls was 4 minutes 48 seconds.
    Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that the reason the service is used so slightly is because of the very high charges that are made?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not think the hon. Member can draw any such deduction from the figures. Last

    1607
    week's traffic from this country was the best that we have ever had.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what last week's traffic was?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Not without notice.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the Motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, "Government and the Coal Industry," can be taken on Thursday with a consequent postponement of the business announced for that day; and, if not, whether Monday will be allotted?
The PRIME MINISTER: Arrangements having been made for business as stated by me on Thursday last, it is not now possible to make any alteration. With regard to the last part of the question, the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the position of Government business must to some extent affect the selection of time for Debates on subjects which the Opposition desire to raise, and that it is necessary to make progress with the Unemployment Insurance Bill. I therefore suggest that the Committee stage of that Bill be completed on Monday evening, and in that event I will be willing to set aside Tuesday for the Motion.
Mr. MacDONALD: I am afraid that we can enter into no bargain in regard to the Committee stage of that Bill.
The PRIME MINISTER: I did not ask for any bargain. I made a suggestion. I will give Tuesday. I think it is very important for the progress of business, having regard to how near we are getting to Christmas, that the Committee stage of that Bill should be out of the way. That is what I put to the right hon. Gentleman.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGE.
Dr. LITTLE: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that certain communications be-
1608
tween medical practitioners and their patients shall be privileged from disclosure in evidence."
The Bill which I ask leave to introduce is intended to remove something like a deadlock which has resulted from the conflict between the Regulations issued by a Government Department in 1916 and the law as interpreted by certain recent legal decisions. In 1916 a Royal Commission upon Venereal Diseases issued its Report. Its personnel was admirably authoritative and representative. It included one Member of the present House, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), who has done me the honour of backing the Bill which I desire to introduce. The title "venereal diseases," unhappily, embodies a belief that there is a special order of diseases resulting from illicit indulgence in a normal function, and that these diseases deserve the punishment which their victim gets and, in some mysterious way, differ from other communicable diseases. That view has never been held by members of the medical profession, and I hope that it is out of date even in this country, where it has been held. In practice, the term "venereal diseases" means two dissimilar affections, syphilis and gonorrhœa. The Report revealed an unexpectedly high degree of prevalence of both diseases in this country. It was established by evidence given before the Royal Commission that syphilis, taken by itself ranked third as a killing disease, coming next after tubercle and cancer, and probably ought to come first, because it predisposes in very many cases to those two, diseases; besides being a very mortal disease. Its mortality is extremely high amongst young children. In addition to slaying their tens of thousands, these two diseases easily head the list of disabling diseases that we know. Syphilis, in particular, is primarily responsible for a large proportion of the cases of insanity, and for a string of diseases of the nervous system, which make life a prolonged agony.
Evidence is found in the Report of the Commission for the estimate that at least one in every 10 persons in the community is thus infected, and more than half the total number of cases of blindness in quite young children is due to this scourge. The medical position on these

1609
diseases may be summed up in this epigram: the man who knows all about venereal diseases knows all about medicine, for they affect every organ and tissue of the body. The state of affairs disclosed by the Report of the Commission was so appalling that immediate action was called for; and was very rapidly taken. In consequence and in pursuance of the recommendations of the Commission, the Ministry of Health, in the same year that the Report was published, inaugurated a system of clinics throughout the country for the treatment of these diseases, and issued Regulations for their conduct. The foremost and most important of these recommendations was the instruction to medical practitioners and other persons concerned that all information obtained with regards to any persons treated at these clinics should be regarded as absolutely confidential. The evidence given before the Commission abundantly demonstrated that it is essential for the success of any measures designed to deal with venereal diseases that the patients should be fully assured as to the secrecy of the arrangements. The reason for that is surely obvious. Modern methods of treatment have completely revolutionised the prognosis of these diseases, which has improved immeasurably in the last 20 years, provided, however, that early treatment is instituted. Irreparable mischief may result, and has resulted, from the disinclination of the victim of these diseases to consult his family doctor. The reason for that is quite obvious. It is almost impossible to have the disease treated at home and conceal its nature, but the same person will go to a clinic where he is identified only by a number and where he knows he will get the very best treatment which medical science of the time can furnish. Under present rules patients coming to the clinics receive explicit assurances that no information concerning their disease will be given, and that assurance is fortified by the issue of a leaflet where the same promise is given by the Ministry of Health, carrying with it, therefore, all the authority of Parliament.
The success of these clinics rests upon two factors, the enthusiastic co-operation of the medical practitioners in charge and
1610
the complete confidence of the patient. This co-operation and confidence have been completely won by the assurance of secrecy, and repose upon it. Doctor and patient alike have felt secured by the regulations of the Ministry of Health from any possibility of being compelled to make any disclosure of these confidential communications, but this security has been completely shattered by a decision given by Mr. Justice McCardie in Birmingham last July, when a doctor was ordered to disclose the character of the disease from which his patient was suffering, although he had acted under the explicit protection of the regulations framed by the Ministry of Health. Medical men bred in the tradition of the Oath of Hippocrates find themselves forced to betray the trust of their patients, and I submit that this betrayal is really an affront to Parliament, because Parliament must be responsible in some measure for the acts of one of the most important Ministries under the Government. It is this position which this Bill seeks to remove by giving legal sanction for regarding as privileged communications which have been erroneously supposed during the past 12 years to be privileged. It is clear either that the law must be amended or that these regulations must be scrapped. I am encouraged in my view by the opinion of eminent Members of this House that any legal difficulties can be readily overcome, but if the regulations are scrapped the fate of a highly successful and important ministerial and medical effort is sealed.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Little, Dr. Vernon Davies, Sir Walter Greaves-Lord, Mr. Edward Grenfell, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Merriman, Mr. Morris, Sir Basil Peto, Mr. Goodman Roberts, Dr. Salter, Mr. Snowden, and Mr. Storry Deans.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGE.
  MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGE BILL,
  "to provide that certain communications between medical practitioners and their patients shall be privileged from disclosure in evidence, "presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 206.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (STATUTORY COMMISSION BILL) [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  4.0 p.m.
  It will be for the convenience of the House if I explain the procedure which is necessitated by the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1919, and if the names of the Statutory Commission which was announced by the Prime Minister in the House on the 8th of November, are to be submitted to His Majesty in the near future. In the first place, in order to achieve this it is necessary to alter the provisions of the Government of India Act, and that is what this Bill does. In Section 84A of the Government of India Act the Statutory Commission is to be appointed "at the expiration of ten years," and this Bill proposes to substitute for those words the words "within ten years." In addition to that, under the provisions of the Act it will be necessary to ask Parliament to concur in the submission of names to His Majesty, and as announced in connection with Government business last week a Resolution to that effect will be tabled by myself and discussed next Friday. But it is not possible to Table the Resolution until this Bill has been passed and received the Royal Assent. The Resolution will be in the form that the House is asked to concur in the submission of names to His Majesty. It is not for me to attempt to forestall your ruling, Sir, when the Resolution comes under discussion, but I think it safe to assume that on that Resolution it will be possible to discuss not only the composition of the Commission, that is to say its personnel and its procedure—which will entirely follow that laid down in the Act—but it will also be possible to discuss its projected procedure, the incidence of the expenses of the Commission and other kindred matters.
  On this Bill, as I submit, a very narrow point is at issue, namely, whether the
  1634
  date in the Act of 1919 shall be altered so as to allow of a Commission being appointed within the next two years, rather than in December, 1929, as it would have to be appointed if the Act were not so altered. The announcement made in both Houses and in India to the effect that a Commission was going to be appointed has happily met with no opposition. The opposition, of which I shall not speak on this occasion, is directed solely to the form of the Commission, and, indeed, until the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) put down an Amendment on the Paper yesterday, I was not aware that there was any opposition to this Bill concerning the alteration of the date from any quarter in the House. It is therefore not necessary, in view of the very narrow provisions of the Bill, to say much in moving its Second Reading, but I would make one or two brief observations. In the first place, I would point out to the House that there is no particular magic in the date which was put into the Government of India Act. The Act, as it stands to-day, provides that a Commission is to be appointed at the expiration of ten years from the passing of the Act. That period was selected primarily in order to test the completed labours of three successive Legislative Assemblies. In fact, if the Commission is appointed—if the names are submitted to His Majesty within the next week or so—the time table will be this: the third Assembly under the Government of India Act will complete its period, and the third Parliament will come to an end, some time in the Spring of 1929. That will be at a time when the Commission will probably have finished taking its evidence and, I presume, before it has written its report. In that way, I can claim that this Bill, though making a change in the letter of the parent Act, does not affect its spirit.
  Only one other point arises to which I feel I ought to call attention. The Joint Select Committee of both Houses—which is recognised in this country and in India as being unsurpassed in authority as an interpreter of the policy of the Act—recommended that there should be no material change in the constitution within 10 years. On that point, I have a two-fold answer. In the first place, that particular recommendation had reference to an earlier recommendation of

  1635
  the Montagu-Chelmsford Report to the effect that after five years' experience of the working of the Act, proposals should be invited for modification in the direction of transferring subjects which had previously been reserved where it was considered necessary to do so, and also, if necessary, of re-transferring to the reserved side subjects that had been transferred. In effect, the Joint Select Committee did not accept that recommendation. It was made clear at the time of the passing of the Act that it was not going to be accepted, and it has not been carried out. The second part of my answer—as to any suggestion that in any respect this alteration would affect the spirit of the Act of 1919—is that, in fact, no change is likely to be made, as the result of the alteration of the date, until well after the 10 years' period has passed. It may be contemplated that the Statutory Commission will not report until, at least, well on in the summer of 1929, although I hesitate to make a prophecy. Presumably, the Parliament of that day would not be asked to deal with any alteration in the Act until the following year, which would be 1930, or more than 10 years after the passing of the original Act. In conclusion, I would only add that I think it has been fairly clear from statements which have been made from time to time by my Noble Friend in another place, or by myself speaking at this Box, that in certain circumstances it was intended to accelerate the date of the Statutory Commission. For example, my Noble Friend, on 30th March last, speaking in another place, said:
  "I hazard the suggestion that 10 or even five years hence it will have become difficult to recognise that a choice between 1927, 1928 or 1929 as the date for the initiation of this inquiry should have been one to arouse grave controversy. However that may be, I decline, as I have stated, once before to make myself the slave of a date."
  I myself, speaking in this House on 17th June of this year said:
  "I do not think the Committee could really ask me to make any announcement on the question of the Commission except to say that the interval remaining before the time when under the Act the Commission has to be appointed is now so rapidly diminishing that the question of the precise date on which the Commission will assemble is fast becoming one in which,
  1636
  one might say, matters of practical convenience bulk as largely as matters of policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1927; cols. 1448–1449, Vol. 207.]
  It is clear from those two quotations what we had in mind at that time. The Governor-General and the Prime Minister in this House and my Noble Friend in another place, have fully explained the reasons which have led His Majesty's Government to decide that a Commission should be appointed now. I need not elaborate that statement be-cause I am confident that few, if any, in this House or in India would object to the acceleration. I am equally sure that it will be for the convenience of everyone, and I submit that in accordance with the rules of Debate arguments for and against the names which my Noble Friend is going to submit to His Majesty should be reserved for the Debate on Friday on the Resolution which will ask the House of Commons to agree to the submission of those names.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I rise to support the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill which has been moved by the Under-Secretary of State for India. As he quite truly said, the issue raised by the Bill is very narrow and very specific. Unless this Bill is passed the House cannot possibly recommend His Majesty to appoint the Commission which has recently been announced. I believe the necessity for this Bill arises really from a fault in the drafting of the original Act. This House, I believe, never meant to tie itself down in the way in which it finds itself tied down and it is in order that the Commission may be appointed two years earlier than the time provided for by the wording of the existing law, that this Bill has become necessary. That, I understand, is the only point before the House and the question at issue of the two years is surely perfectly plain. When the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, as they were called, got legislative effect, everybody recognised that we were taking a step, concerning which we would like to experiment before finally committing ourselves to the system embodied in those proposals. There were certain proposals in the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms which were very interesting as constitutional and legislative experiments, but they were just as doubtful in the matter of their possible

  1637
  success, as they were interesting as experiments. I think what the House in-tended to do was to secure that the experiment should have a sufficiently long run before any revision took place, so as to enable the House to be enlightened as to the practical working of those reforms.
  In supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, I submit that if we had experience for the next 20 years of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms we would not add one new particle to our knowledge of their practicability. Their operation has enabled us to see where they are working and where they are not working. At any rate, it enables us to appoint a Commission to inquire into them and to make that inquiry sufficiently thorough to guide the House in any further changes they may seek to make. Therefore, I think the Government are very wise in asking us to pass this Bill and to anticipate the period which is at present the statutory period. I find that as early as 1924 we went into this matter to see if, even then, we were not in a position to present a report to the House on the subject. Very unfortunate things happened in India in that year, which made it quite impossible to approach this question with any prospect of success and we had to leave it alone. Now I think the time has come for an inquiry. I would like to say one word in conclusion. In supporting this Bill we are in no way tying our hands in regard to the Debate on Friday next when, I understand, a Resolution is to be moved for the appointment of the Commission itself. Then we shall have to express our views and, in agreeing with the Government that the time has now come to appoint a Commission, the House I hope will recognise that we are not in any way anticipating the position we may take up on Friday regarding the Commission itself. With that explanation, I propose as my hon. Friends behind propose to support the Resolution which has just been moved.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I rise on behalf of the party which I represent to support the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. We, of course, reserve any further remarks which we may have to make on the general question until the Debate on the Resolution on Friday. It
  1638
  is quite obvious that this short Bill is a necessity and, as such, we desire to support it.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Government seem to be fated constitutionally always to do the worst thing in the worst possible way. I wonder why it is that they have only just discovered that it is necessary before appointing a Commission to pass this legislation? Why is it we have never heard of it before? It is simply carelessness, but it is unfortunate carelessness, because we are now discussing a Bill which, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, ought to be absolutely non-controversial, and we are discussing it in an atmosphere which could not possibly be more controversial. It is not merely that we are passing an amending Bill to the Government of India Act, which enables us to do the sensible thing a little earlier, but we are doing it with the knowledge before us of the use the Government intend to make of it. It is impossible, therefore, to discuss a Measure of this sort without appreciating the intentions of the Government and the results of this action which they are about to take. I quite appreciate that on Friday next we shall be in a better position to discuss the composition of this lamentable Commission and its operations, but we are bound to have that at present before our minds in discussing this Bill to-day, and I would like to ask the Noble Lord who has introduced this Bill why he has not to-day replied to the question to which he alleged he was going to reply to me, and why he has not told the House who is going to pay for this Commission?
  Earl WINTERTON: I expressly said I would reply when dealing with the Resolution. In the speech I have just made I mentioned specifically that I was going to deal with that on the Resolution: I could not deal with it to-day, as it would be out of order.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Because you want to keep it dark, I presume, as long as possible.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I was consulted about this matter, and I let it be known that it would not be in order to discuss that on this Bill, but that the whole matter would be open on Friday.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope we may get some explanation from the Noble Lord on Friday as to who is going to pay. May I refer to one other point. How glad we should have been to see a Bill of this amending nature brought in only eight months ago! It seems to me that the time for the appointment of this Commission has been most unfortunately chosen. For years we prayed for the day when this Commission would be appointed. We wait until we have a valuable contribution to literature by Miss Mayo circulated. We have the Commission appointed when everybody's mind is full of that book. I do not think that is precisely the atmosphere I would have chosen for a Commission which is to decide on the future government of India. There is one word more about that. We have always been hoping that when this Commission was appointed, that when the day came for judging of the results of these 10 years, and for framing a truce between two great peoples, we might get a settlement made by people who could deliver the goods, by plenipotentiaries who would deal as equals round a table. Instead, we are being offered a Commission which will report in due course, first of all to the Government of India and then to the Government of this country.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is just the point which will be open for discussion on Friday. It will be open to hon. Members then to disagree entirely with the methods of the Government in appointing the Commission. We really cannot go into that on this Bill.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I rather gathered that the Ruling on this Bill was to be pretty strict, and I am quite prepared to meet your views, but I do submit we cannot very well discuss any Measure in this House without at the same time discussing the results of that Measure. I would point out that the Noble Lord, in introducing this Bill, told the House that, as we had already been informed by the Prime Minister, the Viceroy and others of the procedure proposed, therefore it was unnecessary for him to mention it in this House. But I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that merely by that reference he has enabled us to discuss those questions which were raised in the Viceroy's statement, the
  1640
  Prime Minister's statement, and in the letter of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon).
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think so, because it would be possible for the House to debate entirely on Friday the proposition of the Government or to substitute another proposition for it, and we cannot have that discussion on this Bill. This Bill merely enables the House to consider the other matter later on.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely it enables the House, or the Government rather, to do something, and we have the right to discuss the use to which they intend to put that enabling power.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. and gallant Member is very persuasive, but that does not persuade me.
  Colonel WEDGW00D: We will take this as an exceptional case, and that it will not be a precedent for other Measures introduced by the Government. In this case we are, confined to discussing the date, and nothing but the date. I say the date is the wrong date, and that, although up to now it was eminently desirable to hasten the appointment of this. Commission, certain things have transpired making it most undesirable that it should be appointed now, making the season wrong, the method which the Government have chosen unfortunate, and as the use to which they intend to put this. Measure is likely to do more harm to, Anglo-Indian relations than anything, we think, the right hon. Gentleman's Government have yet done, we should do much better in refusing to appoint any such Commission to go into affairs in India until we have sure and certain knowledge that Indian representatives in their Assembly welcome this change in the Government of India Act. Without knowing that the other party to the bargain approves also of this expediting of the appointment of the Commission, I think we should be doing wrong in giving-our approval to this change in the Government of India Act.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
  When the Noble Lord was introducing they Bill, he showed a little surprise that I should be prepared to offer opposition

  1641
  to the Bill as it stands. While I admit that the issue is a very narrow one, I do not believe anyone of us can deny that the significance of the Bill is a much wider one than the mere wording of the Bill indicates, and I think the Noble Earl, when he made the sweeping assertion that it is merely shifting the date, that there is no opposition in this country or in India, misinformed himself as well as the House, and that there is bitter opposition in responsible Indian circles capable of expressing themselves against this Bill. If the right hon. Member chooses to test the veracity of his statement here, he may well follow the suggestion of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and test the introduction of such a Bill in the Indian Assembly. He would soon find out that there would be furious and almost unanimous opposition to the step being taken now.
  I may explain why this Bill, which looks so innocent and harmless, which, even in the characteristic Parliamentary hypocritical manner, looks so generous and charitable, is merely a trap for the people of India. If this Bill had been introduced in 1923 or 1924 it would have had a different aspect—a genuine repentance on the part of this House for passing the India Act. If it were made to stand over till the end of the period, people would be more content to believe that, after all, the British Parliament had made a sorry mess of the job in 1919. But to introduce the Bill at this stage is to make an attempt to deceive the Indians and the world that India is about to obtain a measure of freedom which the British Parliament is expediting. The moving of the Bill to-day in the form in which it is moved means a sort of justification, a sort of expression of success of all that has happened since 1919 up to now; whereas the same Bill moved in 1923 or 1924 would have been a frank avowal to this House of the complete failure of what was enacted in 1919, and the desire to eradicate that failure. To-day it does not mean that. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is supporting the Bill, I suppose, taking it as a non-contentious Bill. I have no right to speak in his name, but perhaps he will permit me to remind him of one incident. I remember the statement of the Indian deputation
  1642
  that had come over from India in those days, an official, weighty deputation, to deal with this Bill. The one point which in those days I frankly admit they regretted was that the present Leader of the Opposition was not in the House. Not only that but knowing some of his views at that time, our Indian comrades from abroad had gone to the length of making a special petition and a representation to give the right hon. Gentleman a seat on that Commission, and they still believe that, in not acceding to that wish, a great blunder was made, because he was at that time full of certain views and ideas which would have been helpful.
  Members of this House are under the impression that a desire was expressed by the Indians themselves for an earlier appointment of the Commission. I think the House is mixing up two things. The Indians greatly desire, not a Commission that would justify the India Act, but a sort of round-table conference to clear the air, to dissipate some of the views which so-called British rulers of India are holding about India and Indians, and not the appointment of a statutory Commission under the Act, as if the Act had operated normally and had now reached the stage which to-day's Bill intends to convey to the world. There are no issues which can be explored with any usefulness by any such Commission, and therefore to expedite such a Commission is merely enacting a farce earlier.
  The issue is perfectly clear. Is Great Britain determined to carry on an antiquated, savage system of rule of another country and another people, or is Great Britain prepared to let the people of every country manage their own affairs in a friendly way or even a hostile way if they choose so to do? I have said it previously, and I do not think to-day's Bill destroys the position, that there is no such thing as Committees and Commissions being appointed, granting stage by stage freedom to conquered nations from their conquerors. Other nations should be free to do what they like, or the conquerors should sit tight on their necks. The early appointment of the Commission does not get rid of the belief that the only purpose of the Government is to put a hypocritical cloak on the system of tyranny that exists in India—a tyranny which, in the name of commonsense and justice, ought to be abolished as quickly as possible. I

  1643
  suggest to the Government that they should be bold enough to withdraw the Bill, and that if they are not afraid of the truth they should appoint, not a statutory Commission under the Act, but an independent Commission composed entirely of Indians. Let those Indians come over to this country and cross-examine you and listen to your witnesses and advise this House as to what is the exact position. The Bill precludes all such chances of preliminary negotiations and hastens the appointment of a Commission which is hated by the Indians, which is not required by them, which is only serving a dishonest and hypocritical purpose of Imperialism and is not intended to advance the freedom of a conquered country which you have no right to govern. I therefore move the rejection of the Bill.
  Miss WILKINSON rose.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member wish to second the Amendment?
  Miss WILKINSON: I wish to oppose the Bill and not actually to second the Amendment.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I want to state one objection that I have to the Bill. I want frankly to admit that, as far as the party of which I have the honour to be a member is concerned, its almost unanimous wish is that the Bill should be passed. As far as I am personally concerned, I hope it never will be a crime to hold an opinion different from that which the great mass of my party may have. I second the Amendment because I think the bringing forward of the date of the Bill is bad tactics from the point of view of India and of the Government of this country. The Government are ante-dating the Commission because they want the Commission to be set up now. I suggest that equally as important as the setting up of the Commission is the Government which sets up that Commission. One cannot separate the Commission from the persons who appoint it. I confess frankly that I have never spoken in a foreign affairs or an Indian Debate before. Possibly one does not give these questions a great deal of thought, and possibly there is a lack of opportunity to
  1644
  do so or a greater lack than that of some of one's colleagues. But, looking at the matter from the Labour point of view, I would emphasise the fact that here is a Government ante-dating the appointment of a Commission and that if the appointment had not been ante-dated a General Election was bound to occur in the meantime.
  What would happen at such an election is to me plain, namely, that whatever may be the fate of other parties there is only one fate awaiting the present Government. Even the most optimistic of the Government supporters know that their party can come back only in very reduced numbers, and that the new Government would therefore not control the House with the same overwhelming numbers as the present Government can command. My point is that a General Election must occur before the date appointed under the first Act. Therefore, if a change of Government were to take place after the election what would happen? After all, a Government stands in relation to its Colonies and Dependencies as it stands in relation to this country. A Government that stands low in the estimation of its own country must in the nature of things stand low in the estimation of the Colonies and Dependencies. If that be the case, it can be said that there is no Government standing lower in the estimation of the masses of the people than the present Government now stands. Therefore, it seems to be utter folly for a Government that has earned the contempt of the masses to undertake the appointment of the Commission when no one can have any faith in the appointers of it. A person comes along and makes an appointment. That person has a record criminal and despicable. Who can have faith in such a person who makes any appointment?
  We are asked to have faith in this Commission. It would have been much better to have waited until after the next General Election. This Government has outlived its mandate. It is appointing this Commission and ante-dating the appointment for no other reason than that it knows there will be too great a risk in waiting until the proper date. It wants its friends on the Commission now; it wants its lackeys, and it has got them. Its servants are to be appointed; its gillies are going to do its work. My

  1645
  opinion, quite frankly, is that the Government, having lost the confidence of the country, having lost the faith of the great mass of the people, have lost the faith of our Dependencies and Colonies. It would have been much better to have waited until the General Election and until the Government had received a new mandate on a new Government had taken its place. Then there could have been appointed a Commission which would have held justly the confidence of ourselves at home and of the great Indian people abroad.
  Miss WILKINSON: I want to oppose the appointment of this Commission at this date for a reason that was briefly suggested by the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). It may seem quite a trivial matter, but such an appointment is unfortunate at a time when a certain book has been published. I want to suggest that such a situation and such an atmosphere have been created by that book in India and in this country, that it is most unfortunate that the proposal for the Commission should come forward at this time. Every Member of Parliament—this has been duly noted in India—has received a copy of that book.
  HON. MEMBERS: No, no! Only the Labour party.
  Miss WILKINSON: In that case, if Members on the Government Benches have not received their copies, my case is all the stronger. It is quite evident that the people who distributed the copies of this book without any name attached to the delivery and straight from the publishers, felt that they had no need whatever to distribute it among Members on the Government Benches. The books have been distributed among Members of the Opposition. The book I am referring to is "Mother India." There was a meeting held in London yesterday at which there were present a very large number of influential women called together by one of the large women's societies. I was amazed at a body like that being so bitterly anti-Indian as a result of that book. In fact, when one of the Labour women present tried to put the point of view of Indian opinion, she was actually hissed in a gathering which included one Duchess, several Viscountesses—[Laughter]. I am glad I
  1646
  am managing to amuse hon. Members opposite. One is at least glad to receive sufficient of their attention. I would point out, however, that these matters, though in a House like this, several thousand miles remote from India, they may be a subject of mild jokes, are regarded very desperately by 300,000,000 of the King's subjects. I would therefore suggest that the subject be treated with something like the gravity that it deserves. At that meeting, where, as I say, every kind of women's cause was represented, the atmosphere showed clearly how terrible, from the Indian point of view, have been the results of that book. There is a general feeling that the book was not written without Government connivance, to say the least of it.
  HON. MEMBERS: It is an American book!
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: On a point of Order. Has this book anything to do with the Bill before the House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not going into details of the book.
  Miss WILKINSON: I merely want to suggest, on the question of time, that this book has been written and that it is generally believed that the writer, an American journalist, received a great deal of official encouragement in the writing of the book. I propose to raise that matter more fully if I have the opportunity. Merely on the question of time, the Government has chosen its opportunity well from its own point of view, and those who are concerned with the publicity department both of the Government of this country and the Government of India have laid their plans well in order to create the atmosphere that they want. I suggest, however, that from the point of view of the position of those who care for all the working masses of India, this is not the time for the appointment of the Commission after that book has been published, and therefore I oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: I rise for the purpose of supporting briefly the Amendment, and I do so because I believe the Government have played their cards very badly indeed. [Laughter.] I mean badly from their own point of view. We

  1647
  know too much now for what this Bill is to be used. That is the main point of my objection to the Bill. We know the use to which the Government propose to put the Bill. All the world knows; India knows. If it is desired in India, the best the Government could do would be to withdraw the Bill entirely and bring in fresh proposals. I believe there is some truth in the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). He stated that the Government are pressing this matter forward now because they wish to obtain the control of the Commission that they appoint. They can see that if they waited another two years for the expiry of the statutory period, they would not be in the same position as they are to-day to control that Commission. I believe their control of the Commission will be bad. It is already proved up to the hilt that that Commission cannot possibly succeed, and it is because I think the Opposition is making a mistake in giving the Government facilities for proceeding with this Bill that I support the Amendment.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I do not wish to give a silent vote on this question, and I confirm the statement made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wallhead) that it is the situation which has been previously presented by the Government that constitutes a very strong ground here, as well as in India, for the rejection of this Bill. I reckon that if we, on this side, are substantially with the feeling in India, which is decidedly pronounced, a feeling of resentment regarding the composition of the Commission, then our duty logically should be to reject this Bill now.
  Mr. STEPHEN: To my mind, the Measure might be regarded either as an act of generosity or with suspicion. It all depends on what is going to follow, and from what has already taken place it appears to me that the Government so far have not been very successful in handling the situation. It is quite evident already that there is a certain amount of suspicion with regard to the altering of the date. There is not a feeling in India and among many of the people in this country that the Government are absolutely disinterested with regard to the alteration of the date. It is very unfortunate indeed that there has
  1648
  been this atmosphere of suspicion, and I say without the slightest doubt that the Government themselves are responsible for the creation of that atmosphere. I would like to suggest that the Minister should take the opportunity now presented to him to make a more definite statement that the Government are going to be far more anxious than they have shown themselves so far to be to take a big step towards satisfying the aspirations of the Indian people. The Government have laid themselves open to the objection that they were anxious to have the appointment of this Commission and that the sole reason for introducing this Measure was that they should have the appointment of the Commission.
  Apart from a very small section of the constituencies of this country, the Government have lost all respect on the part of the people of this country, and I think there is much to show that the Government's reason for altering the date was simply this attempt on the part of the Conservative party to have a certain amount of influence with regard to the developments that would have been necessary if the Act had been allowed to fulfil its natural operation and the Commission had had to be appointed later. If this alteration in the date is going to be successful and for the good of India, I hope the Minister and the Government will take the opportunity of showing that they are coming to the consideration of Indian problems with a new heart and with a greater desire to satisfy those aspirations of the Indian people. At the present time there are in India people in gaol for no real reason at all, people who have never been into Court, and I suggest to the Government that along with this Measure there should be the release of all those political prisoners in India, thus creating an atmosphere of good will which would enable us to believe that something of real value might come from the alteration of the date and the appointment of the Commission.
  Mr. MAXTON: There seems to be a disposition in the House to rush the discussion of this Measure, and I think that is quite a wrong way of approach to this very serious subject, because while it is true that there will be a discussion on the general composition and work of the Commission on Friday, this, after all, is the effective bit of legislation. I agree

