Sitting of 14 June 1932

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
South Metropolitan Gas Bill [Lords],
Bill to be read a Second time.
Wokingham District Water Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

State.

Number of Camps.

District.

Number of occupants in each camp.

New South Wales.

53

All within 50 miles of Sydney or at Newcastle

2 camps each having 200/300 occupants.

7 camps each having 100/200 occupants.

8 camps each having 50/100 occupants.

The remainder have under 50 occupants each.

Total occupants 1,794 single men; 38 women; 63 children; 366 married couples.

Victoria

1

Broadmeadows near Melbourne.

136 migrants out of a total of 450 occupants. No women and children.

Queensland

No Camps. 3 Hostels for single-men.

Brisbane

No record is available as a limited stay only is permitted.

Western Australia.

1

Blackboy Camp near Perth.

200 migrants. No women and children.

South Australia

None, but 4 relief work Camps for single men.

Near Adelaide

Not available, but percentage of migrants believed to be small. No women and children.

Tasmania

None

—

—

Federal Capital

1 for single men

Near Canberra

30 (Number of migrants not stated).

Territory

1 for families

Canberra

2 women, 9 children.

* No record of the number of migrants is available, as no distinction is made between migrants and native-born unemployed.

IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
Captain MOSSasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if, in his
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  AUSTRALIA (UNEMPLOYMENT CAMPS).
  Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of unemployment camps in Australia; the names of districts where these camps are; the numbers of migrants in each camp; and whether there are any women and children living in them?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): As the reply is somewhat long and includes detailed statistics, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the information I have received.
  Following is the information:
  consideration of the agenda at Ottawa, he will see that full consideration is given to the desirability of cargoes between the Dominions and the mother country being

  165
  carried in British ships manned by British crews?
  Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in considering what this country desires to have placed in the final draft of the agenda for Ottawa, he will include British shipping, in view of the amount of idle British shipping and the number of unemployed British seamen?
  Mr. THOMAS: I am not in a position to add anything at present to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) on 31st May. I may say that there will be an opportunity in the Debate on Thursday to raise the whole of these matters.
  Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that the needs of Scottish agriculture are fully appreciated by the delegates to the Ottawa Conference?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair):A committee representative of agricultural interests is conferring with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton), the agricultural adviser to the United Kingdom delegation at Ottawa. The committee contains representatives of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, the Highland and Agricultural Society, the Scottish Land and Property Federation and the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society. Further, the Secretary to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland will accompany the delegation.
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Prime Minister which of the Ministers included in the British official delegation to the Ottawa Conference will deal with the subject of British forestry production and that of the Crown Colonies?
  The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): Any question as to British forestry production will be dealt with, according to circumstances, by one or other of the Ministers forming part of the delegation or by the delegation as a whole. The Secretary of State for the Colonies will naturally
  166
  deal with the subject of Colonial forestry products.
  Earl WINTERTON: Could not my right hon. Friend answer the question with a little more precision, and tell me which Ministers are responsible for dealing with specific questions relating to British forestry; or is it to be thrown backwards and forwards like a shuttlecock?
  Mr. BALDWIN: My Noble Friend is, very naturally and properly, interested in forestry, but I think the answer would be that the responsibility is that of the delegation as a whole, and not of one particular Minister. There are about six Ministers, and there are hundreds of industries, and it is perfectly impossible to say, before you get to the Conference, who will deal with any given subject or any given question.
  Mr. MAXTON: Is it not the case that the outstanding characteristic of Ministers in this Government is that they are unable to sets the wood for the trees?
  Captain ERSKINE-BOLST(for Captain PETER MACDONALD) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Commonwealth Hank of Australia has decided to send the governor of the bank and its economic adviser to the Imperial Conference at Ottawa as advisers on monetary problems; and whether he will consider the desirability of including an authority on banking among the business delegates from this country?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I have no information in regard to the first part of the question beyond the statement which has appeared in the Press. In reply to the second part, as I stated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet) on 21st April, so far as this country is concerned it is not proposed to invite the attendance of bankers or other authorities on monetary affairs at Ottawa, but the representatives of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will be well acquainted with the views of bankers and economists on the subject.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    COTTON EXPORT TRADE (MANCHURIA).
    Mr. LEVYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Japanese are evading the import duty on goods going into Manchuria while British goods are charged the full import duty; and whether, in view of the effect this will have on. the Yorkshire and Lancashire cotton trade, he will say what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs on 8th June to a question by the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel). If my hon. Friend has any particular cases in mind and will give me the details, I will look into them.

    GERMANY AND FRANCE (BRITISH COAL).
    Mr. LAWSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now inform the House whether the difficulties whereby the French licensing system was operating invidiously against the importing of British coal have been set aside so that Britain has now an equal chance with other countries in France?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): The difficulties to which the hon. Member refers have not yet been wholly removed, but certain changes in the quota arrangements have made the position of British coal imported into France much less unfavourable than it was a few months ago in comparison with coal imported from all other countries. The question of improving the machinery for the issue of licences is still under consideration by the trade interests concerned.
    Mr. LAWSON: Can the hon. Gentleman give us a guarantee that the licences are not being used to do the same as the quota arrangement?
    Mr. FOOT: It is very difficult to answer that question, because the two things are really distinct.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the President of the Board of Trade the nature of the latest proposals made by the German
    168
    Government in answer to the British protest against discrimination in the operation of the import restrictions on British coal?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not prepared to make a further statement at present as it would obviously be undesirable to publish proposals tentatively put forward by a foreign Government in the course of negotiations.
    Mr. LAWSON: Are the Government really trying to do anything serious about this matter? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the situation is rapidly becoming disastrous in some of the coal-exporting areas?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend's question does not relate to the nature of the import restrictions or to their effect, but simply asks if we will publish a portion of the diplomatic correspondence, and I say that that would be improper. We are aware of the seriousness of the position, and the matter is being actively pursued.
    Mr. LAWSON: We desire to know that there will be some fruit from all these negotiations, and, as I was told that the Germans had made some proposals, I asked what the nature of those proposals were. When are we to get something decisive?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If agreement is reached upon the proposals put forward by the German Government, obviously an announcement would be made to the House.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that the Government are approaching the right quarters in Germany; should they not approach the industrial quarters rather than go through diplomatic channels?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This is a matter for Government action, and we have addressed ourselves to the German Government.

    SUEZ CANAL DUES.
    Major Sir HERBERT CAYZERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information indicating the increased cost to British

    169
    shipping using the Suez Canal since this country abandoned the Gold Standard, in view of the fact that the canal dues have to be paid on a gold franc basis?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: At the date of our departure from the Gold Standard the Suez Canal dues were 6.65 francs per ton on the Suez Canal measurement for loaded vessels and 3.325 francs per ton for vessels in ballast. Since then the Suez Canal Company has reduced the dues by about 10 per cent., i.e., to 6 and 3 gold francs respectively. Taking the pound at approximately 93 francs, the increased cost to British shipping using the canal is about 1s. 1d. per ton for loaded vessels, and 6½d. for vessels in ballast.
    Sir H. CAYZER: In view of the subsidies given by foreign countries to their shipping, and in view of the fact that this is found money to the British Government, will the hon. Gentleman consider remitting this money to British shipping?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: While the Government regard the nature of the question with sympathy, it is not a matter for them but for the Suez Canal Company.

    COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
    Mr. LEWISasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider giving the necessary notice for the denunciation of our existing commercial treaties with foreign countries so that we may not be hampered by the most-favoured-nation clause in the negotiation of any new agreements with regard to tariffs or quotas with individual countries?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 26th May to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for North East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan), of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. LEWIS: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this will mean great delay when it is sought to introduce fresh treaties if nothing is done in the meantime?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It has frequently been announced in the House
    170
    that our policy with regard to the treaty position will be made dependent upon Ottawa.

    DENMARK.
    Mr. LESLIE BOYCEasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the fact that Danish exports to the United Kingdom during the three years 1929 to 1931 totalled£146,992,439, including£143,000,000 worth of butter, bacon, and eggs, as compared with£29,552,419 worth of British exports to Denmark, he will take steps to bring about a balance of trade more favourable to this country?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This matter has been engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government, and I am able to inform my hon. Friend that during the first four months of this year, as compared with the same period in 1931, the total value of United Kingdom exports to Denmark increased by 14 per cent., while Danish exports to this country fell by 14 per cent. As regards the ensuing three months, June to August, although Denmark has found herself obliged, in order to balance her international payments, to restrict imports during that period, yet permits for the importation of United Kingdom goods are valid to the value of£3,269,000, as compared with actual imports of United Kingdom goods to the value of£2,857,000 during the same period in 1931.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Arising out of that answer, may I ask my hon. Friend whether, in view of the substantial balances of payments in favour of Denmark, he can make representations to the Danish Government to enable them to release sterling for the purpose of making payment for goods consigned to that country?
    Mr. COCKS: Has the Department any information to the effect that British manufacturers are not sufficiently adapting themselves to the requirements of the Danish market? Is that the reason?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This question deals only with a matter of figures.

    IRISH FREE STATE (TEA IMPORTS).
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will state the import duties per pound now charged upon tea entering the Irish Free State?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Customs Duty is 6d. per pound, with a British preferential duty of 4d. per pound. If consigned ready packed, an additional duty of 2d. for each package, not exceeding 2 lbs. in weight, would be payable.

    IMPORT DUTIES.
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the duty on works of art entering this country is levied on works executed by British artists with British materials; whether such works of art will be taxed if only partly executed; and who is to be the judge of the artistic value of the work, whether complete or incomplete, for the purposes of the tax?
    Major ELLIOT: There is no exemption from general ad valorem duty for works of art as such, whether wholly or partly executed, or whether executed by British artists with British materials or not. Under Section 15 of the Import Duties Act the value for duty is the price an importer would give for the article if it were delivered to him at the port of importation, freight and other charges incidental to the purchase and delivery (except any duties of Customs) having been paid. The importer is required to declare the value (which is not the "artistic value," but the commercial value) at the time of importation, and the value declared, if reasonable in the circumstances of the case, would be accepted.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL:Who is to decide whether an article is a work of art?
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman do nothing to modify this tax upon British artists who are working abroad?
    Major ELLIOT: My hon. Friend will remember that the question was being considered by the advisory committee.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: What is the commercial value of a picture, unless it be a poster advertising someone's soap.
    Major ELLIOT: Its value, like that of anything else, is what it will fetch in the market.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Who decides that? How is it decided?
    Major ELLIOT: I have already answered that question.
    Mr. LINDSAYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what agreement has been reached between the Dock and Harbour Authorities Association, the chambers of commerce, and the Customs with reference to the working of the Import Duties Act; and what is the present position with regard to this matter?
    Major ELLIOT: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the question of the inclusion of dock dues, etc., in the value of imported goods for Customs purposes. As a result of the discussion with the interested parties, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have adopted, as from 17th May last, the following procedure, which applies to all ad valorem duties, in any case where the value is based on a c.i.f. price and where dock dues, landing charges, etc., are payable over and above the freight:

    (a) the actual amount of any charge specifically made for depositing the goods on the quay, waggon or lighter alongside the vessel will be included in the value, or if the charge covers that service and other services besides, such an amount as may reasonably be held to cover that service; and

    (b) a percentage, namely one-tenth of one per cent, of the c.i.f. value, will be included to represent the dutiable value of any tolls on the goods which are not charges for a specific service, e.g., the London Port rates, the Liverpool dock rates and town dues, and the Manchester Ship Canal tolls.

    Mr. MANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state particulars of the cases which have been reported to him where guarantees have been given by manufacturers undertaking that there shall be no increase in price as a result of the imposition of the tariff; and what are the industries concerned?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir; the question of guarantees does not arise. It was considered in the public interest to impose a tariff on a wide range of goods at the earliest possible moment, and the views of the Import Duties Advisory Committee on the possible exploitation of the consumer are contained in paragraph 18 of their first report.
    Mr. MANDER: Is it not well known that certain industries have given such voluntary guarantees; would it not be in the public interest that these cases should be known; and will the hon. Gentleman try to collect the necessary information?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir; the information would not be relevant. The policy of His Majesty's Government is well known, and is stated in the Act of Parliament in question.
    Mr. MACQU1STEN: Is it not also well known that, if you increase your turnover, as you can in the home market if you have some protective duties, you can lower the price?

    GREASE-PROOF PAPER.
    Mr. GROVESasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of factories in Great Britain at present producing grease-proof paper?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: According to the information in the possession of the Board of Trade, there are in this country at least three mills which are producing grease-proof paper at the present time.
    Mr. A. C. REED: Will the hon. Gentleman endeavour to get later information as to whether it is not a fact that there are eight mills in operation which are capable of supplying the entire needs of the country in regard to this article? Will he look up later information and report to the House?
    Mr. GROVES: May I ask what can be later than to-day?
    HON. MEMBERS: To-morrow.

    COUNTY OF DURHAM (NEW INDUSTRIES).
    Mr. BATEYasked the President of the Board of Trade how many new industries have been started in the county of Durham since the inception of the tariff policy of the Government?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have not received particulars of the establishment of any new industry in the county of Durham during recent months.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the Board of Trade giving any attention to the county of Durham?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir, a great deal of attention; but my hon. Friend's
    174
    question relates to foreigners who might desire to establish new industries in Durham, and none of them have so far decided to do so.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Why do they prefer Darwen to Durham?
    Mr. BATEY: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say what attention they are giving to Durham?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I should hesitate to take up the time of the House by doing so.
    Mr. LAWSON: Are not the Government giving a good deal of attention to Durham? Are they not destroying the old industries?

    IMPORTED CHINA WARE.
    Mrs. COPELANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the dumping of china tea sets and other china ware in this country at a price below the cost of production even in the foreign country from which they emanate; and whether he will make representations to the Tariff Advisory Committee regarding these facts, with a view to action being taken to help the home industry?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My attention has not previously been called to this matter. As regards the second part of the question, it is open to the trade to make representations in the usual way to the Import Duties Advisory Committee.
    Mrs. COPELAND: Is it possible to expedite matters, because last week alone a£3,000 order went to people abroad?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The best course to pursue would be for the trade to make representations to the Advisory Committee, which would be only too glad to receive them.
    Mr. HALES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the position of the whole industry is very serious and that it is a matter for immediate action?

    BANK LOANS.
    Mr. REMIER(for Mr. HAMMERS-LEY) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what has been the result of his appeal to the joint stock banks to pass on to industry the benefit of cheap money?
    Major ELLIOT: I think my hon. Friend has misapprehended what was said on previous occasions on this subject. My right hon. Friend has not made, and does not propose to make, any formal appeal to the banks in this matter. He trusts, however, that the banks have taken note of what has been said and will be willing to take such action as they can to facilitate the widest possible extension of the benefits of cheap money.
    Mr. REMER: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that, even although the Bank Rate is so low at present, the trading community stall have to pay five per cent, for loans?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will not the right hon. Gentleman permit the trading community to borrow direct from the Bank of England, going past these other banks?

    SEASIDE RESORTS (FORESHORE LEASES).
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the extra charge which is now being made for the foreshore of the different seaside resorts of the country, what charge has been made in the past; what charge is to be made in the future; which seaside resorts are to be summoned to pay; and which resorts are exempted from payment?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: For many years the practice of the Board was to grant regulating leases of foreshore under their management to local authorities, where desired, at a nominal rental of£l per annum, but leases granted since the year 1925 have ordinarily, in addition, incorporated a profit-sharing clause. All the regulating leases granted by the Board and still in force, are being reconsidered with a view to fixing such rentals as, upon an investigation of the facts, which has only just commenced, the Chief Government Valuer may recommend to be fair and adequate.

    ARMAMENT WORKS (FOREIGN VISITORS).
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any firms carrying out armament contracts
    176
    for the Government allow foreigners to visit the works for the purpose of instruction?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I regret that information is not available to enable me to answer this question.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (INDIAN STUDENTS).
    Mr. COCKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why Indian students at the British universities are debarred from joining the Officers Training Corps at their respective colleges; and whether he will take steps to remove this restriction?
    Mr. COOPER: The Officers Training Corps is designed to train potential officers for the Regular and Territorial Armies and the Supplementary Reserve, and since Indian students are not eligible for commissions in these forces, the Officers Training Corps is not open to them. No change in the regulations is contemplated.
    Mr. COCKS: Seeing that the policy of the Government is to increase the Indianisation of the Army in India, could not the regulations be altered to enable commissions to be given to Indians?
    Mr. COOPER: It is not considered that it would assist in any way the granting of commissions to Indians in the Indian Army.
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Will the hon. Gentleman give any reason for this discrimination against students in the same colleges?
    Mr. COOPER: I have just given the reason.

    RETIRED OFFICERS (EMPLOYMENT).
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of Army officers retired who are now employed under Government and are in receipt of pay plus pension; and what the annual cost to the country is?
    Mr. COOPER: I regret that this information is not readily available and a large volume of work would be involved

    177
    in obtaining it. In the circumstances, I trust that my hon. Friend will not press for it.
    Mr. LUNN: If there are men of this kind in the Government service, is it not a case where economy could be obtained?
    Mr. COOPER: It would not be practicable to search through the records of 10,000 men to find out whether any of them are in Government employment. It is questions of this kind which mean an increase in the staffs of Government Departments which hon. Members are inclined to deplore.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Could not the Government prohibit Army officers who are receiving fairly good allowances from taking second jobs?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Are there not trade union leaders with two jobs?
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is not the pension of an officer in the nature of deferred pay?
    Mr. COOPER

  SCOTLAND.

    GRANTS TOWARDS RENT.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of able-bodied persons assisted with rent grants up to 1st May, 1932, since the Glasgow Corporation took over public assistance duties; and the total amount of assistance during the same period?
    The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I am informed that applications for grants towards rent have been considered by Glasgow Corporation since about November, 1930. From that date up to the 1st May, 1932, 6,007 applicants have received rent grants, the total assistance given amounting to£9,751 1s. 4d.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman advise other authorities to give this assistance to enable folk to pay their rent when they are right up against it, so that they shall not be thrown out?
    Mr. SKELTON: I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

    HOUSING.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give the average tender price of all types of houses approved by his Department in the first five months of this year, as against the corresponding period in 1931 and 1932, respectively?
    Mr. SKELTON: The average tender price of all types of houses approved by the Department of Health for Scotland in the first five months of this year was£301, as against£298 and£307 for the corresponding period of 1931 and 1930 respectively. These average figures are, however, not strictly comparable as the houses approved during the periods in question were not, as respects size and accommodation, in exact numerical proportion.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that the Advisory Committee for Scotland, appointed under the Housing (Rural Authorities) Act, 1931, was directed to endeavour to secure generally that the rent of any house, exclusive of occupier's rates, should not exceed 4s. 6d. a week, he can state the extent to which the committee has been successful in its efforts; and how many of the houses in question are now let for a rent of not more than 4s. 6d.?
    Mr. SKELTON: The Advisory Committee have deferred their final recommendations as to the rents to be charged until the local authorities concerned have determined the types and accommodation of the houses authorised to be built. None of the houses in question has yet been completed.

    BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
    Lieut.-Colonel M00REasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can now state the result of the inquiry of the Inter-Departmental Committee on prices of building materials into the price of glazed fire-clay goods in Scotland?
    Mr. SKELTON: As I stated in my reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) on this subject on the 7th instant the Committee made inquiries but did not consider that they would be justified in taking action.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Can the hon. Gentleman say why?
    Mr. SKELTON: No, I am not in a position to say why. I have no doubt that, if the Committee think it proper, they will say why in their next report. Reports are published from time to time.

    RURAL DEPOPULATION.
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the number of Scottish agricultural workers has decreased during the period 1926 to 1931 by 13,629, or 10.8 per cent.; and whether he will impress upon the Government the necessity for a policy which, by encouraging the production of oats and barley, will bring more land under the plough and thus check this increasing rural depopulation?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am aware that the total number of agricultural workers returned on 4th June, 1931, shows, as compared with that returned on 4th June, 1926, the decrease stated by my Noble Friend. I would, however, point out that regular workers have decreased in number by 5,548 or 5.4 per cent., while casual workers are fewer by 8,081, or 35.1 per cent. The number of casual workers employed at a given date depends on the requirements of the season, and changes in their number are of less significance than changes in the number of regular workers. It is confidently anticipated that one effect of the Government's policy will be to check rural depopulation in Scotland.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May we conclude from that that the effect of the Government's policy of tariffs is to check rural depopulation?