  1649
  completely with the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that the Government are making a most unholy mess of their whole approach to dealing with this Indian situation. I believe that they have got Indian opinion absolutely wrong, and I know that they have certainly got British working-class opinion absolutely wrong. That may not be a very serious consideration to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it would be a serious consideration to any Government who really were genuinely anxious to put the condition of India on a footing that would be a pride to the British people instead of on a footing that makes us hang our heads for shame.
  But I must say to my hon. Friends who have moved and supported the Amendment that I personally hope they will not push it to the Division Lobby, because I do not conceive that it is the function of the Opposition or of any section of the Opposition to endeavour to take the Government out of the messes into which they put themselves. When I see them in a position such as they are in to-day, my whole desire and anxiety is to push them further in, so that as soon as possible the whole country will wake up to the realisation, which has been very forcibly impressed upon those of us who have an opportunity of observing them from day to day, but which is not so obvious to those who live more remote from the House of Commons, that this particular group of men who are managing the affairs of the country to-day have no real, genuine desire for the well-being of the citizens of either their own homeland or any part of the Empire, including the great nation of India, which has been steadily misruled by right hon. Gentlemen in this Government and their corresponding predecessors of the past. Disgraceful and shocking has been their whole attitude towards the Indian people, who have been regarded merely as serfs to pour wealth into the laps of British capitalists.
  Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I am sure that the hon. Member realises that he is going far beyond the question now before the House.
  Mr. MAXTON: I will finish very speedily. I believe the worst feature of
  1650
  all is the attempt to push forward the date of this Commission, so that it will be discussed throughout India when there is great public excitement and when the Commission will probably be met by antagonism and boycott, and witnesses refusing to give evidence, and all the difficulties that make this present time more ineffective than any other time during the two or three years that lie ahead. Their first duty before introducing this Bill was to have taken a wide review of Indian public opinion, to have consulted all representative Indian sections before announcing their Commission, to have found out what the Indian commercial classes wanted, what the Indian working classes wanted, and to have endeavoured in some way to introduce this Measure at a time when they had the maximum of support instead of, as is the case to-day, at a time when they have the maximum of antagonism. I hope the Government will proceed, and I hope the result will be their very speedy downfall.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill.—[Earl Winterton.]
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I really must protest against this Motion. I have taken no part in the discussion, and I was prepared to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, but I have not heard of any arrangement made through the usual channels. A Bill like this should not be taken immediately, and may I point out that the private Member of this House has certain rights? He may wish to put down Amendments. It is a bad principle to rush the Bill in this way, and I protest against it, and hope the noble Lord will not persist in his Motion. I was prepared to support him, and I have a right to ask him not to rush the proceedings.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Surely there are other days. We are not going to die today, and I hope there will be no undue rushing of this Bill.
  5.0 p.m.
  Earl WINTERTON: I do not think any difficulty need arise. There is a very

  1651
  small point at issue which was supported officially by hon. Members on the benches above the Gangway by their own leaders, and in these circumstances I thought it was reasonable to take it to-day; but I have had private assurances from the Leader of the Opposition and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury that it would meet the wishes of the Leader of the Opposition to take it to-morrow. The Government are prepared to take it to-morrow, but I hope the Bill will be passed through all its stages to-morrow so that we may take the Resolution on Friday. There has to be a Royal Commission signifying His Majesty's Assent before we can take the Resolution, and it is desirable that the Resolution, on which the real debate will arise, should be taken, on Friday.
  Mr. MacDONALD: There is no doubt about this. I am supporting this Bill; I hope the House is under no misapprehension about that. I am sure it was an oversight, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury knows, when a Resolution like this is moved, that at any rate the Opposition is always warned of the fact, and although I am supporting the Bill, and will continue to support the Bill right through every stage, I do expect to have notice. No notice was given to me, however, and I was taken by surprise when the noble Lord moved his Motion. I, therefore, hope he will not proceed now.
  Earl WINTERTON: I am obliged to the Leader of the Opposition, and I apologise to him; and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion I have just made.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Earl Winterton.]

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee—[Progress, 21st November, 1927.]
  [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
  Mr. T. SHAW: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  1652
  Last night we found ourselves in a very peculiar position. In order thoroughly to understand this Bill it is essential that we should have certain information from the Department. The information we have up to the present is certainly incomplete, not to say unsatisfactory. For instance, we have a statement that the effect of the Bill will, in the estimation of the Minister, be to take away 30,000 people in 1929. The statement definitely made by the Government Actuary, dealing with an almost similar state of things in 1924–5, is that 20 per cent. is his estimate of the number of people who will be taken away by the provisions of this Bill. Between these two estimates there is such an enormous difference that it seems to us essential that the Minister should have the opportunity of presenting a White Paper in order to show to the Committee what the position is before we are asked to deal with the Bill any further. It is in the interests of the Conservative party, as well as of our party, to know exactly what the conditions are. The Actuary estimates that the provisions in this Bill would, on the basis of 1924–25, when the conditions were little different, take 20 per cent, from the register. The Minister, speaking of 1929, said:
  "Subject to the allowances and necessary hypothesis that we had to make, the figure we came to as the most precise estimate that could be made, in the circumstances, of the number of people, additional to those already disqualified who would, in April, 1929, be added under the Bill, to the number of disqualified persons, was 30,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1927; col. 1529, Vol. 210.]
  I suggest it is essential that we should report Progress to give the Minister an opportunity of presenting a printed paper that can be analysed and criticised in order that we may know exactly where we are. At present the state of things is so unsatisfactory that it is impossible for us to estimate what the Bill will mean. Then, again, with regard to the effect of the Bill on the Poor Law authorities, which is one of the principal arguments against the Bill, we are left with the same indistinct kind of information; well, it is not information—we are left with an absolute lack of knowledge of the information in the possession of the Department. We get a statement as to the number of people who have been refused benefit, and who do not apply for

  1653
  benefit to the guardians inside the first fortnight after they are refused, but I venture to suggest to the Minister that if he had the opportunity that we are asking he should have, he would have time to give us in a White Paper the information that has been given to him from guardians throughout the country, which shows conclusively what the effect has been in their own areas. We are entitled, before we proceed any further with the Committee stages of this Bill, to this definite and precise information in printed form, in order that we may form an idea of what the condition of affairs is. It is in order to give the Minister himself an opportunity of telling the Committee what information he has at his disposal, how these hypotheses of which he speaks have been made, and on what he bases his statement, so that we may examine it, check it, if necessary criticise it—it is in order that we may give him an opportunity of making this statement and of strengthening the case for his Bill, as much as for our own personal opportunity, that I move that the Chairman do report Progress.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I should be very glad to give the right hon. Member and the Members of this Committee the information in a White Paper. I gather that particularly what he wants is the effect of the 30 contributions rule in disqualifying those persons not at present disqualified; also an estimate of the classes who are now disqualified who will not he disqualified under the new Bill; and the net effect of the new Bill. I will give all the information I possess on that score, and I will gladly issue it in a White Paper as soon as it is possible to do it. As regards the effect on the Poor Law, I have not got any complete figures, but I will communicate with the right hon. Gentleman as soon as I have been able to refer to the Department, to see what I can get.
  Mr. SHAW: Does the Minister agree to report Progress until he has issued the Paper? Really, to ask us seriously, in view of this state of affairs, to go on with the discussions as if we had the figures is, I think, rather too much, and I ask the Minister frankly to agree to report Progress in order that we may have the paper before we go further.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, I regret I cannot for a moment assent to that. At present, what we are considering is Clause 2, which deals with the creation of a class of persons from 18 to 21, and that will be considered also in Clause 4. The question of the 30-contributions rule and its effect will not come on until Clause 5. I am ready to meet the right hon. Gentleman in any way I possibly can, but in the circumstances, I trust he will not press to suspend the discussions now on the Clause that refers to the creation of the new class from 18 to 21.
  Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: We do not want these figures from the point of view of pure academic interest, but in reference to the Bill before the House. It is all very well for the Minister to say we are only discussing Clause 2, but we are really raising more than the question of the effect of the 30 contributions. We are raising the whole effect of this Bill on the position of insured persons. The right hon. Gentleman tells us he has a certain amount of information and that other information he has not got. If that be so, he has no business to bring in the Bill at all. We are told that he has not got the actual figures with regard to Poor Law relief and benefit, but he told us last night that he proposed to publish the actual figures regarding relief, from which I assume that he has in his possession some information that is not generally available to the House. Then there must be a good deal more information, because it will be within the recollection of the House that from time to time the Ministry has made special inquiries in regard to relief to unemployed persons. We were told last night that the Blanesburgh Committee had their own information, but because the Government was accepting the Report very largely they decided they must make their own inquiries. The right hon. Gentleman used these words last night:
  "When it was a question of the Government adopting the Report, we wished to see what information we could get."
  Then he went on to say that they have had another inquiry this year
  "in order to obtain information on a number of points of different kinds, quite apart from anything of this kind." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1927; cols. 1528–9, Vol. 210.]
  These words are a little obscure, but I take them to mean that before the Gov-

  1655
  ernment committed itself to an Unemployment Insurance Bill they had, in addition to the information made available by the Blanesburgh Committee, made extensive inquiries of their own. Surely the House is entitled, before we begin to discuss the details of this Bill, to have this information on which the whole fabric has been built. The right hon. Gentleman thinks we are only referring to the 30 stamps rule. We are not. We are referring to far more than that. We want to know not merely the effect of the operation of the 30 contributions, but the effect of the transitional contributins, and we want some reasonable estimate as to the number of people who to-day are getting benefit who will not get benefit if this Bill is put on the Statute Book.
  I submit that the request to suspend the proceedings until this information is available is perfectly reasonable. Not only has the right hon. Gentleman certain information, but he has sources of inspiration, which are not available to us. By some means or another unknown to us, he has arrived at an estimate of what unemployment there is going to be in 1929. If there is one thing that stood out more than another in his Second Reading speech it was his declaration that he had not the remotest idea of what unemployment there would be in 1929. The whole burden of his plaintive song was that we had to be very careful, because nobody knew what the state of affairs was going to be; and now, not-withstanding that serious statement on Second Reading, we are told that his figure of 30,000 is based on an estimate of unemployment in 1929. This is treating the Committee with contempt. Is this a serious estimate as to the effect of a Bill whose operations will affect 12,000,000 persons? The effect, we are told, will be to throw out of benefit no more than 30,000 people, and one of the factors in that calculation is an estimate of the position of unemployment in 1929. The right hon. Gentleman's own statement, read by my right hon. Friend, was sufficiently guarded to lead us, when we read it in cold print, to realise that this estimate is mere humbug, that there is nothing in it. His statement was:
  "Subject to that and subject to the allowances and necessary hypotheses that we had to make."
  1656
  We have not even been told what were the necessary hypotheses; we do not know the basis from which he started.
  "the figure we came to as the most precise estimate that could be made, in the circumstances,"—
  another vague phrase—
  "of the number of people additional to those already disqualified who would, in April, 1229, be added, under the Bill, to the number of disqualified persons, was 30,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1927; col. 1529, Vol. 210.]
  I submit that would not pass a kindergarten let alone a Committee of this House. The Committee are placed in a serious position to-day in being called upon to deal with Clause after Clause affecting insured persons while not knowing what is going to be the net effect of the Bill. If hon. Members opposite would put themselves in our position they would see the reasonableness of the request we are making. I can imagine that if we were on the other side of the House we should not get away with it like this. It is passing the bounds of courtesy to suggest that we are to have a White Paper presented at some time. By admitting that he is prepared to submit a White Paper, the right hon. Gentleman has conceded our whole case, has virtually admitted that he is in the wrong. He has admitted that the Committee are entitled to these figures. There is only one purpose for which these figures are needed, and that is the discussion of this Bill, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, having haltingly put out the hand of friendship by promising to publish the information, will agree to go a little further, will take the next logical step, and agree to the postponement of the Committee stage until we have all the available statistics before us. I must repeat that I think it is treating the Committee most unfairly to ask us to proceed with a permanent measure of unemployment insurance based on elaborate calculations which have been withheld from us here. Before we proceed further we ought to be in possession of the facts which are now in the possession of the Minister.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 145.

  Division No. 360.]

  AYES

  [5.20 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.- Colonel

  Fermoy, Lord

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

  Albery, Irving James

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Nierd, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

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

  Forrest, W.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

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

  Apsley, Lord

  Gates, Percy

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

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

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Philipson, Mabel

  Astor, Viscountess

  Grace, John

  Pilcher, G.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Balniel, Lord

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Preston, William

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Radford, E. A.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Ramsden, E.

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Grotrian. H. Brent

  Remnant, Sir James

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

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

  Berry, Sir George

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

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Bethel, A.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Hanbury, C.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

  Boothby. R. J. G.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Sandeman, N .Stewart

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Sandon, Lord

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

  Savery, S. S.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

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

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

  Henn, Sir Sydney

  Shepperson, E. W. H.

  Buchan, John

  Hills. Major John Waller

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

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

  Smithers, Waldron

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Burman, J. B.

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Caine, Gordon Hall

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

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hume, Sir G H.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Tasker, R. Inigo

  Clayton, G. C.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Templeton W. P

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Knox, Sir Alfred

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

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

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

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Colfox, Major Wm. Philip

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Cooper, A. Duff

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

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Cope, Major William

  Loder, J. de V.

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Couper, J. B.

  Looker. Herbert William

  Waddington, R.

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

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

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Crookshank. Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  McLean, Major A.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Dalkelth, Earl of

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Wells, S. R.

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

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

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

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

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Drewe, C.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Duckworth, John

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

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

  Ellis, R. G.

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

  Wood. Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  England, Colonel A.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

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

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Sailsbury)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arther Clive

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Major Sir George Hennessy and Mr. Penny.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  1658

  1659

  NOES.

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

  Harris, Percy A.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

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

  Hartshorn. Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

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

  Hayday, Arthur

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hayes, John Henry

  Sitch, Charles H

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Baker, Walter

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Snell, Harry

  Barnes, A.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Batey, Joseph

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Broad, F. A.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Bromley, J.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Strauss, E. A.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Kennedy, T.

  Sullivan, Joseph

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Lansbury, George

  Sutton, J. E.

  Buchanan, G.

  Lawrence, Susan

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

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Lawson, John James

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Cape, Thomas

  Lee, F.

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

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lindley. F. W.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Clowes, S.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lowth, T.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lunn, William

  Townend, A. E.

  Compton, Joseph

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

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Connolly, M.

  Mackinder, W.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Cove, W. G.

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Viant, S. P.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  March. S.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Maxton, James

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Montague, Frederick

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Dennison, R.

  Morris, R. H.

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

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)

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

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Murnin, H.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Fenby, T. D.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Westwood, J.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Owen, Major G.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Gillett, George M.

  Palin, John Henry

  Whiteley, W.

  Gosling, Harry

  Paling, W.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Greenall, T.

  Potts, John S.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Riley, Ben

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Ritson, J.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

  Windsor, Walter

  Groves, T.

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

  Wright, W.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. T. Henderson.

  Hardie, George D.

  Sexton, James

  Harney, E. A.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 244.

  Division No. 361.]

  AYES.

  [5.30 p m.

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

  Cove, W. G.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

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

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Hardie, George D

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

  Dalton, Hugh

  Harney, E. A.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Harris, Percy A.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Dennison, R.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Dunnico, H.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Baker, Walter

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Barnes, A.

  Fenby, T. D.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Gardner, J. P.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Garro-Jones. Captain G. M.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Broad. F. A.

  Gillett, George M.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Bromley, J.

  Gosling, Harry

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Graham, D M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Buchanan, G.

  Greenall, T.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Cape. Thomas

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Kennedy, T.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lansbury, George

  Clowes, S.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Cluse, W. S.

  Groves, T.

  Lawson, John James

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Lee, F.

  Compton, Joseph

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

  Lindley, F. W.

  Connolly, M.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Lowth, T.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Townend, A. E.

  Lunn, William

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

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

  Sexton, James

  Varley, Frank B.

  Mackinder, W.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Viant, S. P.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  March, S.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Maxton James

  Sitch, Charles H.

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

  Montague, Frederick

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Morris, R. H.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Weilock, Wilfred

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

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Murnin, H.

  Snell, Harry

  Westwood, J.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Whiteley, W.

  Owen, Major G.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Palin, John Henry

  Stephen, Campbell

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Paling, W.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Strauss. E. A.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Sullivan, J.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Potts, John S.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Riley, Ben

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

  Windsor, Walter

  Ritson, J.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro.,W.)

  Wright, W.

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

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

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. T. Henderson.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Colfox, Major Wm. Philip

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Albery, Irving James

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

  Cope, Major William

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

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Couper, J. B.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Apsley, Lord

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

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

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

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Dalkeith. Earl of

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Balniel, Lord

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

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

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

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

  Beckett, Sir Gervase(Leeds, N.)

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

  Hume, Sir G. H.

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

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Crewe, C.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Berry, Sir George

  Duckworth, John

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Bethel, A.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Jephcott A. R.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Ellis, R. G.

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  England, Colonel A.

  Klnloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

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

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Lamb, J. Q

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Faile, Sir Bertram G.

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Fermoy, Lord

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

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Loder, J. de V.

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

  Forrest, W

  Looker, Herbert William

  Buchan, John

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Gates. Percy

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Bullock, Captain M.

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

  Lumley, L. R.

  Burman, J. B.

  Goff, Sir Park

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  McLean, Major A.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Grace, John

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Macqulsten, F. A.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Chapman, Sir S.

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

  Manniegham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Charteris, Brinadier-General J.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

  Meyer. Sir Frank

  Churchman. Sir Arthur C.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark. Lanark)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hanbury, C.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Moore. Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  1662

  1663

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Waddington, R.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Sandon, Lord

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kinaston-on-Hall)

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

  Savery, S. S.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

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

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Nuttall. Ellis

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Smithers, Waldron

  Wells, S. R.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Philipson, Mabel

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

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Pilcher, G.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Preston, William

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Radford, E. A.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Withers, John James

  Ramsden, E.

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Remnant, Sir James

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray ana Nairn)

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

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

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

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

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Major Sir George Hennessy and Mr. Penny.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Saimon, Major I.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Rates of contributions in case of young men and young women.)
    The following Amendments stood on the Order Paper in the names of Mr. HAYDAY and other hon. Members:
    "In page 1, line 13, to leave out from the word 'to,' to the word 'employed,' in line 14."
    "In line 15, after the word ` have,' to insert the word 'not.'"
    "In line 15, to leave out the word 'eighteen,' and to insert instead thereof the word 'sixteen.'"
    "In line 15, to leave out from the word ` years,' to the word 'in,' in line 16."
    Mr. PALING: On a point of Order. I wish to ask if it is in accordance with the custom of the House for the Government to proceed with a Bill when, on the Minister's own admission, the information furnished about the Measure is so scanty that it entails the issuing of the White Paper which has been laid before the House, and in these circumstances how can it be expected that hon. Members will be able to come to a wise decision?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: These Amendments stand together, and would impose a charge which would require a Money Resolution. For this reason these Amendments are out of order.
    Mr. HAYDAY: May I point out that these Amendments do not make a charge, but simply request a payment from State funds. There are no consequential Amendments following. It is true that
    1664
    they create a new class, but that class could not qualify until those people were employed, and that places them in a special category. These Amendments would enable that new class to participate in the benefits of the Fund, but in no way do they impose a fresh charge upon the State, and no such proposals would have to be submitted in consequence. What is suggested would be no more a charge upon the State than when the Fund is called upon to provide all the administrative charges, and to provide the proportion suggested for training. We do not propose to set up a separate class, with a separate or distinct scale of contributions following a ratio as between the contributing parties to the Fund.
    It is for that purpose that we propose in the first Amendment to wipe out all reference to the contribution. If I am permitted, in the light of what I have said, to move my first Amendment, I think I should be able to develop an arguments showing why there should not be an extra charge upon the Exchequer for this new class that we are desirous of creating. The class created by the Bill is one to which I have very grave objection. I take it that we should not be out of order in discussing that matter. I suppose it would be in order to argue that by our proposals we are replacing one class with another under an entirely different set of circumstances, making no reference to a contributory basis for that particular class. I would like a reply to

    1665
    my points, because I am desirous of conforming to the rules of the Committee, or to any ruling that may be given. I would like to have an opportunity of presenting the case for the new class, because it is so distinct, and if you, Captain FitzRoy, would like me to explain further how there would be no charge created by these Amendments, I would like to do so.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I quite understand the hon. Member's views on the subject as he has explained them to the Committee. Nevertheless, if this new class, as he rightly describes it, were set up, it would need a Money Resolution before it could be included in the Bill, and for that reason it is obviously out of order.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I would like to know clearly why it is that our proposals would require a Money Resolution. I understand that a Money Resolution is necessary only where a direct charge is imposed upon the State. No money Bill will be necessary if, eventually, Amendments are carried that increase the amount of benefit, because that would be a charge on the fund, and no Money Resolution would be required. Consequently, any benefit that would be established as a result of the success of my Amendment, if carried, would not, I submit, necessitate a Money Resolution, because it is not proposed to impose a fresh charge on the State, and the charge is one which would be placed on the fund.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: May I submit that, if this Amendment were incorporated in the Clause, and then were read with paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of the Clause and the Second Schedule, it is perfectly clear that a charge would be imposed in respect of all persons under 18, and that that is not contemplated in the Money Resolution on which the Bill is based. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the Money Resolution?"] It is in the Act of 1920.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member is quite wrong. May I put this point to you, Captain FitzRoy? The proposal in the Amendment is that the first part of the Clause shall read.
    "The following provisions shall have effect with respect to …. employed persons who have attained the age of eighteen years…."
    1666
    It does not, therefore, impose any charge upon contributors, but the design is to bring them within the scheme. You will observe that the Money Resolution already adopted was a very narrow one, and did not cover the fact that certain alterations had been made in the way that the Unemployment Insurance Fund is to be expended. That Fund, contributed from three sources, is now in debt, and there is power to borrow money. That being so, the Bill has not altered certain of the provisions, and expenditure will be met. It would be quite conceivable for provision to be made for young persons under 16 out of the existing Insurance Fund and the powers that now exist to draw upon the Treasury for deficits, without creating any new charge upon any new class of contributors or upon the Exchequer. This proposal might well be varied by a redistribution of the way in which the proceeds of the Fund are expended, and in that sense it would not be a new charge, but merely a re-allocation of existing charges. I submit to you, Sir, that, if that were so, then this Amendment would be in order, if the ground on which it has been ruled out were that a new charge was being imposed.
    Miss LAWRENCE: I desire to submit this point. The Clause itself which the Committee are now considering has not a Money Resolution behind it. This Clause re-allocates benefits and contributions for persons between the ages of 18 and 21, and it has no Money Resolution behind it. Further, an Amendment has been put down by the Government increasing the contribution for these young persons, and that, again, has no Money Resolution behind it. I would press upon you, Sir, that, if you rule in this way with regard to my hon. Friend's Amendments, it is necessary that you should rule in this way with regard to Clause 2 itself, which has no Money Resolution behind it, and with regard to the Amendment of the Government, which also has no Money Resolution behind it. I submit to you that if you rule out these Amendments, you must rule out the Clause on the same grounds.
    Mr. STEPHEN: May I point out that there is a provision in the Bill for increasing the adult dependants' benefit from 5s. to 7s., thus giving an additional

    1667
    benefit of 2s. a week? I suggest that that necessarily brings in a great number of people. As men get married and become unemployed, it will bring in a great many people who would come within this provision giving an extra 2s. a week, and they would be in the same position as the young people under this proposal. I also desire to point out to you, Sir, that, on the basis of the 9 per cent. rate of unemployment, there is in the fund an estimated surplus of almost £1,750,000, and it is out of that surplus that the charge would be met; it would not come from the Treasury at all. We do not contemplate that this Amendment is going to impose an additional charge upon the Treasury in any way, though it would possibly involve a delay in bringing to an end the deficiency period or the extended period which is operative under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The arguments I have just heard have not altered my objection to bringing in a new class of insured persons which it would be out of order to introduce in an Amendment by a private Member. I have decided that this series of Amendments is out of order, and really I cannot listen to any more arguments on the matter.
    Mr. HAYDAY: May I, just for guidance, ask this question? Embodied in my Amendment is another phrase as to the class covered by the Clause. May I take it that discussion of the class of cases thus created would be in order on the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"? I only want to feel that some part of my argument with reference to this new class will be safeguarded.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: On the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," if the hon. Member likes to say that it would have been a better Clause if people under the age of 18 were included, he is entitled to do so, but he must not argue that at great length.
    With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), in page 1, line 15, to leave out from the word "persons" to the end of the para-
    1668
    graph, that is really equivalent to nullifying the Clause altogether, and, consequently, is out of order.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, after the word "years," to insert the words "and are unmarried."
    I think the effect of this Amendment will be obvious. The Minister, under the Bill, is creating a new class whose ages range from 18 to 21, and the rates of benefit that are to be paid to the people in this new class are much less than those individuals are able to obtain under the present Acts. The object of my Amendment is to limit the operation of this reduction of benefit. In the Appendix to the Blanesburgh Report, it is estimated that the youths between 18 and 21 number 783,00, and that the girls between 18 and 21 number 480,000. I do not know whether the term "girls" is appropriate to ages between 18 and 21, but that is the nomenclature used in the Report, and I prefer it to the word "flappers," which is used by some of the opponents of another Measure that the Government are going to bring in. Therefore, in dealing with this class, we are dealing with about 1,250,000 people, and there are members of that class who have managed to get married before reaching the age of 21. I will leave it to the Committee to decide whether they are fortunate or unfortunate in being married before they are 21. I myself have escaped so far—
    Viscountess ASTOR: Shame!
    Mr. STEPHEN: The Noble Lady may think it is a shame, but I did not meet her, possibly, in time. I do not want to dwell on that subject—
    Mr. MAXTON: Take it on the Report stage.
    Mr. STEPHEN: The Committee may be of opinion that it is unwise for a young man or young woman between the ages of 18 and 21 to get married, but, whether the Committee hold that view or not, the fact remains that there are people who do get married between those ages. Possibly they have such an affection for each other, and possibly there are circumstances of the individual, when marriage is entered into, that are such as to encourage them to think it will be all right in the future. Then things may happen afterwards—for instance, a General Election, as the result of which

    1669
    a different Government may be returned. There may come a time of bad trade, because it may be a Conservative Government that has been returned, and a young man may lose his employment. What we are suggesting here is the putting in of a safeguard in case a Government may act in such a way as to throw these young men out of employment. The young man and woman in those circumstances have a home to maintain; they have the same economic needs as any other married couple. They have to make provision for their home, and it is our view that, such being the case, people in those circumstances should be entitled to the same income as any other married man and woman who are obtaining benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts.
    6.0 p.m.
    To my mind, the only argument that could be adduced against this Amendment would be that it might act as an inducement to those people to get married too early, and without exercising sufficient prudence and considering sufficiently what the circumstances of their life may be. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will not suggest, indeed I do not think that anyone will suggest, that unemployment benefit at the rate at which it is paid to married people is a sufficient inducement to anyone to get married. I have had experience of people coming to me in reference to the rejection of their claims to unemployment benefit, and I have been horrified to discover that they have got married while they were in receipt of unemployment benefit—that, even on the very poor economic basis of those unemployment allowances, they have ventured upon so great a risk. Those cases there are, but I do not think there can be any suggestion whatever that if we allow the law to remain as it is at present young people will enter into marriage more lightheartedly because we have introduced a limitation of benefit with regard to the allowance. I cannot see any reason at all why the Minister should not accept this Amendment. If the home is set up and if unemployment comes, every married couple should be in the same respect with regard to the provision that is made in time of unemployment. I believe if this is really an Insurance Bill you want to have equality of treatment of married people, and I believe the Minister will be very well advised and the
    1670
    Committee will act only justly if they accept the Amendment and allow the law to remain, as far as married people are concerned, with regard to the provision of unemployment benefit, that is, provided the misfortune of unemployment overtakes the home of young people.
    Miss WILKINSON: I want to examine the economic position of the people between 18 and 21, which seems to me to have been overlooked by the Government. It is not a matter for us to decide whether the years 18 to 21 are suitable for marriage or not. The point at issue is whether the economic circumstances of the men and women in question justify that marriage, and that they and they only can decide. For a very large number of members of the working class the age of 18, just as much as the age of 21, is a time of maximum earning. We are accustomed to think in this House, especially the Government, of trades where a man serves an apprenticeship until he is 21, when he goes from an apprentice's wage to a journeyman's wage. In a very large number of the unskilled trades and the heavy physical trades—I am speaking now on this matter because it has been put to me very strongly by people engaged in the iron and steel trade in my own constitutency—they are getting at the age of 18 very often as much as they are likely to get. They are getting a full man's wage, and in piece-rate trades, especially those that are covered by a trade board, 18 is laid down as the age when a full rate is paid. There is, I think only one trade board where that is not the case, though I am not sure about the boot and shoe repairing trade. If a full man's rate is paid at 18 there is no reason why he should not get the full unemployment rate at 18. It is ridiculous to say to these men, "You must wait till you are 21 before you marry, or if you do not we shall punish you by giving you less rates of benefit when you are unemployed." From that point of view it seems to me that the Minister might very well give this concession, that where a person is married he should get the full rate.
    May I also point out the position of the women and children under this Clause. You may have a man of 20 with, perhaps, two children. You are not only going to punish him, but you are punishing the children and the woman as well,

    1671
    and you are punishing him for something that is certainly no crime, because the legal age of marriage is far lower than 18, and therefore if a man has committed no crime socially or in the eyes of the law you have no right to punish him and his wife and children merely because he is married at that age. Especially is that the case when this is being introduced as an entirely new thing. You will have to reduce the benefit of large numbers of men who are already married and have married under the present conditions of unemployment benefit. Suddenly you are going to say to a man who is the head of a household and the father of a family that his unemployment rate is going to be cut down to 10s. a week. This brings in a further point we have to consider. These men cannot live on 10s. a week, and you are adding a further burden to the local rates in these very heavily rated areas. From whichever point of view you look at the Bill you see that is all the time the attitude of the Government, in every way they can to push something on to the local rates and take it off the national funds, where, at any rate, the burden is very widely spread over the shoulders of the whole nation. For all these reasons I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: What I understand by the Amendment is that a distinction should be created between, shall we say, the rest of the members of a particular class which it is proposed to create, 18 to 21, and those of them who may be married before they are 21. As far as the words proposed are concerned, it really is impossible from an administrative point of view. There have to be different books for different classes and it would mean that at the age of marriage, as far as contributions are concerned, the book would have to be changed at any moment, and it would constitute such an administrative complexity in addition to those that already prevail that it would be exceedingly difficult. What I gather the hon. Member desires is to see that, as far as possible, if these people have extra burdens by reason of their being married, that situation might be met. If he is willing to withdraw the Amendment now with full opportunity, which I shall be glad to give him, at some later period in the
    1672
    Debate to raise it again, I shall be ready to do this. I cannot give any pledge now, but I will look into it from two points of view. I do not wish, unless there be reason shown, and unless there be a general consensus of opinion in the House, to depart from the recommendations of the Blanesburgh Report. On the other hand, I have also to try to consider, if it is considered proper to try to meet the hon. Member's purpose in any way, how it cell be done administratively. If he be willing to withdraw the Amendment now without my giving a pledge, having an opportunity to raise it again in the course of the Debate. I shall be glad to look into it, both for the purpose of ascertaining the general opinion and also to see if it be possible administratively.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Since the Clause deals specifically with the weekly contributions, would that in any way embarrass the right hon. Gentleman subsequently when he desired to give effect to the Amendment?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Supposing we came to the conclusion that it was a proper thing to do—I think it is a matter of very small numbers—it would not prevent it being dealt with in the matter of contributions or in the matter of benefits either, but that would be a matter for consideration, to see what is possible and what is not.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say this would be done administratively?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, if an exception should be made in any way it would have to be done in the Bill. What I must take into consideration, amongst other things, are the administrative difficulties when more complexities are made in an already complicated scheme.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: If it be true that this really affects only a small number of cases, clearly the administrative difficulties are not substantial. What we are claiming is very simple, that where people are married they should be excluded from the 18 to 21 class. I do not see that there is any additional complication in the Bill, and if the right hon. Gentleman will look into it and we can safeguard our position and be able on a

    1673
    future occasion to raise the question again, I think we should be prepared to leave the matter where it is at the moment.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman is speaking of the administrative difficulty in his own Department. He is not proposing to make this alteration administratively. He makes it in the Bill. I understand that if we agree to his proposal, we shall be committing no breach of faith if we raise the point again on Report.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is so.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Some of us doubt the wisdom of this proposal on grounds other than administrative. On the Second Reading I took exception to the proposal that we should do anything to encourage people to get married before they are 21. I think there is a very considerable lack of responsibility shown by people in all sections of society, and I am not in favour of encouraging a lack of sense of responsibility. I hold that view and I am entitled to express it, and I know perfectly well that it is very widely held. As the result of the statement I made on the Second Reading I received certain communications which indicate that that view is widely held outside this House. It is true the numbers concerned are not very large. Roughly speaking, there appear to be about 25,000 married people insured who are males and about the same number of females. The number unemployed is roughly a tenth of this, and the cost, apparently, will be about £100,000 a year. I think we have to consider whether we cannot find a better use for that £100,000 than encouraging what I regard as an undesirable tendency.
    Mr. HARNEY: I think the Minister ought at once to accept the Amendment. I have seldom heard an argument so puerile as that which has just been addressed to us. We are seriously told that there exists a body of persons outside Bedlam who would be induced to marry because thereby they would get four shillings or five shillings a week extra. The reason I suggest the Amendment should be accepted is this. There is no justification whatever for this reduction of benefit, except on the assumption that these young people are living in their
    1674
    parents' houses. The strong argument against it is, that among the working classes the adult age begins at 18. The real test of whether one of these so-called young persons is living independently from his or her parents is whether he or she is married. If there are any young people between 18 and 21 who are married and keeping up separate establishments we have to provide for these persons. Is it seriously to be said that people between the ages of 18 and 21 who are married and are keeping up separate establishments and are unemployed should not receive adequate benefits. [An HON. MEMBER: "Separate establishments from their parents homes?"] Was my remark ambiguous or was it understood to infer that I intended to mean separate establishments? I meant separate establishments from their parents. Is it to go forth to the country that these persons, found by the Employment Exchanges or the insurance agents to be legitimately unemployed through no fault of their own, are only to receive a few shillings a week on which to live? If it is intended to be so, let it be said frankly and openly. The Minister's position may be interpreted as follows: "I have introduced this reduction of benefit because I assume that in the great bulk of these cases the young people will be living with their parents. But if in any cases you show me that they are keeping up separate establishments from their parents, then the raison d'être for the whole of this Clause goes."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) wish to withdraw his Amendment?
    Mr. STEPHEN: Yes, but my hon. Friend here wants to ask the Minister a question in connection with a point on which we are not quite clear. I would like the Minister to give an answer.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, to leave out paragraph (a).
    I assume that a fuller discussion of the details, as set out in the Schedule, will be possible when we arrive at the Schedule, but I desire to move this Amendment for the purpose of drawing attention to the general question of the contributions for the special class of

    1675
    young persons. Under the provisions in the Schedule, which we shall be discussing later, it will be seen that these new special classes of young men and young women are to have their contributions reduced by one penny per week, in the case of young men from 8d. to 7d., and in the case of young women from 7d. to 6d. The reduction which is taking place in the rate of contribution is a relatively small one, but the change which is taking place in the benefit which they are to receive for the contribution is a very substantial one. The first proposal in the case of all these young people between the ages of 18 to 21 was a very substantial reduction. But even now there is no fair relation between the reduction that is being made in the contributions and the reduction that is being made in the benefits receivable for the payment of those contributions. Since the Bill was introduced Amendments have been introduced by the Minister to divide these young people into three classes for the purposes of benefit. But while there have been changes made in the scale of benefits of the new classes—
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. Is it in order to discuss the whole principle of the Clause on this Amendment to leave out paragraph (a)? Presumably, if we leave out paragraph (a) we should leave out also paragraph (b), because the two things hang together. If (a) and (b) are left out, there will be no Clause left. Therefore, I suggest that a discussion on the general principle should arise on the question, "That the Clause stand part," and not on this Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): The leaving out of paragraph (a) undoubtedly raises a very large question on the principle of the Clause, and it would be a matter of some difficulty to confine the discussion strictly to that without bearing on other parts of the Clause. I am not sure whether the most convenient course to take would not be to have a general discussion on this Amendment. That, of course, would be without prejudice to moving, and dividing on, Amendments later.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Without any discussion on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part"?
    The CHAIRMAN: That would depend on the length and scope of the discussion now.
    Mr. COVE: I think your predecessor in the Chair suggested we should be able to raise the old question of the non-inclusion of the 14 to 16 class on the Clause standing part. Do I understand that your ruling now will preclude us from raising that issue?
    The CHAIRMAN: No. I am suggesting that the course which was adopted in regard to other Bills should be followed, and that on an early Amendment of substance a general discussion should take place. If this course were followed, it would save a prolonged discussion afterwards. This course was adopted on a most important Bill in this Session on several Clauses. Of course, if any Member objects to it, I shall have to restrict the scope of the Debate on the various Amendments, but as a matter of general convenience I would submit that we ought to take this course to-day.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Is this without prejudice to the discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," because your predecessor this afternoon, in regard to certain Amendments ruled out of order, said quite clearly that it would be possible on the Clause standing part to argue that the new class of persons was wrong?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is not a suggestion that I am to follow a new precedent. I would allow, with the leave of the Committee, that the same matters should be discussed as on the Question, "That the Clause stand part." If, of course, it is objected to, I shall have to rule personally as to paragraph (a).
    Mr. GREENWOOD: My difficulty would be the possibility of bringing in at this stage, after the previous decision, this question of an entirely new class of person between the age of 14 to 16 years.
    The CHAIRMAN: I should allow that. I do not say there should be no discussion on the Motion "That the Clause stand part," but, of course, the whole broad discussion could not be repeated. It is really a matter for the Committee. On other occasions, this course has proved convenient all round.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: We have no objection to it.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I would suggest that we discuss each Amendment as it comes up and have the broad, general discussion on the Motion that the Clause stand part. I think that would relieve us of a good deal of responsibility. My opinion is, that Amendments ought to be discussed on their merits as far as they are in order, and that on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," a general discussion should take place.
    The CHAIRMAN: If there be discussion on individual Amendments, it might so happen there would be no discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Surely, on that point it would be time enough to give a decision when the discussions are about to take place and not now. People who are reasonable human beings should be prepared to take each Amendment as it arises, and agree to have a general discussion on the Clause standing part.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is just a point whether time will permit. If hon. Members strictly confine their observations to particular points, there is no reason why we should not get through in good time, but, if this course be adopted, I must rule strictly on the individual Amendments.
    Miss LAWRENCE: Is not the question a little altered by the fact that a definite undertaking was given earlier that certain subjects should be discussed on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part"?
    The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Deputy-Chairman said there was to be another opportunity. That opportunity would come on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but I suggested, for the convenience of the Committee, that it might take place now. If the Committee object, very well, I will enforce the ordinary Rules of the Committee and rule on individual Amendments. If these Amendments are discussed at unusual length, it might be my duty not to afford all the time some Members would desire.
    Mr. HAYDAY: The point I desired to put might well be safeguarded, as Amend-
    1678
    ments are ruled out because, strictly speaking, they are out of order. I hope that whatever happens in connection with the Amendment it will not preclude the raising of such points as might be in order on the Question, "That the Clause stand part." I think, if I might respectfully make a suggestion, it would be much better to have a strict rule applied to the Amendments as they arise so as to leave no reason for doubt as to the scope of the discussion on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The CHAIRMAN: I quite agree, but neither the hon. Member nor I can be masters of that.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: When I rose to move this Amendment I tried to do my best to keep within the terms of the Amendment. When the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) attempted to put you right, Mr. Hope, it was not my intention to discuss the actual contributions or the details of the contributions. I was merely drawing attention to the general question with a view to safeguarding a discussion on the details of the contributions and benefits at a later stage in the Bill. I assume I had kept myself in order up to that point. The points to which I want to draw attention on this particular Clause are these. There are two main points. I am keeping to the question of contributions. You must consider them in connection with the general level of the benefits. I am not considering whether the contributions are too high or whether the benefits are too low, but I am pointing out this fact, that whereas a reduction has been made in the contributions of this new class of persons, the benefits receivable for the payment of these contributions have been reduced by a much larger amount. The second point to which I wish to draw attention in moving this Amendment is the fact that at first, when the Bill was drafted, there was to be a flat rate of contribution for the new class of insured persons, those between 18 and 21, with a flat rate of benefit. During the week-end the right hon. Gentleman, moved no doubt by arguments in the House, has modified the scales of benefit and established three special yearly groups, 18 to 19, 19 to 20, 20 to 21. Although he has in that way altered the benefit, the rates of contribution still remain flat rates, and nothing has been done to alter them. It was with the pur-

    1679
    pose of drawing attention to these questions, which was in order on the Amendment, that I rose to move the Amendment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain why there is not the same proportionate reduction in contribution. Further, I should like him to say why it is that young people from 19 to 20 and 20 to 21 are to receive more benefits for the same contribution in the future, while the young persons of 18 to 19 are still to pay the same contribution and to have only the same low rate of benefit. These matters call for explanation.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I could give the hon. Member the information which he desires. In unemployment insurance as in other kinds of insurance it is always possible that at the earlier ages one pays rather more in contributions than the benefits receivable at the earlier age. That is to say, that individuals at the earlier periods of their life make contributions towards some of the advantages which enure to them later in life. That applies to national health insurance and what applies to health insurance applies to unemployment insurance. It is for that reason that there should be a rather higher proportionate contribution at the earlier age than at the later ages, and that is the reason why the contributions are not strictly proportionate to benefits received at the earlier ages.
    Mr. HARNEY: I always understood that in connection with health matters young persons were presumably making more contributions than old persons because youth does not have so much sickness as age, but I never heard until now the presumption that young persons will be less unemployed than persons of mature years.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the statement he has just made with the exemption of young people from 16 to 18?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not quite sure that I know to what the hon. Member refers. Perhaps he will put that point separately. I am now dealing with the main question. The burden of unemployment is, on the whole, rather heavier in middle life than it is before,
    1680
    and therefore it is perhaps right that at the earlier ages a slightly higher contribution should be payable. That is the answer to the question which has been put to me by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood). I thought it right to have the benefits graded according to the increase of years, and that is the reason why I have introduced the Amendment. Further, I can justify it on the ground that the proposal is in conformity with the opinions which were brought before the Blanesburgh Committee by a number of employment committees. It is on these grounds that I justify the difference in the proportion of contribution to benefit, and also the grading of the benefits between the ages of 18 to 21.
    Mr. E. BROWN: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman's reply contains a fallacy which is contained in Departmental inquiries and in a great many arguments. An average is struck and they make statistics, but that average has no relation to particular classes of individuals. If the right hon. Gentleman will ask his Department to make inquiries in certain areas such as the shipping areas and the engineering areas he will find two things standing out, namely, that the bulk of unemployment is not with the middle-aged men but with the young and the old. The average which he is now putting forward in defence of his proposal may be perfectly true as a statistical average for the whole range of unemployed persons, but is entirely falsified in the areas where these young persons are in the direst need, because there is the smallest chance for them getting an opportunity of work. This same fallacy is expressed in the White Paper in regard to the Poor Law. The figures there given may be applicable to the country as a whole, but they are quite irreconcilable with the enormous increase of Poor Law relief to persons in certain areas.
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I should like to put a point to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the heavy industries, where men work in teams, and when the men are thrown out of employment the boys are thrown out of employment also. Take the tin-plate trade. There we have rollers, doublers, furnace-men and behinders, who are boys. If any of these people are stopped the whole team

    1681
    is thrown out of employment. If you take bar millmen, you have rollers, roughers and heaters, who are commonly called ballers. You must also have crane boys and boys taking the ingots from the furnace to the rollers on coaches. They work in teams. If the men are thrown out of employment the boys are also thrown out of employment. In the case of the mines, the men work in teams. They engage boys, and if the men are thrown out of employment the boys are thrown out of employment. In the cotton industry exactly the same thing applies. In a clerical department, you may get someone off sick who can be replaced, but in the industries of the country you cannot do that, because the men work in teams. Therefore, I suggest that between now and the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman should take this matter into consideration and see how from the point of view which I have put it affects other industries in the country and not a particular industry which may have been pointed out to him by his officers.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: As I understood him, the Minister tried to justify the present rate of contributions for young persons on the ground that the analogy between ill-health and unemployment was statistically proved. That seems to be on the basis of the statistical and actuarial calculations with which we have been supplied ever since this Bill was introduced. What the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) says is perfectly true. There are industries where unemployment is infinitely worse among young people and not better. Take the jute industry where, owing to arrangements which have had to be made, for an increase in the rate of wages at the age of 18, a young person at the age of 18 is automatically sacked. There are other industries in the country where the same thing holds good, and yet this afternoon the Minister says that on the basis of health figures because there is less disease, less ill-health among young persons, there is equally less unemployment among young persons. He has not submitted any figures whatever to justify that assumption. He has not even pretended that the Actuary of his Department would justify that.
    I would point out what has happened over the week-end. If what the right
    1682
    hon. Gentleman says to-day is correct it was correct a week ago, yet during the interval he has said, in effect, "I will reduce the rate of contributions by one penny for young men and young women of 18 years of age, I will retain the reductions which I have proposed of 8s. for men and 7s. for young women. For the age of 19 to 20 I will make a reduction of 1d. in the contributions, but I will give an increase of 2s. in the benefit." Is it suggested that there is less unemployment at the age of 19 than at the age of 18? If so, on what statistical information is that based? Then he comes to the ages 20 to 21 and he says, "I will reduce the contributions by 1d. and increase the benefits by 4s." On what actuarial assumption can that be justified? I suggest that there is no actuarial justification for it, and that the right hon. Gentleman cannot produce any facts or figures from any Actuary in his Department to justify it. He has simply made a blind guess. He has not attempted to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member who has just spoken said that there is no information as to the average of unemployment amongst these young people. I have here the 18th abstract of labour statistics, which gives an analysis, made in November, 1924, of the various causes of unemployment at various ages, and I find that unemployment at the ages from 18 to 19 was in relation to the number insured lower than that of any other age group except the age group from 30 to 34. Since unemployment is lower amongst the class we are discussing the arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite are destroyed by the statistics I have quoted.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is that for a small area or for the whole country?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: It is an analysis of 1 per cent. of the claims covered by the Employment Exchanges in Great Britain at the end of November, 1924. That 1 per cent. was taken in a purely arbitrary manner. There was no selection. If anyone has taken the trouble to study the Report on which this table is based they must know that it is the usual sampling

    1683
    method pursued by the Ministry of Labour at all times when they engage in these particular investigations.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the hon. Member—
    The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Connolly.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Can I not ask a question?
    The CHAIRMAN: We are in Committee. I do not know whether the hon. Member has spoken, but it will be possible for him to ask the question afterwards. I have called upon the hon. Member for Newcastle East (Mr. Connolly).
    Mr. BUCHANAN: A member of the Front Bench has put a question. Cannot a Member on a back bench also put a question. I thought that there was no harm in asking the hon. Member a question. Am I to understand that a Front Bench Member may ask a question, but a Back Bench Member may not?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must understand nothing of the kind. Mr. Connolly.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Why is the difference made? An hon. Member on the Front Bench asked a question, which was allowed. May I take it that I am not allowed to ask a question?
    The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Connolly.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: The proposals with regard to contributions and benefits are astonishing. If you take the joint contributions of the employer, the State and the employed, you will find that for a benefit of 8s. per week for young women and 10s. per week for young men you make a contribution of 1s. 1½d. in the case of young women and 1s. 4¼d. in the case of young men. I wonder what hon. Members opposite would think if trade unions charged anything like the same amount in contributions for the same benefits. So far as the society of which I am a member is concerned, the whole of the contribution of a skilled worker in the trade is 1s. 6d. per week, and for that he gets all the benefits which the society provides, including unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, accident bonus, victimisation, funeral benefit, and widows' and orphans' pension. He gets all that for
    1684
    1s. 6d. per week. Here you are asking for a contribution of 1s. 4¼d. for a benefit of 10s. per week. If you take an unskilled worker in the trade their contributions range from 6d. to ls., and they cover all benefits. There is no insurance about this Measure.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is it in order to discuss the amount of contributions on this particular Amendment?
    The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think it is. The paragraph refers to "young men and young women," and I think it is very relevant.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: It deals with practically nothing else. Therefore, if I am not in order in dealing with contributions—
    The CHAIRMAN: I have just said that the hon. Member is in Order.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: My point was whether the amount, not the contribution itself, was in order, and whether we should not discuss it on the Schedule.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Is it permissible for an hon. Member to tell another hon. Member that he knows nothing at all about it?
    The CHAIRMAN: When I hear such an expression I shall deal with it. As there is a reference in this Clause to the First Schedule in the Bill, I think it is impossible to avoid a reference to this matter.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Let me carry the comparison a little further—to the Bill itself. I take it that the contributions of the senior section under this Bill are on an actuarial basis. Take the contributions of a man or woman over 21 years of age. The value of their contributions in benefits is given up to the limit of 36s. per week for a married man. That is not too much. I presume it is actuarially sound. Compare this 36s. per week benefit with a benefit of 10s. and 8s. per week for younger persons, for which you are only asking 1d. per week more from the older members. There is no relation whatever between these figures. I think it is the duty of the Government to look into the position much closer. This is not the time to discuss benefit, and we shall have a little more to say about that on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. HARNEY: I should like the Minister of Labour to give us a little more information on the actuarial calculations. I think it is unquestionable that the contributions proportionate to the new benefits are made higher for young people than for old people. There is a joint contribution of 1s. 9d., yielding a benefit of 18s. That joint contribution of 1s. 9d. is reduced by 2¾d., and I calculate that if 1s. 9d. yields a benefit of 18s., then a reduction of 21d. should give a benefit reduced by 2s. But the reduction is 8s. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the reason for this alteration, this proportionate alteration, between contributions and benefits for young people is that in employment, just as in health insurance, the presumption is that young persons will pay more and reap less than old persons. That is a false analogy, because while that presumption is quite true in the case of health—in our younger years we do not get as many ailments as we do in later years—in the case of employment it is rather odd to be told that young persons when work is slack are thrown out with less rapidity than matured and seasoned workers.
    The Minister met me by saying that this is the reason why young persons pay proportionately less for benefits than old persons, but when I look at the alteration made I find that young persons are, in fact, paying, proportionately, very much more than older persons for the benefits received. In health insurance I can quite understand the presumption that a young person will be contributing year after year and drawing no benefit. Therefore, it is right to say that less contributions from young persons are actuarially worth more in benefit than contributions from middle-aged persons. But when unemployment is considered we find that young persons, who according to the right hon. Gentleman would presumably be reaping less benefit and paying less contributions, are in fact paying in proportion to the benefits received higher contributions than older persons. The recommendation in the Report of the Committee was that young persons should only pay 4d. per week in contributions, plus 1d., that is 5d. I look at the Schedule, and I find that not content with the figures worked out by the Committee, the Government are now proposing that young persons should pay 5¼d. I want to know why these unfor-
    1686
    tunate young persons are mulct all round. On an actuarial basis, and on the Minister's own argument, they are unfairly dealt with. Why should they be more unfairly dealt with in this Bill?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a point which comes up on the Second Schedule—moneys provided by Parliament—which we are not allowed to discuss at the moment.
    Mr. HARNEY: I base my argument on justice. I look at the Schedule, and I find that young persons are in fact to pay 6d. What is the idea here? The Committee must realise that by this reduction of benefits below what they should be, having regard to the contribution, there is a saving to the Exchequer, and the result is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is easing the way for his own Budget at the expense of sending these young girls on to the streets perhaps, and these young boys to a life of dishonesty. So little has this matter been considered that the Minister in charge of the Bill calmly tells us that the reason he reduces the benefits proportionately more than the contributions is because unemployment was like health. That argument has been exploded; and so far from reducing contributions lower than benefits, he has increased the contributions as against benefits. I desire to ask leave to move to report Progress in order that the Minister may have a table made out, and the Committee should know how the matter stands. He has given us an actuarial reason for what he has done, but on examination it is shattered to pieces. There must be a real reason for the proposal, and I think the Committee should know the real reason.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a Motion which I cannot accept.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I should like to support the suggestion that the Minister should review the situation again. Let me remind him that young men in my own constituency are obliged to leave work at 18 years of age under an arrangement which operates in the jute industry. Many young persons are involved in these proposals and it is very necessary we should draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that they are as liable to be unemployed as older people. As a matter of fact, the situation is alto-

    1687
    gether the other way, so far as the jute industry is concerned. I also consider that a more reasonable allowance should be made in the matter of contributions. I submit that there are strong grounds for asking the Minister to review the situation.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. HARDIE: All the discussion so far on the Committee stage of the Bill has had a definite relation to figures which we have not been able to obtain. On the previous Clause we hoped to get some idea of what was in the mind of the Minister, who seems to hold the idea that in so many years or months certain things are going to take place but we failed and the same thing applies in this case. If the Minister had any logic at all, it should show him, in regard to the matter now before the Committee, that he ought to have brought forward another Clause to the effect that men over a certain age, say, 50 years of age, should no longer be required to pay any contributions at all, and that the contributions should all be put upon the people who are under 50 years of age. That would be logic, and I understand the Minister claims to belong to the Scottish people who are regarded as a logical people. I hope, however, the right hon. Gentleman is not all Scottish, because, without wishing to be personal or insulting, it would be no credit to Scotland to have anyone so lacking in cogent reasoning. Reasoning from this Clause we must conclude that the younger one is the more one has to pay and it only remains for the Tory party to reduce the age at which boys and girls can enter industry and so they will still further reduce the age at which people may stop paying any money at all towards insurance. The Minister has said that this matter has, been put on a business basis. If he himself were starting a firm to-morrow in London would he run it on these lines? If he did, he would not be very fat at the end of the first year on his profits.
    This Bill has no relation to ordinary business insurance. The basis of ordinary insurance is in the contributions. They constitute the one resource until they accumulate to such an extent that the insurance company can make investments, and from those investments are derived the funds which place the company on a business foundation. When the Minister,
    1688
    or any other member of the Government, talks about business matters in this connection, one assumes that they have some knowledge of ordinary insurance principles; but if they had that knowledge they would not make the stupid remarks that have been made in regard to this Bill. If it is not stupidity on their part, then these remarks are made designedly in order to mislead those who do not understand the subject. If you were starting an insurance business of any kind to-day as a private firm you would be up against the established capital in other insurance businesses.
    The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member is going to connect this argument with the question of the rates of contribution in the case of young persons.
    Mr. HARDIE: I am dealing with the remark of the Minister that this scheme is to be run on the basis of ordinary insurance, and I am showing that it has no relation at all to ordinary insurance. When we come to the question of the young persons I would ask what is to be the definition of an unemployed youth. Let the Committee bear in mind the central fact that there are two distinct sections of people out of work. The term "unemployed" logically applies to those who have been thrown out of work through some disturbance in trade and who may be absorbed again in trade. But we have also a definite section of permanent unemployed, increasing in numbers every day through displacement by improvements in machinery. You cannot insure against permanent unemployment. The men displaced by machinery are permanently on the unemployed list. To-day we can roll as much steel with seven men as we did a few years ago with 70. Sixty or more of these men are on the displaced labour list. How are you going to deal with them? Is not this Bill simply a means of putting these displaced men on to poor relief?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the question of these contributions from young persons.
    Mr. HARDIE: I am endeavouring to show, in reply to the Minister's argument, that this Bill has no relation to outside insurance and what I say about the dis-