    FISHING INDUSTRY.
    Sir JAMES DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the limits and seasons within which seine-net fishing is at present permitted in the Firth of Forth under by-laws issued by the Fishery Board for Scotland; and whether effect has been given to the representations received by the Board against the extension of the present limits?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: The Fishery Board's by-law No. 40 permits seine-net fishing in the Firth of Forth within an area bounded by the south shore of the Firth and by straight lines drawn from the end of the East pier of Leith harbour to Inchkeith Lighthouse, thence in
    180
    the direction East by North (magnetic) to a point due North (magnetic) of Fidra Lighthouse, and thence through Fidra Lighthouse to the shore. The by-law permits seining in this area from 1st June to 30th November, but in April last year it was decided to permit seining during the close time pending further consideration of the operation of the by-law as a whole. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Sir J. DUNCAN MILLAR: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say when it is intended to announce the decision about a close time season? Is the matter under the consideration of the Board?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: The hon. Member's question referred, I think, to the area.
    Sir J. DUNCAN MILLAR: And season.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: If the representations cover both points, the answer, as I say, is in the affirmative.
    Sir J. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can state, separately, the number of convictions for illegal trawling and seine-net fishing in the Firth of Forth during the past 12 months; and what steps have been taken to secure the stricter policing of the Firth against such offences?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: The number of convictions for illegal seine-net fishing in the Firth of Forth during the 12 months ended 31st May last was 14. Since that date five further detections have been made and reported to the legal authorities. There were no convictions for illegal trawling in the Firth during the period. All possible measures have been taken by the Fishery Board for Scotland with the resources at their disposal for the effective policing of the area, and special arrangements for night patrol have been in operation with good results.

    SHEEP STOCK PRICES (FARM, BLAIRMORE).
    Mr. LEONARDasked the hon. And gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what were the prices paid for ewes and lambs, eild ewes, ewe hoggs, and rams by the Forestry Commission when taking over the farm at Blairmore, Argyle; what prices were got in these respective classes when the sheep were sold; and what was the total loss incurred on the sheep stock?
    Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): The prices paid were as follow;

    Ewes and Lambs at£5 11s. each (28 at£3 14s. each);

    Eild Ewes at£3 12s. each;

    Ewe Hoggs at£3 15s. each (4 at£2 10s. each);

    Rams at£16,£10 and£8 each.

    When part of the stock came to be sold in the open market the prices realised for the ewes ranged from 28s. to 20s., and for the lambs from 25s. to 12s. 6d. At Whitsunday, 1932. the farm was re-let and the prices fixed by a mutual Valuator were as follows:

    Ewes and Lambs at 52s. each (10 at 38s. each);

    Eild ewes at 34s. each;

    Ewe Hoggs at 35s. each (11 at 23s. each);

    Earns at£6 10s.,£5,£3 and£l 10s. each.

    The Forestry Commission have no further liability in connection with this stock.
    The total approximate loss is£2,130.
    Mr. LEONARD: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman instruct the Forestry Commission to purchase no more sheep farms while deer land is being used for sport in Scotland?
    Sir J. DUNCAN MILLAR: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman prepared to make any representations through the Forestry Commission in regard to the present unfair methods of valuation adopted in connection with sheep stock in Scotland based upon inflated acclimatisation values, which create serious injustice and injury to the industry?
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: The Forestry Commission find the practice of adding an undisclosed acclimatisation value to the market value of the sheep stock very inconvenient and a frequent cause of hardship and loss to the Crown and others.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: When the Forestry Commission push a man out of his farm, is it not satisfactory that he should be given some compensation?
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: Sir, they do not.

    EDUCATION (SCHOOL FEES).
    Sir A. M. SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Education what would be the estimated amount of revenue obtainable by imposing a school fee of 10s. per annum on parents for each elementary scholar under 10 years of age and£1 per annum for each elementary scholar over 10 years of age in schools maintained by public funds?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): On the assumption that no exemptions were granted, the estimated amount of gross revenue obtainable would be approximately£3,900,000.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Can we assume that there is no implication in the answer that the Board will consider this reactionary proposal?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: My right hon. Friend has no present intention of considering the proposal.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is that a definite guarantee that they are not going to give way to these new committees which have been set up?

    GOVERNMENT CONTEACTS (INDIA RUBBER AND TYRE COMPANY).
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Postmaster-General whether the India Tyre and Rubber Company, Inchinnan, is on the list of contractors to his Department?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Graham White): The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: That being the case, will the hon. Gentleman take action with the management of the company to see that the fair wages clause is carried out and that the workers get treated—
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing about that in the question.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. Is not my supplementary question in order?
    Mr. SPEAKER: No, it is not in order. It is not relevant to the question on the Paper.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The question on the Paper is whether the India Tyre and Rubber Company is on the list of contractors to the Department, and the

    183
    answer was "Yes." Surely I am entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman to see that the firm recognise the fair wages clause.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I want to ask a question about the company.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That also had better be put down.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the First Commissioner of Works whether the India Tyre and Rubber Company, Inchinnan, is on the list of contractors to his Department?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): No, Sir.

    POST OFFICE (PRESS TELEGRAMS).
    Mr. LEWISasked the Postmaster-General whether he will inquire into the use made by the Press of the right to send telegrams below the cost of the service with a view to considering whether this indirect subsidy can, in the interest of public economy, be to some extent reduced without restricting the transmission of news of public importance?
    Mr. WHITE: I assume that what my hon. Friend has in mind is a restriction in the range of messages eligible for the Press rate. I am afraid that it would not be practicable for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to decide what news is of public importance and what is not. In any case, a radical curtailment of the privilege at present enjoyed by the Press in the matter of news telegrams would require legislation.
    Mr. LEWIS: Does my hon. Friend realise that this indirect subsidy to the Press is the principal reason why the telegraph service is earned on at a heavy loss instead of a substantial profit?
    Mr. WHITE: Of course, that is well known, but it involves a matter of policy which cannot be dealt with within the limits of a Parliamentary question.

  HOUSING.

    CHURCH ESTATES.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSONasked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as
    184
    representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners accept any responsibility for housing conditions where they are the ground landlords?
    Mr. DENMAN (Second Church Estates Commissioner): The power of a ground landlord to influence housing conditions on his land depends upon the terms of the leases and the dates when they will fall in. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners accept responsibility in proportion to the power they can exercise in each individual case.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: Cannot they accept any more moral responsibility than that?
    Mr. DENMAN: No, Sir.
    Mr. KNIGHT: Do the Commissioners recognise that it is their duty to assist under conditions which are prejudicial to the public welfare?
    Mr. DENMAN: Responsibility goes with power, and I have already said that we accept responsibility in exact proportion to the power which we can exercise.
    Mr. KNIGHT: Since the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are a public authority, does not my hon. Friend think it desirable that they should set an example?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Are not the Commissioners a body of trustees?
    Mr. NICHOLSONasked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are taking steps to urge upon the Paddington Borough Council the need for immediate steps to ameliorate the housing conditions at present existing upon land which is the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
    Mr. DENMAN: In March, 1931, in answer to a question in this House, I stated that the Commissioners would gladly give their encouragement as ground landlords to any approved scheme made by the local housing authority. The question and answer were communicated to the borough council of Paddington, but no proposals for any scheme have been sent to the Commissioners.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: Will the Commissioners continue to take more active steps to impress this necessity upon the borough council?
    Mr. DENMAN: The power of the Commissioners is really confined to friendly helpfulness, and, if the hon. Member wants efficient action, I think he must go to those whom Parliament has endowed with the power, namely, the Ministry of Health.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Do the Commissioners anticipate getting any assistance from the Town and Country Planning Bill?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it would be a good thing if the Commissioners would get a crusading spirit?

    STATISTICS.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Minister of Health if he can state how many people live more than two in a room; how many more than three in a room; and how many in even more crowded conditions in England, Wales and Scotland, respectively?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): The Census figures in question will appear very shortly for London, and thereafter successively for other counties and areas. But the Noble Lady will appreciate that the corresponding figures for England, or Wales, as a whole are not available in advance of the completion of all county tabulations. In regard to Scotland the Noble Lady should address a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that there are many thousands of children living in basement

    Insured Persons in the Drink Industry Classification* recorded as Unemployed.

    Date.

    Perth Employment Exchange.

    Other Exchanges in the County of Perth.

    Wholly Unemployed.

    Temporarily Stopped.

    Total

    Wholly Unemployed.

    Temporarily Stopped.

    Total

    18th May, 1931

    …

    42

    1

    43

    5

    —

    5

    23rd May, 1932

    …

    34

    13

    47

    6

    —

    6

    * This classification includes the manufacture and bottling of all kinds of drink. Separate figures for brewery and distillery workers are not available.

    dwellings, and will he urge the Government to do nothing to discourage open-air nursery schools in slum areas, but to do everything that he can to encourage them?
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Minister of Health whether he can state how many persons in the United Kingdom are living in dwellings which have been condemned as insanitary; how many in basement or underground dwellings; and what proportion of these are children under 15?
    Mr. BROWN: My right hon. Friend regrets that the desired information is not available.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that there are many thousands of children living in the slum areas, and the only possible way of giving them a chance is to have open-air nursery schools?
    Mr. BROWN: I shall be glad to answer the Noble Lady's question if she will put it on the Paper. I have already answered the question put to me.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    DRINK INDUSTRY, PERTH.
    Lord SCONEasked the Minister of Labour if he will state, to the nearest convenient date, the number of brewery and distillery workers wholly or partially unemployed in Perth and Perthshire, respectively, together with the corresponding figures for the same date in 1931?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): As the reply includes a Table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    EXCHANGE PROCEDURE (GREEN CARD).
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the giving out of the green card at Employment Exchanges is not properly understood by the unemployed who are refused it; and will he cause a circular to be put up at Employment Exchanges explaining how it works?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his suggestion and will see what can be done to carry it out.

    TRADE DISPUTE, ATHERTON.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to a stoppage of work at three firms of nut and bolt makers at Atherton, Lancashire, where some 400 male and female workers are at present prevented from working; that the employers refuse to meet the workers' representatives; and what steps his Department are prepared to take to bring the parties together?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I have been in correspondence with the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Thorne), who is the general secretary of the union concerned in this dispute, and I understand that he is dealing with the matter. On the information before me, I do not understand that intervention by a third party is necessary for the purpose of arranging a meeting between the parties.
    Mr. TINKER: I think that, as the Member for the division, I have a right to call the Department's attention to this matter.
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I fully appreciate that position, but, as the hon. Member knows, this is a very difficult dispute, and any further statement which I might make at present might be rather embarrassing than otherwise. If the hon. Member will get into communication with the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Thorne), I think he will learn all that he desires to know on this question.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not the Minister perfectly well aware that the conditions under which the nut and bolt workers work are deplorable and will he let those workers know that he is siding with them against their employers?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: There is no justification whatever for that suggestion. I have said that I have reason to understand that a meeting between the parties either has taken place or is about to take place.

    PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (FIRST-AID EQUIPMENT).
    Mr. GUYasked the Minister of Transport if he will state which officials are responsible for examination of first-aid equipment when a public service vehicle is presented for licensing under the Road Traffic Act?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY(Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. No statutory responsibility rests upon any particular official for the examination of first-aid equipment. In fact, however, it is inspected by the public service vehicle examiners when vehicles are presented for examination prior to licensing.
    Mr. GUY: What is the qualification of a public service vehicle examiner for deciding whether first-aid equipment is suitable or not?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: The qualification for the public service vehicle examiner is laid down in the schedule which gives the details of the equipment which each vehicle has to carry, and in this regard the examiner has to make dead certain that what is in the schedule is included in the equipment.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Do we understand that this first-aid equipment is not used except in cases of death?

    REPARATIONS AND WAR DEBTS.
    Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give a list of the countries which have declared a default in respect to the payment of their debts?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): In view of the many different forms which the various defaults in the service of debts have taken and of the different degrees of default involved it would only be misleading to group all these defaults together in one list. I would therefore refer the hon. Member to the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Secre-

    189
    tary of State for Foreign Affairs on the l7th February, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, that inquiry should be made of the Council of Foreign Bondholders.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the foreign bondholders have a list of the American States that have defaulted?
    Mr. EDEN: I suggest that my hon. Friend might ask that question of the Council of Foreign Bondholders.
    Sir JOHN WARD LAW-MILNE(for Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total sum of reparations received in cash or kind from Germany and allocated to the United Kingdom since the Sumner Commission Fund was provided in May, 1920, to mitigate the delay in the payment of the treaty reparations?
    Major ELLIOT: The Sumner Commission was appointed to consider cases in which there was a moral claim by British nationals to ex gratia grants by way of compensation for suffering or damage by enemy action within Annex 1 to Part 8 of the Treaty of Versailles. The reparation receipts of the United Kingdom since the appointment of the commission amount to£121,000,000, but, as my hon. Friend is aware, the claims coming within the terms of reference of the Sumner Commission constitute only about 1 per cent. of the total United Kingdom reparation claim.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE(for Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the sum of£18,750,000, representing the outstanding balance of liquidated German property, has been credited to Germany, under the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, specifically as a reparation payment; and, if not, under what heading it has been credited?
    Major ELLIOT: The amount in question (which, in fact, is£18,500,000) was credited to Germany against the original capital Reparation Debt under the Treaty of Versailles. Under the Hague Agreement of 20th January, 1930, that debt has now been replaced by the annuities laid down in the New Plan, and such credits against the original debt do not affect Germany's current obligations.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend consider the desirability of issuing a White Paper showing the exact position and the moneys that are available?
    Major ELLIOT: I will consider that suggestion.
    Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that Britishers have not yet been adequately compensated for injuries and loss of property sustained as the result of enemy action; and will he now recommend the Government to look into the matter again and deal justly with these people?
    Major ELLIOT: They have been paid. The award has not been paid in full, but no one has been paid in full.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
    Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONTasked the Minister of Health if he will state what is the composition and cost of the Parliamentary Department of the Ministry of Health?
    Mr. E. BROWN: There is no separate Parliamentary Department in the Ministry. The Parliamentary work is done in the divisions concerned as it arises, and in the legal Department. To this latter is attached a small clerical section for Parliamentary purposes consisting of one Higher Clerical Officer, and four Clerks, at an annual cost of, approximately,£1,500.

    CUSTOMS OFFICIALS (WORKING HOURS).
    Mr. LINDSAYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now make any statement as to the extension of hours worked by Customs officials to conform with normal dock working hours, in view of the additional work entailed by the Import Duties Act?
    Major ELLIOT: Close consideration is being given to the representations which have been received on the subject referred to by my hon. Friend, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend's attention been drawn to certain difficulties; in respect of constructive warehousing?

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Minister of Health the number of contributors under the National Health Insurance Acts who refuse or omit to nominate or select a doctor from the panel, and approximately the total amount of their contributions; and what is done with their contributions?
    Mr. E. BROWN: No precise figures are available of the number of persons in England and Wales entitled to medical benefit on the 1st January, 1932, who had not at that date selected an insurance doctor by whom they wished to be attended, or made alternative arrangements for obtaining treatment; but the approximate number may be estimated at 500,000, approximately 3 per cent. My right hon. Friend is not in possession of any figures of the amount of contributions paid in respect of such persons. He would remind my hon. and learned Friend that there are about 16,000 insurance doctors in England and Wales, who remain collectively liable to treat all or any such persons; and it is for this reason that the total amount of the capitation fees payable to insurance doctors covers that liability.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a fact that the money of those people who refuse to nominate a doctor is divided up among the doctors in accordance with the number of panel patients who do select a doctor; and, as they are getting money from people whom they never attend, and who refuse to be attended by them, is not that simply legalising the obtaining of money by false pretences?
    Mr. BROWN: I should regard that as an ex parte statement, and should not regard it as evidence.

    IMPORTED LIQUID EGGS (EXAMINATION).
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Minister of Health what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that liquid eggs imported into this country are certified fit for human consumption before being sold for that purpose?
    Mr. E. BROWN: Liquid eggs are subject to examination on importation into this country, and if they are found to be unfit for human consumption they may be seized and destroyed.

    GOLD STANDARD.
    Mr. COCKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a list of the countries which are no longer on the Gold Standard?
    Major ELLIOT: It is shorter to give a list of countries remaining on gold. There is no clear and unequivocal test of adherence to the Gold Standard. If it means unrestricted convertibility of the currency into gold or gold exchange, combined with the free export of gold, I doubt whether any countries except the United States, France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, and possibly South Africa, can conform to the test. But there are, of course, several countries which maintain their currencies within, say, 1 per cent, of gold parity by prohibiting dealings at any other rate.

    KENYA.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give particulars of the cases recently heard in Kenya in connection with the enforcement of compulsory military service?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have ascertained that, in a case heard on the 2nd June, the defendant pleaded guilty and was convicted under Section 22 of the Kenya Defence Force Ordinance, being sentenced to a fine of£5 or one month's imprisonment in default. Payment by instalments of£l per month was ordered, and the first instalment has been paid. One similar charge has been withdrawn, as the defendant had subsequently complied with the Ordinance. There have been no other cases.

    AGRICULTURE (EDUCATION GRANTS).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state the circumstances under which sums of money have been granted to various county and borough councils for the purposes of technical education in agriculture; and whether he will state what amounts have been so granted, giving the areas and amounts separately?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): The provision of

    193
    technical education in agriculture in England and Wales is a normal function of county and county borough councils. They are aided in the discharge of that function by annual grants from my Department at the rate of 60 per cent, of their approved net expenditure. With regard to the last part of the question, I am sending the hon. Member a statement giving the information asked for in respect of the financial year 1st April, 1931, to 31st March, 1932.
    Mr. GROVES: What is the amount permitted to be expended in Essex?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Gentleman will see the answer, which is a long one. If it does not give all that he wishes, perhaps he will put down a further question.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Is there any maximum set by the Department to the expenditure of local authorities which is likely to be approved?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: When local authorities apply, we consider each case on its merits, and there is a limit of 60 per cent. of the amount which we may contribute to an approved scheme.

    JUVENILE OFFENDER (SENTENCE, SALISBURY).
    Major DESPENCER - ROBERTSON(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary with reference to the case of Frederick Hayter, aged 17, who was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for abduction at Salisbury Assizes on 28th May, whether in view of the facts which were brought to his notice on 30th May, he has yet arrived at any decision as to the reduction of this sentence?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): My right hon. Friend has given careful consideration to this case. Hayter was convicted not only of abduction but of two charges of unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl of 15 years, and it was clear from the evidence that he was fully aware of the girl's age. In passing sentence, the learned judge said that it was quite impossible to pass the offence over without punishment, and that it was not a. suitable case for a Borstal Institution. Hayter is now in
    194
    the special Young Prisoners Centre at Bristol Prison. It was open to Hayter to apply free of cost to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal against his sentence, but although his rights in this respect were fully explained to him he did not avail himself of them. No new facts have been brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend, and he regrets that he can find no grounds which would justify him in recommending any interference with the sentence passed by the Court.
    Major DESPENCER-ROBERTSON: Is it not within the province of the Home Secretary to exercise the prerogative of mercy, and, in the case of a boy of 17 who hitherto has borne an unblemished character, could he not see his way, if not to wipe out the sentence, at any rate to reduce it.
    Mr. STANLEY: It is, of course, part of the duty of the Home Secretary in suitable cases, but, as my answer shows, my right hon. Friend does not consider this a suitable case in which to exercise that function.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council how far he proposes to go this evening?
Mr. BALDWIN: There is no change in the business as announced on Thursday. We hope to take the National Health Insurance (Contributory Pensions) Bill, Committee stage, and the Report and Third Reading of the Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Bill.
Mr. LANSBURY: How long does the right hon. Gentleman propose to sit, because last night getting as far as we did took up a great deal of time?
Mr. BALDWIN: That shows how dangerous it is to make statements as to one's intentions, because very often a man on this bench proposes and the House disposes.
Mr. LANSBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to keep the House very late in order to get the Scottish Bill through?
Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps I may go as far as this. We certainly intend to get the first Order, but we do not propose

195
to keep the House unduly late over the second.
Mr. MAXTON: On Thursday I asked the Prime Minister if he thought two days was an adequate allowance for the Committee stage of this controversial Measure. His view was that it was. The progress made yesterday indicates that it was not a very adequate allowance. The Prime Minister also said that he did not propose to keep the House unduly late upon it, and I think it would be for the convenience of every one if the Lord President of the Council could give some indication of the hour at which he proposes to let the House away assuming that the Committee stage has not been completed.
Mr. BALDWIN: I have said nothing but what was said by the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister said that he would not propose to keep the House unduly late over the matter of the Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Bill, and I entirely agree, as I ought, with the Prime Minister that two Parliamentary days are sufficient time for a discussion of the proposals which, though important, are limited in the Bill before the Committee. I certainly must ask the House to conclude, whatever the hour, the Committee stage of the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Bill.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
The House divided: Ayes, 285; Noes, 42.