    1689
    placed men is very definitely connected with the question of the contributions to be paid by the young persons. What is an unemployed young person? Take the case of those who leave school and are for years on the streets without getting a job. Are they unemployed young persons? Can you say that a person is unemployed who has never been in any occupation? We want to get definitions on these matters. We want to get something which is easily understood because this Bill will have to be understood by the poor people who are suffering unemployment. The Minister need not try to skate off from these points with the superior air of understanding and of great insight, and he need not seek to tell us what is going to happen in the matter of industrial development a year from now. That is skating on very thin ice and is trying to fly too high. [Laughter.] Yes, both at the same time, and I propose to prove it. The old idea of the firmament in the imagination of people was that it was something into which you could screw nails; the idea of the Minister is that he can skate and fly at the same time. When he wants to make a show in the eyes of the working classes he does a few "figure eights" on the thin ice—
    The CHAIRMAN: I must again ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the contributions of young persons.
    Mr. HARDIE: I was just about to say that when the Minister had done with skating he came to the question of the contributions of young persons and then he tried to raise himself in a balloon. I hope sufficient attention has been paid to this question by Members of all parties. While we may indulge ourselves in insulting one another in this House, I hope we are not going to insult the poor people who, through no fault of their own, are in poverty to-day.
    Mr. MAXTON: There is an adage common among the smaller members of the commercial community to the effect that it is a mistake to mix sentiment with business. I think the Minister's difficulties arise from the fact that he is endeavouring to mix sentiment with business in this Clause. I do not agree with the conception that you cannot mix sentiment with business but your sentiment must be sound and your business methods must be sound. In his approach to his particular Clause the Minister is sound
    1690
    neither in his sentiments nor in his business methods. He again cites statistics in support of his claim, and his hon. Friend below the Gangway, the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) produces the Statistical Abstract of the Ministry of Labour in support of him. To quote the Statistical Abstract always conveys an appearance of profundity and solid weight, and I have availed myself of the opportunity afforded at the Vote Office to procure the Statistical Abstract which was produced in support of the right hon. Gentleman by the hon. Member for Reading—who is usually very well informed about the Minister's intentions and thoughts and the methods by which his thoughts are created. I find first that the hon. Member for Reading—who is not, I am sorry to see, in his place at the moment—misquoted the statistics very badly to this House. He compared the age 18–19 group with middle life, where the group classified is from 45–54—that is comparing a period of nine or 10 years with a period of two years. There is nothing in these tables which offer anything like statistical accuracy for this purpose and, certainly, they would not justify an ordinary man, who wanted to be accurate, basing anything in the nature of contributions on the figures supplied here.
    This is an anlysis of approximately one per cent. of the claims current on all Employment Exchanges in Great Britain in November 1924. We find that there were 8,850 claims examined altogether. Of these 167 were juveniles of 16 to 17 years of age; 437 were young people 18 to 19 years of age and then there is a sudden jump up to 1,379 at the ages 20 to 24. Between the ages of 25 and 29 we find 1,000 of the 8,000 or 12½ per cent. and at the ages 30 to 34 there is a drop to 810. Then we come to the ages 35 to 44. The experience of every person in this House is, I think, that a man is generally at his best both physically and in so far as his knowledge and expereince are concerned, at these ages. He is at his maximum of efficiency, his experience and skill are at the highest point of development and his physical powers are not declining. At that stage, when the employé is most efficient, most settled in character and habit we find the biggest figure of unemployment is obtained, namely, 1,544 out of the 8,000. Then we find the lowest

    1691
    figure of all, when one gets into the adult stage, is at the period 55 to 59. There are fewer people unemployed from 55 to 59 than any other age, and fewer at 60 and over than between 35 and 44. Yet the right hon. Gentleman, on the basis of figures like these, tries to make us believe that he has designed his contributions on statistical evidence. It is fatuous. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe, as we know some of his colleagues believe that any rubbish is good enough to tell the Opposition and the country. It is their privilege and right to treat their political opponents in this House with contempt, but is it fair business to treat in this way their own supporters, the business men who subscribe to their funds, the people who make it possible for them to come here, the people who send them here believing that they are a safe, responsible, business-like Government who are committed to economy and are running the country in a wise manner.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going very far from the question of the contributions of young persons.
    Mr. MAXTON: I admit it would be quite wrong to carry this point too far, but surely it is reasonable, when I have proved the absolute futility of the Minister's arguments on this Clause, to point to the logical conclusion that people who produce futile arguments are futile people.
    The CHAIRMAN: On the Third Reading there might be an occasion for this kind of rhetoric, but hardly on this Amendment.
    Mr. MAXTON: I return to the figures. There is no statistical basis, and why should the Minister try to establish one? The Minister's reply raises the idea that in his mind a person is unemployed at the same time that he is paying the contributions. That is not true. The age at which a man is paying a contribution is not necessarily the age at which he is going to draw his benefits, and the Minister's reply assumes that fallaciously. In all insurances you assume that a person is going to draw his benefit at some difficult period and pay his contributions during the period when he is more fortunate. You, Mr. Chairman, refused to receive the Motion of one of my hon. Friends below the Gangway to
    1692
    report Progress until the Minister would produce a White Paper or explanation. I wonder if you would accept a Motion to report Progress to allow the Minister to withdraw the Bill altogether? I am glad to see the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) is back in his place, and I think the Minister has provided himself with statistics also. I hope the hon. Member for Reading will be a little more careful and correct the wrong impression that he gave to the Committee. I am willing to give way to him if he has an explanation.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am sorry that I was not in my place when the hon. Member challenged my figures. The first column is for a two-years period and the other column is for a five-years period, and, in order to be accurate, I increased the first column in the right proportion. In other words, I quoted the figures in regard to the general statement that the unemployment proportion was lower in the age group of 18 to 19 years than for the other age groups. That statement is perfectly true, because you have to bear in mind that the number of insured people at each age group is progresively declining on account of the fact that people die. When you come to the age group from 55 to 59, the people are only about half those in the group of 30 years earlier in life. If the hon. Member examines these things in a rather more scientific manner than he has yet done, he will find my statement is perfectly true.
    Mr. MAXTON: I am sorry the hon. Member was not in his place, and I did not raise the matter in any offensive spirit. I was only anxious to get at the statistical basis of the Minister. I am rather alarmed as to how the Minister will get up and defend the defence of the hon. Member for Reading. I want to be perfectly fair and accurate also. The hon. Member for Reading tells me that he makes the necessary corrections, and I would like to know exactly the coefficient which he finds necessary to make that correction.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: To turn two into five, I multipiy by 2½.
    Mr. MAXTON: Does the hon. Member really believe that that gets him to anything but a completely imaginary figure? The hon. Member tells me that

    1693
    there are different numbers at each age. Where is the fraction that tells him the difference in the numbers in the groups? If the hon. Member will allow me to say so without any offence, I see his colleague the Member for Swindon (Mr. Banks) telling him how to reply.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sorry that the hon. Member has not had the time to study these particular figures. He has only heard of them in the last few minutes and has not quite appreciated the position. The numbers in the earlier age groups are larger than those in the later age groups. If the first group, instead of being for two years, had been for five years, the figure which compares would have been two and a-half times greater. That gives the figure which is comparable to the other. The hon. Member will find the only period which could possibly be better is the age group 30 to 34, and therefore the statement which I made is perfectly true. The reason the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is not true is that he has only seen the table for the first time in his life in the last few minutes and does not appreciate its significance adequately.
    Mr. MAXTON: It is quite impossible for me to proceed in Committee to divide all these figures by two or multiply by five. I am perfectly certain, if that simple arithmetical process were carried through, the argument of the hon. Member would still be absolutely absurd. I hope the Minister, now that he has had the opportunity of consulting his permanent officials who work out the figures, will know the reason for fixing that contribution and will tell the Committee what was the basis.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have been confirmed by consultation with my advisers in the conclusions which I stated previously. As regards the Report just quoted, the numbers which the hon. Member has read are not the numbers of unemployed or the proportion of unemployed. They are merely the total cases which were taken for examination in one year. The hon. Member expressed surprise that there should be more people in the 10 years between the ages of 35 to 44 than in the five years from 30 to 34. The second age group in the matter of years is twice as long as the first, and there is thus no reason for surprise. Perhaps he had not seen the figures before.
    Mr. MAXTON: There is absolutely no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should never give way to me as he does to other Members. I did very specifically point out in my reply to the hon. Member for Reading that what makes this fallacious was the fact that at every stage the age groups were different. I pointed out that while for the group 55 to 59 a period of five years was under consideration, in that for 18 and 19 it was only two, and for 45 to 54 it was 10.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The fact is, therefore, that the simple totals of the age groups do not prove anything contrary to what I have previously stated, for in the later years unemployment becomes heavier in its incidence. The reasons which I gave at the opening are precisely true and have not been modified by the discussion. In the earlier years of a person's contributory life as an insured person his needs are less, while in the later years the incidence of unemployment upon him is greater. Therefore, it is right that he should make some provision for the future, and in order to get the benefits later in life he pays a larger comparative contribution at an earlier age. That is the view which is also taken in the Actuary's Report which is placed as a schedule to the Report of the Blanesburgh Committee, for these words occur in Section 15:
    "Generally it may be said in respect of young persons under the age of 21 that while the contribution paid in respect of them (i.e., by themselves, their employers, and the State), produces a surplus they will, themselves, in their subsequent years of insurance derive full compensation for this early contribution excess in the terms provided for adults as above described."
    Mr. MACKINDER: I ask the Minister what are the facts about the particular points raised. I could understand them increasing the benefits for girls between the age of 18 and 21 if there were a likelihood of them getting a fair return for the contributions they have paid, but I would remind the Minister that in the period when they are most prolific in their payments and pay higher proportionately to the benefits they receive and when they are likely to come to the end of the unemployment, there is a very large proportion of these girls who marry and leave insurable occupation and never receive benefits, and thus leave all the money they have paid in the Fund. I

    1695
    could understand it if the Minister would play the game by these people and say that at all events while they are in insurable occupations and are paying these excessive amounts every week—which means a lot to factory and shop girls—they shall have an adequate remuneration for their payments when they are unemployed. But if you take mill and shop girls who are paying this money between the ages of 18 and 21, they are paying it for the future, and we might at least give them enough to live on and keep them off the streets if they are unemployed in that period. The plain fact is that there must be a large percentage of the girls between the ages of 18 and 21 paying this enormous contribution who can never hope to receive any benefits, because they get married and leave insurable occupations. I think the Minister might at least take that into consideration when deciding the amount of contribution. I hope when he gets up he will answer that point
    Mr. HARNEY: The Minister quoted from the Report in order to show that the actuary there said that the reason that the contributions for young people were comparatively higher than for other persons was because of the unemployment of the young. I have the Report before me, and I call his attention to these words:
    "In fixing the contribution proposed to be charged In respect of members of this class"—
    that is, the young class between 18 and 21—
    "I"—
    that is the actuary—
    "understand that regard has been paid"—
    not, as the Minister says to the less benefit which you draw, but—
    "to the deficit in the contributions of persons over 21."
    Therefore, you are mulcting the young in order that you may make up for what you do not get from the others.
    Mr. BECKETT: After two hours of Debate, devoted to the utter crushing of the Minister's actuarial basis, when not a shred of his original arguments is left intact, the Minister gets up to prove that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton
    1696
    (Mr. Maxton) has quoted a set of figures in the wrong order, and then the right hon. Gentleman completes his reply with the extraordinary statement that youth should pay more because it will need more later. That is an extraordinary statement from a Minister who is always preaching that all forms of State insurance should be put on a business basis. If any of us goes to an insurance company to insure against ill-health or unemployment or personal injury, we expect to get lower rates or higher rates according to the number of years in which we expect to pay. Yet to-day the Minister says that because young contributors have to pay for many more years than older men, it is only right that they should pay more and get less. Although all the evidence is to the contrary, the Minister was presumably once a young man himself. Even if he at a very early age was overwhelmed with precocious gravity, he would have been shaken out of his ordinary solemnity by the statement that because he was a young man and would therefore go on paying for more years than an older man, he must pay more and get less because of his youth.
    Another fact that the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten is that a great many of these youths whom he proposes to mulct are never likely to get any benefit. In the ordinary course a certain proportion of the boys who have to pay for insurance to-day will in a very few years get out of the insurable range. They will cease to be entitled to unemployment insurance, even if they wish for it. The fund will have the benefit of the years during which they have paid, and there will be no possible call from them upon the money that they have paid. Another proportion of the boys will fall sick and will have to turn to health insurance and things of that sort. A third proportion, unfortunately, will die, and they will not reap any benefit from the money they have paid into the fund. Others will go into the Army or the Air Force and will get no benefit, and still others will be induced to go abroad and will not get any benefit under the Act. But the right hon. Gentleman will go on mulcting these children, leaving them on the street with the unemployed, taking away a large portion of their scanty wages when they are working.

    1697
    If the right hon. Gentleman had given a single reason that could have borne scrutiny there might be something to be said for the Clause. But it is just the same now as it always is in this House. The majority of us come to this House fate in life. We have little interest in and little sympathy with the younger people who are fighting their way. We have got through our fight and we are prosperous, not always because of our own efforts or genius, and we are inclined to say, "Let the young people follow our example." You hurl the young people into wars and you starve them during peace, and then you sit
    back comfortably on the green benches here and feel quite happy about it. If the last War taught us anything at all, it taught us a certain amount of consideration for youth. This Amendment is the only fair way of proceeding if we wish to do anything decent at all to the younger men and women of the country.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 143.

    Division No. 362.]

    AYES.

    [7.38 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

    Agg Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Albery, Irving James

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

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

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

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

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Crookshank,Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

    Henn. Sir Sydney H.

    Apsley, Lord

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

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

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

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

    Homan, C. W. J.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Balniel, Lord

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

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

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Drewe, C.

    Hurd, Percy A.

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

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Berry, Sir George

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Bethel, A.

    Ellis, R. G.

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

    Betterton, Henry B.

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

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

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

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Lister, Cunilffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Fielden, E. B.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Finburgh, S.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

    Fremantle. Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    Lumley, L.R.

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

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Buchan, John

    Gates, Percy

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

    Bullock, Captain M.

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

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Goff, Sir Park

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Gower, Sir Robert

    McLean, Major A.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General. J.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Clayton, G. C.

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

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

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Cockerill, Brig. General Sir George

    Hanbury, C.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Neville, Sir Reginald. J.

    Cope, Major William

    Hartington, Marquess of

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

    Couper, J. B.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

    Nuttall, Ellis

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

    Waddington, R.

    Oakley, T.

    Shaw, Lt. Col. A. D. McI.(Renfrew, W.)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Smithers, Waldron

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Pilcher, G.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Preston, William

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Radford, E. A.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Raine, Sir Walter

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

    Wells, S. R.

    Ramsden, E.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Reid. D. D. (County Down)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Remer, J. R.

    Storry-Deans. R.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Remnant, Sir James

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Streatleild, Captain S. R.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Withers, John James

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Womersley, W. J.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

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

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Wood, E. (Chester, Staly'b'ge & Hyde)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Tasker, R. Inlgo.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)

    Rye, F. G.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Salmon, Major I.

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

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Samuel. Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Tinne, J. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Major Sir Harry Barnston and Mr. F. C. Thomson.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Savery, S. S.

    Turton. Sir Edmund Russborough

    NOES.

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

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

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

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

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hardie, George D.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Baker, Walter

    Harney, E. A.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Sexton, James

    Barnes, A.

    Hartshorn, Rt Hon. Vernon

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hayday, Arthur

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Broad, F. A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Bromley, J.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Snell, Harry

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Buchanan, G.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Cape, Thomas

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Charieton, H. C.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Strauss, E. A.

    Ciowes, S.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sullivan, J.

    Compton, Joseph

    Kennedy, T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Connolly, M.

    Lansbury, George

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Cove, W. G.

    Lawrence, Susan

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

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lawson, John James

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Crawford, H. E.

    Lee, F.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lindley, F. W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lowth, T.

    Townend, A. E.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lunn, William

    Varley, Frank B.

    Dennison, R.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Viant, S. P.

    Duckworth, John

    Mackinder, W.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Duncan, C.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Watson, W. M. (Duntermllne)

    Dunnico, H.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

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

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    England, Colonel A.

    March, S.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Maxton, James

    Welsh, J. C.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Montague, Frederick

    Westwood, J.

    Forrest, W.

    Morris, R. H.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gardner, J. P.

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

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Glbbins, Joseph

    Murnin, H.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Gillett, George M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Gosling, Harry

    Owen, Major G.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianeily)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Palin, John Henry

    Williams, T. (York, Don alley)

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

    Paling, W.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Greenall, T.

    Pethlck-Lawrence, F. W.

    Windsor, Walter

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Potts, John S.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Groves, T.

    Riley, Ben

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Ritson, J.

    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 143.

    Division No. 363.]

    AYES.

    [7.47 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Merriman, F. B.

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

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

    Albery, Irving James

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

    Fermoy, Lord

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Apsley, Lord

    Finburgh, S.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F. W.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

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

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Balniel, Lord

    Gates, Percy

    Oakley, T.

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Goff, Sir Park

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Penny, Frederick George

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Pilcher, G.

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

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Preston, William

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Radford, E. A.

    Berry, Sir George

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Bethel, A.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Ramsden, E.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Remer, J. R.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Rhys. Hon. C. A. U.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

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

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

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

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

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hanbury, C.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Salmon, Major I.

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

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Buchan, John

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

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

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Sanderson. Sir Frank

    Burman, J. B.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

    Savery, S. S.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

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

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

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

    Campbell, E. T.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Shepperson E. W.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

    Smithers, Waldron

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

    Homan, C. W. J.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Chapman, Sir S.

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

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

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. J.

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

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Streatfeild. Captain S. R.

    Colfox, Major William Phillips

    Jones G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Cope. Major William

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Couper, J. B.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Templeton, W. P.

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

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

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Looker, Herbert William

    Tinne, J. A.

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

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Titchfield. Major the Marquess of

    Crookshank, Cpt. H .(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Curzon. Captain Viscount

    Lumley, L. R.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Waddington, R.

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

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

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

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

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Warrender, Sir Victor

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

    McLean, Major A.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Drewe, C.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Wells, S. R.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

    Edmondson. Major A. J.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon. Torquay)

    Ellis, R. G.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

    Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    1702

    1703

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Withers, John James

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Bowyer.

    Woimer, Viscount

    Wragg, Herbert

    Womersley, W. J.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    NOES.

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

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

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

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

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hardle, George D.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Baker, Walter

    Harney, E. A.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Sexton, James

    Barnes, A.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hayday, Arthur

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Sitch, Charles, H.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey. Rotherhithe)

    Broad, F. A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Kelghiey)

    Bromley, J.

    Hare-Belisha, Leslie

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Snell, Harry

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Buchanan, G.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Cape, Thomas

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Strauss, E. A.

    Clowes, S.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Compton, Joseph

    Kennedy, T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Connolly, M,

    Lansbury, George

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Cove, W. G.

    Lawrence, Susan

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

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lawson, John James

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lee F.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lindley, F. W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lowth, T.

    Townend, A. E.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lunn, William

    Varley, Frank B.

    Dennison, R.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Viant, S. P.

    Duckworth, John

    Mackinder, W.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Duncan, C.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dunnico, H.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

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

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    England, Colonel A.

    March, S.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Maxton, James

    Welsh, J. C.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Montague, Frederick

    Westwood, J.

    Forrest, W.

    Morris, R. H.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gardner, J. P.

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

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Murnin, H.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Gillett, George M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Gosling, Harry

    Owen, Major G.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Palin, John Henry

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

    Paling, W.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Greenall, T.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Windsor, Walter

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Potts, John S.

    Griffiths, T (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Rees, Sir Beddos

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Groves, T.

    Riley, Ben

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Ritson, J.

    The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kelly.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. There is an Amendment in my name to delay the operation of the paragraph till 1st October, 1930.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member did not ask me to save the Amendment, and putting the last Amendment as it stands on the Paper cuts out the hon. Member. If an hon. Member wishes an Amendment to be saved in such circumstances, he should appeal to the Chair.
    Mr. KELLY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out paragraph (b).
    In this paragraph we have the position intended by the Government as to the
    1704
    State contribution for the purpose of unemployment insurance for young people, and we find that, instead of continuing the contributions now operative, the Government, for some reason that has not been explained to its, have decided that they themselves will pay a reduced amount. It makes one wonder whether the Government feel that they have any responsibility at all to the unemployed people of the country, and particularly to the young people. We were told on the last Amendment that there is less unemployment among these young people, and for that reason a demand is made for a contribution far and away above anything that is wanted for the purpose of paying them the benefit, but that that

    1705
    contribution will enable the Fund to be built up from which they will draw their unemployment insurance pay in later life. If that is a sound argument, if it is a just point for the Government to raise, surely it is unjust on their part to say that they themselves will pay a reduced contribution to this fund. Surely, if they feel that it is necessary to build up a huge fund for the purpose of benefit being secured to these people in later life, the Government are acting in a way that certainly is not in the interests either of insurance or of these young people.
    8.0. p.m
    We have been told many times that the intention of the Government in regard to this Measure was to have it on an actuarial basis. On what basis and on what actuarial investigation has the calculation been arrived at that enables the Government to reduce their contributions in the case of a young man to a figure of 5¼d. as against 6d.; in the case of a young woman from 4½d. to 3¾d.; in the case of a young man who is exempt, from 2½d. to 2¼d.; and in the case of the young woman who is exempt from 2¼d. to 2d. I wonder what is felt by this Government with regard to this method which is suggested. Where is the actuary's statement? I read in the White Paper which was furnished to us as a report by the Government's actuary on the financial provisions of the Bill that, with regard to young people under the age of 18, 60 per cent. of those who are unemployed at any date will be entitled to benefit. What is meant by that? How is that arrived at? Is it after an investigation into industry? Is it that they are able to tell us whether or not in the distributing trades of the country where they are insured there will be employed a particular number next year, a number well known to the actuary? I certainly, as one who is interested in a number of the trades, would like the Minister to tell us approximately how many people are going to be employed in those trades during the next year or so. Has he any idea of the number who will be employed in engineering, in shipbuilding, in the chemical trades, in the food trades of the country, all of which are insured occupations? Unless he can be told what is the approximate figure of those who will be employed in those industries we cannot accept this actuary's statement.
    1706
    It is the same Actuary who presented the statement with regard to the 1911 Bill. I remember having many consultations with regard to the figures then given, and the basis that was then presented to the Rouse of Commons certainly proved to be a long way from the facts as the years went along. Now, after the experience we have had in these last 16 years, and since the Armistice, upon what is the Actuary basing his calculations that enables the Government to be so definite that they are prepared to reduce the amount that they are paying to the Unemployment Insurance Fund? In the few words that I had to say last night in the Debate, I made a reference to the present Government being even worse than the Government of 1910. I admit that it was not a Conservative Government. They felt at that time that the contributions they were asking from the workpeople in the insured trades were at such a figure that it would warrant them at some time making a repayment to those who were insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act of that time. I know that has been withdrawn, because the Actuary was so sound in his calculations at that time that they found they were unable in the last few years to repay the contributions such as was promised in the earlier Act. I ask the Minister, when he is dealing with it this evening, to remember his statement on the Second Reading. He told us that that horrible word, which was coined by some of the newspapers when they referred to the unemployment insurance payment as being "the dole," was going, and that this was going to be like fire insurance. I agree that it is to be like fire insurance, but what method of insurance, what basis of insurance is being taken for these calculations that we have set out in the Second Schedule? There cannot be any comparison with insurance companies, and I think it is a sorry day for this country, never mind what the Blanesburgh Report stated—
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and 40 Members being present—
    Mr. KELLY: I wish that the House showed a greater interest in this Measure than we have seen at any time while it has been discussed. When one thinks of this problem, when one knows of this problem, when one meets and is asso-

    1707
    ciated with it, it does not speak well for our people that there are so few Members of the House of Commons taking an interest in it.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Where are your own Members?
    Mr. KELLY: In moving the deletion of this paragraph, I ask if the Government feel that they have a responsibility for these young people? Is there a suggestion that these young people between 18 and 20, these young men and women who at that period are extremely anxious to have something better than they have probably been accustomed to in their lives up to that time, who are seeing a great deal in their outlook upon life, are unemployed for any reason for which they are responsible? If it be answered by the Government that these young people are not responsible for their unemployment, then surely the responsibility for maintaining them cannot be thrown back upon their families. Yet that is what is meant. Is it not a vicious thing that the State, instead of taking its responsibility, instead of realising its share in this problem, and its duty to help these people over that particular time, should be paying a much smaller amount in the insurance fund than it is doing? I put it to the Government that it does not quite fit in with many of the statements that were heard from them with regard to these young people who are starting out in life. It is a struggle heavy for those of ages below 18, and very hard at this time with industry in the insecure position that we find it. It is hard enough now, but, though we hear it stated that the Government would like to help these young people in order that they may be fitted to take their rightful place in the commercial and industrial life of this country, yet we find the methods adopted by the party in power is to offer them an amount in benefit that is altogether inadequate; and this reduced benefit is consequent upon the smaller amount that is being paid by the State. When it comes to the later stage we shall have a great deal to say about benefits; but I think there is nothing about which we can say harder things than the fact that the Government in this abnormal time, instead of paying their share into the insurance fund, are, by paying an
    1708
    amount that is inadequate for the benefits, doing something that is not in the interests of these young people, but is to the disadvantage of them, and of industry and commerce.
    One could quite understand a statement that we cannot afford to pay any more money, and that this is the maximum that the Government dare give from public funds. I ask the Minister if he knows of any one industry in this country that is paying wages that are adequate even to maintain the families at a reasonable standard when there is no unemployment among any member of the family. He will find that in every industry wages are at such a low level that it is impossible for the people to have a reasonable standard of life, and yet in face of that need and at a time when families are without income that enables them to maintain their own people even during the period of employment, the Government come along and say, "We are so poor, we are in such a condition that we cannot afford to pay into the insurance fund the money that is required to help our young people over that particularly bad period between 18 and 21." It is amazing to see how the Government find money for many things not to the advantage of this country, but refuse it now when it is needed to build up a strong, virile community such as we require in the difficult times we are passing through and which lie ahead. I cannot understand the refusal of the Government to take their fair share of the burden of unemployment and to help in creating such a fund as would enable us to pay adequate benefits to young people between 18 and 21 years of age. For those reasons, and there are many others which will be put forward by hon. Members on this side, I move the Amendment.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will gladly answer the hon. Member's question so far as he asks why this particular rate is payable by the Treasury. I do not propose to deal on this Amendment or on this Clause with the question of the reduction of benefit for the class of persons from 18 to 21 years of age, because that question will come up on the next Clause. The rates of contribution payable by employed contributors, by employers and by the Treasury are, combined, amply sufficient to pay the benefits proposed to the class of young

    1709
    persons from 18 to 21, and with a margin over which will go to help benefits payable to them in later years. The reason why this particular rate of 5¼d. in respect of a young man—and the corresponding sum in respect of a woman—is payable by the Treasury is as follows. In the case of an adult man the rate of contribution by the Treasury is 6d., and in addition 7d. is paid by the workmen and 8d. by the employer. The Treasury, therefore, pay 6d. as against the 15d. of the other two contributors, or 6/15ths of the other two rates. In the case of persons of this class from 18 to 21 years of age the rates of contribution are: 7d. by the employer and 6d. by the insured person, making 13d. If I take 6/15ths of 13d. I get 5 1/5d. as the amount of the State's contribution, but as 1/5th is not a practicable fraction, the Treasury, with great generosity, is paying 54d., which is a slightly larger sum.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: In the discussion of this Amendment, which is really, directed against the Schedule, we have once more received an explanation from the Minister which, to use an Irishism, is no explanation at all. No actuarial figures have been submitted to us to prove that the sum to be paid by the State is a just sum and will meet the claims for unemployment benefit by these young persons. It would appear that this figure has been arrived at as was the hypothetical figure of 6 per cent., which, it has been said, represents the figure of unemployment on which the whole of the actuarial calculations of the Bill have been based. Having been interested for a number of years in the training of young persons, my chief objection to the reduction in the amount to be paid by the State arises from the fact that there may not be a sufficient amount of money left in the Unemployment Fund to provide what the Blanesburgh Committee recommended for these young persons. They recommended definitely that training should be provided for them, and I submit that instead of the contribution from the State being reduced from 6d. to 5¼d. there is much greater necessity for it to be increased, so that a surplus of money will be available to provide training.
    I cannot speak for any other hon. Members on these benches on this point, but
    1710
    if I had my way I would pay no unemployment benefit to any young person who did not attend for training at one or other of the training centres which are to be paid for out of this Fund which is subscribed to by the three parties to this insurance scheme. I sincerely trust, therefore, that the Government will accept the suggestion we are making. The State ought to make the same contribution in respect of these young persons as will be made in respect of older persons. Already this evening it has been pointed out that the larger sum—that is, in proportion to the benefits which are paid—being demanded from these young persons is for the purpose of building up a fund so that when they become older and, possibly, will require benefits of a higher amount over a longer period, a fund will have accumulated which will allow of these higher benefits being paid. Surely the decision to charge the contributors a larger sum for the lower benefits is an argument why the State ought to pay more. For these, among other reasons, I shall vote for the Amendment, but my chief reason for objecting to this part of the Bill is that no provision is being made for the training of young persons, and there is less chance of training being provided if we agree to this miserable economy on the part of the Government in reducing the contributions of the State by ¾d. per week.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: At the outset I want to say how thoroughly I agree with the last remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Westwood). Some of us might forgive the Government for many things, but not for the way in which they have neglected the training of the young people affected by this Bill. I am sorry that the Minister of Labour is not in his place. Had he been present, I would have put a question to him in regard to a point which he put before the Committee in his last speech. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that the contribution covered by paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) would be sufficient to provide the necessary funds out of which to pay for all the benefits to the young persons concerned. Of course, we must come back to the question of what is the actuarial basis. We have not had any intimation on this point of a reliable character, and I am

    1711
    going to submit to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour that he has not got any information on that point. I want to remind the Parliamentary Secretary of a question which was put to him on the 9th of November last by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), in which my hon. Friend asked for certain particulars, and ,he received the following reply:
    "The following table shows the number of persons under 18 years of age who were on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain on the last day of each month in the last 12 months. Corresponding statistics are not available in respect of persons 18 to 20 years of age."
    Here the Parliamentary Secretary said he had no corresponding statistics between the ages of 18 and 20 years, and yet we are asked to consider a Bill which lays down contributions which the Minister of Labour says are actuarily sound. How does he know? He has told us that he has no statistics available, and, in face of that, how can his statement be true that the contributions fixed under the Bill are going to be sufficient for providing young persons with their benefit?
    Miss LAWRENCE: I wish to refer to the absence of the tables of figures which the Minister of Labour has promised us. We are now dealing with the contributions of young persons in relation to the scale of benefits under this Bill. We are also dealing with them in relation to an entirely new scale of benefits put down by the Minister of Labour. These chickens will come home to roost some time between 1929 and 1930, and, if we should be in the first days of a new Parliament, I should feel a certain amount of consolation that the people who are sitting on the Government benches now would have to bring in a Bill in order to meet the situation. But that will not be so, and that is what is disturbing the minds of those who are sitting on the Front Opposition Bench, because they are likely to find as a result of this Bill that the Budget of 1929 will be overloaded by a deficit which may accrue in consequence of the extended contributions from the Treasury, and this will put our Chancellor of the Exchequer into a very difficult position. I want to point out to my hon. Friends behind me that they are wrong in blaming the
    1712
    actuary, for if ever there was a man who has thoroughly cleared his feet, who has dissociated himself from every shade of responsibility, it is the Government actuary. Listen for a moment to what the actuary says on this question:
    "There are, however, no means by which the responsibility of benefit during this period could be statistically classified.… I am precluded from making any estimate of the transitional provisions of the Bill."
    The word "precluded" reminds me of the word which the Minister used in saying that the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department are precluded from making a statement. The fact is that the Minister has not the ghost of an idea what to do. The Parliamentary Secretary devoted several pages of the OFFICIAL. REPORT to stating that he was precluded from giving the figures that were asked for, and he stated that the figures quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), who mentioned 200,000 and 150,000, were exaggerated. Some of us are accustomed to occupying our leisure time working out cross-word puzzles which appear from time to time in the newspapers. I could only say that exercise of that kind is very useful in tracing exactly what is meant by saying persons are precluded from making an announcement in regard to these figures. I think this would make an exceedingly good cross-word puzzle. It is ludicrous for the House of Commons to find itself discussing serious financial matters with-out the slightest indication of any estimate having been made at all. I spent yesterday evening in puzzling out and trying to understand how the Minister arrived at his estimate of 30,000. In the absence of any technical information, I want to submit my answer to that puzzle in order that the Minister of Labour may have something to correct. My point is that the Actuary, when he dealt with this matter, stated that the percentage of unemployment in 1929 would be 6 per cent. In considering this question of the number of persons turned out of benefit under the 30 contributions rule, it has been stated that if you take the unemployment statistics of 1924 and 1925, something like 20 per cent. of the unemployed would have been out of benefit, and 20 per cent. of 1,100,000 is about 220,000. But he stated that, if unemployment was reduced to 6 per cent., then the proportion of unemployed who

    1713
    would be struck off would be 7 per cent. of the unemployed of the country, and not 20 per cent., pointing out very truly that, the worse unemployment is, the greater will be the proportionate number of persons who have been out of benefit for extended periods. If you take that proportion, you have about 150,000 unemployed, and one-seventh of 150,000 is about 20,000 or 30,000. We come back, therefore, to the position that the Minister is banking on having, in 1929, only 6 per cent. of unemployment. That again, I say, is a pure guess. All the figures, which will be produced, if I know the prudent caution of the Government Actuary, will be prefaced by a statement:
    "Let it be assumed that there will be an unemployment figure of 6 per cent.; then contributions, benefits, and so forth will follow in proper ratio."
    I am, of course, anticipating, but he clears his feet in every single paragraph by beginning, "Let it be assumed." Let such-and-such things be assumed, and then the Government Actuary will make his calculation. I say again that this is not the way in which the House of Commons should approach what may be the spending of public money, and is certainly the spending and the allocation of a particular tax on individuals. It is a bad thing that we should be careless about national finance, and it is very unfortunate that the penalties for that carelessness will almost inevitably fall upon the guiltless heads of the Members sitting immediately in front of me, who have protested against it with all their might, and who, I do not fear, but hope, will be the persons responsible for dealing with this matter when the inevitable deficit occurs. For reasons not connected with party but with the proper management of national finance, and from the feelings of fraternal sympathy which I have for the Gentlemen immediately in front of me, who, as I have repeatedly pointed out, will be the persons on whom retribution will fall. I support this Amendment.
    Mr. JOHN BAKER: I am going to vote for this Amendment for several reasons. I do not agree with the method of the Department in presenting this Bill. We are here discussing the contributions that will be required to provide benefits at a later stage in the Bill.
    1714
    but you, Captain FitzRoy, are there to see that we do not discuss benefits at this particular stage. I can quite imagine that, when the Department decided to bring in this Bill, the Minister, his Parliamentary Secretary and his technical advisers got together and said, "We have a rather difficult job. We have got to get thousands of people off the Fund; we have got to reduce benefits. You see what has been appearing in the party Press lately, that these people will not go to work so long as we pay them unemployment pay; and the employers are wanting these people to go to work, so that we might have a chance of reducing the wages of the men who are already paid too highly; but how can we do it? If we present the whole of these facts to them, and give them a chance of discussing the relative and cogent inter-related facts of contributions and benefits, they will never swallow it. But those people on the other side of the House are always looking for something for nothing, and, if we can persuade them that we are giving reduced contributions to any particular section, they will swallow that, never dreaming that, when we come to spend that money, we shall have to say to them, 'Oh, you are only providing a limited amount; you can only spend that amount, and you are, therefore, not in a position to increase the benefits proposed in the Schedule'."
    The Minister has told us to-night that the contributions provided in paragraph (b) are adequate to provide the benefits in the Schedule. I want to suggest to this Committee that, if we are reducing the contributions of a particular section, we shall not be able to provide out of those contributions adequate benefits for the proper maintenance of that section when we get to the spending of that money. Therefore, I propose that we should do what we should do in our trade unions, namely, refer this matter back for further consideration. I do not like the method the Department has adopted of age group contributions. That is very bad insurance practice; it is very bad friendly society practice; and, stupid as trade unions are supposed to be in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, they would not adopt that method. Age groups on joining, certainly; but the actuary at that stage fixes the contribution that is going

    1715
    to provide contingent benefit for the rest of the insurable life of the person at the age of joining. He does not say, "Join at 14 and your contribution will be 1d. a week, but when you get to 16 it will be 2d., when you get to 17 it will be 4d., and when you get to 18 it will be 8d." He does not do that, but that is what the Department is doing. The Department is adopting groups of 16 to 18, 18 to 21, and 21 to goodness knows where, and is fixing sectional age group rates that will be changed as a person passes from one group to another. I say that that is very bad insurance practice, and ought not to have been brought forward by the Department, and, therefore, I am going to oppose it. I am going to oppose the proposal on another ground, and that is that I am afraid that the whole idea of the Government in introducing a low rate of contribution with a consequent low rate of benefit is based upon the opinion that the working class are much lazier than their own class is, and will not go to work if they can exist at all without it. It is, therefore, proposed to provide a benefit which will compel these young people to go to work, to take any sort of work at any sort of price rather than starve on what is euphemistically called the dole.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That, surely, does not arise on this Amendment.
    Mr. BAKER: It will arise on the contribution when we get to it later, and I think that that is going to be the principle, or the assumption. Let us put it, however, that the Government are kindhearted and do not want to overcharge these young people, because they think they can be maintained by their parents if they fall out of work. But, surely, they never for a single moment dreamed that these young people are entitled to adequate maintenance under reasonable conditions, that they are entitled to be fed, clothed and sheltered, or they would have provided for it in the contributions they propose. I say that those are wrong angles from which to look at this problem, and I am, therefore, totally out of sympathy with the Government, and in-tend to vote against this proposal. If I am doing them an injustice, if they have not been imagining all these evil things, I shall be very sorry. If they will tell me how they are going to provide benefits under these contributions and give
    1716
    adequate maintenance for these young people, I shall be prepared to vote with them, but not till then.
    Mr. OLIVER: As I opposed the reduction in the benefits of these young people, I oppose, naturally, the contributions that are to be made by the Government. I do so because I believe that, of all the times the Ministry might have chosen in the last few years, the present moment is the most inopportune one. I desire to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions which I should like him to answer before a vote is taken. What are the opinions of his Department on the important industries of the country. What are the prospects in the coal mining industry which would suggest to his Department that trade is likely to be better than it is at present? Perhaps he will also tell us the views of his Department on the heavy industries? He will also tell us something, no doubt, about the position in the engineering trade, where there are thousands of people out of employment and the prospect, instead of being rosy, is indeed very black? To reduce the contribution of the Government to this class of person seems to me to be the very worst possible thing that could be done. In the Blanesburgh Report there appears an item of importance dealing with this class of person. Instead of suggesting reductions, I should have thought an increase from the Government would have been more appropriate. The Report says:
    "It is at this age that the industrial workers are made or marred and we are convinced of the necessity of providing them, when out of work, with suitable industrial instruction and training."
    I should think it is more important, in view of the fact that they are making a reduction and are not providing this training, that they should increase their contribution and make some effort to provide the training whereby these people can draw allowances instead of benefit, and for that reason I hope that the Minister has something to tell us about the prospects of trade in the important industries which justify the optimistic estimates of his Department.
    Mr. R. YOUNG: I agree with the criticism that has been passed on the right hon. Gentleman's action in reducing the said contributions so far as this new

    1717
    class is concerned, but I wish to raise a different point. I am opposed to the whole Bill so far as we have gone, because in my estimation these two Clauses are nothing more than an Amendment of the Economy Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Under the Unemployment Act, 1925, the amount the State paid per man, including those of 18, was 8d. Under the Miscellaneous Provisions Act it was brought down to 6d. and now it is to be brought down to 5¼d., so that we have had a progressive decrease in the said contribution since the passing of the Act of 1925. If the Government were not prepared to continue its own contribution even under the Miscellaneous Provisions Act and to provide training for these young people while they are out of employment, they might at all events have kept it up for the express purpose of reducing the total amount of indebtedness of the Fund, because as a result ,of this further decrease in the State's contribution, owing to this new class, the indebtedness of the, Fund is likely to be longer in being paid off than it otherwise would have been. My second .objection is that as a result of this decrease of contribution by the State and the fact that it will take longer to pay off the Fund, the interest on the borrowed money will be extensively increased. I am wondering whether the Parliamentary Secretary will advise the Minister that when he is preparing the White Paper he should also give us figures as to the amount saved to the State by this deduction of ¾d. in each case in relation to the young people of the country. It is true that, when you are creating a new class, the contributions that they pay should not be much in excess of the benefits that they are likely to receive. The State has the greater responsibility for the Fund as a whole, and I hold that under this new idea of bringing young people of 18 to 21 into a new class the State is extending its principles of economy in the wrong direction, and for these reasons, if for no others, I am opposed to the first two Clauses of the Bill.
    Mr. T. HENDERSON: I desire to call attention to a rather peculiar thing arising out of this discussion. The Minister himself must have been aware of his evil intentions when he proceeded to lay down new payments to insured
    1718
    persons under this proposal, and the actuarial basis, if there was one, must have been rather peculiar to have allowed him to stretch the amount of payment he was going to give to these insured persons. If that be the case, he must admit that the arguments put forward from these benches are quite correct so far as the financial proposals are concerned. He has given us a revised scale, but will he tell us how it is possible to differentiate between a person of 19 and one of 18? Is a person of 19 likely to require more food or dearer clothing than a person of 18? We contend that the whole basis of the financial proposals in the Bill is wrong, and, until we get the White Paper, no one can understand the position.
    Mr. HARDIE: Without reverting to the fact that we are compelled to discuss something that seems to be unknown, unless to the Minister of Labour, we are compelled to labour under some form of illusion. The illusion is in the question of a figure. Whether that figure exists or not, we are not told by the man who says he knows and bases his statement upon what he says he knows. He refuses to give the Committee the great knowledge that he possesses. The Minister's optimism is such that he seems to see a prospect of a great increase in industry and trade. I am surprised that he has not had the foresight to make this Measure efficient when the trade comes by having for the youths who are not able to find jobs to-day some system of general education or some system, if not vocational, which improves their minds from day to day. We are often looked upon by the other side as not having very broad ideas. We are very narrow so far as our outlook is concerned. It is a very strange thing that in that subject that gives the whole of what may be called breadth either to an individual or to a nation we are the only party in the House that is always trying to get it. This paragraph contains nothing indicating a system whereby the youth not able to find work is going to get not only something that interests but something that educates. Suppose you take the decision of the Minister of Labour, and suppose you take the number of youths who are leaving school at every leaving period—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot go into a discussion of that question on this Amendment.
    Mr. HARDIE: But surely I have a right to deal with this matter. I am sorry that time has to be wasted while I read the words to you, but these are words which I must read: "The extended period." In regard to that extended period, I desire to discuss what the Government have to face. If you are not going to face it in this Department, you will have to face it in another, and probably have to increase the size of your prisons.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This cannot be in order. The subject under this paragraph is the question of the actual State contributions towards these people. It has nothing to do with all the questions which the hon. Member is raising.
    Mr. HARDIE: Surely, when we are discussing the rates of contribution, I ought not to be prevented from proceeding. What I am asking for—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss it on this paragraph.
    Mr. HARDIE: We are discussing a question here which is based upon a certain Report, and as that Report contains that of which I am now speaking of, surely it cannot be out of order. The question of training has been referred to already, even from the Government Bench, and, if it was in order for the Government Bench to discuss that question, surely it is in order for any other Member of the Committee to do the same, I submit that I am right, but I will obey your Ruling if I am found to be in the wrong.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know in what connection the allusion to training was made, but I am quite certain that if we were to debate all that might be introduced into this paragraph, there would be no end to ,our discussion. The hon. Member sees quite well that we cannot proceed to discuss the Bill in this way.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it not a fact that we have not yet decided the statutory conditions. As it has to provide the State contribution for young persons, the House of Commons might decide to make
    1720
    it a statutory condition that before these young persons receive unemployment benefit they should accept training. Out of this fund the cost of training might have to be provided, and the fund might, prove to be too small.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not in the paragraph.
    Miss LAWRENCE: Does not the Blanesburgh Report lay very great emphasis on the question of providing training for juveniles out of the employment insurance contribution? The amount of the training which could be provided would be strictly governed by the amount of contributions. I want to put it to you, Captain FitzRoy, that all the things recommended by the Blanesburgh Report are not contained in the Bill. This Committee was a unanimous Committee and if the Bill does not carry out, in this important particular, what the Committee recommend, surely we may comment upon it.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must remember that we are not discussing the Blanesburgh Report, but the Bill in Committee on particular Amendments to leave out certain paragraphs. I cannot allow any discussion of anything which is not in the paragraph.
    Miss LAWRENCE: Can we discuss—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow a discussion.
    Mr. HARDIE: If I had been discussing education for all those who are included in this Bill I should have been out of order, but in line 7 it says:
    "so far as relates to young men and young women."
    This is the point upon which the whole of my argument rests. If it had been a general statement taking in all those who are in the Bill, I should not have presumed the right to continue, because I know that I should have been out of order. But I believe I am still in order in discussing, not only what should be introduced here on the basis of the promise made by the Prime Minister himself, but what should have been included as a result of the claims that have been made not merely in the Blanesburgh Report, but by the local representatives in the city from which I come, and in other places.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss either of these questions on the Amendment.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. HARDIE: If neither of these questions can be discussed, it would seem that the Minister's idea was this. We will get together a certain number of workers. We will not be very particular as to what we intend to do, and the more involved we become the more involved Will be the conduct of the Committee. The more involved the Committee becomes, the more involved will the Deputy-Chairman become in trying to understand the situation. That seems to be the motive of those who evolved paragraph (b). They also involve the question of the waste of the time of the Committee of the House of Commons.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to what is in the paragraph.
    Mr. HARDIE rose—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not in order, and, if the hon. Member continues I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
    Mr. HARDIE: Very well, then, paragraph (b) reads as follows:
    "As from and after the 2nd day of July, 1928, until the expiration of the extended period, the rates of contribution on which the amount of the contribution payable under the Employment Insurance Acts out of moneys provided by Parliament is to be calculated, shall, so far as relates to young men and young women, be the rates set out in the Second Schedule to this Act, instead of the rates applicable to men and women under the Second Schedule to the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926."
    The second Schedule, of course, cannot be in order. The same thing happened in Clause 1. Although Clause 1 referred to the Schedule, the question was ruled out of order because it was a question to be dealt with in the Schedule. Supposing you take the Second Schedule. All you have there is the rate. The application of that rate is contained in the amount of the rate that is set out in the Schedule. The rate set out in the Schedule is not sufficient under present-day conditions with so many young people on the unemployment list. If it be competent to discuss the fact—known even to the Ministers—that the sum is not sufficient to deal with the numbers of young people
    1722
    who are unemployed, surely it is in order to deal with the question as to what we should do with these young people when they are unemployed. Can we not discuss whether the system of unemployment benefit is good or bad for these individuals, and now that we have a chance of dealing with the money point, cannot we ask that the sum be increased in order to do something more for the unemployed young men and young women. Is there any more bitter tragedy in life than to see these disappointed young men and young women? Take the boyhood years, where the boy feels new responsibility on having left school entering into the world and becoming a responsible individual, earning something. That is the great ideal in the adolescent mind. How must it feel when, under this particular Clause, those ideals and aspirations are thrown away, and these young people are flung upon something which is only so many coppers per week? Any nation which denies the right of expression to the full spiritual results of education in the youth is destroying everything that he has to depend upon in the future.
    Mr. THURTLE: The right hon. Gentleman, in defence of the State contribution, argued that it would be sufficient for all the charges that would be imposed upon it. I would like to discuss with him and with the Committee the prospects of British trade in the immediate future, because upon that depends whether or not the estimate of the Minister is accurate.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing that upon this Amendment. I tell him that at the beginning.
    Mr. THURTLE: Whether this contribution of the State is adequate or not depends upon the amount of unemployment which is going to prevail in the future. The contribution has been based upon the assumption that there will be unemployment to the extent of 6 per cent. of the workers employed in industry. If I can show by a survey of trade conditions and trade prospects that the unemployment is going to be much more than 6 per cent.—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That would be quite out of order.
    Mr. THURTLE: With great respect, I do think it material for us to discuss whether or not there is likely to be 6 per cent. of unemployment in the future, and if you will show me how that is out of order on this particular Amendment I will not venture to trespass one moment longer upon the patience of the House. I do submit that that is a very material consideration.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I tell the hon. Member frankly that he is out of order, and I shall not allow him to proceed on those lines.
    Mr. THURTLE: That being so, and that being the only point which I wished to establish, and as I never attempt to waste the time of the House, I will say nothing further.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I would like to put a few points to the Parliamentary Secretary, which I hope he will answer. I am glad to see him on the Front Bench, because it is the first time that I have seen a pleasant face there. During the weekend the Minister of Labour put, down in his name two Amendments altering the Clause. Under the original Bill there was one class of young people from 18 to 21, but during the week-end the Minister drafted an Amendment to alter that class by dividing it into three classes, from 18 to 19 years, from 19 to 20 and from 20 to 21. This makes three classes of recipients of unemployed benefits, but the curious thing is that he has kept for those three classes the same amount of State contribution. Seeing that the Minister was putting down Amendments to increase the benefits to certain classes, he ought to have put down at the same time an Amendment increasing the State contribution, in order that the additional amount of benefit might be paid from the Fund. The Minister is going to take more from the pool for certain classes. I am not arguing against that, but I do suggest that when he put down his Amendment to add to the benefit he ought to have put down an Amendment increasing the State contribution in respect of those persons between 19 and 20 years and between 20 and 21 years. If he thought that the State contribution formerly, as laid down in the Bill, was only enough for the lower amount of benefit, where is the increased amount of benefits to come from? Is it to come
    1724
    from the workers' contributions or from the employers' contributions, and is the State going to make no additional contribution? A person between the age of 18 and 19 will pay the same contribution for four shillings less benefit than a person between 20 and 21. It cannot be argued, as the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) argued, that there is any great difference in the unemployment of persons between 18 and 19 and of persons between 19 and 21. The State will only make the same contribution in respect of a person between 18 and 19 years as it does for a person between 20 and 21 years, and yet in the one case they will receive four shillings more benefit. Surely that cannot be justified. If the State is increasing the amount of benefit by four shillings it should increase the amount of its contribution towards that benefit.
    While it is true, and I accept the ruling of the Chair on the subject, that we are not discussing the Blanesburgh Report, I think the Deputy-Chairman will be the first to admit that the Blanesburgh Report has a certain influence on our discussion. I am not discussing the Blanesburgh Report, but I think I should be in order in referring to the Committee's recommendations on this subject. They recommended that the State, the employer and the employed person should contribute the same. I never accepted that view, for I have always argued that the State ought to contribute not the same amount as the workman, not the same amount as the employer, but a sum equivalent to the joint contribution of the worker and the employer.
    We have been told that the Blanesburgh Committee was almost infallible. One might have thought that it had descended from the heavens instead of coming from ordinary earthly people. It recommended that the State contribution, the employer's contribution and the workmen's contribution should be the same, but the Government has departed from that recommendation. It was put to us that in doing us we should get the principle of equal payments. Why cannot the Government accept this principle in the case of young people? Why cannot they adopt the recommendation of this infallible Committee, this Committee of of giants and experts, in regard to this part of the Bill? We might be called

    1725
    extremists, and far be it from me to be desired to be called an extremist. It might be called extreme to say that the Government should contribute all, but all we ask is that the Government's contribution should be equal to the contribution of the employer and employed combined, and on that point I contend that there is an unanswerable case. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) knows something about the training of the youth and he will agree with me that the State ought to be more careful in handling the youthful part of the population than it is in dealing with adults. While it may be argued on the general Bill that the State's contribution should not be as much as that of the employers and employed, I submit that in the case of the younger part of the population there is every argument in favour of it being at least equal to the joint contribution of the workers and the employers.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is in order in criticising the State contribution as it is proposed, but if he proposes anything in the nature of what he is now suggesting it would not be in order.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Possibly that was going outside the scope of the discussion, but there is this to be said. In the original Act the State contribution was much larger and only the operation of the Economy Provisions Act reduced it. I would urge that the provisions of this Act should be withdrawn. I come back to my first point—I want to obey the ruling of the Chair because I think we shall get on much better if we do than if we do not. The point is this. The Parliamentary Secretary must admit that the Amendment of the Minister of Labour alters the whole foundation of this Clause. He proposes to increase the amount. What is the Government going to do to meet this increase? Are they going to ask young people of 19 and 20 to pay the same contribution for a benefit which is 4s. less than that received by older people?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): May I ask the Committee to come to a decision now on this Amendment? It has been very fully discussed and a variety of questions have been
    1726
    asked with regard to training, the new proposals of the Minister, the prospects of trade and industry, which are quite outside the scope of the discussion on this Amendment. I suggest to the Committee that it would be much better to defer these various important questions to the Amendments and those parts of the Bill on which they would be relevant, when we could have a full discussion.
    Mr. KELLY: Might I ask on what actuarial basis you have arrived at the figure in the Bill?
    Mr. BETTERTON: That again is not a point which I can discuss on this Amendment. Actually the amount of contributions will be open for full discussion on the Schedule, and I suggest in all seriousness that it is much more in accordance with the traditions of the Committee to deal with these important matters on the Clauses and Schedules in the Bill.
    Mr. BATEY: I have a good deal of sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary when he asks us to come to a decision. I can well understand him getting weary and tired of the discussion. He reminds me of the Home Secretary who, before the Recess in the autumn, said that what they wanted was a home for weary and tired Ministers. However, I intervene in this Debate against the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary because this is my first intervention, although we have had a Second Reading Debate and several days in Committee. I have never had an opportunity of speaking before, and I represent one of the most important Divisions in this country. I support the Amendment. I remember when that Act was being discussed—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with the Amendment.
    Mr. BATEY: Well, Captain FitzRoy, just hear my point.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has said quite enough to make me realise what his point is going to be.
    Mr. BATEY: I was going to say that if the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act is bad this is worse. It seems to me that the Government is unable to make up its mind with regard to contributions or anything else so far as the

    1727
    Unemployment Fund is concerned. The ink was scarcely dry on the Act of 1925 before they brought in the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in order to save the Government expense, and now we have another attempt to save money for the Government at the expense of the unemployed. One of the meanest things the Government could do would be to attempt to save money for the Treasury at the expense of the unemployed. I would remind the Minister, when he is asking for power to reduce the State contribution to the Unemployment Fund in respect of these young people, that this year the Government contributed less to the Unemployment Fund than they did in the years 1924 and 1925. When the Labour party were in office they provided for a payment to the Fund from the Treasury of £13,145,100 and the Government this year are only paying £11,800,000. That is an enormous reduction, and I hold it is wicked on the part of the Government to bring in another proposal to reduce the Treasury contribution further. Nor is it wise for the Government to ask for the power to reduce their contribution.
    We have been told that there is a debt on the Fund of £32,000,000 and that this year £4,000,000 of that debt will be paid, but if the Government get this power the Fund will not be in a position to repay debt as it did formerly. In the past the Fund has been in debt and the debt has been repaid very rapidly. I
    remember that the Fund was in debt previously and in two years no less than £17,000,000 was repaid, but that was done because the Government paid larger contributions than they are paying to-day. I wish to keep the contributions as they are at present, because to reduce them will be to ruin the Fund. This ought to be a Fund upon which men can rely for benefit if they are not able to find work. We ought not to have, as we have in many districts, men being thrown on to the guardians and compelled to live on poor relief. These men have the right to receive benefit from the Fund unless they can get employmnt. They will not be able to do so if we allow the Government to reduce their contributions, and I hope that the Committee will refuse to grant them this power. In fact, the Government instead of paying less ought to pay more than they are paying at the present time. As I say, it would be wicked on their part to use their big majority in the House in order that the Treasury may pay less than they are paying now, and to do so at the expense of these unemployed young people.
    Mr. J. HUDSON rose—
    Mr. BETTERTON: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Quesbe now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 140.

    Division No. 364.]

    AYES.

    [9.30 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Briggs, J. Harold

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

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Daikeith, Earl of

    Albery, Irving James

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

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

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

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

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

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

    Buchan, John

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

    Apsley, Lord

    Burman, J. B.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Dawson, Sir Philip

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

    Campbell, E. T.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Cassels, J. D.

    Drewe, C.

    Atkinson, C.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Balniel, Lord

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Chapman, Sir S

    Ellis, R. G.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Clayton, G. C.

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P H.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Berry, Sir George

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Bethel, A.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Fielden, E. B.

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

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Finburgh, S.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Couper, J. B.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Goff, Sir Park

    McLean, Major A.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Macmillan, Captain H.

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

    Grant, Sir J A.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

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

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Hammersley, S. S.

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

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Hanbury, C.

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

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Harland, A.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Templeton, W. P.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Nelson, Sir Frank

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

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

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Hawke, John Anthony

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

    Thomson, F. C (Aberdeen, South)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Tinne, J. A.

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

    Oakley, T.

    Tichfield, Major the Marquess of

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

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Philipson, Mabel

    Waddington, R.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Pilcher, G.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Preston, William

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

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Radford, E. A.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Homan, C. W. J.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Warrender, Sir Victor

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

    Ramsden, E.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

    Remer, J. R.

    Watts, Dr. T.

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

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Wells, S. R.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

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

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

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Withers, John James

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Womersley, W. J

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

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

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Wood. Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Loder, J. de V.