Division No. 232.]

AYES.

[3.43 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Conant, R. J. E.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Cook, Thomas A.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Cooke, Douglas

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Allen, Lt.-Col J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

Cooper, A. Duff

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Copeland, Ida

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Craddock. Sir Reginald Henry

Hales, Harold K.

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Cranborne, Viscount

Hamilton, Sir George (Word)

Aske, Sir Robert William

Craven-Ellis, William

Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Crooke, J. Smedley

Hanley, Dennis A.

Atholl, Duchess of

Crookshank, Col. C. do Windt (Bootle)

Hartington, Marquess of

Atkinson. Cyril

Crossley, A. C.

Hartland, George A.

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Curry, A. C.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Balniel, Lord

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

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Davison, Sir William Henry

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Denville, Alfred

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Beaumont. M. w. (Bucks, Aylesbury)

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

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

Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portem'th,C.)

Dickie, John P.

Holdsworth, Herbert

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Donner, P. W.

Hope, Sydney (Chester, stalybridge)

Blaker, Sir Reginald

Doran, Edward

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Blindell, James

Drewe, Cedric

Hornby, Frank

Boulton, W. W.

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Horsbrugh, Florence

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Duggan, Hubert John

Howard, Tom Forrest

Boyce, H. Leslie

Duncan. James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Howitt, Dr. Altred B.

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Dunglass, Lord

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

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Eden, Robert Anthony

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Broadbent, Colonel John

Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Browne, Captain A. C.

Elmley, Viscount

Hurd, Sir Percy

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Jamieson. Douglas

Burghley, Lord

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Janner, Barnett

Burnett, John George

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Butler, Richard Austen

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Ker, J. Campbell

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Knight, Holford

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

Fraser, Captain Ian

Law, Sir Alfred

Chalmers, John Rutherford

Fuller, Captain A. G.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)

Ganzoni, Sir John

Lees-Jones, John

Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

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

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Christie, James Archibald

Gledhill, Gilbert

Levy, Thomas

Clarke, Frank

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Lewis, Oswald

Clayton, Dr. George C.

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

Liddall, Walter S.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Goff, Sir Park

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Colfox, Major William Philip

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe

Llewellin, Major John J.

Patrick, Colin M.

Smithers, Waldron

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Peake, Captain Osbert

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd, Gr'n)

Pearson, William G.

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Peat, Charles U.

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Lumley, Captain Lawrence Ft.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Mabane, William

Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Blliton)

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

Pickering, Ernest H.

Stevenson, James

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Pike, Cecil F.

Storty, Samuel

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Potter, John

Stourton, Hon. John J.

McKeag, William

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Strauss, Edward A.

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

McLean, Major Alan

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Ramsden, E.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Magnay, Thomas

Rathbone, Eleanor

Summersby, Charles H.

Maitland, Adam

Rea, Walter Russell

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

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

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham

Thomas, James P L. (Hereford)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Thompson, Luke

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Remer, John R.

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Martin, Thomas B.

Roberts. Aled (Wrexham)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Mellor, Richard James

Rosbotham, S. T.

Turton, Robert Hugh

Millar, Sir James Duncan

Ross, Ronald D.

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Milne, Charles

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw-

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

Salmon, Major Isidore

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Salt, Edward W.

Weymouth, Viscount

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

White Henry Graham

Moss, Captain H. J.

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Savery, Samuel Servington

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Munro, Patrick

Scone, Lord

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Nation, Brigadler-General J. J. H.

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Womersley, Walter James

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

North, Captain Edward T,

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Nunn, William

Slater, John

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

O'Connor, Terence James

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Attlee, Clement Richard

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

Maxton, James

Batey, Joseph

Hall, George H (Merthyr Tydvil)

Milner, Major James

Buchanan, George

Hirst, George Henry

Parkinson, John Allen

Cape, Thomas

Jenkins. Sir William

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

John, William

Thorne, William James

Cripps, Sir Stafford

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

Tinker, John Joseph

Daggar, George

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Wallhead, Richard C.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Kirkwood, David

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Edwards, Charles

Lawson, John James

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Leonard, William

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

Logan, David Gilbert

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Lunn, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

McGovern, John

Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir William Jenkins to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Patents and Designs Bill [Lords]).
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Lieut.-Colonel Sir Mervyn Manningham-Buller; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Herbert Williams.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Kettering Gas Bill, with an Amendment.
  Kendal Corn Rent Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to give effect to a Convention for the unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air; to make provision for applying the rules contained in the said Convention, subject to exceptions, adaptations, and modifications, to carriage by air which is not international carriage within the meaning of the Convention; and for purposes connected with the purposes aforesaid." [Carriage by Air Bill [Lords].]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 13th June].
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Amendments of s. 3 of principal Act.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed [13th June], "That the Clause stand part of the, Bill."
    Question again proposed.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: When the House adjourned last night I was pointing out how difficult it is to understand this Clause. Even people well versed in National Health Insurance must have found great difficulty in being able to follow its provisions. I should be glad if the Minister of Health would inform us what steps the Ministry are taking to inform not only the approved societies but the general public, in a simple way, about the provisions of Clause 1. One of my criticisms of the Clause is that in order to understand it one has to get the Act of 1924 and the Act of 1928 before one can dovetail in the various parts. We are dealing with from 15,000,,000 to 17,000,000 people. It is said that this is an insurance scheme. Any hon Member who was entering into an insurance scheme would want to know, particularly if it was expensive, in plain language exactly what his policy was. This in an expensive policy. I am not arguing that money is not given in return, but when people have to pay on an average 8d. per week, which amounts to at least 30s. a year, it is a fairly expensive policy, and the Minister ought to make the position plain in the Act of Parliament itself so that a layman can understand it.
    4.0 p.m.
    My serious criticism of the Clause is that it is legislation by reference and is complicated even to members of the committee. It it reactionary in character. The point was made many times yesterday that this Bill is an improvement on the position of National Health Insurance and widows' and old age pensions. It is an improvement if one leaves out of account the question of prolongation and
    206
    we assume that no Government would prolong health insurance and widows' and old age pensions. But every Government since 1928 has prolonged, it and we have reached a stage when prolongation, is part and parcel of the Statutes of the country. Therefore, when we argue about the improvement of the position we do not argue about an improvement on the Act before prolongation but we compare it with the conditions under prolongation. This Clause makes a vital inroad on the rights of the insured person under the prolongation procedure. It makes it more difficult for people who have gone out of insurance to got back. It takes away medical benefit, and in certain cases the rights to old age pensions and widow' pensions. It attacks maternity benefit as well as medical benefit. It would be wrong for anyone who has the interest of the insured contributor at heart to allow this Clause to go unchallenged. The exigencies of the financial situation of the country is the only reason that has been given by the Minister for these steps. Even assuming that the country is not so well oft as it formerly was, and assuming that there is a position which we on these benches do not accept, we say there are a hundred and one other sources of supply that could easily be tapped without inflicting the great suffering on the people which this Bill will inflict. We say that this Clause is the most reactionary Clause in a reactionary Bill, and for that reason we intend to divide against it.
    Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I would like to put, very briefly, the objections of my hon. Friends and myself to this Clause. I will not make the point about legislation by reference, though this is a Clause which is not easy for the layman to understand. Whatever the Memorandum may say, this Clause, as a matter of fact, is not conferring new legal rights on the people, but is restricting advantages which insured persons at present enjoy. It is a misuse of language to attempt to convey the impression that this Bill is conferring some new rights and new benefits on a certain number of insured persons. I admit the difficulties of prolongation of insurance in the way we have been carrying it on. The trouble arises because of the grave economic problem quite outside this

    207
    scheme—the problem of unemployment, with which the scheme was never intended to deal when it was first introduced, and it is clearly, I admit, beyond the power of approved societies, and indeed, I would say, it would be beyond their duty, to have to carry the burden of a social problem outside the four corners of the Health Insurance scheme. As a matter of fact, they have made a very generous contribution towards dealing with this problem in the past, and have kept within benefits people who, normally, would have lost all the rights they possessed.
    More recently the Exchequer has had to foot the bill. That seems to me to be a logical position. The State said, "This problem is none of your making. We realise that you cannot carry on. but we appreciate all the social advantages to be derived from keeping people within the scheme if we can, and therefore we will foot the bill." After all, the expenditure is not one which is going to break this country, and it does stand in a special category. What we are doing now is virtually to throw the unemployed overboard. That is really what it means. The people who have suffered unemployment with greater severity than the rest of their fellows, are gradually to be dropped. I know there are the dates 1933, 1934, 1935, but it is only softening the blow. The intention of the Government is to deprive unemployed people of rights, and to make it very difficult for them subsequently to recover those rights.
    On the side of National Health Insurance benefit I would say that the problem there is not as serious as it is as regards pension rights. After all, these people who have been out of work a long time are getting a reduced benefit, now half-scale benefit, and I do not believe that is saving any of them from going to the Poor Law. The important side, it seems to me, is that of pensions. When the National Health Insurance scheme was first established, there were people clamouring to keep out of it. When, in the wisdom of the last Conservative Government, pensions were attached to the Health Insurance scheme, people who clamoured to be kept outside now clamoured to come in, because of the possibility of a small security for old age, and for the widow and orphan, which made attractive a scheme that
    208
    hitherto had not been attractive. So far as I am concerned, I think that the possibility of jeopardising the pension rights of insured workers, who have been going through a very bad time, and for whom the world looks very black to-day, is one to which the Committee ought not to agree. I am very sorry that the Government have felt that they have had to take this step, and my hon. Friends and I must go into the Lobby to make our protest.
    Mr. KIRKW00D: I rise to make my protest also. I could not go into the Lobby and give a silent vote against this Clause, which is a direct attack upon the unemployed. There is no doubt about that. If there was anything for which the present Government got the great majority they did, it was in order to relieve the awful position of the unemployed in this country. It is perfectly true that the unemployed, like most people when the Government were seeking the suffrages of the people, knew that they were to be subjected to reductions. But that was only to be temporary; it was in order that we might get round the tight corners. We have been running round these corners I do not know how often since the Government came into office, and every corner has got tighter and tighter. They have not eased the situation one bit for friend or foe. They have not a friend in this House. They have been attacked on all sides. The Tory party say that this is the most awful attempt ever made, and the Liberals also say that the Government are making a terrible mess of affairs. The Labour party say the same, and here we stand to-day, the Labour party, a united party, fighting against the most unscrupulous Government of modern times. The Title of the Bill is "National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Bill," and we have not got away from the first Clause yet.
    The Government have a mob behind them of the most docile sheep or goats that ever were in this House, so much so that the Prime Minister, with all his sage experience of Parliamentary affairs, and knowing what is contained in this Bill, and that those representing the working classes would rise here and do all they could to keep it from going through, said, "We will give them two days while I am away in the sunny south. They can hold forth for a day or two.

    209
    I can trust the great body that I have supporting me in the House." Just a few men against all the might of Britain which is backing this Clause! They are arrayed at the moment in the Smoke Room. When we are discussing something which is essential to the well-being of the poorest of the poor, when we are stating a case for them—
    The CHAIRMAN: I think I must remind the hon. Member that some of the "might of Britain" heard this yesterday.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: But you, Sir Dennis, will agree with me that it has been instilled into us from boyhood, "Come, let us reason together," and
    "Hope springs eternal in the human breast."
    and we are hoping, because when we were boys at school, that is, we Scottish boys, it was impressed into us how King Robert the Bruce leathered the English from Dan to Beersheba, and then when he had to flee to Rathlin Island, he saw a spider trying to reach its goal, which was the roof, seven times. And so we Scots on these benches who are descended from that Robert Bruce and his supporters, still have that stick-at-itness which is animating me to-day, to persevere against, and to try to circumvent, all the difficulties which the machinery of this House may try to put in our way in stating the case for the workers against the ruling class of this country. Now that the whole of Clause 1 is under discussion I am within the Rules of Order in referring to the difficult items which arise. Yesterday we made several speeches on the various proposals in the Clause, now we are asking that it should be wiped out altogether and, therefore, I hold that I am perfectly in order in going over everything contained in the Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will not be in order if he repeats the arguments and discussions which took place yesterday. The Clause has been thoroughly discussed in regard to a number of points on various Amendments and the hon. Member must confine himself to-day to matters which were not discussed yesterday and to the Clause as a whole.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Further to that point of Order—
    The CHAIRMAN: There is no point of Order for the hon. Member to argue. He has submitted to me what he considers he is entitled to do, and I have given him the best advice I can to prevent him going beyond the scope of the Debate.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I will not challenge your Ruling. I want the Committee to reject the Clause. It worsens the position of the old age pensioners and those who have been a long time unemployed. It also worsens the position, in regard to widows' pensions. I have been doing what I can to rouse the people against this Government, but it is difficult for those who live in some parts of the country to realise the hellish conditions which prevail not only in Glasgow but in all colliery districts. The wealth of Britain has not been made in London but in the great industrial centres. All that London does is to distribute the wealth and spend it; and this Clause is going to hit the poor folk in these poor industrial centres worse than they have ever been hit before. Last night the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) told us that there were 60,000 men in his district who would never work again. They are to be denied the right to earn their livelihood, and this Government has never done anything whatever to relieve that situation. All that they do aggravates it. Where is that Christian teaching of "love one another as I have loved you"? What about the Prayer which is delivered every afternoon that this House meets? Think of the hypocrisy of it. And some hon. Members of this House go into the pulpit and preach the Christian Faith. Here it is in operation. And the patient oxen behind the Government will go into the Lobby in support of a Clause which instead of helping the situation in any way will only make it worse in everyway.
    The Minister of Health yesterday seemed to suggest that we who represent Labour were doing the damage and that the National Government were the generous philanthropic and kind-hearted champions of the oppressed and the poor. Now is the time to demonstrate it. Here is your chance. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were going to safeguard some 80,000 people, and that he had only a certain amount of money. When we wanted to extend the time from 1935 to 1940 the right hon.

    211
    Gentleman said that if we had our way these poor folk would be treated worse than he had intended. His reason was that the Government only had a certain amount of money. We agree; but he has never told us that he has fought the Cabinet on this matter as we have seen him fight the Labour Cabinet when in opposition. We know his capabilities and his ability to state a case. Now like the rest of the Government he is using his abilities to state a case most effectively against the working classes. I remember an old colleague of mine, Bob Smillie, telling me that when he was negotiating with lawyers and actuaries surrounding him they were able to prove that the colliers were awfully well off and getting a bigger return for their toil than ever before. He said that they were able to show him figures, but he could never get away from the fact that all the figures they could show him were not able to provide a better supply of food in the collier's home. All the figures which the Minister of Health produced yesterday and may produce to-day will not take away the fact that this Clause is going to make the conditions of the poorest of the poor worse.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that I have had to interrupt him twice, and there is no little difficulty in listening to his speech to find anything which is new. Most of his speech has been irrelevant to the Clause or else it was said yesterday, and I must warn him that he must confine himself to what has not already been said and to something which is relevant to the Clause.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: All that I wish to say is this. The Clause takes away from the poor the right to free medicine and free medical attendance. I hope you will allow me to go on a little on this matter.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that we had a long Debate on that very subject yesterday afternoon. He must not repeat that.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I will try to keep within your Ruling, but this is a very serious matter indeed. The Minister has told us that the reason for stopping free medicine and free doctor is because the country cannot afford it. I never said that last night, Sir Dennis. The
    212
    country is surely not so hard up that it must go to the poorest in the community and deprive them of these benefits. These poor folk who have been unemployed for so long, who have been ill for so long, cannot afford to pay for a doctor or for medicine, but the ruling classes of this country in this generous mood, in this Christian mood if you like, say that they are to be deprived of these benefits. Neither the Government nor the employers have work to offer them, and because they cannot get work they have to starve.
    4.30 p.m.
    The present Minister of Health, because of the exigencies of the position, is going to take away this nice little kindness that has been done by a former Government—not a revolutionary proposal, but just a little kindness that the great and powerful British Empire was going to grant to its poorest. Now, because we are evidently a wee bit up against it, the position is to be changed. None of the Members here is up against it like these poor folk. Neither those who will vote with us nor those who will vote against us are up against it like these poor mortals, our brothers and sisters, children of the same father. We pray to our Father in Heaven. We are all the same, all the sons of Adam, and this is what is being dealt out to these people. They are not Germans, not Russians, but our kith and kin. Welsh women and Welsh weans, many Scottish and English women and children who have never had a dog's chance in life. Those are the people to whom the Government is to deny medical benefit in order to save the British Empire from tottering to a crash. How mean, how despicable! If these are your ideas, then God help you, and I wish then the downfall of an Empire that can be supported by such an infamous action as taking away from the poorest of the poor, as is being done in this Clause.
    Miss RATHBONE: This is the first Clause in a Bill of 10 Clauses and two Schedules. We have discussed it for seven hours yesterday and for one hour to-day. I want to appeal to those who dislike this Clause to remember that there are others of us who dislike later Clauses quite as much. I know that their object in prolonging the Debate on this Clause is to protest against the

    213
    allocation of only two days to the discussion of this important Measure, but the practical effect of this extremely prolonged Debate on the first Clause will merely be that those of us who want to criticise later Clauses equally severely will be compelled to do so at an hour when every one is too tired to listen.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. I want to know what connection the hon. Member's statement has with the Clause under discussion. A new attack is being made on us, and I want to know whether we have a right to reply to it. The hon. Member's statement is not only unfair but incorrect.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is not by any manner of means unknown or contrary to the usual procedure for Members to make an appeal to colleagues an the House, but it is not a. matter for discussion.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: It is an attack and not an appeal.
    Miss RATHBONE: I was not making an attack but merely stating the facts, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) or anyone else can deny that these are the facts. I am simply pointing to the time-table.
    The CHAIRMAN: There must not be a discussion on the matter. The hon. Lady is perfectly within her right in appealing to the Committee to end this Debate, but for her to go on discussing it" in the way she is doing is not in. order. We are discussing Clause 1.
    Mr. LOGAN: Having taken part yesterday in the Debate on what is one of the most important provisions of the Bill I shall not go over the same ground again, but confine myself to the question of the rejection of this Clause. It was definitely stated yesterday that the Government felt compelled to bring this Clause forward and to protect the approved societies, and it was stated that the Clause was also essential because of financial exigencies. I want to deal with the financial aspect. From the arguments brought forward yesterday I contend that the Ministry are not able to give adequate reasons for the wonderful change that they are about to make. It cannot be denied that this Clause means the penalising of the unemployed purely on grounds of financial stringency. Yesterday I was asked why not? I was
    214
    asked whether I could bring forward any other proposition to take the place of this Clause. I made a suggestion that I thought was constructive.
    The Minister's explanation yesterday was that it was necessary to make a reduction, and reference was made to the£2,500,000 affecting the solvency of approved societies. I am not here concerned with the individual or collective opinion of approved societies when it is a question of the rank: and file of the unemployed outside this House. I want that to be definitely understood. First and foremost I come here to represent my constituency, and no vested interest. I claim that when there is an attack being made on the rights of people who are unable to voice their opinion in this House, vested interests must go by the board. There is a way in which the money can be raised, and I am going to tell the Minister how it can be raised. This economy that the Government are introducing is an economy which, will deny certain rights to the people. The Minister says that he is not anxious to put these people out of benefit, and that he would not put them out if it were not for financial necessity.
    The CHAIRMAN: What the hon. Member is apparently proposing to put forward was put forward and discussed at great length yesterday. We cannot have it repeated.
    Mr. LOGAN: With all due respect I contend that within the Rules of Debate I have a perfect and legitimate right to bring forward the argument that when the Government say that if a matter is equitable they would be prepared to accept it under certain conditions, I am prepared to produce a plan and scheme as an alternative.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that his business is to obey the directions of the Chair. What he is apparently proposing to say is not a matter which would be out of order, but it was said yesterday and it cannot now be repeated.
    Mr. LOGAN: Not for one moment do I claim any right to disobey your Ruling, but I am in the British House of Commons to defend the interests of the people who sent me here, and I say that I have a right to bring forward my reasons for the view I take, that the Government