    Savery, S. S.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Looker, Herbert William

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

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

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

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Lumley, L. R.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Captain Viscount Curzon and Mr. Penny.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

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

    Smithers, Waldron

    NOES.

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

    Duncan, C.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)

    Dunnico, H.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

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

    Fenby, T. D.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Gardner, J. P.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Baker, Walter

    Gibbins, Joseph

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

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Gillett, George M.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Barnes, A.

    Gosling, Harry

    Kennedy, T.

    Batey, Joseph

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lansbury, George

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

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

    Lawrence, Susan

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Greenall, T.

    Lawson, John James

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Lee, F.

    Broad, F. A.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Bromley, J.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Lowth, T.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Groves, T.

    Lunn, William

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Mackinder, W.

    Buchanan, G.

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

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Cape, Thomas

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Clowes, S.

    Hardle, George D.

    March, S.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Harney, E. A.

    Maxton, James

    Compton, Joseph

    Harris, Percy A.

    Montague, Frederick

    Connolly, M.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Morris, R. H.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hayday, Arthur

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

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Murnin H.

    Crawford, H. E.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Owen, Major G.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Palin, John Henry

    Dennison, R.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Paling, W.

    1730

    1731

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Welsh, J. C.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Stamford, T. W.

    Westwood, J.

    Potts, John S.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Riley, Ben

    Strauss. E. A.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Ritson, J.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

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

    Sutton, J. E.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

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

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Rose, Frank H.

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

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Sexton, James

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Windsor, Walter

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Townend, A. E.

    Wright, W.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon C. P.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Varley, Frank B.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.

    Snell, Harry

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

    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 144.

    Division No. 365.]

    AYES.

    [9.39 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hurd, Percy A.

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

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

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

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

    Albery, Irving James

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

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

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

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Apsley, Lord

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

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

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F. W.

    Drewe, C.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

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

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Atkinson, C.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Ellis, R. G.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Balniel, Lord

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

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lumley, L. R.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Fairfax, Captain J G.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

    Berry, Sir George

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Bethel, A.

    Fielden, E. B.

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Finburgh, S.

    McLean, Major A.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

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

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

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

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

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

    Buchan, John

    Grotrian, H. Brent

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

    Burman, J. B.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Campbell, E. T.

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

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hammersley, S. S.

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

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hanbury, C.

    Nuttall, Ellis

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

    Harland, A.

    Oakley, T.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

    Philipson, Mabel

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Pilcher, G.

    Charterls, Brigadier-General J.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Preston, Wliliam

    Clayton, G. C.

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

    Radford, E. A.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Ramsden, E.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Remer, J. R.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Homan, C. W. J.

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

    Couper, J. B.

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

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

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

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

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Salmon, Major I.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Wells, S. R.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Suetor, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Savery, S. S.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

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

    Templeton, W. P.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

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

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Withers, John James

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

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

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Tinne, J. A.

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

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Wragg, Herbert

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Waddington, R.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

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

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Captain Viscount Curzon and Mr. Penney.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    NOES.

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

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

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

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

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

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

    Hardie, George D.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Harney, E. A.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Baker, Walter

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Sexton, James

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Batey, Joseph

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Broad, F. A.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bromley, J.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Snell, Harry

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Buchanan, G.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Charleton, H. C.

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

    Strauss, E. A.

    Clowes, S.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kennedy, T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Compton, Joseph

    Lansbury, George

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Connolly, M.

    Lawrence, Susan

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

    Cove, W. G.

    Lawson, John James

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lee, F.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lowth, T.

    Townend, A. E.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lunn, William

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Day, Colonel Harry

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

    Varley, Frank B.

    Dennison, R.

    Mackinder, W.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Duncan, C.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dunnico, H.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

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

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    England, Colonel A.

    March, S.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Maxton, James

    Westwood, J.

    Forrest, W.

    Montague, Frederick

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Morris, R. H.

    Whiteley, W.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Murnin, H.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Gillett, George M.

    Naylor, T. E

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Gosling, Harry

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Owen, Major G.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Greenall, T.

    Paling, W.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Windsor, Walter

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wright, W.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Groves, T.

    Potts, John S.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Riley, Ben

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Ritson, J.

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. T. SHAW: We on this side of the House can scarcely be expected to consent to this Clause standing part of the
    1734
    Bill. I will say very little about the finance of the Clause. That has been riddled over and over again by my hon. Friends behind me, and, indeed, the Minister himself does not claim that he has any figures on which the can base an actuarial calculation. I would recall

    1735
    to the memory of the House an answer that was given by the Minister last week, an answer which proves that what I have said is based on the admission of the Minister himself. In reply to a question dealing with the statistics of people under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and with registers of Employment Exchanges, the right hon. Gentleman said that corresponding statistics are not available in respect of persons of 18 to 20 years of age. So that any statement that any actuarial calculation of any value has been made in respect of the proposed new class of contributors is, by the admission of the Minister himself, absolutely beyond the mark. Therefore, we have to begin, even in a financial consideration of the Clause, with the acknowledgment of the Minister that there are no figures at all on which he bases his estimates. If we were dealing with any ordinary business organisation in the world, that organisation would reject this Clause until the Minister did bring forward some definite information that would lead to the belief that his figures were based on some ascertained facts and bore some resemblance to the probabilities of the situation.
    Another objection that we have to the Clause is that in this new scheme of contributions there has been no effort to bring the State's contribution higher in relation to the contributions of employers and employed, and to make unemployment insurance more of a national responsibility and less of an industrial and district responsibility than it is to-day. For that reason we shall certainly oppose the Clause. We might have expected that if the Government had done nothing more, they could at any rate have made the Government's contribution equal to that of the employer; we might have expected that they would have made it slightly higher than that of the employer. But everything in this Bill points to one fact, and that is that the Bill is based on the assumption that Exchequer money must be saved, whoever suffers as a consequence. The whole of this Clause, whether deliberately drafted with that intention or not, realises that idea, that the money of the Exchequer has to be saved whatever the consequences to the people who are unemployed. Then we have the explanation why this Clause
    1736
    has been put into the Bill, and we are referred by the Memorandum of the Bill itself to the Blanesburgh Report. The extraordinary thing is that whenever support is sought for a Clause in this Bill the Blanesburgh Report suddenly becomes sacrosanct, but when anything does not please the Minister, when any suggestion is made by the Blanesburgh Committee that is to cost money, the Report ceases to be sacrosanct and is thrown on one side.
    We have an old saying in Lancashire that some children like both the ha'penny and the toffee. The Government is exactly in that position with regard to Blanesburgh; it wants both the ha'penny and the toffee. If Blanesburgh pleases, then it is the law and the prophets. The Labour representatives on the Committee are cited as being in favour of the Report. When the Government does not like the Report it becomes less than the Gospel and is thrown ruthlessly on one side. In considering this Clause let us see what the Blanesburgh Committee said. With regard to juveniles it said:
    "If we had not been recommending that useful training should be provided, some of us would not have agreed to reduce the existing scale."
    It said also, with regard to the young persons who are dealt with in this Clause:
    "Training is scarcely less important in the case of young men and women from 18 to 21, and we earnestly desire that in their cases also facilities for training will be available or made available to the greatest possible extent."
    Therefore, when the Minister brings Blanesburgh to support him in this Clause, I say let him give us all Blanesburgh. Let him give us the law and the prophets and the whole of the 39 Articles at once; do not let him pick out the Articles that he chooses and the text he chooses, and leave on one side those that disagree with his stomach. Let us have the lot, if we are to have Blanesburgh, or let us have none at all. It is quite true that this Report would never have been agreed to if the quid pro quo of training, with a hot meal in the middle of the day, had not been expected as one of the benefits that would make up for the benefits that have been reduced. We object to this Clause because it introduces a principle to which we are strongly opposed, and it is, if

    1737
    not the most dangerous Clause, one of the most dangerous Clauses in the Bill, for many reasons. The contributions are deliberately fixed in order to cut benefits to such proportions that the young men and women cannot even attempt to live on what they receive as benefits, because we must combine the Clause with what it is intended to do. We must deal with it not because of the mere words in it, but because of the implication of those words, and we know that when the Clause says that the contributions shall be as set out in a certain Schedule, the connection must be made between those words and the words that are intended to fall into contact with them in the other Schedule.
    Consequently, we shall refuse to vote for a Clause which is intended to be part of a general scheme for reducing the conditions of our young men and women to such an extent that they will, willy nilly, either become parasites on their parents and friends or drop into something worse. There has never been an attempt in the House to justify these conditions, and all that we have got is "Blanesburgh said so." The Minister is not Blanesburgh, and Blanesburgh is not on trial in this House. We are dealing, not with the Blanesburgh Committee, but with the Government, and we ask them to make out a case for their new scheme for people between 18 and 21, and to try to prove, if they can, that their scheme is adequate and that under it these young people will not become parasites or something worse. Up to now we have waited in vain. It is whipping a dead horse to refer to the financial principles, which have been riddled over and over again. Never, I think, in the history of Parliament has a scheme been proposed with so little real actuarial basis as this, and the only thing the scheme is aimed at is to save a certain amount of money at the expense of the poor people who are suffering badly enough as things are to-day. We cannot agree at all even to be connected with the idea that young men and women of 18 to 21 should be considered either in payments or in benefits or in anything else as being quite different from workers of over 21.
    10.0 p.m.
    What is the actual condition in the great industries where women work? I think the largest insurable industry in the country in which women work is the
    1738
    textile industry, principally concentrated in Yorkshire and Lancashire, and everybody who knows industrial life in those counties knows that the boy and girl from 18 upwards are generally supposed to be helping parents who have screwed themselves in order to keep them up to that age. They are not people who are just leaving school, or just going to the university, but full grown men and women, with the responsibilities of men and women, earning the wages of men and women, self-reliant, independent, self-maintaining; and to offer them conditions of this kind is to disclose either a lamentable ignorance of the state of affairs or a want of sympathy with the actual conditions of the people in these two big counties, at any rate, which I have not sufficient adjectives to describe. I think I know what I am talking about as well as most people. I am one of these people myself. I went through the mill myself. I started work at 10; at 14 I was supposed to be a worker; and at 16 I was supposed to be earning almost as much money as I could ever hope to earn at my trade during my life. What applied to me, applies to countless thousands of young men and women in Lancashire and Yorkshire and in other parts of the country as well, and if anybody had told me at 18 that I was a kind of infant, who had to be treated on a lower scale than a man of above 21, who had to be supposed for some reason to pay less money and to have, at the present price of food, what these contributions are likely to provide, I should have thought that person was incompetent or ignorant or both.
    The Government must try to realise what they are doing in this respect. I do not want to paint too gloomy a picture of what this kind of contribution means, with its correlated benefits. I do not want to tell the Committee that our girls will all lead bad lives and that our boys will all become criminals, but I say that where a tendency of that kind exists, this is the kind of thing that will do more to help that tendency than any other thing. The people in my own county, whom I know best, are as good in every respect as any body of people in the world, morally and intellectually; they are decent, clean-living, hard-working people. Through no fault of their own, they are in the condition in which

    1739
    they are to-day, with six solid years of bad trade behind them—the cleverest workers in the world at their trade. I have seen men and women working at the same trade nearly all over the world, but there are none that can approach ours, and yet they are in this position; and to come and talk to our girls and our boys, self-reliant, proud of the fact that they earn their own living, that they are decent and like to be well dressed, to tell them they should be treated like children, put on different scales, paid in a different way, given a starvation rate, and forced to become parasites on their parents and friends, is an insult that no Government ought to offer to my people. If we are indignant about it, that is the fault of the Government. They sit with the problem of unemployment, and they try to do nothing to help it. Not a single scheme do they begin, by which to help make the country richer and pay wages for honest work rather than benefits for no work. They sit and wait until time or starvation gets their problem away, and in order to get their problem away more quickly, this is what they propose for the young people.
    We resent it, we bitterly resent it; and going into a Lobby is not much, but I prefer to go into the Lobby against this Clause rather than to go into the Lobby for it. Better were it that we had a mill-stone round our necks and were thrown into the depths of the sea than that we should commit ourselves to the principles that are laid down in this Clause and what follows it for the young people who live and work in the counties that I know best. The whole of this Clause is thoroughly reactionary, a reversion to the old idea that people out of work should be punished, that the State should not help to keep them, but that their treatment should be such as to make them worse than criminals. You spend more on a criminal and you give a criminal better treatment than you want to give these decent boys and girls. It is a sorry commentary on British civilisation when we are prepared to spend more money on a criminal than we are on decent working men and women. They are not criminals. The War was not caused by them. Unemployment due to the War was not caused by them. They did their duty in the War, and this is what they are going to get for their
    1740
    parents' efforts during the War. It is a sorry state of things. The Government may save on it, but I would rather be Judas with his 30 pieces of silver than the Chancellor with the 30 pieces of silver he gets out of this. At any rate, the one to me is as big a criminal as the other. Man is made in his Maker's image, and if Judas betrayed his Maker, the Government is betraying its Maker's image.
    The real basis of this Clause is the old, bad, vicious idea that the only way of treating the suffering workpeople is to treat them in such a way as to make it impossible for them to live without starving. If the Government were able to say, "We are going to lay down these contributions, with what they imply in the shape of benefits, because the necessaries of the case are such as to justify us in doing it," one could understond that action, but the Government never said that these people can get work. The Government cannot find them work, and everybody knows that factories and mines are stopped. Everybody knows that in the great areas along the East coast young men have not a dog's chance of getting work, and yet precisely at this moment, after another year of unemployment, when conditions have become worse, when people have become poorer, when those who have been most hardly hit are still further reduced, this crushing thing comes along in order to make the conditions much worse. What is the use of preaching to us about your patriotism that consists in considering just a few people at the top and treating those at the bottom as inferior cattle? What is the use of prating to us about a Britain which contains above 1,000,000 people to whom this Clause will be only degradation? What is the use of talking to us about being proud of our country? We are proud of our country, but we are not proud of our Government. We are proud of the Empire to which we belong. We want to see it an Empire which shall belong to its people, when the first duty of the Empire will be to see that every one of its people has a decent living.
    Will this Clause give our people a decent living? No. Everybody with a heart to feel and a brain to think knows what this Clause means, and we certainly will not take either part or lot in voting for a condition of affairs which, in our opinion, is an insult to our young man-

    1741
    hood and womanhood, and which discloses a lamentable ignorance of the conditions of the working classes. It will hit most hardly the district which has suffered for six years now. I am speaking particularly of Lancashire and Yorkshire, because this Clause will hit them more than any other part of the country. These people have suffered so long and so uncomplainingly—too uncomplainingly—and I wish people in my own county had been more vocal than they have been. How could I go to my own people in my own constituency and say to them, "I have voted for a Clause like this," when I know that in voting for it I would have betrayed the young men and women who work at the same occupation at which I used to work myself—the young men and women who are proud of their status, and proud of the fact that they keep themselves, proud of the fact that they are decent, and that they dress as decently as any person in the land? I cannot do it. It would he treacherous on my part if I did it. The whole scheme underlying this Clause is vicious and bad, and because I believe that, I trust that my hon. Friends will go, as I know they will, into the Lobby behind me solidly to vote against the Clause.
    Mr. BETTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has repeated a great portion of the speech he made on Second Reading, but on the present occasion, however relevant it may have been on Second Reading, my submission to the Committee is that his indignation is misplaced, because the principle about which he has protested so much—and it is the only principle contained in the Clause at present under discussion—is that where there is a lower benefit to a certain class of person, then there shall be a lower contribution. That principle has always been the principle of every Insurance Bill, including the right hon. Gentleman's own. Where you have had a lower rate for a class of workers, then you have always had a lower rate of benefit. So, therefore, the only question of principle contained in this Clause is the principle which has always found acceptance in this House. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to discuss a very different principle, namely, the general question of differentiation in respect of the class between 18 and 21. That discussion would have been quite irrelevant to this Clause and
    1742
    the proper place for that discussion to come, as indeed it will come, will be on the next Clause but one. The same applies exactly to what the right hon. Gentleman says with regard to training. A good deal may be said in the discussions on that matter, but this is not the place; so whatever views we may have, and whatever answers we may have to the points which the right hon. Gentleman made, will be given at the proper time and in the proper place.
    Mr. PALING: The reply is an insult to the Committee.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Throughout the Debate we have not had from the Ministry any statement which can in any way justify the institution of this new class of insured persons, nor have we been given any idea of the number of insured persons this new class is likely to represent. I submit that the creation of this new class has been inspired by one paragraph out of the whole of the Blanesburgh Report. It is paragraph 57, which says we must have a form of insurance that
    "must not interfere unduly with the mobility of labour in this country.
    "It must not deter from emigration those who would be benefited by a life overseas."
    It adds that:
    "The scheme must not by the extent of benefit promised, tempt the insured contributor to improvidence when in receipt of good pay."
    I suggest that is the real reason for the creation of this new class. Throughout the history of unemployment insurance there has never been a class between 16 and 18 years of age or between 18 and 21. There is no mention in paragraph 57 of any reason why young women between 18 and 21 should have a reduction of benefit, but the reason is quite obvious—domestic service either overseas or at home is suggested. What is likely to be the effect of the creation of this new class on insurance generally, on administration in particular, and in the field of industry from the employability point of view? First, I would say the creation of the new class will make it more difficult for trade unions to administer the Act. Trade unions have no varied contributions according to the age of their members. All their members will pay the same amount and all will receive the same amount of the union benefit, but it

    1743
    will be varied by the amount they hand over to the insured person. A person 20 years of age will receive through his approved society less than a trade union member who is 21 or more, and this will make things so complicated as to make administration well nigh impossible.
    One wonders whether the Ministry of Labour are not desirous of wiping out trade union administration. If that is so, I am sure they are doing wrong—committing an injustice against the industrial societies and increasing their own difficulties. The administration will be ten times more difficult when the insured person must produce his birth certificate showing that he has now completed 18 years of age and has entered upon his nineteenth year. There is a difference between your saving in the benefit from 18 years and over. You will require the clerical staff to keep a proper check, and investigate all these payments, and this will do more credit to the Department than enlarging the administrative staff which stands at round about 11,000. The employer will pay less on the contribution for the young person between 18 and 21, but in my view the temptation will be to employ the younger men on account of their strength and their increased value as human units in the workshop as well as on account of their cheapness, which is considerable when taken over the year and multiplied by a large number. The result will be that those of 50 years and above that age must give way to those from 18 to 21.
    Hon. Members ought not to receive that statement in a smiling sort of way. We know already that the 16 to 18 class has had that effect with employers, who have dismissed them after 18 and filled up again with those from 16 to 18 in order to save a few coppers. I suggest that it is very strange indeed that this new class, so created, should be a non-voting class, which does not enjoy full citizenship. This is a class that has no vote from 18 to 21. Consequently, they are the more helpless, and yet you are singling them out to bear the full blast of any reduction in this particular sense. I have a very good reason for opposing this Clause, because there was a time of unemployment donation under the 1918 scheme of contributions when not one class was left unprotected. It dealt with dependants tip to 15 and donation benefit
    1744
    from 15 upwards. There was no gap such as there is now, and no class entirely left without any provision. That leads me to suggest a far different new class that might have been created instead of the one suggested. We find, in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Scheme of Out-of-Work Donation, published in 1919, this statement:
    "The original weekly rates of donation, as decided by the Government, were 24s. for men and 20s. for women, together with supplementary allowances in respect of dependent children under 15 years of age. By the 12th December, these allowances were increased, and boys and girls between the ages of 15 and 18 received half the adult rate of donation. That means that, where the adult rate in December, 1918, was 29s. for men, 14s. 6d. was paid to a male between the ages of 15 and 18."
    There you had just two classes, between 15 and 18 and from 18 onwards. There was no question even of a contribution being paid. I want, in passing, to say how sad I felt when the suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) that if the benefit were increased, and married people were excluded from this Clause, there was a possibility that that would encourage marriage. We all know that the hon. Member for Reading and others granted easy facilities for separation allowances to young soldiers at the age of 18 and upwards during the period of the War, and paced at their disposal clerks to boards of guardians, in order that they might have easy facilities for marriage, and so qualify at that time for separation allowance. It is now suggested that, while in one set of circumstances you can offer a monetary inducement for that, this monetary inducement, in the case of the new class, is likely to lead to it. I know that the Minister has agreed to consider the point, but, as the Clause now stands, it means that a married person under 21, if a male, will receive 10s., and he will, perhaps, get the 7s. for his wife as a dependant. That, however, is not quite clear, but it may be cleared up at a subsequent stage of the Debate. If he does, he will get 17s. as a married man slightly under the age of 21, while a married man who has just turned 21 would be getting 24s. per week. To suggest that 17s. a week is an inducement for any folk to marry in present-day circumstances is fallacious in the extreme

    1745
    It would have been far better had the Ministry decided to include another class that is now left out. It would have been more profitable and more beneficial if, instead of making a class from 18 to 21, it had been made from the school-leaving age up to the age of 16. That period is not covered by unemployment insurance. I know it is very difficult to give a real picture of these things, but the Minister might have told us how many individuals there were in this class. I find, however, that there are young men and women of the age of 18 who still come to our juvenile centres. There are some who left school at 14 and have not yet found employment at the age of 18. It is sometimes suggested that they ought not to be brought in, because they would swell the unemployment figures. They are not included in the unemployment statistics now, nor do they all come to these juvenile centres. I find that, of 1,349 in one area who were eligible to leave school at the mid-summer period, only 545 attended for interview at the juvenile centre, showing that at least 800 of that number did not go near the juvenile centre.
    Then I have a list that shows that there are numbers between 14 and 15, 15 and 16, 16 and 17, and 17 and 18, so that had we been in order and been able to create a new class it was our intention to suggest that the new class should be from school leaving age to 16, that each child leaving school should have the statutory stamp credit so that they would have some continuation of credit as a condition for receiving the proportion of benefit paid through the educational authorities acting as agents to the parents at home for their general maintenance. It was felt that that would have been a far better and more valuable class to create, because even the class you have, 16 to 18, if they have to qualify, will be required to go so many weeks before ever they can get a stamp qualification. They are handicapped from the start. Here you have a general squeezing process, a reduction of possibilities for even physical or educational equipment. The children from school leaving age you leave out. They are the class that I once described as orphans of the storm. The educationists will not have them or make provision for them, industry cannot absorb them all, and industrial insurance will make no
    1746
    provision for them. There is the impressionable age, there is a new class that wants reclaiming from all the dangers that beset the young mind. But, instead of that, they may go on to 18 years of age without any employment at all, and drop into this new class, which under the best circumstances will not give them provision that would buy food alone for them for the whole of the week. They may be as robust as you can imagine when they first leave school, but by the time they have reached this new class that has been set up with all its restrictions you will find they will enter into a stage already in part demoralised, because they have been a class set apart by themselves They pass through the class which has had a reduction without any reduction in the contribution at all. They enter into the 18 to 21 class having passed through the juvenile centres, and I am sure the Minister will make up his mind that some provision must be made.
    I pass a juvenile centre every morning in Nottingham going to my office. I have seen many who look 17 or 18 having their bits of fun on the corner. It struck me that it was a little dangerous. If they are there in conjunction with those of 14 to 16, they ought to be taken away as soon as they pass the age of 16. I wondered if that juvenile bureau took on registration for any above 16, because that was their only intention, and I was certain some of these boys and girls looked 18 or 19. Yet, strange to say, when I discreetly inquired of one or two of the 15-years-of-age boys or girls, they had not had a start from the school leaving age. No one cared about them. The juvenile centres do their best. Do not let it be imagined that they do not try to place them. They do, and they are successful under some circumstances. They say no one seems to care after they have registered and had their interview. These 15-year-old boys look like 17 or 18 and develop the sort of cunning that you can see in the slums. If that is to develop as they pass on into this new class you have made, without any preparation that will equip them to remain honest, you will make old men and women and weak and decrepit citizens of them. You are preventing the fullness of their development that ought to be nursed and matured in order that they may repay the State in some form or another in their usual makeup as good.

    1747
    honest citizens. You are crippling and harassing them. I ask even now that you will not further complicate the matter after the period of distress we have passed through, but will repay the nation for its suffering, not by increasing its suffering, but by trying to lighten its load at the most perilous part of its journey.
    Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: We shall be at the end, in a very short time, of the second day of this discussion, and we have not passed Clause 2. At this rate of progress, it seems to me, the Government have not much chance of getting to the end of the Committee stage by Monday night, as was suggested and anticipated to-day at Question time. I must say, with all respect, that I think the Government have only themselves to blame for the mess they have got into. This Bill has been put forward, apparently, on various actuarial calculations, or we are told so. I was prevented from being here yesterday, but on reading through an account of the Debate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, it occurs to me the Minister, if I may be allowed to say so with respect, failed lamentably to give adequate answers.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine his remarks to the particular provisions of Clause 2.
    Mr. HUDSON: The point I am endeavouring to make is, that the delay was due to the fact that we are unable to determine what is the basis of the various proposals that are made in Clause 2 and in other parts of the Bill. I think the ex-Minister of Labour made a very good point when he was discussing it, and I was endeavouring to suggest that exactly the same cause for delay occurred yesterday, as far as I can see, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the—
    The CHAIRMAN: We are concerned now with Clause 2 and not with what was passed yesterday on Clause 1.
    Mr. HUDSON: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Hope, and will now confine myself to Clause 2. We have been told that Clause 2 is dependent on certain calculations, and again to-day I have listened very nearly to the whole of this Debate, including the speech of the Minister of Labour and the speech of the Parliament-
    1748
    ary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary made no attempt at all to answer the point brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), and I must confess that the answer of the Minister of Labour himself earlier on left me in very considerable doubt personally as to the basis on which the calculations had been made. We were told at the beginning of this afternoon that we would be afforded, in the form of a White Paper, an estimate of how certain figures had been arrived at. It is to be hoped when that estimate comes before us, it will allay the misgiving that many of us cherish as to the accuracy of the figures quoted, because, certainly from investigations that I have made in my constituency, the estimate will prove to be entirely fallacious and incorrect. In view of the fact that we are now only on the first two Clauses how long are we going to take to debate snd settle the remaining Clauses of this Bill?
    The Bill is said to be based, and this Clause, too, on certain recommendations of the Blanesburgh Committee. The Blanesburgh Committee's Report, taken as a whole, is a very good one, I think. We have been shown by the right hon. Member for Preston how in this particular Clause the Bill varies materially from the recommendations of the Committee's Report, which, I submit, should be taken either as a whole or rejected as a whole. The hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan) made humorous reference the other day to the qualifications of the Minister of Labour. If I may be allowed to do so, more especially in view of the fact that possibly with one exception no hon. Member on these benches has got up to defend or to help the Minister in the conduct of this Debate, I would suggest that the Minister of Labour would do very much better to swallow his pride and withdraw this Bill and—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss the general conduct of the Minister of Labour.
    Mr. HUDSON: The point of my remarks was that if the discussions are to continue at this rate we shall, in fact, be wasting our time.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must either discuss the provisions of the Clause, or resume his seat.
    Mr. HUDSON: Surely, we are in order in discussing on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," the extent to which the actuarial basis could be improved, as we have had no figures to support the actuarial basis. Seeing that that is the case on Clause 2, we shall be in a hopeless position when we come to discuss the two Schedules that are mentioned.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must discuss Clause 2, and not talk about the general conduct of the Minister.
    Mr. E. BROWN: We welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Hudson) as evidence that there are a great many people in this country, in all parties and out of them, who are in grave doubt as to the effect of this Clause, or of the causes that have produced it. The hon. Member has referred to the lack of figures. There are some figures available. We do know that the new class under this Clause is estimated by the actuary to be 1,200,000. The actuary says:
    "Assuming that the reduction in the number of insured persons which, under the provisions of the Contributory Pensions Act, will result from the exclusion from insurance of persons aged over 65 from January, 1928, will be off-set in a short period by the natural increase in the working population, these numbers are as follows:"
    Then follow the numbers:
    "Youths, ages 18 to 21, 783,000; Girls, ages 18 to 21, 480,000."
    That makes a total of 1,263,000. Therefore, the Committee knows that it has that reliable figure to go upon. It is now debating the contributions of this class in relation to the benefits, and we have to bear in mind that they affect not fewer than 1¼ millions of young people. I make this point, as there are a number of people outside the House who seem to have come to the conclusion that the new class between 18 and 21 affected by this Clause is only a small one comprising a limited number of young people, whereas it represents 1¼ millions. We know what contributions they will have to pay, but we are not quite sure what benefits they will get. The Minister, through criticisms inside and outside the House, has suggested a new scale. I have been very interested in listening to the speech of the Parliamentary Secre-
    1750
    tary when he discussed the genesis of this new class. He suggested that, first of all, the Chairman, Lord Blanesburgh, wrote to the chairmen of the local employment committees asking them to call a conference of the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the local Employment Exchange Divisions for the purpose of settling replies to the question which would as nearly as possible reflect the collective views of the local employment committee in that division. I want to go a little further back than that.
    I have taken the trouble to go through the whole of the evidence, and if the hon. Member for Whitehaven has had doubts, so have I, for when I read the original Report of the Blanesburgh Committee it must be obvious that the four short references to this class do not warrant the step we are now being asked to take by voting for Clause 2. I found during the course of my researches a very delightful exercise in the gentle art of suggestion. That exercise was first commenced by Mr. Price, of the Ministry of Labour, in his original evidence. Hon. Members will find these words on page 49:
    "There is some evidence of slackness in seeking work among young men and women and I am afraid that is particularly the case where they are still living at home. Parental authority is, no doubt, exercised to some extent, but it gets less as the young man or woman gets a bit older. We say in general that the evidence is insufficient"—
    Let me repeat that:
    "the evidence is insufficient to enable any final conclusions to be reached as to the general effect of benefit schemes and the relation between rates of benefit to rates of normal earnings for persons between 18 and 20 years of age."
    It does not say persons between 18 and 21 years of age. Then I find Mr. Price says this:
    "That is a point on which you may be inclined to put questions to later witnesses."
    I am not exaggerating when I describe that as an exercise in the gentle art of suggestion, and the Chairman of the Committee proceeded at once to act upon it, at first without success. The Committee next received evidence from the Iron and Steel Federation, and in that evidence there was no demand of this kind whatever. Then we go a little further—[An HON. MEMBER: "Safe-guarding!"] If hon. Members have no more intelligent interjection to make than

    1751
    that, they might pay some attention to those who have taken some trouble to inquire into the matter. In any case, I refuse to be drawn into a discussion on safeguarding. We are trying to safeguard the rights of these young persons. Then comes the interesting evidence, rejected in part by the Committee, of the National Federation of Employers' Organisations. They suggested, among other things, that there should be no benefit up to 18 years of age, that the maximum benefit for girls should be 15s., and that benefits should be graduated between the ages of 18 and 21. They said:
    "It follows that the present high rates of benefit for juveniles tend to undermine the system of apprenticeship and encourage at an early age a disinclination to work."
    This evidence was given by two gentlemen, Mr. Foster Watson and Mr. John A. Gregorson, and it is worth pursuing by Members of the Committee. Let me go a little further with it. During the evidence questions were put to the witnesses as to their views about this question of 18 to 21 years, and as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out during the Second Reading Debate, the Blanesburgh Committee made the suggestion to the chairman of the local employment areas—the suggestion did not come from the local employment areas to the Blanesburgh Committee—the gentle art of suggestion had become very powerful by this time, and they received from the chairman and vice-chairman of the areas of the local employment committees very mixed replies. The Committee should understand that the replies on the question of making this new class were not unanimous. There were great differences of opinion, and I am not aware from my reading of the evidence that any evidence was called on the part of the employed persons or representatives of those between 18 and 21, as to their views on such a segregation. I find on analysing the evidence one or two considerations which seem to have escaped the attention of the Blanesburgh Committee. There was, for instance, a discussion of this very problem which, in my judgment is the cause of this Clause appearing in the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary rather misquoted the Blanesburgh Report
    1752
    —quite unintentionally. I give the quotation which he made:
    "We have considered it of the first importance so to frame our scheme that it is as free as possible from all injurious tendencies.… The prior payment of 30 weekly contributions, the reduction in the rate of benefit to young persons … are expressly designed for this purpose."
    But then the Parliamentary Secretary went on to talk, not about "injurious tendencies," but about "evil tendencies"—a term connoting very different tendencies indeed. "Injurious tendencies" would not be injurious tendencies, affecting this small class only, but affecting the whole realm of 12,000,000 insured persons. With regard to "injurious tendencies," towards not seeking work because the rates of benefit are too high, there are points which the Blanesburgh Committee overlooked, and to which this Committee ought to give attention. There was an examination and analysis of certain claims on this very point. A certain number of claims were queried as being doubtful claims, and in the evidence given before the Blanesburgh Committee I find that 27 per cent. of the total number of these claims—they were 192,480 in number—that is to say, 51,959 claims were examined, and the following is the analysis given to the Committee. With regard to standard benefit, 22.2 per cent. men had claims queried; 47.9 per cent. married women had claims queried; 37 per cent. widows with children had claims queried; and 40 per cent. other women had claims queried.
    When we come to the boys and girls the proportion of queried claims falls to 10.3 per cent. in the case of boys, and 16.5 per cent. in the case of girls. So, it seems to me that the evidence in regard to queried claims shows that there is less "injurious tendency" at the moment among the boys and girls and the young people than there is among the older people. I go further. I find in Part 4 of the evidence, an analysis in groups of these figures, and all I need do is to point out to the Committee that there are six groups—unskilled workers, workpeople hoping to return to their old employment, rural recruits, married women who did a little work since marriage, and then, young men and women not belonging to a definite trade and young women such as shop assistants, dressmakers, tailoresses, etc., who in

    1753
    some cases have been discharged by employers to make room for younger persons at less wages. These are the very people who are going to be affected by the proposals contained in this Clause.
    We ought not to part with this Clause before we get a great deal more information about the evidence upon which it is based. I have done my best, in my constituency and in other parts of the country, in consultation with those who have to work the Employment Exchanges and with those who have to work the Poor Law organisation and by reading the evidence, to ascertain the truth about this Clause. I share the honest doubts of my hon. Friend. I believe there is in that Report no evidence about these injurious tendencies which is worth calling evidence in this House or in a Court of law.
    We are entitled to ask the Committee to reject this Clause because no adequate case has been made out for it by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary on the Floor of the House or in the Report upon which this Bill is supposedly based, because the evidence put up before the Committee was not sufficient, because according to the Report of the Actuary there will be a profit in this section of
    young people from 18 to 21 and they ought not therefore to be deprived of this profit, and because the evidence given before the Committee as to the need was so vague and so unsatisfactory. This proposal is the result of suspicion and of some little amount of departmental experience and is drafted on a purely departmental basis. This Clause pays no regard to the situation in certain areas where there are thousands of these young people who have never yet had a start. The Committee ought not to part with this Clause, because all the basis we have had is a discussion of general figures covering the whole insurance field, the discussion of 1,260 persons about whom the Minister of Labour knows very little, while neither he nor his Department can form any genuine estimate as to how many are likely to be out of work during the period of transition—
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: rose in his place, and claimed to more, "That the Question he now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 147.

    Division No. 366.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

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

    Campbell, E. T.

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Cassels, J. D.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Albery, Irving James

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

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

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

    Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Apsley, Lord

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Fielden, E. B.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Finburgh, S.

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

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Atkinson, C.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Gates, Percy

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Balniel, Lord

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

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

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Goff, Sir Park

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Grace, John

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Ccpe, Major William

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Couper, J. B.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

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

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Grattan-Doyle. Sir N.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Bethel, A.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Betterton, Henry B.

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

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Grotrian, H. Brent

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

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

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

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Curzon. Captain Viscount

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Dalkeith. Earl of

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

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

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

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

    Briggs, J. Harold

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

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hanbury, C.

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

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Brown,Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newby)

    Drewe, C.

    Harland, A.

    Buchan, John

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Burman, J. B.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Ellis, R. G.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

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

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

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

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R.J.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Storry-Deans, R.

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

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

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Homan, C. W. J.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

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

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Stuart, Crichton., Lord C.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Oakley, T.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

    Penny, Frederick George

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Pilcher, G.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Thom, Lt. Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Preston, William

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

    Radford, E. A.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Tinne. J. A.

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

    Ramsden, E.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Waddington, R.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Remer, J. R.

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

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Lamb, J. Q.

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Watson. Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Loder, J. de V.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Looker, Herbert William

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

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

    Wells, S. R.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

    Lumley. L. R.

    Rye, F. G.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    McLean, Major A.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Withers, John James

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Sandon, Lord

    Wolmer, Viscount

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Savery, S. S.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

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

    Malone, Major P. B.

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

    Wragq, Herbert

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Merriman, F. B.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Captain Bowyer and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

    NOES.

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

    Forrest, W.

    Kelly, W. T.

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

    Gardner, J. P.

    Kennedy, T.

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

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

    Ammon, Charles George

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Lansbury, George

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Gillett, George M.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston)

    Gosling, Harry

    Lawson, John James

    Baker, Walter

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lee, F.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

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

    Lindley, F. W.

    Barnes, A.

    Greenall, T.

    Lowth, T.

    Batey, Joseph

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Lunn, William

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Mackinder, W.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Groves, T.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Broad, F. A.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Bromley, J.

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

    March, S.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Maxton, James

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Buchanan. G.

    Hardie, George D.

    Montague, Frederick

    Cape, Thomas

    Harney, E. A.

    Morris, R. H.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Harris. Percy A.

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

    Clowes, S.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Murnin, H.

    Compton, Joseph

    Hayday, Arthur

    Naylor, T. E.

    Connolly. M.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Oliver, George Harold

    Cove, W. G.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Owen, Major G.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Patin, John Henry

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Paling, W.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Potts, John S.

    Dennison, R.

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

    Riley, Ben

    Duckworth, John

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Ritson, J.

    Duncan, C.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

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

    Dunnico, H.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

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

    England, Colonel A.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Fenby, T. D.

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

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    1756

    1757

    Scrymgeour, E.

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

    Westwood, J.

    Sexton, James

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Whiteley, W.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Towneed, A. E.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Varley, Frank B.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Snell, Harry

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Windsor, Walter

    Stephen, Campbell

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Wright, W.

    Strauss, E. A.

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

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Sullivan, J.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Sutton, J. E.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Thomson. Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.

    Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 145.

    Division No. 367.]

    AYES.

    [11.8 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Dalkeith, Earl of

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

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

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

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

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

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Albery, Irving James

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hurd, Percy A

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

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

    Apsley, Lord

    Drewe, C.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

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

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Atkinson, C.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Ellis, R. G.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Balniel, Lord

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

    Finburgh, S.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Bethel, A.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Gates, Percy

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

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

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Boothby, R. J. G.

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

    McLean, Major A.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Goff, Sir Park

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Grace, John

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Margesson, Captain D.

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

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.

    Buchan, John

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Merriman, F. B.

    Burman, J. B.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

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

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

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

    Campbell, E. T.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

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

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

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hammersley, S. S

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hanbury, C.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Harland, A.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Oakley, T.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon A. D.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Penny, Frederick George

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

    Plieher, G.

    Colman, N. C. D.

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

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Preston, William

    Cope, Major William

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Radford, E. A.

    Couper, J. B.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Courtautd, Major J. S.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Ramsden, E.

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

    Homan, C. W. J.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Crookehank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

    Remer, J. R.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

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

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsay and Otley)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanc., Stretford)

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

    Wastson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Wells, S. R.

    Rye, F. G.

    Stotte, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

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

    Salmon, Major I.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Sandon, Lord

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Withers, John James

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Savery, S. S.

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

    Womersiey, W. J.

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

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Wragg, Herbert

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Waddington, R.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W

    Captain Bowyer and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

    NOES.

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

    Grundy, T. W.

    Riley, Ben

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

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

    Ritson, J.

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

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

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

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hardie, George D.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Harney, E. A.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Baker, Walter

    Harris, Percy A.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Sexton, James

    Barnes, A.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Batey, Joseph

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Snell, Harry

    Broad, F. A.

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Bromley, J.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    John William (Rhondda West)

    Strauss, E. A.

    Buchanan, G.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Charleton, H. C.

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

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Clowes, S.

    Kelly, W. T.

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

    Compton, Joseph

    Kennedy, T.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Connolly, M.

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

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Cove, W. G.

    Lansbury, George

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Townend, A. E.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lawson, John James

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lee, F.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Viant, S. P.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lowth, T.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Dennison, R.

    Lunn, William

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Duckworth, John

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

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Duncan, C.

    MacKinder, W.

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

    Dunnico, H.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    March, S.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    England, Colonel A.

    Maxton, James

    Welsh, J. C.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Westwood, J.

    Forrest, W.

    Montague, Frederick

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Morris, R. H.

    Whiteley, W.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Murnin, H.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Gillett, George M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Gosling, Harry

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Owen, Major G.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Greenall, T.

    Paling, W.

    Windsor, Walter

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wright, W.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Groves, T.

    Potts, John S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    It being after Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    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 Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Manchester, which was presented on the 8th July 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 Questions, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  RUSSIAN MATCHES.
  RUSSIAN MATCHES.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (DIVISION RECORDS).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (DIVISION RECORDS).
  LEAD PAINT POISONING.
  LEAD PAINT POISONING.
  MOTOR CARS AND MOTOR CYCLES (THEFTS).
  MOTOR CARS AND MOTOR CYCLES (THEFTS).
  FACTORIES BILL.
  FACTORIES BILL.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  LOW TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.
  LOW TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.
  OIL FUEL EXTRACTION.
  OIL FUEL EXTRACTION.
  CLOSED MINES.
  CLOSED MINES.
  WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.
  WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.
ROYAL NAVY.
  CONTRACTORS, DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (EMPLOYÉS).
  CONTRACTORS, DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (EMPLOYÉS).
  SHIPBUILDING.
  SHIPBUILDING.
  NAVAL ARMAMENTS (GENEVA CONFERENCE).
  NAVAL ARMAMENTS (GENEVA CONFERENCE).
  ARMENIAN REFUGEES.
  ARMENIAN REFUGEES.
  ABYSSINIA (BLUE NILE WATERS).
  ABYSSINIA (BLUE NILE WATERS).
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (LOANS).
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (LOANS).
  VAGRANTS (EMPLOYMENT).
  VAGRANTS (EMPLOYMENT).
  POOR LAW RELIEF (OLD AGE PENSIONS).
  POOR LAW RELIEF (OLD AGE PENSIONS).
  REGISTRARS OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS (FEES).
  REGISTRARS OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS (FEES).
  TOWN PLANNING (LEGISLATION).
  TOWN PLANNING (LEGISLATION).
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  FOOD POISONING.
  FOOD POISONING.
  TRAFFIC NOISES.
  TRAFFIC NOISES.
  VACCINE LYMPH.
  VACCINE LYMPH.
  HOUSING (STATISTICS).
  HOUSING (STATISTICS).
  INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.
  INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.
  OVERTIME, CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
  OVERTIME, CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  "P" CLASS CLERKS, CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
  "P" CLASS CLERKS, CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
TRANSPORT.
  WESTERN AVENUE.
  WESTERN AVENUE.
  VICTORIA DOCK ROAD.
  VICTORIA DOCK ROAD.
  SOUTH-EAST ELECTRICITY SCHEME.
  SOUTH-EAST ELECTRICITY SCHEME.
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  NIGHT TELEGRAPH OVERSEER, HULL.
  NIGHT TELEGRAPH OVERSEER, HULL.
  CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS, SCOTLAND.
  CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS, SCOTLAND.
  TELEGRAPHISTS.
  TELEGRAPHISTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
BRITISH ARMY.
  TOTAL PAY.
  TOTAL PAY.
  TROOPS IN INDIA.
  TROOPS IN INDIA.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  SCHNEIDER CUP RACE.
  SCHNEIDER CUP RACE.
  EXPORTS, UNITED KINGDOM.
  EXPORTS, UNITED KINGDOM.
  CROSS-CHANNEL STEAMERS (LIFEJACKETS).
  CROSS-CHANNEL STEAMERS (LIFEJACKETS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a: and to be printed.
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
LANDLORD AND TENANT (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a: and to be printed.

MANCHESTER GAS ORDER, 1927.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Peel, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Paper.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 11th of July last be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUPERANNUATION AND OTHER TRUST FUNDS (VALIDATION) BILL, [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Registration.
(2) Upon application being made in accordance with the provisions of this Act for the registration of any fund, the registrar shall, if he is satisfied that the fund is qualified for registration, register the fund and the rules thereof, and shall enter in the register the names and addresses of the trustees.
(6) Such fees shall be payable in respect of the registration of funds, amendments of rules and changes of address, and in respect of the issue of certificates under this Act as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Treasury.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE) moved, in subsection (2), after "in the register the," to insert "address of the fund and the." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment. Indeed I may say that all my Amendments are either pure drafting or slight improvements in form, and I need not trouble the House with a speech in respect of each of them.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 23, at end, insert ("address of the fund and the").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 22, after the first ("of") insert ("name or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Accounts and reports of registered funds.
5.—(1) The trustees of every registered fund shall, once in every year, cause to be prepared a statement of accounts and balance sheet of the fund which shall be audited by an auditor, and shall, at least once in every five years, cause an investi-

145
gation and report to be made by an actuary as to the financial condition of the fund.
(2) A copy of every statement of accounts, balance sheet and report prepared under this section signed by the auditor or actuary, as the case may be, and by the secretary of the fund, shall be sent to the registrar within six months after the close of the period to which it relates.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to substitute "twelve months" for "six months." The noble and learned Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is merely to increase the period allowed.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Validation of trust funds for the reduction of National Debt.
9.—(1) Where by any instrument directions are given for any property being held upon trust and the income thereof being wholly accumulated (subject only to payment thereout of any costs, charges and expenses of the trustees and any remuneration to which they may be entitled) for any period limited by the instrument, and for the property and accumulations being transferred upon the expiration of that period to the National Debt Commissioners to be applied by them in reduction of the National Debt, then, unless within three months after the instrument takes effect the Treasury disclaim the interest of the National Debt Commissioners under the said directions, notwithstanding any Act or rule of law to the contrary, the directions shall be valid and effective and no person shall be entitled to require the transfer of any part of the property, income or accumulations before the expiration of the period limited by the instrument.
(2) It shall be the duty of the trustees of any such trust as aforesaid to render to the National Debt Commissioners such accounts and information relating to the trust as may reasonably be required by the Commissioners.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to insert "Subject as hereinafter provided.?
The noble Lord said: The object of my Amendment is to introduce at the end of subsection (1) of this clause a proviso, which is down on the Paper in my name, and perhaps it would be for the
146
convenience of the House, in order to appreciate the purpose of my present Amendment, if I state very shortly the nature of the proviso, which it appears to me desirable to insert at the end of the subsection. The object of Clause 9 is in itself a most laudable one. It is to enable some generous-minded person or persons to direct that a sum of money should be accumulated in the hands of trustees for a considerable period of time, longer than is allowed under the present law, and at the end of that period to have that money, and its accumulations, applied in the reduction of the National Debt.
As the clause is drawn I venture to think that it is open to some rather serious objections. Under it this generous-minded person, whom, for short, I will call the donor, is allowed to direct that the accumulation can go on for an indefinite period of years. No limit is placed on the number of years, and the period of accumulation directed by the donor might be so unduly long as to be dangerous or objectionable, and yet the only way, as the Bill is drawn, by which that undue accumulation could be terminated, is for the Treasury to step in and disclaim, perhaps altogether, the entire benefit of the trust, to the great detriment of the public Exchequer. As the Bill stands unlimited accumulation might be dangerous or objectionable. I have had some calculations made, and I find that if a sum of £1,000 is accumulated at 5 per cent, for one hundred years it would amount to £131,500. If accumulated for two hundred years it would amount to £17,292,500. The same calculation shows that if the amount originally set aside be £10,000 the amount of the fund at the end of one hundred years would be £1,315,000 and at the end of two hundred years £172,925,000. These are large sums, and I think it is fairly obvious that to permit the accumulation of such vast sums of money in the hands of trustees might be dangerous to the money market. It might be that considerable speculation by the trustees would disorganise the market, either by reducing the normal prices of securities or increasing them. That is, I think, a danger.
Further than that, and perhaps even more important, it appears to me very undesirable to allow this donor to

147
postpone the reduction of the National Debt to a very remote period. I do not suppose any one of your Lordships would care to prophesy what may be the position of affairs in this country, financially, socially or politically, a hundred years hence. Possibly by some method the National Debt may have been wiped out altogether. Be that as it may, what we should prefer is that the National Debt should be reduced, or wiped out, within a more or less limited time which we could contemplate with satisfaction. And yet by the Bill as it stands the donor might postpone that operation for an indefinite period. It is evident, I think, that the Bill should be amended and the Lord Chancellor seems to take that view, because he has put Amendments on the Paper which, while they probably get over some of the objections which I have urged, would create other objections to which I may refer later. My Amendments are intended to meet in the simplest way the objections which I have indicated and the substance of them is this. The donor would be permitted to direct accumulation of the funds for fifty years, but as that might be too short a time, especially if the fund is a relatively small one, the Treasury would be empowered to extend the period of accumulation for such period as it thought fit if—and only if—so authorised by the instrument creating the trust. The result would be that while you give the donor a reasonably wide discretion as to the period of accumulation, you get over the objection to which I have adverted.
May I state why I have ventured to submit that my Amendment is better perhaps than those which the Lord Chancellor has put on the Paper? I think the Lord Chancellor's Amendments would be unduly restrictive of the benevolent intentions of the donor and might in fact entirely discourage these donors from carrying out their benevolent intentions at all and from setting aside any money for the purpose of reducing the National Debt. The result is that if the period for accumulation is thought, by the Treasury to be unduly long, the Treasury would disclaim the gift altogether, unless indeed the donor by the trust instrument empowered the Treasury to curtail the period. I venture to think it highly probable that the donor would do nothing of the kind. He might be willing to set aside a sum of money if
148
he knew it was going to accumulate for a certain number of years and thereby produce a substantial reduction of the National Debt, but he might be very much disinclined to leave it to the Treasury to curtail that period of accumulation unduly. You might have a rapacious or an embarrassed Chancellor of the Exchequer wanting to get a sum of money immediately for the reduction of Debt and to make an unpopular Budget more popular, and he might therefore shorten the period of accumulation to any extent he chose.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not proposing that.
LORD DANESFORT: Well, I am supposing he might do it or give the Treasury power to do it. Perhaps I misapprehended the Lord Chancellor, but I understood his idea was that if the testator gave the Treasury power to shorten the period of accumulation then the Treasury might exercise that power, because under the clause and the Lord Chancellor's Amendment it would be a condition that the testator should give the Treasury power to shorten the period for accumulation of the income, and the Treasury might act upon that. If it is proposed that the Treasury should shorten the period of accumulation laid down by the testator without the authority of the testator or donor, then I think the position is even more serious. That I see, however, the Lord Chancellor disclaims also. Well, I am very glad to know it. If the Treasury were enabled unduly to curtail the period of accumulation then I think the donor might very well say: "I will not give my money at all; I will not exercise my benevolence"; and the National Exchequer would lose the benefit of his intentions.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 35, at the beginning of subsection (1) insert ("Subject as hereinafter provided").—(Lord Danesfort.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid my noble friend has misunderstood the purpose of an Amendment which is down in my name. When we come to that Amendment I shall be able to satisfy him that I have not the least idea of enabling the Treasury to alter the provisions of a deed of this kind by curtailing, of its own will, the period of accumulation. But I had better deal,

149
I think, with his Amendment. I quite understand the purpose of my noble friend. His Amendments, taken together, are designed to impose a limit on the period for which a fund may be directed to be accumulated for the redemption of the National Debt, and he proposes a limit of fifty years, subject to extension by the Treasury. The question whether such a limit is desirable has been very carefully considered by the Treasury, and they take the view that, upon the whole, a provision enabling the Treasury to disclaim the interest of the National Debt Commissioners in any settlement of this kind provides a more effective and more desirable safeguard.
Your Lordships will of course bear in mind that the funds with which Clause 9 proposes to deal are funds under purely voluntary settlements, settlements made by some public-spirited donors as free gifts to the nation. We think it would be not only ungracious, but impolitic, to put statutory difficulties in the way of the intentions of any one who may desire to benefit the nation in that way. It is very unlikely that any one with such an intention would not be careful to have his settlement drawn in such a way that the best possible public advantage would result from his gift. Indeed, I suppose that in most cases he would undoubtedly consult the Treasury as to the terms in which the gift should be made. But it would be a pity, I think, to put in his way an artificial barrier of this kind. A man might very easily say: "My scheme is an accumulation for sixty years. I am limited by your Statute to fifty years, and I will not make the gift." It seems far better to us to let the matter be free to that extent, subject to this condition, that if it should happen that the settlement is drawn in such a way as to be a disadvantage to the nation, then the Treasury would be able to say: "We cannot accept a gift on those terms." Of course, I am speaking with knowledge of what is the kind of thing which is proposed, and I assure the House that in our view the best course would be to leave the Bill as it is. I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
LORD DANESFORT: I have listened very carefully to the Lord Chancellor and I notice that he said it would be ungracious to put a statutory limitation
150
on the period of accumulation which the donor desires. I would venture to suggest that it would be far more ungracious on the part of the Treasury, when a man had made provision for reducing the National Debt by a general gift to be accumulated during a period, that the Treasury should say: "We do not want your gift and we will not have it," as the Lord Chancellor suggests they would do. Not only would such a course be ungracious, but it would appear to me to be disastrous to the finances of the nation. It would mean that the National Exchequer would not benefit by the intended benevolence of the donor in question. However, as the Lord Chancellor has considered this provision, I will not put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division and will ask leave therefore to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I formally move the next Amendment (in subsection 1) on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 40, leave out ("limited by") I and insert ("to be determined under the provisions of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "upon" and insert "at or before." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is little more than a formal Amendment; but in view of what my noble friend has said I desire to explain that the, Amendment is not intended to enable the Treasury to alter in any way the date of termination of the deed. It is only intended to allow the donor to fix the date. It is possible that he may wish to provide that the funds shall be accumulated for a certain term of years but that after part of that time has expired, possibly after part of the fund has been accumulated, a transfer of that part of the fund shall be made.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 1, leave out ("upon") and insert ("at or before").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD DANESFORT: With great diffidence, this proposal seems to me to be open to precisely the same objection as that I urged a moment ago—namely, that the testator would have to give the

151
Treasury power and say: "I desire it to accumulate for fifty years but you, the Treasury, may direct that the period shall be shorter." The clause provides that:—
"the directions shall be valid and effective and no person shall be entitled to require the transfer of any part of the property, income or accumulations before the expiration of the period limited by the instrument."
In other words the donor would in effect say: "I desire fifty years, but I give the Treasury power by this instrument to distribute the accumulation before the expiration of that time." With the greatest regret I cannot see it in any other light; because unless the donor directs that the distribution of the fund shall be made by the Treasury before the end of the time the Treasury cannot do it. My suggestion is that donors might be unwilling to give such powers to the Treasury. However, if my noble friend, the Lord Chancellor, is satisfied with this Amendment, I have no more to say.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend quite misunderstands the Amendment. The proposal is to give the donor power to say: "My trustees may transfer the fund either at the end of the time or before the end of the time"—not that the Treasury shall have power to do that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My remaining Amendments to this clause are consequential. I beg to move them.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, lines 3 and 4, leave out ("within three months after the instrument takes effect")
Page 6, line 4, after ("Treasury") insert ("within three months after they receive notice of the taking effect of the instrument")
Page 6, line 10, leave out ("before the expiration of the period limited by") and insert ("otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Short title.
11. This Act may be cited as the Superannuation and other Trust Funds (Validation) Act, 1927.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert as a new subsection:
"(2) Section nine of this Act shall extend to Northern Ireland, but save as aforesaid this Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This subsection has been agreed to with the Government of Northern Ireland and I beg to move it.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 25, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule [Requirements as to Rules of Registered Funds:]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 28, leave out ("rates of contribution") and insert ("contributions").
Page 8, line 1, leave out from ("amended") to the end of line 3.
Page 8, line 6, leave out line 6.
Page 8, line 7, leave out ("transmission") and insert ("supply on demand").
Page 8, line 10, leave out from ("established") to the second ("of") in line 11.
Page 8, line 12, leave out from the second ("of") to the end of line 14 and insert ("the latest statement of accounts, balance sheet and report prepared in accordance with the requirements of this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills made.