    215
    should not prostitute this House by such methods as they propose when there are other and legitimate methods within their reach. If the matters dealt with by myself and others yesterday are out of order I will bear that fact in mind. The method that the Government are adopting in this Clause is a subtle method which is penalising a body of depressed people for the sake of vested interests, and there are other methods at hand which the Government are afraid to adopt. I am not anxious to be considered extreme in regard to questions which ordinarily come before the House of Commons, but I am anxious to be considered extreme as regards protecting the interests of those who sent me here. I deplore the action of this Committee in accepting what has already been passed of this Measure, and I ask them to refuse the proposal which is now before them. I say that it is an insult to the intelligence of all right-thinking men. I go further and say that if the Government Whips were not put on, there is no Member of this Committee who would dare to vote against the rights of the people who are affected by this proposal.
    The Bill is most ambiguous and only those who are well acquainted with administration are able to understand even part of it. The people outside who are mainly affected by it will be penalised by it without being able to understand it. The Minister claimed that he alone had framed the Bill and that he alone was responsible for the Financial Memorandum. If that be so, then he must be held guilty before this Committee of bringing on these people a penalty for which he had no mandate. The Government were never empowered to deal so drastically with the rights of these people. I believe that by this Bill benefits are being filched from the people. I believe that this Committee has not the fullest knowledge of the administrative effect of the matters which are being discussed, and I contend that the Minister has no right to attempt to pass such a Measure as this on grounds of economy. It is an abuse of the word "economy." The sacrifice of efficiency and the malnutrition of men, women and children will prove not an economy, but a national sacrifice. To ask Parliament to accept this Clause is a prostitution of all that goes to make up constitutional history. The Measure
    216
    is brought forward under false pretences and I ask the Committee to reject the Clause.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): In reply to the various matters which has been raised in the Debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," let me first deal with the argument which has been made use of in relation to economy. One can only get a fair and just view of all these accusations that the Bill is being used by the Government to effect economies by depriving people of their rights, if one bears in mind a single simple fact which was advanced on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is the fact that, as a result of this Bill, not a single penny will be taken away from National Health Insurance and the National Health Insurance Fund. Not a single penny less will go to the cause of National Health Insurance. What the Bill does is to redistribute the incidence of benefits and contributions so as to ensure the solvency of the fund without taking any money away from National Health Insurance at all.
    In the second place let me reply to one or two specific questions which were put to me, particularly by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). They were, if I may say so, interesting questions and I hope that the answers may be helpful to the Committee. The hon. Member was rightly concerned for those people who have long periods of illness, and he asked what would become of them under the scheme of the Bill and what was being preserved to them. I am happy to be able to give him an answer which I think he will find completely reassuring. Everybody entitled to sickness benefit, who becomes sick, is continued in insurance until he or she is well again and that will be the case under this Bill as under the provisions of the original scheme of National Health Insurance. There is a little provision which possibly the hon. Member has not noticed although, goodness knows, I am not blaming anybody for not taking account of all the provisions of the National Health Insurance Acts. I know how dreadfully difficult it is to dovetail all those provisions together, but there is the provision to which I refer, under which anyone entitled to sickness benefit, who falls ill, even though otherwise he

    217
    would have gone out of insurance, is continued in insurance until the end of the six months period during which he recovers and goes back to work.
    The next question put by the hon. Member for Gorbals also raises the point as to the difficulty of the Act. He asked what steps were to be taken to make the provisions of the Bill known to the insured persons who, as we fully agree, are not in a position to understand all these very difficult provisions. Unfortunately insurance legislation has become so complicated in the course of its building-up, that one cannot now legislate on these matters without great complexity such as is seen in this Measure. The first step that we have taken in order to make things clear has been to publish the White Paper to which the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Ehys Davies) referred. I think I may say that that White Paper is very clear and helpful and I am in a position to say so, because, although I have claimed responsibility for the Memorandum, that is quite a different thing from claiming the literal authorship, and I was only anxious that the hon Member should not be in the position of aiming past the Minister's shield at the civil servant.
    As regards the further measures which it is proposed to take,, in order to make these matters known to the insured persons, we have the great benefit of the widespread organisation of the approved societies. This is one of the occasions on which one realises the great benefit of having that organisation, with the officers of the societies so closely in touch with the insured persons. I propose to issue a Circular to the approved societies supplementing the White Paper and telling them exactly what the provisions of the Bill are, in much greater detail than it would interest the Committee to hear. Further I propose to provide them with a circular fitted for the reading of the insured persons and that circular will be sent out with the contribution cards. I think in that way we shall do all that can be done to make known the provisions of the Bill.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the Minister make that a duty on the approved societies? He knows that one of the difficulties in a matter like this is to have such a duty carried out. Will he make it ob-
    218
    ligatory on the societies to see that this is done?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I will certainly consider the suggestion, but my own impression of the relations between the approved societies and their members leads me to believe that they will welcome the opportunity and the means of sending out this information. I turn now to the wider aspect of this Measure which has been brought out during the Debate, particularly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). The principal contention in this phase of the Debate has been on the question of whether or not the present Bill leaves the unemployed contributor better off or worse off than it found him. That aspect was particularly dwelt upon in the speech of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I think that the conclusion to which one comes on that issue depends entirely upon the point of view from which one regards National Health Insurance. The argument that by this Bill we shall leave the unemployed contributor worse off than we found him can only be maintained by accepting the view of the hon. Member for Gorbals and others that the prolongation of National Health Insurance, in the form in which it was passed a year ago, had become a regular part of our national scheme of health insurance. But that is a point of view, I submit, which it, is impossible to accept. Prolongation of insurance in that form had not and could not become a part of the National Health Insurance scheme.
    If there was one thing perfectly certain it was that we could not go on indefinitely with prolongation from year to year while taking no steps to place National Health Insurance on a sounder footing. Had we done so, as was clear from the calculations which I gave to the House on the Second Reading, before very long the whole structure of National Health Insurance would have fallen in ruins. If we accept that proposition which has been proved over and over again, that it would be impossible to go on indefinitely with prolongation, then I think the Committee must come to the conclusion that I am justified in claiming that the provisions in the Bill for dealing with the situation are provisions which leave the unemployed contributor far

    219
    better off than he would have been, had matters been allowed to take their course. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield dwelt with great emphasis—in my estimation correctly—upon the question of pension rights. Is it not clear that under this scheme the Government have put pension rights in the very forefront as the most important of the rights which they particularly desire to preserve? After we have, one might almost say, exhausted every other possibility for saving the rights of the unemployed contributor, we have even stretched the possibilities a little further by the inclusion of two additional pension years.
    Let me quote one little fact to the Committee in this connection to rebut the charge of harshness or abruptness in cases where pension rights are terminable. If and when any of these persons go out of insurance for pension in the year 1935, it will have been possible for them to have had 10 years of insurance for only 2½ years contribution. I think those facts ought to be given their due weight in the consideration of this matter and that the Committee ought to have regard to the extreme care which has been taken to avoid undue hardship in the discontinuance of pension rights. This Bill is, in effect, the stitch in time which will save infinite trouble and loss to those in health insurance at a later date. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield disclosed the fundamental difference between his point of view and ours on this matter when he said "Let the Exchequer foot the bill." He said—I am embroidering on that motto of his—"Why maintain these considerations as to the solvency of National Health Insurance? Why bother about the contributory principle? Let the Exchequer foot the bill."
    5.0 p.m.
    That was the point of view which was taken about unemployment insurance in the early days, and it is the point of view which led to that disastrous condition of affairs as regards unemployment insurance of which we all know. What would we not give to be able to put the clock back and take measures in time to prevent unemployment insurance going the way it has gone, from whatever point of view we look at it, whether from that of these benches or from that of
    220
    the benches opposite? In due time, and while there is still time to save the National Health Insurance scheme by such a provision as that which is contained in this Clause, we are asking the Committee to take the stitch in time of restoring it to solvency, in vindication of the contributory principle, and we do that wholly on account of the interest of the contributors concerned. There are 17,000,000 contributors in National Health Insurance, and it is in their interest that their benefits should be protected by a solvent fund. It is they who stand to lose if you allow the fund to become insolvent.
    The only vested interest, if I may say so to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan), is the vested interest of the contributors to the fund, which we are considering in order to safeguard their future and secure to them the benefits to which they are entitled. That is the appropriate and proper task for a National Government. A very appropriate and proper task for a National Government is to face up to a difficult and unpleasant situation, and not to conceal from the country the fact that difficult measures have to be taken in order to redeem an unfortunate situation. When those measures, as I think I have demonstrated to the Committee, protect to the utmost the interests of all concerned, we need have no hesitation in recommending this Measure to the Committee. This particular Clause has received a very full discussion. I have tried to reply to all the points which have been raised on the Clause, and the Committee knows that there are other and very important issues awaiting consideration. Perhaps a reasonable distribution of our time would suggest that we might now come to a decision on this Clause.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: The stitch in time which the Minister of Health, with his Government, is endeavouring to put into the covering of the State is, in my opinion, not so much with a needle and thread as with a lance, with which he is probing the most unfortunate section of the community. In pointing out that he wishes to place this fund back on an actuarial basis and in a sound financial position, he forgets entirely that, had the Government of 1926 carried out its contractual obligations, there would not

    221
    have been the danger that there is to the financial soundness of this scheme, because the scheme would have had, during the six years that have intervened since then, close upon£15,000,000 which the then Government actually refused to pay, in the£2,750,000 which it was due to pay each year. The fund has lost that£15,000,000 by the criminal neglect of the Government of that period.
    The right hon. Gentleman has painted a by no means rosy picture of the future that he expects for this insurance scheme, and he has criticised by this very Bill, for which he stands sponsor, the Government of which he is a Cabinet Minister more harshly than it has been criticised by any Member on this side. He has laid it down that the prolongation has to cease and that this Bill is to bring in a new method with regard to health insurance in. dealing with the unemployed. That means that the Minister himself looks upon the future with such apprehension that he most prepare for years to come for a continuance of close upon 3,000,000 unemployed. After all the talk of the National Government about reducing unemployment and restoring the trade of this country, this Bill is an admission on their part that they look for unemployment in this country and the condition of trade to become, not better, but worse, in spite of their activities, or so-called activities, to bring about a betterment of affairs. I submit that if for no other reason than that, those who are opposed to this Bill are justified in their opposition.
    The Government's whole attitude in cutting out pension rights and in cutting off sick benefit for years to come for individuals who, they say, will be unable to find employment in the course of the next few years, shows what the Government themselves think about the future. What hope will that bring to the people outside? Are you going to bring hope by this Bill to those who are unemployed to-day? You tell them you have no hope for them in the future, no hope of finding work for them, and this Bill itself is an admission of the gross betrayal of the country that took place last October. The unfortunate thing is that the admission has come too late, so far as the people in the country are concerned, but I hope it will not be too late so far as
    222
    any by-elections that may be held in any industrial constituencies are concerned.
    Mr. MAXTON: I appreciate very much the Minister's desire to make somewhat speedier progress than has been made so far, but I think he will agree with me that probably this Clause is the most important Clause in the Bill and to some extent governs every other part of the Bill. Therefore, I think the Committee may be well excused if it devotes a considerable time to Clause 1, even supposing other portions of the Bill might have to make speedier progress. I have some sympathy with the hon. Lady, who is not now in her place, who protested that time was being consumed on Clause 1 which she wanted to devote to a later Clause. Her complaint, however, is not against those of us who are interested in Clause 1, but against the Government which only provides two days for the Committee stage of this Bill—[Interruption.] If the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) would cease her running commentary for a minute or two, I would say that if there was a strong opposition in this House, a numerically strong Opposition, whether it was a Labour or a Conservative Opposition, it would not have been fobbed off with two days for the Committee stage of such a Bill as this. I have seen Measures of less importance than this receiving four, five and six days' Committee Debate on the Floor of the House, and if this Bill had gone upstairs to a Committee, the Government would not have expected to get it back inside a month of hard Committee work.
    I do not feel that this Clause has been examined in that close committee way, and I have a very strong feeling—and I take my own share of responsibility for it—that if this Clause goes through now, the Committee will not have appreciated fully what it is doing. The Minister may say that it has been very carefully prepared, but all of us who have been here for more than a, year or two know that it was only when the letters began to arrive from the constituencies, from the people who had been caught under particular Sections, that we began to realise the number of flaws there were in an Act; and when we got the letters back from the Minister telling us that he regretted very much that he was unable

    223
    to do anything in that particular case, because he was bound entirely by the Statute, which said so and so, which meant so and so, which nobody thought it meant when we passed it, we regretted that we had not devoted ourselves with a little closer attention to the Committee stage of the Bill when we were passing it, rather than have to pass on the letters of regret from the Minister to our constituents who were actually suffering hardships.
    I have the feeling that if there have been Measures of that description in the past which impose hardships, this Clause of this Bill is going to spread additional misery among the people whom we represent, that that is not appreciated by Members of the Committee just now, and that it is a fact to which the country is not yet awake. I am certain that there is no Member sitting in this Committee who at the General Election told his constituents or put in his election address that among the other economies that were contemplated was to be an attack on the health services, the maternity benefit, the widows' pensions, and the old age pensions. I do not believe there is one Member sitting in this Committee who hinted in his statements to his electors that that was within the range of possibility, and I do not believe there is a Member in the Committee who believed that it was within the range of possibility.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I should like to say that a great many of us told our constituents that if we did not take the steps which we did, there would be no health benefit at all. A great many of us said that, and that is why they sent us back here.
    Mr. MAXTON: There is no doubt that many candidates used the device of threatening the electorate at the election, but I want to ask the Noble Lady if the people in the Button Division of Plymouth believed that when she came to this House she would be casting her vote to-day to put their old age pensions in jeopardy—
    Viscountess ASTOR: I am not doing that.
    Mr. MAXTON: Did the married women in the Sutton Division believe that she
    224
    was going to come here to vote for a reduction in their sickness benefit?
    Viscountess ASTOR: The married women in the Sutton Division realised—
    The CHAIRMAN: Seductions of benefit to women have not yet been reached.
    Mr. MAXTON: I was merely replying to comments of my Noble colleague who sits behind me, and who whispers in my ear all the time, whereas you, Sir Dennis, intervened only once.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must resist such blandishments.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I protest. I am not whispering in his ear. I am only admiring the most brilliant obstruction I have seen in the House of Commons.
    Mr. MAXTON: I object in the profoundest way that I can to the suggestion that I am obstructing at this stage, but even if I were, it would be folly on the part of the Noble Lady to assist me in the task. I was saying that this matter was not submitted to the electors as practical politics by any Member. I know that there were the scaremongers and that the Prime Minister was going about waving a million-mark note, but no Member told his electors that among other practical steps to stabilise the nation's financial position he was proposing to make reductions in sickness benefit and to reduce the right to old age and widows' pensions. Is anyone willing to take away the 30s. maternity benefit? Does any Member in the Committee realise that that is what we are being asked to do in Clause 1? The country does not realise it, but that is what we are definitely being asked to do now. Then we are being told that we are obstructing and taking more than enough time to debate the question when an unemployed man is to cease to have a doctor to attend him when he is dying; to discuss when a woman in childbirth is to cease to have the proper attention that is required in that crucial period of her life; to discuss whether when an unemployed man dies his widow and orphans are to be entitled to the meagre pension and children's allowances; and to decide when the old age pension is to cease to be a right.
    That is what Clause 1 contains, and it is suggested that an hour of the time of

    225
    the Committee to discuss whether that Clause shall stand part of the Bill is too long, and that if I consume 10 minutes of it I am engaged in obstruction. I sat here for the best part of a month while the Finance Bill in all its stages was going through the House. I knew that it was a sham fight from start to finish, and I never intervened in the Debates. Months were devoted to tariffs and Free Trade and to the minutiae of the Finance Bill. Everybody knew that no concessions were to be made and that in its main structure the Finance Bill would not be altered. Now I am told that I am obstructing if I spend 10 minutes fighting to get old men the right to a miserable 10s. a week, if I spend a few minutes trying to show the Committee the enormity of the thing that the Government are proposing, and if I try to get over to the women of the Sutton division that their Member thinks that this is a joke, thinks that the taking away of maternity benefit is a joke, and thinks that the taking away of widows' pensions is a subject for laughter, and, when challenged on it, tries to be rude. I shall get some of that over to the people of the Sutton division. I will go to the Sutton division and a few other places and tell them directly what their Members did and what their vote was. It can be called obstruction if you please, but this Bill is the first Measure in this Parliament about which I have felt sufficiently strong to use every step that is available to me to prevent it from becoming law.
    We are here doing a thing that is mean. It is the class war in its crudest, ugliest and meanest form. It is the rich trying to save themselves at the expense of the very poor. In addition to being mean, it is absolutely and insanely foolish and stupid to think that a contemptible Measure of this description will have any effect whatever on the industrial and commercial position of the nation. Nobody believes that for a minute. I know the Minister of Health and I know his Parliamentary Secretary. The Minister has roamed the world and studied problems of finance in every corner of the globe. When he sat on the Liberal benches he could hold the House for long periods while he made clear and simple expositions of intricate financial problems. Is he going to tell me that this
    226
    Measure is imposed by the actuarial exigencies of the moment and that his knowledge and the knowledge of his officials was not sufficiently great to meet all the balance sheet difficulties which he suggests are so terrible to-day? He says that we do not want this fund to get into the terrible state in which the Unemployment Insurance Fund has got. We have heard a tremendous lot about the debt on the Unemployment Insurance Fund. It amounts to something like£120,000,000 accumulated over a period of 12 years. The£7,000,000,000 War Debt was accumulated in four and a-half years, and the interest payments on it are just about three and a-half times the total capital debt of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Now we are told we cannot discuss that£7,000,000,000. It is too big for us; it involves big vested interests, so we must not discuss it.
    The CHAIRMAN: We certainly must not discuss it now.
    Mr. MAXTON: I was trying to reply to the arguments of the Minister. Is it not usual when a Minister uses certain arguments in support of a Clause for a Member of the House to be allowed to use counter arguments in suggesting that the Committee should reject the Clause?
    The CHAIRMAN: I only gave the hon. Member a slight warning, of which I hope he will take note.
    Mr. MAXTON: I recognise that the question of how the War Debt should be handled is not a subject for discussion on Clause 1 of this Bill, but when the Minister uses the argument of the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the debt that has accumulated on it, I must point out, in reply, that he is putting things in an entirely wrong perspective. If the debt is the over-riding consideration in compelling the Government to take steps against the poor and the sick people, against the widows and mothers, and against the aged. I say that the holders of War Loan, the big investors, are fitter foes for the right hon. Gentleman's sword and for his intellect. Face up to the people with the£7,000,000,000. Apply your brains to see how that foe is to be beaten rather than put all the power that you have as individuals and as a Government to take shillings away from sick women and old men.
    Sir H. YOUNG 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, 314; Noes, 45.

    Division No. 233.]

    AYES.

    [5.27 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Knight, Holford

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Curry, A. C.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quintan

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Albery, Irving James

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

    Lees-Jones, John

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Denville, Alfred

    Levy, Thomas

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Lewis, Oswald

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolle

    Dickie, John P.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Donner, P. W.

    Llewellin, Major John J

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Doran, Edward

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Drewe, Cedric

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Dunglass, Lord

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence B.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Mabane, William

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

    Balniel, Lord

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Elmley, Viscount

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    McKeag, William

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Essenhlgh, Reginald Clare

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorke., Skipton)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    McLean, Major Alan

    Blaker, Sir Reginald

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Blindell, James

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Boulton, W. W.

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Maitland, Adam

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Makins Brigadier-General Ernest

    Bracken, Brendan

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Meller, Richard James

    Buchan, John

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Miller, Sir James Duncan

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Graves, Marjorie

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Burghley, Lord

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Milne, Charles

    Burnett, John George

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw-

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

    Hales, Harold K.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

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

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Morris, John patrick (Salford, N.)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Morris, Ryes Hopkin (Cardigan)

    Carver, Major William H.

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Munro, Patrick

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hartland, George A.

    Nation, Brigadier-Generral J. J. H.

    Cazalet, Capt, V. A. (Chippenham)

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F.A.

    Nicholson Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Champman,, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Headerson Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Normand, Wilfrid Guild

    Champman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    North Captain Edward T.

    Chrolton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Nunn, William

    Christie James Archibald

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    O' Neill, Rt. Hon Sir Hugh

    Clarke Frank

    Hornby, Frank

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Horsburgh, Florence

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Palmer, Francls Noel

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Patrick, Colin M.

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

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Pearson William G

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Peat, Charles U.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Perkins, Walter

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Petherick, M.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Peto, Geoffrey k. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Copeland, Ida

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Janner, Barnett

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Cowan, D. M.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Potter, John

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Mertoneth)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Pybus, Percy John

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Ramsden, E.

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Thorp, Linton Theodora

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

    Slater, John

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Remer, John R.

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    White, Henry Graham

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Stevenson, James

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Storey, Samuel

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Womersley, Walter James

    Salt, Edward W.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Wragg, Herbert

    Scone, Lord

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

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

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Thompson, Luke

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Sir George Penny and Lord Erskine.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

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

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Maxton, James

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, George Henry

    Milner, Major James

    Briant, Frank

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Buchanan, George

    John, William

    Price, Gabriel

    Cape, Thomas

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

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Thorne, William James

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Kirk wood, David

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Edwards, Charles

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    McGovern, John

    Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. Groves.

    Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

    Division No. 234.]

    AYES.

    [5.38 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.

    Bracken, Brendan

    Christie, James Archibald

    Albery, Irving James

    Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

    Clarke, Frank

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Briant, Frank

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Broadbent. Colonel John

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Astor. Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Buchan, John

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Conant, R. J. E,

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Burghley, Lord

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Burnett, John George

    Cooke, Douglas

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Cowan, D. M.

    Balniel, Lord

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar

    Carver, Major William H.

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Barton, Capt, Basil Kelsey

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. H. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Blaker, Sir Reginald

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Blindell, James

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenhara)

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

    Boothby, Robert John Graham

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Boulton, W. W.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A.(Birm., W)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

    Denville, Alfred

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 306; Noe3, 45.

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Donner, P. W.

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Doran, Edward

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Drewe, Cedric

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd, Gr'n)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Mabane, William

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Elmley, Viscount

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Salmon, Major Isldore

    Erskine-Boltt, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Salt, Edward W.

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    McLean, Major Alan

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Scone, Lord

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Maitland, Adam

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Makins, Brigadter-General Ernest

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    Meller, Richard James

    Slater, John

    Goff, Sir Park

    Millar. Sir James Duncan

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Milne, Charles

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Grattan-Doyle Sir Nicholas

    Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw-

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Graves Marjorie

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Guy. J. C. Morrison

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

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Stevenson, James

    Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Munro, Patrick

    Storey, Samuel

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

    Stourton, Hon John J.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Hartland, George A.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Normand, Wilfrid Guild

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Nunn, William

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd gt, n, S.)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Thompson, Luke

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Hornby, Frank

    Palmer, Francis, Noel

    Thorp, Linton Theodore.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Touche Gordon Cosmo

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Pearson, William G.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

    Peat, Charles U.

    Turton Robert Hugh

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Petherick, M.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(Wverh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Potter, John

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Procter, Major Hentry Adam

    White, Henry Graham

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

    Pybus, Percy John

    Whiteeslde, Borras Noel H.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Williams, Charles (Devon Torquay.)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Ramsay, T. B.W. (Western Isles)

    Wills, Willfrid D.

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Ramsded, E.

    Winder-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Knatchbull Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Ratcliffe Arthur

    Womersley, Walter James

    Knight, Holford

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Woods, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Wragg, Herbert

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

    Young Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Lees-Jones, John

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Yong, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Reid William Allan (Derby)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Remer, John R.

    Lewis, Oswald

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Sir George Penny and Lord Erskine.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Daggar, George

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Batey, Joseph

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Buchanan, George

    Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Cape, Thomas

    Edwards, Charles

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

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    232

    233

    Hirst, George Henry

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Jenkins, Sir William

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Wallhead, Richard C

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

    McGovern, John

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Kirkwood, David

    Maxton, James

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Milner, Major James

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Lawson, John James

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Leonard, William

    Price, Gabriel

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Lunn, William

    Thorne, William James

    Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment of provisions with respect to transfer values and reserve values.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I do not think the Committee will part with Clause 2 without having obtained one or two explanations from the Minister. The Clause is concerned with transfer values and reserve values. Of all the technicalities connected with this Bill, this is probably the greatest of all. I will not attempt to go into the details, but I will touch upon one or two broad principles embodied in this Clause, and, if the Committee will bear with me, I will try to indicate how much depends upon this Clause, because it is the means whereby the whole of the financial arrangements set out in other Clauses are to be dealt with. The Committee will probably understand the position when I say that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Burghs (Mr. Lloyd George) established his scheme in 1911–12, he created what is called a book credit of approximately£80, 000, 000. That sum was to be wiped out by way of a redemption from contribution income over a period of about 60 years. Whenever the Ministry of Health has found itself in any difficulty with regard to the finances of this scheme, it has adopted the practice of extending the period of redemption, and in extending the period of redemption the Ministry has been able to get over a large number of financial difficulties connected with the scheme.
    In this Clause, they are adopting a method of dealing with the various changes in the financing of the scheme, and I am going to put one or two questions to the Minister that have occurred to me. There are, in connection with the scheme, the contingencies fund, the central fund, the reserve suspense fund and reserve values. In this Clause there is an indication of what is going
    234
    to happen. We are entitled to ask the Minister to show those of us who do not understand high finance and the very technical problems connected with reserve values, contingencies and redemption and so forth, exactly what Clause 2 in simple language means. That, I feel sure, will help the Committee. Everything connected with the scheme turns upon what the actuary has done. On more than one occasion he has adopted certain systems of getting over difficulties by rearranging his actuarial calculation. The Committee ought to appreciate that there are means sometimes of getting over insurance difficulties by altering the actuarial basis of the scheme. I do not mean that the actuarial basis is fundamentally altered by Clause 2, but it does affect the problem with which I am dealing. This is what the Actuary says in his Memorandum, in paragraph 2 of page 2, and this is all we get:
    "There are no means of estimating closely what will be the number of such persons in 1933, but it is believed that it may be put at approximately 80, 000."
    These are the persons referred to in Clause 1. Then he goes on to say:
    "On this assumption the cost, exclusive of State grant, of providing medical benefit for this class in the year 1933 is approximately£50, 000, and, as provided by Clause 2, this amount is to be obtained by reducing the transfer values payable to the reserve suspense fund in respect of the persons concerned on the cessation of their title to medical benefit."
    It will indeed be very interesting to hear from the Minister what is actually the meaning of "reducing the transfer value payable to the Reserve Suspense Fund." That is to say, there is a value which the actuary puts upon the insured person for this purpose. There is not of necessity any money transaction in connection with fixing the reserve value of an insured person. It is proposed, I understand, to reduce mentally and to put on paper the actual reserve value for the purpose of making these complicated changes. Therefore, we are entitled to ask the

    235
    Minister to be good enough to explain to us a little more clearly what it all means. The Memorandum from which I have read was the Memorandum of the Ministry itself, and will, I think, be more accurately drawn than if the Minister had himself actually drafted every word of that complicated document. I accept every word that he said this afternoon that, although he must accept responsibility for the Memorandum, he did not of necessity pen the words that are in it.
    Let me see what the Memorandum says with regard to this problem. The Committee will always remember that we are dealing in Clause 2 with the finances covering the persons referred to in Clause 1. This is what the Minister says —this is apart, of course from what the actuary says, and I must confess that it is a little plainer and in more lay language—on page 5, the third paragraph down:
    "The Bill provides for the extension of insurance until 31st December, 1933, of persons who would otherwise, by reason of prolonged unemployment, cease to be insured before that date. The pensions rights of such persons will be fully protected, and under Health Insurance they will be entitled to medical benefit."
    There are some persons in the next Clause who will not be entitled to medical benefit, but I am not dealing with that Clause at the moment. This is what the Minister says about Clause 2:
    "The cost of providing that benefit will not be met from the Exchequer"—
    He need hardly have told us that, because the Exchequer told us long ago that it had decided to wipe its hands, so far as it could, of financing this scheme. It is almost worth while setting those words to music for grand opera purposes, because it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Tory Government of 1926 that took away from this fund£2, 750, 000 per annum, and almost destroyed the actuarial principles of the scheme.
    The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on Clause 2.
    Mr. DAVIES: I knew, after making that statement, that I should not be likely to be allowed to proceed. I was suggesting that it was almost time somebody put into music for grand opera purposes what the Minister says with regard to Clause 2:
    236
    "The cost of providing that benefit will not be met from the Exchequer"—
    I hope that is clear to every Member of the House. If necessary, I will return to that point later on, in order to emphasise it to the full. He continues:
    "but in consideration of any extra liability that may be imposed on their funds, Approved Societies will be compensated by means of an adjustment of the transfer values which fall to be transferred to the Reserve Suspense Fund on members ceasing to be insured."
    6.0 p.m.
    I want to know whether, in handling the reserve value of any one of those 80, 000 persons, those persons are going to benefit by affecting the reserve values of other members of the approved societies, or is the adjustment going to be made in respect of the reserve value of each one of those persons? Let me put it thus: If there is not enough money to make up the ledger account in respect of one of those 80, 000 persons, is the actuary going to increase the reserve value in order to make up any deficiency, and to balance the account? Suppose that the reserve value of an insured person is£10. The reserve value is a made value. It is only redeemed from contribution income over each year. Is the Ministry going to appreciate the£10 into£12, in order to get over any difficulties in connection with adjustments on this Clause? I have put one or two problems to the Minister. He knows very much more about it than I do. In any case, he can refer to his brief if he cares to do so, because I am sure he is provided with full information on the subject. I conclude by saying that we are not satisfied with this Bill. We have fought almost every line of Clause 1 and as Clause 2 is the financial pivot upon which all the provisions turn in relation to Clause 1, we shall be compelled, unless we get a very clear and satisfactory reply from the Minister, to oppose this Clause as well. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to explain, in as simple language as he can, exactly what Clause 2 means, and also the provision as to the year. The year 1933 is stipulated in Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, and I should like very much to know what there is sacrosanct about the year 1933 as regards this Clause, rather than 1935 or 1940.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I will try to give the hon. Member the explanation which he requires, but which, if I may say so, he

    237
    appears to me not to need, for I should like to congratulate him upon his perfect acquaintance with the very difficult matter of reserve values, and the very clear account of them which he has given to the Committee, and upon which, indeed, I can hardly hope to improve. Perhaps, however, it may be assistance to the Committee if I say that this Clause is simply and solely concerned with the finding of finance for the concession of the extension of one year's medical benefit to persons who would otherwise be out of that benefit at the end of 1932. That is what, for the sake of convenience, we call the medical benefit year, which is given as a concession—the extension of insurance rights from the end of 1932 to the end of 1933. This Clause provides for the finding of the money for that concession, and that is the sole purpose of the Clause. The amount involved is about£50, 000.
    The hon. Member asked for an explanation of the actual machinery by which that finance is found. Under our insurance scheme benefits and contributions balance only in the case of those who come into insurance at the age of 16. In the case of anyone who comes into insurance at an age over 16, the prospective benefits exceed the prospective contributions, and, in order to make the scheme solvent, the approved society which accepts such a person has to be credited with a sum which is called the reserve value. On his entry into insurance, the society is credited with that reserve value, which is an asset to meet the deficit.
    When the person goes out of insurance, the reserve value which has been credited to his approved society is, naturally, transferred back, if there is any of it left. In the case of persons who will go out of insurance at the end of 1933 in the normal course, their reserve values will be transferred back from their approved societies. In order to finance the year of extended medical benefit, for which no funds are otherwise available, it is proposed to reduce the amount of reserve value which is transferred back from the approved societies. The approved societies will retain a part of the transferred value, and, their assets being thus increased, they will be able to meet the additional liability of the medical benefit year. The fund to which the transfer values are put is called the reserve
    238
    suspense fund. Owing to the reduction of the value transferred, the reserve suspense fund will receive a smaller sum, and, as a consequence, the period of redemption of reserve values will be slightly increased. The approved societies will experience an advantage in being able to retain an asset which enables them to meet their medical benefit liabilities, and the disadvantage will be borne by the reserve suspense fund in a reduction of the amount. The hon. Member asked me whether there is a separate account for each individual, or whether it is spread over other persons. The answer is that the adjustment is made in the transfer value of the individual. With this explanation, I hope the Committee will see that there is nothing contentious about the Clause, and will be prepared to pass it.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I should like to raise one or two points which still appear to me to need some explanation. I confess that, unlike the hon. Member who opened the discussion on this Clause, I am not quite able to follow the technical details and ramifications, and I am obliged to the Minister for the clear exposition that he has given of the Clause; it has helped us considerably to understand this matter. He has put before us one or two points which I must confess I now appreciate for the first time, and I thank him for his clear explanation. He said that, in the case of each person who is over the age of 16 on joining, a certain sum is credited to a fund known as a reserve value fund. I should like to ask how the calculation is made of the amount which is set against each person. Is it based upon the person's age? A person joining at the age of 21 is, naturally, a much more valuable "life" than a person joining at 40; is there a scale?
    The second point about which I am not quite clear is as to who provides the reserve value fund. Does, it come from the Government, or do the approved societies provide it out of their own. funds? Perhaps the Minister would make it clear who actually provides the fund, and by what means it is financed. There is also another point. The Minister says that this Clause is for one purpose, namely, to pay for the extra cost of medical benefit which will be given to these people, covering the sum of£50, 000.

    239
    I understood him to say yesterday that he intended to give another extra year as a concession, and, when he was asked if he had any extra money left, he replied that, by searching and scraping, he had got another£50, 000 for an extra year's sickness benefit. I understood that that was a year extra beyond what is provided in the Bill—
    Sir H. YOUNG: Medical benefit.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes; I understand that the Clause is solely for the provision of medical benefit. Where is the Minister going to get the funds? Under what Clause, if this Clause does not cover it, will the extra year which he promised yesterday be provided for? Yesterday he told us that he had been able to get, for what he termed the first benefit that ought to be chargeable, a certain sum, by dint of searching, which would provide for the granting of an. extra year. This Clause covers the extra year given under the Bill as now drafted, and I understood from him that the year of which he spoke yesterday was an extra year in addition to that. Am I right?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Member. I think the two years that he has in his mind are really only the one year—the additional medical benefit year 1933, which is financed by Clause 2.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I thought, from my reading of the Minister's answer, that he intended to give these people one extra year's medical benefit in addition, that is to say, that he intended to extend the period given under the Bill to 1934 instead of 1933. I see that I have been mistaken as to the generosity of the Government. Who is actually paying for this extra year's medical benefit? The Minister said that each man is given a reserve value, and, so long as he is in the approved society, he is credited with it. If he becomes unemployed for a time, and at the end of that time is about to be passed out of insurance, the Government say that they want to keep him within the Act for medical benefit purposes, and, seeing that a number of people with reserve values have passed out, they will allow the approved societies to use those reserve values to pay the£50, 000 which is the estimated cost of the medical
    240
    benefit year. In other words, the people who are paying for this are not the approved societies or the Government, but the people themselves, because it is to come out of their reserve values which have not been used up. Their reserve values are not now needed, since they have passed out of insurance, and the Government come along and use their reserve values to provide another year of medical benefit.
    We have been told that the Minister has been generous, but what has happened in effect has been that some unemployed people have not used up their reserve values, and those reserve values have been taken from them in order to provide for other unemployed people having an extra year's medical benefit. As I see it, 80, 000 people may be affected by this proposal. I am not sure as to the number; perhaps the Minister could give us an approximate idea of the number of people who have reserve values. There must be a good number without reserve values, but there must be a number who have them, and perhaps the Minister could give us an idea of what it is. In the case of those who have reserve values, those reserve values are transferred to the approved societies, and they are going to use the money of unemployed people who have been out of work for a long while, to pay for other unemployed people who have not a reserve value at all. That is high finance. The funds of the society cannot pay. The Government cannot pay. The person who is to pay is the man who is now to be thrown out of insurance. You say, "We will take that value and provide you and the other unemployed with free medical attention."
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bridge-ton (Mr. Maxton) talked about the manipulation of finance and the rich making an attack on the poor. This manipulation seems to me to be about the worst I have yet known. The whole cost of giving the extra year's benefit comes from the reserve value of men and women who are put out of insurance entirely. The Minister estimates the cost at£50, 000. I should like to ask him how much he expects to get from the reserve values. Does he expect to get it all? If not, what is the sum that he expects to get? If he does not get it all from the reserve value, who is going to

    241
    make up the balance? Is the balance to come from the reserve fund created by the other insured contributors or, if not, where is it to come from? The Minister said this Clause was mechanism. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said that, unless he got a very clear explanation of what it meant, his party would divide against it. My own view is that the Clause must be divided against because it makes the medical benefit payable by these people in the main. I thank the Minister for his very detailed and fair explanation but the explanation only shows how bad the Bill actually is.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I will answer the hon. Member's questions as clearly as I can. First, what does the amount of reserve value depend upon? It depends principally on the age and the sex of the person who comes into insurance. How many persons are there with reserve value? Anyone who comes into insurance over 16. I have not the figure in my head but it can be ascertained from the National Health Insurance reports. Who finds the money for the reserve value? It is not necessary to find any cash for reserve value. It is a paper credit that is used in order to adjust the relation between capital and revenue account. This paper credit is converted into a cash credit over a period of years by application of a small part of the contributed income. What is the amount to be found for the purposes under discussion? A sum of£50, 000 is required. This sum will be found by means of an adjustment of part of these paper credits. Who will be actually paying for it? Not, as the hon. Member supposes, other insured persons with a transfer value. The only effect of the adjustment is to postpone for a period, short or long, the period required for the ultimate redemption of reserve values. What becomes of any balance that may be left of reserve value as a person finally goes out of medical benefit? If any, it will be transferred to the Reserve Suspense Fund.
    Mr. MAXTON: We have to thank the Minister very heartily for a very concise statement of the exact position. We gather now that this reserve value is not money or credit. It is a notion. It is a financial fiction, a figment of the imagination of the actuaries who are responsible for the solvency of the Health
    242
    Insurance Fund and, when they get the notion that it might be insolvent, they just take another notion and make it solvent. It seems to me that it is only a matter of adjusting ideas and the Government have no difficulty at all. I really feel that while the right hon. Gentleman's explanation was concise, and was delivered with a rapidity which? think must be unparalleled for any statement of the kind in the House, he really puts before us a very important consideration which the Committee has to take notice of. He suggests to my mind that there was no danger of insolvency at all or, on the other hand, that from the very beginning the fund was never solvent, because he has told us that no one who entered over the age of 16 was individually a solvent member of the fund unless he were credited with an amount not paid by him. If he came in over the age of 16, he was never contributing his proper quota to the general fund unless from the beginning, varying according to his age and entry, a credit was attributed to him by those who administer the fund. He, as an individual, would only contribute his quota to make the fund financially solvent if he was credited with something that he did not personally con-tribute. [Interruption.] I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would either stop shaking his head altogether or would make it more expressive, because it is most disquieting. His vertical nods and his horizontal nods always seem to me to come at an inappropriate moment. When I am expecting a vertical nod, I get a horizontal nod.
    The whole solvency of the fund from the beginning depends on reserve values which are credited to people entering over the age of 16, and now the right hon. Gentleman tells us that these reserve values, on which the solvency of the fund depends, are figments of the imagination. Here we are asked to pass this Measure so that in 1932 the fund may be made solvent, when the Minister by his explanation proves to us that it has been insolvent from the very beginning. This makes the situation infinitely worse, because we have been impressed with the fact that, working from a financial basis that we never accepted as of being sound, these sick people and aged people had to be deprived of some rights so as to secure financial solvency. Now we are

    243
    told that financial solvency, in so far as we ever have financial solvency, can be secured by book-keeping entries. We have always admitted that we are absolute tyros in this matter of finance. We do not grasp the details at all. But we always get the essentials, and the essential thing to us in this Clause is that put by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), that the unemployed man has a value even when he is unemployed over an extended period, and the financial solvency of the fund is to be maintained by making the reserve values of the unemployed men collectively support the benefits that particular unemployed men are going to be deprived of.
    6.30 p.m.
    The Minister said on an earlier Clause that there was going to be no reduction. Nothing was going to be taken away during this financial year. It is clear that benefits are to be progressively reduced and from this moment the policy that the individual insured person holds in National Health Insurance is to have a lesser value than it had before this Measure was introduced. The value, in each particular case, depends on certain contingencies arising and on certain dates being reached, but the individual value of a policy holder in National Health Insurance, from the date this Bill becomes law, is a thing of less value than it was before the Measure was introduced. The chances of getting an Old Age Pension are less, the chances of the widow and orphans getting their pensions or allowances are less. His chances of getting the amount of his sick benefit and medical attention and maternity benefit for his wife are being diminished by this Bill. The diminution of the value of the policy occurs on the day that the Bill becomes law. The Minister's defence is that we ought to be very grateful because they could have done a whole lot worse. The Measure could have been infinitely worse than it is. Everybody knows that every Measure which is brought into the House of Commons could be worse than it actually is. The whole machinery of Health Insurance could have been swept away. That would have been worse.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The hon. Gentleman is now delivering a speech against the Third Read-
    244
    ing of the Bill, and is getting beyond the Clause.
    Mr. MAXTON: No, Captain Bourne, I have a speech for the Third Reading as well. At the moment I am trying, as far as possible, to deal with what are really book-keeping entries. We were stupid enough to believe that money was going to change hands. We are now learning from the Minister not that money is changing hands, but that alterations are to be made in the figures in the books emanating from certain changes in the ideas which occupy the minds of the Government actuaries. The point I wished to make when you, Captain Bourne, thought that I was going beyond the scope of the Clause was simply that all this loss in value is taking place in respect of the unemployed sick man. I agree that it might have been worse. AS the Minister explains, it is eased in certain directions, but this fact is not due to any donation or additional Government contribution or to any additional effort on the part of approved societies, many of which are wealthy corporations. While these societies may not be making much in their approved society branch of the business, they are getting into positions which enable them to do lucrative business. I can think of one or two societies which are among the wealthiest financial corporations in this country. It is not they who are to stand the racket for the year of benefit to the unemployed man. It is not they who are going to find the£50, 000. The unemployed men themselves are going to contribute, so that there is a chance of pension, medical benefit, and maternity benefit being continued for a little longer than otherwise would be the case, and so that the actuarial conception, which has been the sound and sure foundation upon which the solvency of the National Insurance Fund has been built from the beginning, may remain unsullied and untarnished during the financial and industrial storm which the nation is supposed to be weathering just now.
    I am sorry that we have not a man in our ranks, and also that there does not seem to be one in any other part of the Committee with expert actuarial knowledge which he is prepared to put at the service of the poor. I am certain that anybody who knew this business from the inside could turn the Measure inside out

    245
    and make the Minister, his Department and his financial advisers the laughingstock of every one who knows anything about financial affairs. It is pitiable that there is not one of the 615 Members of this House with knowledge of this description. A doctor will put his skill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals said, at the service of the penniless sick without reward, and the lawyer will go into the courts and defend
    the poor client without any fee, but there is not one person with expert knowledge in the realm of finance prepared to stand up and defend the poor against an outrageous attack on the few miserable reliefs which are left at the present time.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 299; Noes, 44.