THE WAR OFFICE AND SURREY COMMONS.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to enquire what are the exact intentions of the War Office with regard to the Surrey commons, and to ask whether their objects cannot be obtained without interfering with these open spaces. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to divert your Lordships'

153
attention for a few moments from the accumulation of dead men's funds for the benefit of the soulless Treasury to the interests of the living, and I hope to elucidate, if I can, from the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Onslow) what the real intentions of the War Office are with regard to the commons in Surrey and places near London. Your Lordships are no doubt aware that this question excites a great deal of interest and, I think I may fairly add, a great deal of apprehension, because there is a feeling that the attitude of the War Office is a little like the attitude of the wolf to Red Riding Hood. People who use and who live near these commons are rather afraid that the commons may be swallowed up and cease to be available for purposes of public recreation.
I have this advantage and this disadvantage in bringing the matter before your Lordships, that I am neither an owner of the commons nor a resident near the commons. I am able to speak merely as one of the general public who recognise that these places of recreation and healthy amusement near London are of immense importance to the health of the people, and those of us who care for such considerations are really very apprehensive as to what is going to happen. I hope the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, will join in the debate, and he is infinitely more qualified than I am to speak on the subject. He will, no doubt, be able to give your Lordships many more concrete facts than I can give. I have endeavoured by reading what has appeared in the public Press and in particular what took place when a deputation visited the War Office, to find out exactly what it is the War Office desire to do. As I understand, it is said that this open space is required for the purposes of manœuvring, chiefly, I think I am right in saying, what is called the new mechanical Army.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Not chiefly.
EARL RUSSELL: Well, partly at any rate, the new mechanical transport. In that connection a demonstration was given by the War Office which was very fully reported, the other day, in which some tanks appeared to have behaved very respectably on hard ground under observation and as a result of which, for one moment, I was afraid the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Midleton) had been
154
squared by the War Office; but I hope your Lordships will find to-day that that is not so. It was reported that one unfortunate incident took place. A tank was asked to pivot and I think The Times, in describing what took place, made use of the words "disastrous in its results," by which I suppose The Times meant that the tank did completely turn up and destroy the ground round about it. I was not there, but I gather that was what was meant. First of all, no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, will tell the House why this extension of the War Office powers is necessary, why new powers and new land are necessary for their operations beyond what has sufficed in past years. Secondly, he may be able, though I doubt it, to reassure your Lordships and, what is more important in this connection, the general public as to whether in fact these commons will remain available as places of recreation. The War Office, strange as it will no doubt appear to the noble Earl opposite, is not universally trusted by the public, and its operations, for instance at Lulworth Cove, have not endeared it to the public or made the public feel that they are particularly safe in its hands.
I have seen an instance which has struck me rather forcibly as showing what I might call the mental attitude of the War Office. There is a common—the Portsmouth Road runs through it—called Bramshott Common, which was occupied by a camp during the War. That camp has disappeared for seven or eight years. The whole common has been dismantled, so far as the débris of the camp are concerned, for at least five or six years and that common is speckled with notices signed by the War Department saying no person is to trespass upon this land. It is still in possession of the War Department. They use it for nothing so far as I know. I do not think the noble Earl will be able to say it is being used for anything. You never see any soldiers upon it. There is this open space with a notice or it, which I hope the residents disregard, saying that no one may trespass upon it. What is the explanation of that sort of attitude? If the Surrey commons are to be acquired, I should be glad to know from the noble Earl whether it is suggested there should be complete purchase of the commons and what guarantee have we that the same sort of thing will not take place?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It is the rights of the Lords of the Manor that are to be purchased.
EARL RUSSELL: That is the only thing purchasable. But will that include the power to close the commons to the public?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: No.
EARL RUSSELL: I hope not. I suppose the new Manœuvres Act will enable them to close the commons for the few days of the Army manœuvres. I am sure the House will be glad to learn, and I am quite sure the London and Surrey public who are interested in this question will be very glad to know, to what extent these commons will be available afterwards as places of recreation and to what extent their amenities will be destroyed. The noble Earl will forgive me if I say that general assurances as to the small effect upon their amenities may still leave some people—I should not like to say myself—suspicious as to the state in which these commons will be after this occupation.
I have a second branch to my Question in which I have asked whether it is not possible that land for this purpose should be acquired elsewhere. There are many areas in England much less densely populated than this area. I know that negotiations have gone on between those who are represented by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Midleton) and the War Office, but whatever those negotiations may be and however they may result, still they will issue in some interference and perhaps some considerable interference with these commons. I should like to ask why it is necessary that these commons in the Home Counties should be taken when there are large tracts in the eastern part of this country and elsewhere which are thinly populated and in which, surely, suitable areas could be acquired even for the operations of this mechanical Army. Is it absolutely necessary that the whole of our Army should be concentrated at Aldershot and that the whole of their training should take place at Aldershot? Your Lordships will remember that when Aldershot began it was a long way from London comparatively and was not a densely populated area. But those things have changed in the last fifty years. Aldershot is now almost a suburb of London, the area around there is fairly thickly populated and the population is
156
increasing every year. It is a district that is used as a breathing space for London, and is it not time for the War Office to consider whether these larger operations could not be transferred to some other site?
I do put that forward quite seriously, because it is obvious, with the growth of mechanical transport, that there is a necessity for these largo manœuvre areas and that the manœuvres are much more likely to increase than to diminish. Consequently it may very easily be found twenty years hence, after the War Office have taken these commons and spoiled them, that they still will not have all the land they require. They may find also that there are too many buildings about. One would be glad if the War Office would let us know whether they have at all considered the possibility of having these large training operations in some more remote district. I wish, when the noble Earl comes to reply, he would tell your Lordships that that is so. I have only raised this Question because of the great interest that is felt in it by nearly all members of the public and because of their very great apprehensions as to what will happen if the War Office carry out their intention. I share those apprehensions to the full. I am sure that we should all be glad of some reassurance; indeed I would go further and I would say, if the War Office cannot give us some reassurance I think it possible they may find that there is very great opposition, much greater opposition than they understand to these proposals. None of us would wish that the Army for which we have to pay should be hampered in any way in its training. Obviously the Army must be trained and obviously the Army must have training ground; but the conclusion does not follow from those premises that those training grounds must be in Surrey or in the Home Counties. I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I was not aware that my noble friend opposite was likely to bring up this Question until a few days ago, and in one sense it is not an opportune moment to do so because we have not yet actually been able to put before the War Office what I may describe as our final terms upon which this question can in our opinion be settled. On the other hand,

157
the interest the public has taken in this question is so great that I feel I ought not to delay in putting before your Lordships and the public what is the present position as nearly as I can state it. The noble Earl said he was very much afraid, speaking as one of the public, that from what he had heard I had been squared by the War Office. It is true the War Office did put a good deal of pressure upon me at my tenderest point. Having been really the first Minister for many years who bought land for the War Office for manœuvres on a large scale there is no question upon which I feel so sensitive. I am bound to say that having regard to the large issues involved, I am like the governor of whom we read who said that as a father he was touched but as a governor he stood firm. I am afraid that I am still unshaken in my view that the first proposal of the War Office was one which could not possibly be considered from the point of view either of the landowners or of the public. I will state as briefly as I can what the position is. The War Office, I believe I am right in saying, own and have complete control of about 30,000 acres in Surrey and parts of Hampshire. Of these 30,000 acres about 12,000 are used for rifle ranges and about 18,000 are available for manœuvring. Of these 18,000 acres Surrey has contributed during my lifetime 8,000 acres by the sacrifice of Chobham and—
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Chobham? That belongs to me.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Why, my noble friend's father sold a good deal of it.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It belongs to me, really.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I am afraid I must ask my noble friend to look up the facts. My recollection is that some land which formed part of his traditional acres was sacrificed, let me say, by his predecessor for the good of the country. I was rather hoping he would take the line that he was willing to make a sacrifice which I was not willing to make. Unquestionably Surrey has already made an enormous contribution to the manœuvring area of the troops. The land that remains, on which the Government have put their most unrighteous hand, consists of about 3,000 or 4,000
158
acres which, as the noble Earl opposite observed, are in a most thickly populated district, which touch upon a number of houses at various points and which are practically the nearest point at which Londoners or people living in the rapidly-increasing towns round about—Guildford, Godalming, Farnham and so forth—can find their recreation.
I hope my noble friend will not mind my saying that while I think the Government scheme was wrong I think their methods were worse. Every effort was made to bring the owners to consent to sell what in my view should not be sold practically under duress. An agent went round to the owners and tried to induce them to sell. He went to one of my neighbours, said: "Lord Midleton has sold and therefore it is no use your standing out," and tendered him a document to sign. He refused. I of course had refused. He then said: "Well, we shall have to take it from you compulsorily, and you may not get so good a price." As regards the question of compulsion, one reason why we have not yet been able to present our full case to my noble friend is that I believe the Government have no power whatever to compel owners to sell for manœuvres. When I was at the War Office it was ruled for me that, though the Act of 1842 was available when the War Office wanted to take sites for ordnance for the defence of the country, it was not available when the War Office wanted to take sites for manœuvring. At the beginning of the War, when the War Office seized upon this common, I went to the officer in charge on the spot and asked: "Under what Statute is this done? I am ready to give up anything to the War Office, but I should like to know under what Statute it is being done." He said: "I admit that under the Statute we cannot do it." But he turned over a page and said: "Under the Defence of the Realm Act anybody who obstructs the Commanding Officer may be removed from the district. Therefore I am afraid you will have a very poor time if you object." I admit that that was a very proper course in the circumstances.
What was it that the Government proposed to do in the present instance? They proposed to keep this land from January 1 to December 31, to encamp troops, to put up what they call tem-

159
porary buildings, cook-houses and so on, trenches for the use of the troops and all the other appurtenances of a camp. These temporary buildings, they said, might be removed during the winter, but of course they scar the whole place so that it would be perfectly useless—all the amenities would be destroyed. Beyond that they proposed to bring there lorries, tanks, artillery, and in fact to make a second Aldershot. I believe that even since this public outcry the Government have by some means induced the Lord Lieutenant of Hampshire to sequestrate on their behalf, by some power which a Lord Lieutenant possesses, a very considerable tract of country for the purpose of manœuvres. I am afraid there is no doubt whatever that the intention of the Government was to make this district the sort of Sahara that Aldershot is, with roads in many places a hundred yards wide, with the heather completely destroyed, with the trees pulled down and with all the effect of fires which must take place when you have troops manœuvring, halting for lunch, throwing lighted cigarettes away, and so on. I can tell your Lordships that on the commons with which I am connected, and which have been lent from time immemorial for certain days to the troops, a fire on one occasion lasted a whole day and devastated hundreds of acres. It was fed by nearly three thousand blank cartridges which had fallen out of the men's pouches and ignited as the fire spread. That is the reason why, although we are most anxious to do all we can for the country, we could not contemplate this appropriation by the War Office.
What is the alternative? I have put it before the War Office partially and I should like to say generally what we are prepared to do. Firstly, we take it to be quite reasonable that instead of having to ask each year for the permission which landlords have given in the past, but which any of them might decline to give, there should be a definite period, reasonably short but reasonably long, for the brigade training which is desired, for which the commons should be lent by the landlords to the Government. Secondly, encampments should take place on freehold land which the Government have already bought and where the amenities of the public would not be affected.
160
Thirdly, after the demonstration last Saturday week I am sure that all who saw it were impressed by the extent to which mechanisation is now used in manœuvres—tanks sent first of all to stir up the enemy, tanks following brigades, six-wheelers bringing up troops. We believe that if this is done only in the broad expanses that are really used for the manœuvres and if the spots nearest to the houses, where the greatest damage would be done, are put out of bounds, the manœuvres would not be impeded and less harm would be done to the surface of the commons. We feel also that there should be an appropriate clause as to reinstatement where real damage has been done.
I have spoken only in the most general terms, but I am trying to show your Lordships that we are anxious to give any reasonable facilities that we can for the training of the Aldershot Division. We believe that the considerations urged by the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief at Aldershot are reasonable in this respect, that the troops require fresh ground and that the end of the brigade training ought not to be carried out on the ground on which they have been throughout the year. We will facilitate this by every means in our power, but we are not prepared, for six or eight months in the year, to see the ground occupied by all the Territorials who now come to Aldershot and do not know the ground, while the public are practically debarred, except on Saturdays and Sundays, from the enjoyment of the areas over which they have roamed freely in the past.
That is our position. We deprecate the transfer by purchase and we do not support the completely revolutionary proposals of which my noble friend has unfortunately to stand sponsor, and with which, I am quite certain, he is as unwilling to oppress his neighbours as anybody could be. I wish to say here and now that to my mind, after the public feeling that has been shown and, I may add, after the readiness that has been shown by the landowners to try to meet the Government half-way, this proposal to exercise powers which it was never even known that the War Office possessed, and with which I doubt whether Parliament would ever invest them, to take large tracts of country in the middle of

161
the most crowded districts just outside London by compulsion, should not be approved. I hope we shall hear from my noble friend this afternoon that this proposal has been wholly abandoned. I will only add that the people of Surrey and the landowners are anxious to do whatever lies in their power to further the necessary training of His Majesty's Army.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I only want to say that the noble Earl who has just spoken seems to me to have made a most reasonable suggestion, and I should be glad if the noble Earl opposite will refrain from giving a "Yes" or "No" to it straight off, but will consider it carefully. I wish to add that the Aldershot Command is in a peculiar position. It has been suggested in the course of this debate that we might take the troops for this mechanical training to some other Command. That is not so. In Aldershot you train two Divisions—not one, as in the other Commands—and there is not building accommodation elsewhere for the troops of two Divisions. Therefore I think you must always look to Aldershot for that perfection of training which is the main element in your Expeditionary Force that you require for efficiency. But that does not apply to the Territorials, and there I would agree with the noble Earl. It is very convenient to take the Territorials to Aldershot, and they like to go there, but there are other Commands in which the Territorials could be trained and, if their training at Aldershot involves the continued use of this land, I should say that it is better to train them elsewhere.
That is all I wish to say. I am well aware of the difficulties, but I am also pretty sure that by a little tact and care on the part of the War Office this very awkward question can be got over. It is for the noble Earl opposite and his advisers to consider whether they cannot meet the case along the lines which the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, has suggested, avoiding the purchase of land, avoiding unnecessary interference and at the same time providing the training for the two Aldershot Divisions that is essential if those Divisions are to be kept in the condition that is desired.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: My Lords, I wish very briefly to support the noble
162
Earl who raised this Question and the noble Earl, Lord Midleton. I do so because for many years I represented a constituency in South London, and I doubt very much whether your Lordships know what a very strong feeling exists, more especially amongst the working classes of London, about what is taking place throughout the country, where people are being deprived of those open spaces of which for generations they have been used to avail themselves. I recognise, as an old soldier, the absolute necessity of having manœuvring grounds, but it seems to me that it should be quite possible for the War Office, after careful consideration and without undue haste, to arrange for such manœuvring ground as is absolutely necessary for these new mechanical arrangements which have come into being in the Army.
I quite understand the feeling of the noble Earl as to the need of manœuvring grounds, but surely it is possible to make other arrangements, seeing that everything in the Army is now being changed, that the day of Cavalry has gone by and that we are to have to some extent a mechanised Army. Before many years have elapsed it must become necessary to have a special training ground for these new mechanical operations and my suggestion is that the War Office should take steps as soon as possible to acquire the necessary ground, which can be obtained elewhere at a very much lower price, for that particular purpose, and not to encroach further upon the open spaces in Surrey, Sussex and Hants, which are badly wanted for our ever-increasing population, more especially in London.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I should like to say a word in support of the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, and those who have spoken on this Question in defence of these commons. I have known the commons all my life, and I am speaking as a representative of that unhappy class of people who are unable to play golf through lack of skill and cannot take much exercise in other ways. These commons are probably the most suitable for walking exercise anywhere within reasonable distance of London. Those of us who know Surrey well know how many parts of it which at one time were available for walking purposes are now simply cut up by buildings of all kinds. London is steadily spreading

163
and it has now reached the North Downs which are forming some kind of barrier, but we still felt that in South Surrey there were open hills and plains left. Now we understand that the War Office is to attack the Surrey open spaces in another direction. At the present time there are, I believe, only three places in Surrey—I will not mention their names—where it is possible to take a three hours' walk without retracing your steps and without getting on the roads, and one of these walks is on land connected with this Question. I hope, therefore, that Lord Midleton and those who are concerned with this matter will press the War Office strongly until that Department is prepared to recognise the value that people have attached for so long to these open spaces.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I was somewhat horrified to hear from my noble friend opposite that the War Office was regarded with distrust. I had always been under the impression that the War Office was regarded as a most trustworthy Department, and I hope that he is mistaken. He asked me what the exact intentions of the War Office are with regard to the Surrey commons, and whether its objects cannot be attained without interfering with these open spaces. I will try to reply, perhaps at a little length, but I hope that he will accept what I say as as full an explanation as I can give of the matter. With reference to the figures, I think my noble friend behind me is not entirely correct in the figures which he gave. Our land at Aldershot and Bordon does not consist of the acreage which he gave, but of about 26,000 acres, the bulk of which was acquired between 1855 and 1880. A great deal of it, of course, amounting to 7,500 acres, is occupied by buildings, such as the Staff College and surrounding land, the Royal Military College at Sandhurst, and barracks and other necessary accommodation for troops. In addition to those 7,500 acres, 6,500 acres are rifle ranges, and so we get only 12,000 acres altogether continuously available for field training.
I say continuously available, because, of course, when you are not shooting you can use the rifle ranges to a certain degree. The reason for the necessity of obtaining or wishing to obtain further
164
training ground is due, firstly, to the increased range of weapons, and secondly to the increased mobility of all arms, due, as the noble and learned Viscount opposite said, to mechanism. Then, consequent on the fact of the increased range of weapons and the increased mobility of all arms, you must have wider ground for training the junior officer, because the junior officer is left more to himself and therefore you must have more extended area for training him. As we look back to the time when the area at Aldershot was acquired, in 1855, the practical range of infantry was only about 300 yards—the Brown Bess was the rifle in use; the Enfield had not been invented—and artillery had only a tactical range of about 1,000 yards. My noble friend behind me might say: That is all very well, but since the South African War the tactical range of infantry has not very much increased. That is practically true, but the tactical range of the rifle is now 1,500 yards and of artillery 6,000 yards at the very minimum, and nearer 8,000 yards, and it may be increased shortly to considerably more. That gives very great necessity for an extended area. Another thing which also makes it necessary to increase the size of your areas is the increased size of danger zones consequent upon the increased ranges, and so you reduce the amount available for tactical training.
Then take mobility. Until quite recently the man on a horse was the standard of mobility for the Army. He was the fastest thing there was. Now, of course, the standard is the petrol engine, and so the distance which took you hours perhaps to cover now may take merely minutes. For that reason also further space is required. Then there is another point. It is necessary, obviously, to use different ground during your successive training periods. Obviously it is a farce to carry out unit and brigade training on the same ground as squadron and company training. It was suggested that you could use land elsewhere—that you could go elsewhere for unit and brigade training. That is a very expensive and unsatisfactory system, for if you have a late season and crops are late you cannot get your training carried out at all. This year, for instance, brigade training was carried out away from Aldershot and owing to the late season

165
it could not be carried out properly. You could not carry out any training on non-Government land, used for cultivation in any way, during the months of June and July.
My noble friend opposite, who raised this matter, asked why it was not possible to go somewhere else and acquire land elsewhere. I think the answer to that was given by the noble and learned Viscount opposite, when he said why it is necessary that troops should be trained at Aldershot. The number of troops at Aldershot is in actual numbers, I think, a trifle less than pre-War, but there are more units there now. We have sunk a very large sum of money in Aldershot and it is really impossible to move the troops elsewhere, because the cost would be enormous. There are also military reasons. Aldershot is a very central place, near the ports, and it is impossible to give up the buildings there and leave them derelict and go elsewhere. As noble Lords know, we have incurred large expense at Catterick, which takes the place of the Curragh, and I think your Lordships will see that there are enormous advantages in not removing the troops altogether from Aldershot.
It may be said, again, that the commons have been used in the past by agreement with the landlords, as required. I should like to say, here and now, that there is no desire to minimise the debt of gratitude which His Majesty's Government feel that they owe to the patriotic spirit of those landlords who have afforded military facilities for training; but of course we all know that the ownership of land is a commercial proposition, and it is not reasonable to expect that landlords will be content to forego some source of income from their commons, if they are able to obtain it. This very natural and proper action on the part of the landlords has brought about a progressive contraction of training facilities on non-Government ground in the past. For example, landlords wish to let or preserve the shooting, as on Slab and Warren Commons and Broxhead Common, or they wish to establish golf links, as, for example, on Hankley Common. This restriction of user is bound to continue as the military necessity for an extended area for training purposes increases. As I have explained we feel bound not only to acquire the freehold
166
land available but also to acquire the right to utilise the commons. It is impossible to acquire sufficient freehold land for training purposes, unless, indeed, we were to take up agricultural land, but I do not think your Lordships would wish to do that. So if the proper training is to be carried out at Aldershot, the possibility of training over the commons seems to be the only course which is open. The noble Lord opposite mentioned Bramshott Common and he told me a serious tale. I have taken steps in the course of the debate to make inquiries and find what he says is true. We cannot keep people off Bramshott any more than off any other common and we do not want to. The boards referred to, I think, must be relics of War occupation.
EARL RUSSELL: No, the boards did not appear until three years after the Armistice.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Then I think they are a work of supererogation. Anyhow I can give an undertaking that they will be removed. Perhaps they ought not to have been there. Perhaps they were put there by a very zealous person, and if they were put to warn the public off I think we can say that they will be removed. I am glad the noble Earl has drawn attention to them. The commons that would be affected by the present proposals are Thursley, Witley, Royal, Ockley, Hankley and Frensham—these are in Surrey—and also Passfield and Broxhead in Hampshire. The manorial rights in Kingsley, Shortheath and Slab, in Hampshire, are already in the hands of the War Department.
EARL RUSSELL: Can the noble Earl give the total area?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am afraid I have not the figure. Does the noble Earl mean the freehold land plus the commons?
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, the total area of the whole proposed to be acquired.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I think it is between 3,000 and 4,000 acres. That is the figure given to us.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will try to find out. I have not the figure here. Now I come to the question of the periods of training. From March to May squadron,

167
battery and compay training takes place, when the troops train close to barracks. June and July are the training periods for Cavalry regiments, Artillery brigades, Infantry battalions and brigades. That is the time when it would be most necessary to have a change of area, and when the commons would be most useful. In August the areas are very little used, as the troops are engaged in shooting, and there is not much training done. In September the Aldershot troops are as a rule absent in other training areas. That is the time for divisional and inter-divisional training, and they would probably be away. In winter there is no training of troops, but parties of officers and non-commissioned officers carry out tactical training without troops.
Your Lordships have heard to-day from the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, the proposals which he is going to put forward. They were new to me when he stated them. As your Lordships are aware, the whole thing has been matter for consideration by a Committee. As a result of the deputation headed by the noble Earl that Committee was appointed, representing all the interests, the landlords' interest, the lords of the manor, various public bodies, like the National Trust, and the War Office. At the present moment I cannot give any information as to the result of its deliberations, because no result has yet been arrived at. Indeed, what we heard from the noble Earl was the first concrete intimation which has reached us. The noble and learned Viscount advised me not to give a definite answer, and I shall not be able to do so anyhow, but I should like to say in general words that we are prepared to enter into suitable covenants to use the commons in such a manner as will not destroy their natural amenities, not to cut down trees, not to dig permanent trenches, not to erect buildings other than temporary shelters, and to give the public access to the commons when they are not being used for military purposes. That is what we are ready to do. Having discussed the matter fully with the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, and the other interests represented on this Committee, we will, of course, give the most careful consideration to the proposal put before your Lordships to-day.
Mention has been made of a demonstration which took place on land at
168
Aldershot which was selected as being as similar as possible to the commons. That land at Aldershot was dry; we do not often get it so at this time of year.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: There were 14 degrees of frost overnight.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Earl must really excuse me; we did not control the weather and, although the Meteorological Department of the Air Ministry is extremely good, I can say there was no hanky-panky about it. We did not consult the weather; we chose a Saturday, as a matter of fact, for the convenience of noble Lords and Members of Parliament. On that occasion, as the noble Earl has told your Lordships, manœuvres were carried out by one-man tanks, light tanks, heavy tanks, and infantry in six-wheeled lorries. Both the heavy tanks and the six-wheeled lorries went over a plantation of young trees (it was out of bounds, but this was an experiment) and I was very much surprised to see how very little damage was done. Then the noble Lord opposite referred to the tanks turning. What happened was this. A tank is not allowed to turn in that manner. That is forbidden; but, as an experiment, one of the heavy tanks turned on its own axis twice round—what is called waltzing—and it did, as a matter of fact, scrape up the heather. There was a round place, and naturally you could see it. But I think everybody will agree that it is very extraordinary what little damage the track vehicles do, and I believe the pressure to the square inch from the track is only about 7 lbs. If you had a horse limber it would do very much more damage, although it is very much lighter. I do not want to lay too much stress upon this, but, as the matter has been mentioned, I thought I would tell your Lordships what occurred.
Now I come to a subject on which I ventured to have a slight difference of opinion with my noble friend behind me. That is the question of Chobham Common. It is true my father sold a small portion of Chobham Common. I wish he had sold the whole; but he did not, and at present the arrangement is that the Brigade of Guards go there and use the common. I asked my noble friend, who is not in his place at the present moment, whether he had used vehicles there, but he has not, so I cannot speak as to that.

169
I dare say many of your Lordships are familiar with Chobham Common. Except at Queen's Clump, there are practically no trees, and it is mostly open heather, so that, of coarse, the question of trees does not arise. But there is the question of fire, which was referred to by my noble friend behind me. I have several other commons round Chobham, and we have a great deal of trouble with fires, but I can safely say that, when fires do occur, it is not the fault of the troops, and I would very much rather that fires occurred on Chobham Common when the troops are there than when they are not, because they break off what they are doing and set to work to beat out the fires. It is part of the arrangement. So the enormous numbers of troops on Chobham Common—I am speaking from my own experience—are far less dangerous than the mildest-looking nurses and children, especially at tea-time. As far as fires are concerned, the troops are an advantage rather than a disadvantage.
The Army Council recognise that any encroachment, however small, on open spaces is to be deprecated, but what are we to do when we live in a small country with an increasing population, and a population whose mobility is constantly increasing as well? The right rev. Prelate referred to the fact that he likes to go out of London and to enjoy a walk in the country on days when he is not overwhelmed with business at home; but the right rev. Prelate, I should imagine, goes by motor transport. So does everybody who wishes to enjoy the commons and open spaces round London. They could not have done that a few years ago. Whereas the people now go to Witley and Thursley or to the New Forest, they would have gone a few years ago to Hampstead Heath and could not have gone further. So as the population increases its mobility increases, and the desirability of preserving all these amenities increases as well, and at the same time, with the mechanisation of the Army, there is the consequent necessity of an extended area for the training of troops. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, I am glad to see, fully concurred that there must be an extended area for such training. What happens is that the Island is small and people want to use more parts of it than they did before.
170
The alternative to utilising the commons is that we must either not train the Army—and I think nobody would suggest that—or we must utilise common land or buy agricultural land. Those are the only three alternatives, and I think the utilisation of common land is probably the least expensive.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: The right to buy common land?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The right to go on it. I do not think I ever suggested anything more than that right. I do not want to prejudice that because my noble friend has made certain suggestions, and I am sure your Lordships will all agree that it would be more suitable that he should argue them before the Committee appointed for the purpose than in your Lordships' House. I agree that every possible safeguard should be introduced to ensure that the military user of the land should interfere as little as possible with the public amenities and the public welfare. I should like to quote the case of Frensham. The land there has been used for many years and I do not think the amenities are unduly affected.
I am very much obliged to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for raising this Question because it is not one that can be settled without publicity. A deputation was received by my right hon. friend, who told them very much what I have just said to your Lordships, and the publicity given to the matter by the Question of the noble Earl, the remarks of my noble friend behind me and other noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships, will be most valuable. The considerations put forward by my noble friend Lord Midleton will be placed by him before the Committee which has been set up. If the noble Earl, Lord Russell, wishes for further details and will put a Question on the Paper at a later date, I shall be glad to give them to him; but I am sure that he will not ask me to discuss the pros and cons of the matter at greater length at the present time.
The noble Earl also asked me a question that I am able to answer regarding the area of the land which it is proposed to acquire for additional training grounds. The area is 5,600 acres, of which 4,400 acres is common land and 1,200 acres is freehold land.

171
Of that area 1,100 acres of common land and 200 acres of freehold land are in Hampshire, while 3,300 acres of common land and 1,000 acres of freehold land are in Surrey. Those are the figures regarding the land proposed to be obtained for further training facilities. The figures I gave in opening my observations are of the land already held. I think that is really all that I can tell your Lordships at the present time. I believe that I mentioned that the other training centres, Salisbury, for example, and Catterick, are already occupied.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, before we leave this subject I ought to thank the noble Earl opposite for his very full and frank reply. I hope it will be some satisfaction to him to know that after hearing what he has said and what the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, has said, I shall leave this question with some hope that a good and successful agreement may be come to on this matter.
House adjourned at a quarter before six o'clock.

LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, deemed to have been read 2aand reported from the Committee.
LAW OF LIBEL AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of this House, to consider the Bill, do meet the Lords Committee in Committee Room C, to-morrow, at half-past eleven o'clock, as proposed by their Lordships.

CALVERLEY AND HORSFORTH DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1927.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Calverley and Horsforth District Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

PETERBOROUGH GAS ORDER, 1927.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Peterborough Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

BEVERLEY GAS ORDER, 1927.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the Borough of Beverley:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.