    Penny, Sir George

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)

    Templeton, William P.

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Patherick, M.

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Scone, Lord

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Potter, John

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Pybus, Percy John

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Slater, John

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Ramsden, E.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

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

    White, Henry Graham

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Reid, David D, (County Down)

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Remer, John R.

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Withers, Sir John James

    Rentoul Sir Gervais S.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Stevenson, James

    Wood, sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Storey, Samuel

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Robinson, John Roland

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Young, Ernest J, (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and Mr. Womersley.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

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

    Maxton, James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, George Henry

    Price, Gabriel

    Buchanan, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cape. Thomas

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

    Thorne, William James

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Kirkwood, David

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Daggar, George

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Edwards, Charles

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    McGovern, John

    Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    CLAUSE 3.—(Rates of sickness and disablement benefits.)
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Edward Williams.
    Sir H. YOUNG: On a point of Order. Before the hon. Member moves his Amendment, may I point out that there are three or four Amendments on the Order Paper all directed towards the same policy, that of raising the benefits above those allowed in the Bill. There is another Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp), which deals with a slightly different point. I would suggest, for the convenience of the Committee, that possibly it might be considered advisable to have a general discussion to enable the whole of the argument on this Clause to take
    248
    place on the first Amendment, on the understanding that subsequent Amendments could be moved and divided on, if necessary, when we had had the general discussion. That would enable us to obviate a further discussion on the other Amendments or on the Question, "That the Clause stand part."
    Mr. LAWSON: I do not know what objection there could be to discussing all the Amendments which raise the same principle, and afterwards taking the Divisions. That is a course of action that has been followed during these Debates, and it seems to me to have worked successfully.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am in the hands of the Committee, but it seems to me that it would be rather difficult on a discussion of the Amendment standing

    249
    in the name of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood)—to leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word "eleven"—to avoid references to the other reductions of benefit with which the Clause deals. If it is agreeable to the Committee, I would suggest that we should take a discussion on that Amendment, on the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies)—to leave out the word "five" and to insert instead thereof the word "six"—and the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter)—to leave out the word "six" and to insert instead thereof the word "seven." They all raise the same point. But if the Committee decide that the word "ten," and the word "five" stand part, the Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) could not be moved. The hon. Members would, however, be able to put their points in the general discussion. I think that general discussion would cover the principle and also the Question "That the Clause stand part," but the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) could be moved separately, as it raises a point not quite analogous with the other.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: On the Question, "That the Clause stand part," we want to raise a point which is not covered by any Amendment, and we should like to reserve to ourselves the right to do that. We have no objection to a general discussion of the Amendments taking place, provided that our right is safeguarded. On behalf of my friends and myself, I want to preserve our right to raise n point not covered by the Amendment.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I understood that the suggestion made from the Chair, for the assistance of the Committee, was that we should have practically an unlimited discussion on the principles of the Clause on the first Amendment to be moved, and I also gathered from what you said that it would be possible on that discussion, subject to your ruling, for hon. Members to raise any point relevant to the Clause. Therefore. I suggest that such matters
    250
    as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has in. mind could be raised in that general discussion without any difficulty, and that we should be well advised to accept your suggestion, that one discussion would do and that we should not need to have a repetition of the discussion on the question, "That the Clause stand part."
    Mr. MAXTON: Am I to understand— we want to be quite clear about the matter—that there is to be one general discussion on the question of what the rates of benefit are to be, that we are to discuss the reduction in the benefit for single women and the reduction in disablement benefit at the same time; that we are to discuss the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) and that we are to have a general discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part."?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not quite correct. The suggestion that I made was that on the first Amendment, standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Wakefield, we should have a general discussion which should cover not only the point that he has raised but any other points, that may arise on Clause 3. With the sole exception of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, a general discussion on the whole Clause should take place on the first Amendment. Therefore, the hon. Member for Gorbals would be in order and would be entitled to raise the point which he wishes to raise on that Amendment. But if a general discussion takes place in Committee it is on the understanding that there is no discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part." If that course is agreeable to the Committee, and it can only be taken if hon. Members are agreeable, we will take it, otherwise I shall have to keep hon. Members very strictly to the Amendments on the Order Paper, and I feel that that might not be convenient to individual Members as it would limit the scope of discussion very greatly.
    Mr. LAWSON: That suggestion meets our position. Our experience throughout these Debates has been that the suggestion you have made has been most successful, but we wish to make it clear

    251
    that we reserve the right to take a separate Division on each of the Amendments.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: So far as Divisions are concerned, that is clearly understood. The Amendments will be formerly moved and voted upon, if hon. Members so desire. I should like to know whether the arrangement to have a general discussion on the first Amendment is acceptable to the Committee. Will the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) say whether it is acceptable to him?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: We agree.
    Mr. MAXTON: I am not sure. We do not jump to our decisions quite so quickly as hon. Friends above the Gangway. I should have thought that it would be very difficult to get a detailed examination of this Clause on such a general discussion as you suggest. I should have thought that there would be points left undiscussed, because I can see that when a general discussion has been started it will crystallise round one particular item, and when the Minister thinks that a sufficient time has elapsed he will move the Closure.
    Mr. PIKE: The Clydeside do not want a monopoly of the discussion.
    Mr. MAXTON: While we never ask for a monopoly, we can always be sure of having our say on the few occasions that we mean to have it. To put it in a kindlier way than has been put by the hon. Member opposite, we can see clearly that points in which we are interested may be neglected in the general discussion. Therefore, we are doubtful whether to agree that the Question, "That the Clause stand part," should be passed without discussion.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: We will accept it, and trust that it will work out all right.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Bridgeton is agreeing or not.
    Mr. MAXTON: I can excuse you, Captain Bourne, for not knowing, because I do not know myself. I sat down to ask my hon. Friends whether they were accepting the proposal that you put to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) says that the
    252
    mind of our party is that we should accept it. Therefore, as an experiment, we accept.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, to leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word "eleven."
    7.0 p.m.
    From the discussions that we have had we discovered that the Minister says that these reductions are necessary in order to adjust the financial liability, in view of the high level of the claims. It is generally admitted that the claims of the women have been high, but we consider that to reduce the benefit from 12s. to 10s. is affecting the basic principle upon which the State insurance scheme is operated. That is the pooling of the resources of all the members. This principle of pooling applies, we know, generally to the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and in making any departure in this respect we say it is a direct attack that is being made for the first time upon this class of contributor. When my name was attached to this Amendment, I did not appreciate that it would be possible for me to discuss at length the general principles underlying the Clause itself, and for that reason I am not prepared to discuss them. I am glad, of course, that we are to have the privilege of doing so, but I shall leave that to some of my hon. Friends.
    I find in the next Amendment which stands in the names of my hon. Friends below the Gangway that they desire to insert the word "twelve" instead of "eleven." Speaking for myself, I would certainly support wholeheartedly such an Amendment, but I understand that it would, in fact, be technically out of order. I am advised that to insert the same figure, namely 12, as is already contained in the Act, would be technically out of order. I make that statement as an explanation for my support for "eleven" instead of "ten." It is essential that all Members should appreciate that we are not moving "eleven" in substitution of "ten" because we think that 11s. is adequate. We do not believe that the people who are involved in this reduction of the benefit are getting that which is adequate even to-day, namely, 12s. Perhaps it might be advisable if you, Captain Bourne, would give us a ruling on this matter, for personally I

    253
    would withdraw "eleven" and substitute "twelve" and support the next Amendment if you would rule that "twelve" can be substituted.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that to substitute "twelve" for "ten" would be to make this Clause read the same as the Clause for which it is being substituted. I think another figure for the one at present in existence must be put in.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: That entirely confirms the advice I have received. There are three reasons why we are moving this Amendment. The first is, because what is proposed is a sectional reduction of benefit which is contrary to the basic principle of the national scheme; secondly, because the reduction proposed would not diminish, as such, sickness among women, but would rather tend to increase it; and, thirdly, because though one has heard much, particularly in previous Debates, on unemployment benefit, about malingering and other allegations against the married woman in particular, even if some of those allegations could be substantiated there could still be no reason for penalising the many other women. We do not think that the 12s. which has hitherto been paid was really adequate to meet the case, and to reduce it to 10s. brings it to a point where a large number of women will be so affected by the reduced benefit that they will be dependent on the fund itself for a longer period of time. It is entirely uneconomic.
    I am amazed to find that in the last Division and in the Divisions which took place yesterday, supporters of the Government, apparently not concerned with the Debate at all, and not being in the House for more than a few moments intermittently, can flock into the Division Lobby like sheep to support anything that may be contained in this Bill regardless of the fact that they have had no explanation from the Minister or from any Member of the House in regard to it. The House itself is composed of people who have been advocating Protection for certain phases of industry. One has to presume there is some integrity in that advocacy. If one takes that as correct, they are not advocating Protection for the sake of the vested interests in which they may be concerned, but for the individuals engaged in the industry.
    254
    I have to take that as being a proper interpretation of their protestations. Here you have scores of thousands of women who are affected by this reduction, and who desire to be protected at this juncture. Under the previous Clause, there are 80, 000 unemployed persons directly affected. One would have thought that hon. Members who have been advocating Protection for certain industries, in a desire that the persons engaged in those industries should have continuity of employment, would have been concerned about those 80, 000 unemployed who are affected, and about these thousands of women who are affected by this Clause. I am hoping that supporters of the Government will try to square themselves and tell us why they have supported the other Clauses of the Bill which directly affect 80, 000 unemployed, and affect maternity benefit, sickness benefit and medical services. If they speak, as we hope, on this Amendment, I hope we shall have some explanation of how it is they voted in the other Divisions in the one direction and in this case they are likely, as I presume, to vote with us.
    Viscountess ASTOR: No.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The Noble Lady says "No." I am amazed to hear her say she is not likely to support us on a matter of this kind. Does she really think it is possible that the women who are affected by the Clause can live upon the sickness benefit provided in the Clause? If not, I am hoping she will support us in this Amendment, which is the maximum we are able to move. Those are the reasons for this Amendment. The Clause is a violation of the basic principle of the National Health scheme, and it vitiates the principle of pooling which must be applied not only in this regard if the scheme is to work successfully, but is now applied to the National Health Insurance Acts. We oppose the Clause on that ground. We oppose it, further, because we think it is inadequate and makes it impossible for people who are sick to have sufficient nourishment to enable them to return to work in anything approaching the physical condition we should like. We hope we shall have the support in the Lobby of other hon. Members and particularly of the lady Members. We have not heard one of the lady Members

    255
    participating in this Debate. We hope to hear at least one, and that they are prepared, not to go into the Division Lobby like a flock of sheep, but to voice their opinions on this matter. We trust that we shall have some explanation from lady Members in particular, as to the reasons for the way they voted on the First and Second Clauses.
    Miss PICKFORD: I hope before the time comes to vote on this Amendment or on whether the Clause stand part, we shall have a very full explanation from the Minister or from the Parliamentary Secretary as to why this very grave diminution in the benefit of one section of insured persons is necessary. I gather from the Memorandum which has been issued containing the actuary's account, that the position of the women's societies particularly is very grave because of the undue and unexpected sickness claims of the women. One asks, is that the fault of the women or is it the fault of the actuarial calculations which have been exceeded in the sickness claims? If it should be that it is the fault of the women or of any section of the women, then surely, by stricter administration and stricter certification, or if necessary by an Amendment of the original Act, the position of the other women could be secured?
    It was stated yesterday in the course of the Debate that the Government have no mandate for a Bill of this kind. If the National Government had a mandate for anything, they had a mandate for securing the resources of the nation and keeping the credit of the nation sound. It is impossible to keep the finance of a fund sound when benefits are being paid and no contributions are coming in. If hon. Members who sit on the Labour benches would like an explanation from me as to why I supported Clause 1, it was because it is impossible in a contributory scheme to go on paying benefits when there are no contributions. But it seems to me that this Clause stands in a somewhat different relation. If I understand it aright the reason why women's benefits are being reduced is not so much because of the loss of contributions but because of the unexpected amount of sickness claims. Their contributions are coming in but their sickness claims are greater than was anticipated.
    256
    I do not want in any way to diminish the seriousness of the position, but I think that it is worth while to look at the position of the approved societies as shown in the report of the Government Actuary on the Third Valuation. I agree that the position of women is relatively worse than that of men. The proportion of insured men entitled to additional benefits is still 88 per cent., while the corresponding proportion of insured women is only 38 per cent. It is also true that only 9 per cent, of the men have had to suffer a discontinuance of additional benefits while no less than 61 per cent, of the women are found in that position. But to refer to the report of the Government Actuary on the Third Valuation, I find that the great bulk of the women, nearly 3, 000, 000 out of a total of 5, 500, 000, are in societies which have a surplus but not a disposal surplus, and that only a relatively small number are in societies which have equal assets and liabilities, and that 233, 000 are in societies which are in deficiency.
    If you compare this with the position of men, you will find that the vast bulk of the men are in societies which have a disposable surplus, but that when you come to societies which are in deficiency you find that more than double the number of men are in these societies. That being the case I think we require from the Minister of Health a very full explanation why it is proposed to reduce the benefits for women while leaving the benefits for men exactly where they stand. If we consider the Actuary's Report with regard to men and women who are in societies which are in deficiency we shall find some rather striking facts. The Actuary points out, as would naturally be expected, that the greater number of men in societies which are in deficiency are in the coal mining industry, but, apparently, it is not due to the fact that the societies have less contributions coming in owing to excessive unemployment in that industry but to the fact that the sickness claims of these men are very high. Comparing the sickness claims of men in these societies the Actuary points out that the percentage of actual claims to expected claims was 138 for sickness benefit and 154 for disablement benefit. If you compare that with the sickness claims of women in societies in deficiency, the actual sickness claims were only 122

    257
    per cent, of the expected claims as compared with 138 for the men, whilst their actual claims for the disablement benefit are slightly higher—159 as compared with 154.
    Therefore it seems to me that the position requires considerable justification. It appears to be possible to carry this number of 488, 000 men in societies with deficiencies, whereas it is not possible to carry 233, 000 women. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment referred to the pooling of reserves and said that it was a principle of insurance. I agree with the hon. Member so far that this seems to be a ease where there should be some substantial pooling of reserves because it is clear that the reserves are there. It is easy if you take the Actuary's Report to pick out a few figures and items which are favourable to your case. It is impossible for me in the time I propose to take to bring out any more illustrations, but it is fair to take the Actuary's opinion on this matter. He concludes his report in this way:
    "While the position revealed by the third valuation is one of some complexity, its predominant feature is the magnitude of the aggregated surplus and the substantial additional benefits ensuring to a large proportion of the insured population … In many cases these benefits are still considerably greater than anything which was envisaged when the insurance scheme was framed."
    That is the Actuary's opinion on the conclusion of the third valuation. When the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance reported in the year 1926 those who signed the majority report, whilst supporting the continuation of the administration of the fund through the approved societies and supporting the inequalities in benefits up to a point, drew attention to this matter:
    "There remains in our opinion matter for serious consideration in the large gulf which now divides the most prosperous from the least prosperous societies as respects the standard of benefits which they are in a position to provide for their members."
    And they go on to say that:
    "It is not sufficient that justice should in fact be done; it is equally important that the public should realise that it is being done."
    In this matter already there is amongst those women who realise what is happening a grave feeling of injustice, and that feeling will be widespread when the
    258
    5, 500, 000 insured women who will be affected realise what is going to happen. I do not think that they realise it now. This Bill was so suddenly introduced and there has been such a short time between the Second Reading and the Committee stage that there has been very little time for the public to realise what is coming upon them, and, therefore, it is of the greatest importance that the Minister of Health should explain to the Committee if it is the case that no injustice is being done. The Royal Commission on National Health Insurance, while they supported, as I have said, inequalities in benefits because they felt it was for the encouragement of good administration and also stood for each society enjoying to some extent its own surplus, recommended that half of these surpluses should be taken in order that the various additional benefits should come to all contributors to the fund. If they advised that in the case of additional benefits surely they would have advised it still more when some people are to be deprived of the statutory benefits which so far they have enjoyed. It may be said that we were living in happier times in 1926, and that the surpluses were greater, but the principle of pooling reserves was also supported less than a year ago by the May Committee on National Expenditure, at a time when it could not be said that surpluses were enough or that we were living in happier times. May I read a short passage from that report:
    "While the income of the scheme as a whole is just about sufficient to finance a continuance of the present rate of expenditure (including any additional benefits that are being provided out of the surpluses of societies) notwithstanding the serious loss of contribution from unemployment, the separate financial units comprising the scheme are showing at each valuation increasing disparities. The richer societies are becoming able to increase their additional benefits still more and even in a few cases refund to their members their proportions of the contributions, whilst others at the other extreme are in increasing danger of being unable to maintain even the statutory rates of benefit."
    That danger is already upon us. That committee also recommended that:
    "A small element of pooling as between societies is already present in the working of the Central Fund. There is therefore no new departure of principle involved in a further measure of pooling and as long as it still leaves considerable variations in the rates of benefit offered by societies the ex-

    259
    pectations held out at the inception of the scheme are substantially met."
    They also say
    "The freedom of insured persons with favourable risks to form their own societies …. pushed to its logical conclusion is, however, destructive of national insurance in any field, and indeed strikes at the basis of all insurance namely, the pooling of risks."
    They did not necessarily recommend, as the Royal Commission, the pooling of surpluses. They pointed out that there were two ways in which the case could be dealt with. It could be dealt with by increased contributions to the Central Reserve Fund, which already provides for those societies which are in deficiency and which, presumably, will provide for the deficiency of those societies in which these 488, 000 men are, who will presumably draw their benefits from that fund. I suggest that there will be amongst the women contributors who form no less than one-third of the contributors to the fund a feeling of injustice if this position is not made abundantly clear to the Committee before we are asked to vote on this very serious Amendment to a very serious Clause.
    7.30 p.m.
    Women as a whole will be affected, but married women will be affected still more. It is suggested that their sickness benefit should be reduced by one-sixth, and their disablement benefit be reduced by no less than one-third. It will probably be argued that a married woman has a husband to support her, but every hon. Member knows of many cases where a married woman has continued her employment because the husband is out of work and she, therefore, has to take the position of bread-winner for the family. If she chooses to take that position, and also carries on her ordinary work as wife and mother and manager of the household, it is not unlikely that her sickness claims will be heavy because she has double the amount of work to do. We ask, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will explain to the Committee whether the pooling of resources has been considered, and, if it has, why it has been rejected? Has he considered the possibility of a further contribution to the central reserve fund, and has he explored every avenue for resources which are available before asking the Committee to vote for these grave diminu-
    260
    tions in benefit, which are going to bring hardship to no fewer than 5, 500, 000 contributors to the fund?
    Viscountess ASTOR: We have heard one of the clearest speeches on a very complicated subject that I have ever heard in this House, and we are very grateful that we have a Member of the stronger sex who can put things before us so clearly. I hope very much that the Government will take to heart what my hon. Friend has said. What I protest against is this: Why are we put into this position with hurried legislation? We have a National Government which ought to take a big national view, and if necessary do unpopular things. We all know that the Labour Government knew all about this matter, but they had not the courage to deal with it. We know all the difficulties of insurance, how complicated it is, and how the vast well-to-do societies are clinging to their surpluses like limpets. We do not blame them, but this is a time when a National Government has a perfect right to ask them to make some sacrifice before reducing the benefits to the most needy people in the whole community, the married women who are suffering and sick.
    I particularly object to this attack on married women, and women as such, under the Health Insurance scheme. We all know that, from a national point of view, the women contribute more than they take out. It is so in the ease also of old age pensions. When it comes to Health Insurance, we are told that the Government must reduce benefits for the reasons that have been stated by the last speaker. We have a right to know why it is that the Government cannot ask these societies to pay a farthing more per head per member to the central fund. If they did that there would be no need for these reduced benefits. If the point is that there is malingering—there might be a certain amount—this Clause does not help to do away with it. We women deplore the malingering. But malingering is not one of the stated reasons of the Clause. We have heard whispers about it, but it is never stated outright. Then why particularly women? Why not take the miners and the Welshmen, who are the worst offenders of all? There is a worse case against Welshmen than against married women. When there is a

    261
    crisis at sea the sailor's cry is, "Women and children first," for safety. The cry here is, "Women and children first," but to the point of letting them down.
    We resent it very much indeed, and I hope that the Government realise that the feeling of resentment among women is growing. [Interruption.] Members of the Labour party cannot say anything about it, because they brought in the Anomalies Act, the worst thing that has ever been done with women. [Interruption.] I will not talk with hon. Members who interrupt, because they are a lot of humbugs. They passed the Anomalies Act; they opened the sluice-gate of injustice on women. They can have nothing to say about it, but we have something to say. [Interruption.] Hon. Members in the Labour party will see more independence among women in this House than we have seen in the last 15 years among Labour women. Those Labour women would have lost their jobs if they had even winked against the Labour Government. They were not like sheep; they were like rabbits.
    I appeal to the Government. Every Member of the House knows that very many women do double work; they work at home as housewives and they work as breadwinners. I know there is the point of view that a married woman's place is in the home. Nine-tenths of the married women would like to have merely to keep a home, but very few of them can do that. There are now 1, 150, 000 married women in industry. Before the War the number was only 680, 000. The whole of industry has changed. Women are doing work which men used to do. Men are beginning to say that it was a bad day's work on. their part not to have stood up for women and not to have demanded that they should get equal pay for equal work with men. The fact that they did not stand up for women in that way has meant the pulling down of their own wages. That is the men's fault, and, above all, the fault of the trade unions. Now men are beginning to get a little of their own back. These women are in industry.
    When the Government get into a tight corner, it is not fair for them to put through this hasty legislation. They are putting many new Members into a very awkward position. Very few Members on the Government side seem to know
    262
    anything about this complicated question. There is a great deal of fear in it and a great deal of politics. The Government are frightened of some of the big approved societies, and no one more frightened than some hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench. I ask the Government to be courageous. National sacrifice is called for. Are the Government going to sacrifice the benefits of sick married women? Is that their idea? It is not mine, and it is not the idea of a vast majority of Members of the House. I cannot feel that the Government have done all that they might have done. They might have taken a little more time and might have asked for more, sacrifices from the more prosperous approved societies. Furthermore, they have no right to do this. It is wrong to ginger us up into this false position. We are not thinking about the political consequences, but about the health consequences, which are very serious.
    We have had the Minister of Health making most earnest pleas because of the high death rate among married women. We know that over 3, 000 married women die yearly in childbirth. It is one of the most dangerous occupations in the whole country. But the women who die in childbirth are not the tragedy so much as the women who have to go on working in fair weather and foul. Many hon. Members could quote heartbreaking cases. We are asked to reduce the benefits to these married women. If they are ill they need the benefits even more. If there is malingering, let us know it. Women do not want to defend that. But we do ask that the women should have justice and a little mercy. There is no mercy shown to the women in this Clause. There is feeling about it and there is going to be a great deal more of it. At the last election no one supported the National Government more than the women.
    We do not go as far as some hon. Members and say that we want non-contributory insurance, for we do not believe in it; but we do say that the whole purpose of this great National Insurance scheme is that the weak should help the strong— I mean that the strong should help the weak, and that the strong should not be brought down to the level of the weak. This is a great opportunity. The men who are healthy should help the women

    263
    who are weak and need their assistance. I hope that the Minister is not going to put us into an awkward position. I do not want to vote with Labour Members. If they had been in office the position would have been far worse than it is; there would have been no Bill and no money left anywhere. I ask the Government not to put us in the awkward position of having to vote 'with hon. Members on the Labour benches. I would not do it. But unless the Government give a promise that they will go more thoroughly into this question we certainly do not propose to back the Government on this Clause.
    Mr. McGOVERN: To the remarks on the Amendment which has been moved and which, we are discussing in a general sense, I want to add a word or two of criticism. I am rather amazed to hear in the speech of the Noble Lady sympathy with those who are being attacked. But the suggestion is made that she sees a way out, so that she will not be compelled to vote against things that are iniquitous and wrong. I do not care which Government or which party propose an Amendment. If it is right, and I have a sense that it is right, I am bound as an individual to support it. Therefore, I am rather sorry to have to say that the Noble Lady's speech, in my opinion, is a most dishonest method of pleading with the Government to do a thing that she knows they are not prepared to do, which she knows the Minister of Health has no authority to carry out, and then saying that she hopes she will not be put into a difficulty in voting. The Noble Lady has put herself into the difficulty. If she is going to support the Bill as it is drafted she should be honest about it. She should go into the Lobby and vote for that which she believes to be wrong, but keep the fact that it is wrong in her own mind and her own heart. She should refrain from expounding it to this Committee, thus showing the continual hypocrisy which exists in this Chamber, the hypocrisy of condemning by voice and approving by vote. That course is not to be admired, and, if the electors were paying proper attention to the votes and acts of their representatives, they would quickly end this Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde procedure which goes on in public life at present.
    264
    In this Bill, we are proposing to reduce benefits which are already admitted, on all sides, to be totally inadequate to deal with disablement and sickness among the people concerned, and in these reductions we are singling out the married women for special treatment. It is said that under every Government and in all legislation some people are singled out for special mention just as in war some are singled out for mention in despatches. During my two years in this House I have heard and have read in the Press continuous attacks on the married women in reference to this matter. One would think that to be a married woman was a crime which deserved to draw down virulence and antagonism in speech, writing and action from every section of the community. Because the Actuary has stated that benefits are being conceded which we cannot continue to pay we single out the married women in connection with this Bill.
    I have been amazed to hear from time to time in these discussions references to a consultative committee which is said to have approved of all these reductions and changes. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has several times asked for the names of the individuals who compose this consultative committee and the organisations which they represent. But so far as I have heard the Minister has not yet divulged that information. We are entitled to know because we are told that that consultative committee was unanimous in recommending these changes. We are entitled to know, representing the approved societies, the black list of working class representatives who have recommended to the Government and the nation that hardships should be imposed upon insured persons. We are entitled to show the working class organisations and the members of the approved societies what those recommendations are, and also the reasons of that consultative committee for their approval of such proposals. It has also been said during the discussion that these were members of the approved societies and not of the trade unions. I do not see why people should try to evade their responsibility in connection with this issue by any such subtle method. The approved societies represent the trade unions, and the people on that consultative committee represent the members of the trade unions who pay

    265
    weekly contributions both to their unions and to their approved societies in order that those very individuals should defend them in every field, whether it be that of health insurance or that of the ordinary struggles with the "boss class." Therefore, I think it is a bad thing to attempt to make hon. Members believe that the trade unions have no responsibility for the suggestions made in connection with these reductions.
    I have here a letter, which probably most hon. Members from Glasgow have also received, from an approved society. Even this Bill does not go far enough for this society, and I am rather sorry to find an approved society in the City of Glasgow with a completely working class type of membership, both in the ordinary insurance and in the National Health Insurance, sending out a document of this description and asking hon. Members to support it. The society is the City of Glasgow Approved Society, of 200, Bath Street, Glasgow. The late Lord Privy Seal, Mr. Johnston, was a director of that society, but I am told he is not now a director, and I hope that he is not, because it seems to me highly indefensible for any person to be connected with a board of directors which would issue an anti-working class document of this description. The letter is as follows:
    "My Committee of Management have given very careful consideration to the provisions of the above Bill, and I am asked to inform you that in their opinion the provisions relative to women are not adequate to meet the position. It has been OUT experience, particularly in the operation of the various Prolongation of Insurance Acts, that there has been a growing tendency on the part of female members when married to take advantage of the provisions of the above-mentioned Acts, alleging an intention to continue in employment which in many instances is very doubtful. It has been necessary to pay such members very large sums by way of sickness and maternity benefits, and, in our view, this class of member represents one of the principal causes of the abnormal sickness experience of recent years to which the Government Actuary has recently referred. It is under-Stood that an Amendment is to be moved in the Committee stage of the above Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the majority of the approved societies' organisation, regarding requalification for benefit by women on marriage. The Amendment is in the terms of the attached, and my committee ventures to hope that you will see your way to give it your support. I shall be glad to supply any further information on the subject that you may desire."
    266
    I do not propose to read the document attached to this letter, but I may give one or two of the suggestions which are made in it. It is suggested that a woman should only be given sickness benefit for six weeks in the 12 months following marriage.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is now anticipating the Debate which will arise later on a proposed new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). So far as his remarks relate to the reduction of benefit proposed under this Clause in respect of women he is in order, but it would be better not to anticipate the Debate on the proposed new Clause which deals with the status of married women.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: On the point of Order. It is quite true that a section of the argument of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) does bear upon the point to which you, Captain Bourne, have referred, but I submit that he is now dealing only with the point that this particular society wants to go even further than the Bill, and only to pay benefit for six weeks in the year to married women. I submit that he is perfectly in order in dealing with that point.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not wish to rule too strictly on this matter. I only wish to save the Committee from having arguments on this Amendment which are pertinent to the new Clause to be considered later, and, if the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) relates his remarks to the Clause now before the Committee, he will be in order.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I am willing to be guided by you, Captain Bourne, and I was condensing the suggestions made in this document in order not to take up too much time. I have no wish to discuss anything which is alien to the Amendment before the Committee but merely to point out that vicious as are the proposals of the Bill, some approved societies which carry a large number of working-class members, are goading on the Minister to go even further in his attack on the working class than he is prepared to go. Another of the suggestions is that medical benefit shall only be paid until 30th June or 31st December whichever

    267
    date is nearest to the 12 months following marriage. That suggestion comes from a society with, to my own knowledge—because I was for a time employed with these companies—a membership of which about 95 per cent, belong to the working class. In my estimation it is disgraceful for a document of that kind to come from such a source. I intend to pay no further attention to it and not even to reply to it.
    In connection with the Actuary's Report we are continually told that the benefits dealt with in this Clause are benefits which cannot be continued. I have nothing to say against the Actuary who was appointed by the House of Commons to go into this most difficult question. He was asked to report on the position of the fund and the probability of continuing these payments and benefits, or in the alternative to state what changes he thought should take place. He analysed the position and made certain suggestions to the Government of the day and we have this Bill as the result. I cannot agree that the changes will be beneficial to the health of the people who are affected. Take the reduction of disablement benefit to women from 7s. to 5s. per week. Are we to understand that the gulf could not be bridged in any other way than by this reduction of 2s. a week? I think I would have exhausted every single idea that could be put into the pool by every Member of the House of Commons before I would have suggested such a reduction.
    8.0 p.m.
    Take the case of a woman who has 7s. a week as an insured person, and she is at the stage where the disease is chronic. She is being reduced to 5s. a week. We know that that cannot keep any person, and neither can 7s., but we are worsening the position to a considerable extent, and if you reduce the benefits paid to the women, it means that malnutrition will be more likely, and you cannot evade your obligations in this way. If a person is ill and the disease is chronic, that person is in more need of special treatment than at any previous period of her life, but instead of maintaining the benefits that were being paid, totally inadequate as they may have been, we are making a further reduction. In our hospitals in Glasgow we pay out of public funds more per day than 5s.
    268
    to keep an individual who is ill, which means that if an individual happens to be an inmate of an ordinary hospital, suffering from a disease, we keep her at the rate of something like£2 10s. per week, and when she comes out of the institution, after having been improved to a certain extent, we dump her back into the outside world on the miserable pittance of 5s. per week. Yet we call ourselves a Christian nation, and the Members of this House open the proceedings each day by saying a prayer.
    These decisions are vicious in the extreme against the women of this country. I am sorry to see the small attendance here for this discussion, which affects, taking the whole of the Bill, 17, 000, 000 insured persons. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is dinner time!"] It must be dinner time all day here, because I never see a much larger attendance than we have now, unless tariffs, beer, or Sunday cinemas are being discussed, which do not matter for the working-class at all. We have a poor attendance here, but we shall have a large attendance when it comes to the Division Lobby. I protest against the reductions that are being suggested in this Bill. The people who are being attacked in this Clause are the people who are least able to surrender anything to the nation. You have them down in the gutter in the very depths of poverty and despair. They are people suffering from disease, and it is my belief that when a person is suffering from any kind of ailment or disease, that person should be singled out for the whole sympathy and support of the nation. Instead of that, we have the whole nation almost, under the guise of a National Government, making fierce attacks and onslaughts upon these women, who are the very backbone of our nation, and you have selected the married women again for the attack. In the late War it was the single men against the married men. Now it is the married women against the single women. The position is reversed in sex, and it is also reversed in connection with the married as against the single.
    I am sorry to see that the only apology for this change that the Minister of Health can put up continually is that the actuary has suggested that the fund cannot bear the strain. We ought to have exhausted the whole of our efforts to pro-

    269
    tect this section of the community who most need support. The duty of the Minister is similar in character to that of the medical officer of health in any given area. I was a member of the health committee in the city of Glasgow, and the medical officer of health there came down, rightly and properly, to his convener from time to time and said: "Here is the amount of money that is required to provide for the health of the people in this area." When they took any disease, we did not consider the cost. They were taken into an institution and treated by the medical men; their relatives were paid relief of some kind outside, and sustenance, and the whole of the resources of the area were concentrated on the one purpose of bringing these people back to health and maintaining those under their charge while they were suffering.
    We have now departed from that method, but the duty of the Minister should be to say to the nation and to the Cabinet, "A certain amount of money is required, small as it may be, to pay these benefits to those who are suffering from sickness and disease, and I must have that money." You can cut down your armaments, you can cut down your profligate expenditure in many ways, you can cut down the vast salaries which have been paid to the Cabinet in this country, you can cut down the allowances given to the descendants of those who fought in wars hundreds of years ago, but you ought to have searched every possible avenue and field before you came here to make the suggestion to the nation that, instead of being a Minister for health, you are a Minister for disaster and disease, or the Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) suggested yesterday, of death. It is a new part of the Minister of Health's duties to make suggestions for reducing the health of the insured persons instead of for improving it, and I view with alarm the proposals that are being made under this Clause. They ought never to have been made in any shape or form.
    The toleration that this Committee has shown at the attendance at these Debates of Members of the Cabinet, and especially the Prime Minister, has been amazing to me. If there is one man who is playing a cute game in all this attack
    270
    on the working class, it is the Prime Minister of this country, Before very long, when the House reassembles after the Recess, we shall have been returned for 12 months since the General Election without his presence at any very important Debate during that period, yet in his name all these attacks are launched on the working class. The man who is supposed to have stood against the attacks that were being made on the workers at other periods is now part and parcel of the game of plunder and murder on the workers of this country. I am sorry to see that he is associated with it, and I am sorry also to see the poor attendance here to-night. If tariffs were being discussed, we should have the House packed out at every end, but in dealing with these insured persons we have the meagre attendance of 30 or 40 Members, and the apology is given from time to time that this is an urgent national necessity.
    To us, this is one of the few important periods in the history of this Parliament up to date, and we intend to make full use of this period to point out to the workers of the country the attacks that are being made in this most vicious and cruel manner. I say that the Minister of Health is a cold, cruel, and callous individual of the worst kind, who ought not in any shape or form to be part and parcel of this attack. He is simply carrying out a duty for the monetary consideration that he receives, a duty that he knows ought not to be supported by any person calling himself a man.
    Mr. LOGAN: On a point of Order. Is it the convention of this House of Commons that during the period of the last two hours there should be a number less than 40 in the Chamber and no Member has the right to call attention to it? If I have the right, I wish to call attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member should look at the Standing Orders. He has no need to refer to me.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and, 40 Members being present—
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Surely we are going to have some reply from the Minister. I understood that we were discussing a number of Amendments. Two things stand out characteristically, and one is

    271
    that nobody on the Front Opposition Bench above the Gangway has spoken on this question of sickness benefit to women, and they were going to dispose of it now without speaking, following one short speech, and the Minister not having replied. The question was being put from the Chair, or I should not have risen, but I will reserve my remarks till later if we can get a reply. Am J not to get a reply?
    Sir H. YOUNG Sir H. YOUNG indicated assent.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I would have preferred to speak later, but I rose now because I thought that no reply was to be made. I had no intention of speaking yet, because I thought both Front Benches would have made a contribution on this question of sickness benefit to women. Instead, we have had a short speech from one Labour Member, lasting for less than 15 minutes, and I think we should at least have had some statement from the previous Minister of Health. I did not think the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Ehys Davies) would have spoken, because of his speech, regarding which I refreshed my memory to-day by reading it, in connection with sickness benefit at the last insurance congress of the approved societies at Scarborough, when he gave the idea that he favoured some form of dealing with married women and the problem of maintaining the married women who were sick. I did not expect from him any criticism, but I did expect from some Member on the Front Opposition Bench a statement on this question. We who sit on this Bench below the Gangway are not surprised at anything being done to married women now.
    I listened to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams), who moved this Amendment, and who is a Member for whom I have a great deal of respect. He twitted lady Members belonging to other sections of the House for not voting on other Amendments but hoping to vote on this. I join with him in asking not only women Members, but everybody who has any sense of equity and justice, to vote for this Amendment. I was looking forward to listening to some Member of the Labour party state the case of the party against this proposal, because, whatever they may say against it, they cannot make the case which was made
    272
    by a lady Member in this discussion, that married women were not intended to be differently treated. They have accepted the principle in the case of Unemployment Insurance that married women should be treated as a class apart from the rest of the community. As the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) said, one would think nowadays that a woman became a criminal when she got married. I remember during the Debates on the Anomalies Act that an hon. Member called me a megalomaniac because I dared to attack the Government for taking away benefits from married women. A Labour Member for a Welsh Division said yesterday that the Anomalies Act was a cruel Measure in that it took every penny of unemployment benefit from married women, and I was looking forward to some defence of this attack on married women from the Opposition Front Bench to-day. However much we may regret the action of the last Government, the Anomalies Act was a brutal Measure forced on them by bankers and reactionary leaders of the party.
    I want to raise now the same issue that I raised in the discussion, on the Anomalies Act with regard to the different treatment of married women. I was called many names because I argued that a woman could have as many children as she liked, but, provided she did not go through a form of marriage, she was not treated as if she were married. I know of a case of two sisters in Dundee. One is living with a married man and has three children. She is getting benefit. Her sister, a decent woman, is married and has no children. She is refused benefit because she is married. There may be something in modern ideas with regard to men and women, and there may be virtues in not being married, but I am old-fashioned. Now we say, by the Anomalies Act and by this Bill: "Do not get married, but live with a married man; do not commit the crime of marriage, for, if you do, we will come down with a heavy hand and deprive you of benefit." I can see some virtues in being a single man or a single woman, but I cannot see many virtues in cohabitation. Because a woman carries out a law—not a law in the ordinary sense, but a law of nature that people accept because it creates a decent standard in life—she

    273
    is to be punished. One of the defences for depriving married women of benefit is that they make excessive claims. You have, however, to prove not only that they do that, but that the use to which they put the money is wrong. I maintain that of all people who spend their money well, the average married woman is the best, and I know of nothing that is put to better community use than the benefits that are paid to married women.
    I could understand the Government saying that men and women, married or single, were getting benefit and not putting the money to a decent use; in other words, that they were abusing the money that they were drawing as benefit. I could understand the Government saying that, but there is no charge that married women do not use the benefit for its legitimate purpose, namely, to help them to recover from sickness. The charge is simply that they are married. It is said that marriage increases sickness. I do not deny that marriage increases both sickness and unemployment. We cannot separate the problem of unemployment from that of sickness, and the reason that unemployment is greatest among married women, although they want work, is that a large number of firms refuse to employ them because they are married. I have a relative in the medical profession, and he tells me that among the working class women are entering marriage in spite of unemployment, and this entails a great deal of physical and mental strain, many of the young women having been taken from comparative comfort into the home of a man who possibly loses his work shortly after marriage. Such conditions in early married life have a serious mental effect which is much more potent than in later years.
    I shall always remember a young chap who used to work with me at the other side of the bench getting married. His wife was a girl who had never been unemployed, who was a steady worker in the co-operative movement. A fortnight after his marriage he was sacked, and for a month afterwards he used to leave home every morning as if to go to his work rather than have to tell his newly-married wife what had happened. All this widespread unemployment must have a serious effect upon the peace of mind
    274
    of many women in the early years of married life, when the child is known to be coming, because those women are carrying a greater burden than any man can carry, the burden of a child. Those are the people we are attacking. The chief brunt of the attack is on the newly-married woman; but the House ought to be careful to see that people entering on married life get a decent chance. I live among the poorest people, and I know that some of our folk can get round things—they are used to poverty, and they manœuvre and work round things; and what I hate is to see how we punish the decent ones among them, as we say in Scotland, "the unco' guid," the woman who gets married and says "I am going out to work in order to try to give my children a better chance than I had." Then we come down here and say, "Sickness money—no; unemployment benefit money—no." I hate the idea of punishing those whose only crime is that they are trying to be decent.
    8.30 p.m.
    When your predecessor was in this Chair, Sir Dennis, I put to him a point which I was keen to safeguard. I told him that we had intended to put forward manuscript Amendments on the Clause, but he kindly ruled that we could discuss the points on the Clause. We did not put down the. Amendments because we decided to ask the Minister if he would not concede the points, leaving ourselves free, if he did not, to bring the Amendments forward on the Report stage. The first point I want to put is that under the Anomalies Act in connection with Unemployment Insurance a married woman is not regarded as coming within the definition of a married woman if her husband is not receiving any sum from public funds, for instance, unemployment benefit or sickness benefit, and is treated as being single. I wonder whether the Minister would concede the point that where a husband is in receipt of no benefit of any kind the wife may be treated as being single for the purposes of this Measure? The other point I want to raise is that a woman whose husband is an invalid and who herself is sick shall at least be treated as a single woman. Then there is the case of widows who do not receive the widows' pension; will they be entitled to rank as single persons? A widow who is receiving the widows' pension does not come in, I

    275
    know, but could not the widow who is not receiving the pension be brought in? I know the Minister will not concede to us what we are asking, but at least I ask for an assurance that under this Measure married women will be treated similarly to the women under the Unemployment Insurance legislation. Where the husband is either permanently sick or in receipt of no public funds the wife ought to be treated as a single woman.
    Then I would turn for a moment to the case of the single woman. It may be argued that married women do not need these benefits to the same extent, because they have a husband to maintain them; and there is also the question of the excessive sickness which is alleged among married women. Those considerations cannot be put forward, however, in the case of the single woman. Single women have as great a struggle to maintain themselves as any men; in the field of industrial employment there is no marked difference between the lot of the single woman and the man. Then how can we justify treating the single woman differently? Even with our economies we allow disablement benefit of 7s. 6d. to a man, and is there any reason why we should treat a single woman differently'? Does she not need 7s. 6d. for her support as much as a man? If 6d. had been taken off the allowance to the man and we had given 7s. to men and women alike there would have been equality of treatment, but there is no defence for submitting single women to a reduction of 1s. 6d. a week. Supplementing what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), I would remind the Minister that approved societies are very active to-day in canvassing for this Clause. The approved societies are more responsible for this Clause than anybody else.
    One thing I have noticed in the Debate is a demand to know what alternative proposals could be put forward. The approved societies have looked nowhere else for an alternative to their attack upon the married and single women. They do not seem to have tried to explore whether a unification of the societies into larger units for the purposes of administration would have been effective, nor to have tried to explore the possibilities of pooling the funds of the
    276
    wealthier societies with the funds of the poorer societies. They have not tried to explore the elimination of the huge charges that they make in connection with their expenses, or to have investigated one practicable alternative. I have always understood that the principle of the friendly societies was mutual help, never to attack the poor, but to be constantly lifting the most helpless section of the community. Many of the approved societies have made their money out of these poor folk, and I should have thought that on this question they would at least have examined other alternatives.
    Every hon. Member knows something about the approved societies. I am the chairman of a comparatively small approved society consisting of from 6, 000 to 8, 000 members. We all know that approved societies have surplus funds which they hardly know what to do with; funds with which they could increase sickness benefit far above the present rate, and from which they could afford to send people to good convalescent homes. Why do the approved societies not turn their attention to the pooling of those funds on the principle for which they have always stood, that the strong should help the weak. Instead of following that principle, they are supporting the miserable and contemptible set of proposals which we are now considering. Trade unions, approved societies, friendly societies, and collecting societies of all kinds are making this contemptible attack upon the married and single women. I have no doubt that the Clause will be carried and that the Government will get their way, and once more the Insurance Fund will be declared solvent.
    I see no credit to those who have brought forward a Clause that picks out honourable women for dishonourable treatment. I know of nothing more honourable than that women should get married. This Clause picks out single women also. One of the tragedies of modern society is the single woman of about 44 years of age. Anybody who knows anything about that knows that it is a fearful tragedy. It is all very well for those in Governmental or semi-Governmental employment. [Interruption.] I do not take the view that this is a laughing matter. The problem of the middle-aged single woman is a terribly

    277
    serious thing. When the single woman gets over a certain age and ceases to be attractive it is a terrible tragedy. I am not joking; it is a fearful thing. These women when they are over a certain age cease to be as nimble as they were and their eyes cease to be as quick and they are treated differently. They may keep a job over a period of years, but when they are out nobody wants them. The marriage market is closed, and other forms of activity are closing against them. It is single women that we are attacking in this Bill, the women whose brothers are married, whose parents are dead, and with whom other people do not want to be bothered, looking upon them as old maids. That is the section of the community—and they are all good folk—from whom the Government are proposing to take money. That is conduct that beggars description, and it is beyond the pale to attack that type of woman in any way. Of all the things that the Government have done and will do—and the Government and the present Prime Minister are capable of anything—this will be the worst. It is all very well going down to Lausanne for the promotion of kindness abroad, but I say that the Prime Minister, who has raised himself on the pennies of those people, should give them some of the kindness that he seems to reserve for the people abroad.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I have heard hon. Members say that Clause 1 is one of the most important parts of this Bill. I am not sure that I take that view, because I think that in Clause 3 we have one which raises a very far-reaching question. I do not think we need discuss this Bill, as the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) has done, in relation to the Anomalies Bill. The truth of the position is one with which the Committee is familiar. Whatever the reasons may be, in recent years there has been a growing volume of claims for benefit among women. The policy of the Government is to deal with that problem in a way which is bound to inflict very serious hardship, or may inflict serious hardship, upon all women contributors under the scheme, whether they are married or single women.
    There is no doubt about the volume of claims made by women both single and married, and particularly about the claims made by married women. No
    278
    analysis has been attempted so far as I know of the reasons why these claims have substantially increased. If it be that these claims have increased because, as a result of propaganda, women are going to the panel doctors earlier than they would have done, then I say that that is a national gain. If it be that as a result of the long-drawn-out trade depression and unemployment their health has been undermined and these women are being attended to, that again is obviously to the national advantage. If it be that women are obtaining benefits under the scheme to which they are not legitimately entitled, then I say that this Clause does nothing whatever to deal with that problem. That is the serious problem.
    This matter was raised on the Second Reading. I hold that, if people under any scheme, however imperfect it may be, are obtaining advantages out of the scheme to which they are not entitled, and, as a result, are acting in a way which is disadvantageous to their friends, those people ought to be deprived of their benefit until the scheme is amended. If there be malingering, let it be dealt with. But the proposal in the Bill is to deal with the problem whether it arises from what might be called legitimate causes or from illegitimate causes. If this enormous drain on the funds of the societies, because of the claims of women, be due to legitimate causes, the fund and the nation ought to stand up to it. If it be due to causes which are not legitimate, if it be true that there is malingering, there is only one way to deal with that matter, and that is by improved methods of administration. This Clause, however, proposes to deal with that financial drain by levying a toll on all women, married and single, who hereafter wish to claim benefits under the scheme. I suggest that that is a situation and an attitude of mind which Members of the House of Commons, if they look at the problem impartially, will see is most unfair.
    The Noble Lady said—it was a slip of the tongue, but it happens to convey the truth about this Bill—that the weak should help the strong. That is what has happened already on Clause 1; the unemployed are to go to the wall in the interests of national economy. Under Clause 3, married women and single women are to be penalised, the whole

    279
    body of them, whatever may be the reason. Every woman coming under the Health Insurance scheme, once she is sick and has to make a claim, is going to be penalised; it is again a case of the weak helping the strong.
    There does not seem to me to be any real justification for treating women, if sickness claims happens to be heavy, any differently from the way in which, shall we say, miners and steelworkers are treated. There has been no suggestion at any time that in any industry or among any category of persons where claims happen to be heavy, their rates should be cut by 33¾ per cent. A fund has been formed to try to deal with that problem. I do not want to go into the whole of the very complicated question of the pooling of surpluses to-night, but it is clear that in the past we have used the resources of the fund to assist those categories of insured persons who happen to be the victims of special disease or heavy rates of sickness. If that can be done with miners, there is no reason why it should not be done in the case of women. But, instead of spreading the burden, we are concentrating the burden among the married women, and are imposing on the single women a part of the burden of the married women.
    Without going into all the reasons, it is obvious that the great burden is with regard to married women, and that the vast majority of their claims are claims connected with childbirth; and it seems to be perfectly reasonable, in these circumstances, that the men should bear part of the burden as well. I see no reason why we should concentrate this heavy responsibility upon married women. I have here two telegrams, one of which came to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), and the other to me. The first is from a conference of women now being held in Brighton, and representing all kinds of working-class women's organisations, trade union and co-operative and political. That conference to-day passed a resolution:
    "That this conference emphatically protests against the proposed reduction of sickness and disablement benefit for married women, and the disablement benefit of single women, in the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Bill, and condemns the suggestion to place all married
    280
    women in Class K. It demands equal treatment for all classes of insured persons, irrespective of sex."
    Again, a national conference of trade union approved societies, meeting in Weston-super-Mare, sends me a telegram in which I am told that a resolution has been passed at the conference emphatically protesting against the proposed legislation which provides for limitation and reduction of the benefits of certain classes of genuine insured workers, and imposes further hardship on the unemployed workers and their dependants. Here are telegrams from people who are intimately concerned, some of them as insured persons, others as representing approved societies, and I submit that the Committee ought to take into account the views of these people.
    I would put this point to the Committee. Let us assume, if you like, that there are cases which are not genuine. Can this Committee, because of those cases, take the serious step of penalising all insured women under the scheme? Ought not the right hon. Gentleman, by improved methods of administration, to deal with those cases, and leave the-scheme to bear the responsibilities which it was intended to bear? If there be increased sickness, the scheme is there to deal with it. If there be an earlier appeal to the doctor, that is what everyone knows is right, and the scheme ought to bear it. We ought not to expect a class of insured persons to suffer because of a problem which has arisen either for reasons which cannot be helped or because the scheme is not being administered with sufficient strictness.
    If the right hon. Gentleman would say, "I will withdraw Clause 3, and we will have a modified new Clause"—not the Clause that is on the Paper, but a modified Clause—I think that that would be reasonable. If women get married and go out of wage-earning employment, and do not intend to go back to wage-earning employment, they are not effectively within the scheme. If they are within the area of wage-earning employment, and are desirous of wage-earning employment, then they ought to be treated like everyone else within the scheme. I could understand a proposal of that kind, but I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman will not accept such a modification. He will insist on what seems to me to be the serious injustice that he

    281
    means to inflict on women insured under the scheme in order to deal with a problem that cannot be dealt with in this way. I hope that Members who belong to what the Noble Lady called the stronger sex will, with many of the weaker sex, support us in the Division Lobby.
    Sir H. YOUNG: The joint discussion on these Amendments undoubtedly raises the central point of the Bill, and the Debate, so far as it has proceeded, has raised the most interesting questions for the decision of the Committee in connection with the Bill. I feel that the task that I have to discharge in connection with this Amendment is to show, first of all, that action in the nature of a reduction of benefits is necessary, secondly, that the reduction proposed is no greater than is necessary, and, thirdly, that the distribution of the reduction as between the various classes of insured persons is just. To establish that action is necessary, I need only refer the Committee to the report of the actuary. I am proceeding upon the assumption that our National Health Insurance scheme must be a solvent scheme not maintained by fresh grants from the Exchequer. It must not become merely a scheme of State relief. The Committee will find in the report of the actuary that at present there is a difference between the annual liabilities and the annual income of the scheme of no less than£2, 850, 000, of which£2, 000, 000 is accounted for by deficiency of income due to unemployment. With that we are not concerned at the moment. As regards the other£850, 000, that is a deficiency due to excess of benefits over the contributions. What can be more plain than that urgent and immediate action is needed in order to preserve the solvency of the scheme?
    9.0 p.m.
    I am dealing on these Amendments with the£850, 000 deficiency which is due to the excess of benefits at present over contributions. I believe the fact is established beyond the possibility of doubt that action is necessary if the scheme is to be maintained in solvency. As to the manner in which the deficiency is to be met, first of all let me deal with the
    282
    various proposals that have been made. We have had no reference to-night to any proposal that the deficiency should be met by an increase of contributions. I think that can be dismissed by common consent from the possibilities at present. If we dismiss an increase of contributions as a possibility, in view of the present depression of our national conditions, you are left with two possible alternatives. The first is that you should reduce benefits and the second is the vague suggestion that you may look round and in some way find a means of tiding over the difficulty by tapping the existing surplus of the Insurance Fund. We have chosen the course of a reduction of benefits for a reason which I will explain.
    In the first place, may I say a word, in order to clear the ground, as to the extent to which benefits have been reduced? Let us see the measure of the reduction in the change that is to be made. The benefits of all women used to be 12s. for sickness benefit and 7s. 6d. for the continuation of sickness benefit called "disablement benefit." There is no reduction at all for sickness benefit for single women, and a reduction of 1s. 6d. only in the disablement benefit of single women. As to the married women, we are making a reduction of 2s. only in sickness benefit and half-a-crown only in disablement benefit. This will still leave the benefits for all women either equal to or in excess of what they were before the increases were made in the spacious times over the pre-War rates of benefit, so that disablement benefit, even after the reduction, will still be equal to what it was before the War and sickness benefit will still be half-a-crown bigger than before the War. Let us get a true sense of proportion in considering the reductions that are to be made.
    May I turn to the question whether there is any possible manner of dealing with the emergency other than the simple, direct manner of a reduction of benefits? First of all, let me deal with the various alternatives that have been suggested in the course of the Debate. I will deal, in the first place, with the alternative which I think was particularly enforced in the argument of the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Miss Pickford) in a speech which was

    283
    so cogently put and listened to with so much interest and attention. That suggestion was that, instead of covering the deficit by a reduction of benefits, we should cover it by a pool over the whole field of national insurance, that is, by calling upon the surpluses of the stronger societies to aid the weaker. There may be attraction in that suggestion until you look at the figures. I will take, as the only practical suggestion of pooling that has ever been put forward, the suggestion made by the Royal Commission that you should pool one half of the future surpluses of the approved societies after a given date. It is quite unthinkable that you should make a levy upon the past surpluses of approved societies. It would be a measure of stark confiscation. If you look at the only possible method which is the pooling of future surpluses, what the commission suggested was that you should pool a half of those surpluses.
    Would that give us enough to deal with our deficiency of£850, 000? When the Royal Commission made its report, a half of the future surpluses would have amounted to some£1, 000, 000 a year. Unfortunately, owing to the turn for the worse of the finances of approved societies, at the present time one half of the annual surplus of approved societies available for pooling would give only£100, 000 a year, and as you have to distribute the advantage of the pooling over the whole field of approved societies, only one-third of that sum would be available for the women's societies. So that by adopting the only suggestion of pooling ever put forward as a practical one, you would have available for disposal to meet your surplus of£850, 000, only£30, 000. I suggest to the Committee that that shows that in dealing with the suggestion of pooling you are dealing with a remedy which is absolutely incommensurate with the evil which you have to meet.
    Let us deal with another suggestion, namely, that instead of finding the money for pooling, you should in some way get it from better administration. That is a favourite thesis of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), because this was the remedy which we recognise he commenced to apply during his tenure of office at the Ministry. He commenced to apply it,
    284
    and as far as it has gone, I am sorry to say, it has not presented any prospect whatever of amounting to such a measure of saving as would be in the least commensurate with the deficiency we have to cover. Let me point this out to the Committee, because the matter has never been quite fairly apprehended, though I tried to make it plain in speaking on the Second Reading. In sketching future remedies with which to deal with this deficiency, I have already allowed for such a gain from improved administration and from the tightening up of certification and so on for which it is prudent to allow. The gap, as I have said, is£2, 850, 000. The reductions to be effected by the measures which I propose in the Bill will amount on the Estimates to£2, 350, 000 a year. I am allowing for£500, 000 to be gained by improvements in administration, and in allowing for those improvements I have gone to the very verge of what is prudent in allowing any benefit to be derived from improved administration.
    If the Committee will consult the report of the Government Actuary on the solvency of this fund, they will find that he says, so to speak, to me as Minister of Health and to the House: "What you have allowed for in this Bill is not enough. In order to make your fund solvent you ought not only to reduce benefits to the extent to which you propose to reduce them, but you ought also to increase your contributions by a halfpenny, and strict actuarial solidarity requires that you should exact this extra halfpenny contribution. But if you choose to allow for a£500, 000 gain from improved administration, I cannot say that it is totally unreasonable. I think that it is not too excessively optimistic for you to do so, and on that basis we have a good chance of winning through. In those circumstances, the Committee will see, not only upon my statement but upon the statement of the Government Actuary himself, that I have allowed to be gained by the benefits of improved administration all that it is possible and prudent to allow.
    I will deal with another point of view which has been advanced in the discussions as to whether the distribution of contributions to the deficiency which I propose as between men, married

    285
    women, and unmarried women are fair and just. I will take the case as between the men and the married women. It is said, "Why do you not spread this contribution over men as well as women? Why do you not call upon men to make a contribution to your deficiency? Why do you accumulate the burden upon the women?" Our National Health Insurance system was already weighted in favour of the women before the Bill was introduced. I will show the Committee how it was weighted. It was weighted in this way. The proportion of benefit provided by the State is 40 per cent, greater in the case of women than it is in the case of men, which is a very great advantage to the women as distinguished from men. In taking the estimates upon which the whole scheme is based in regard to the probable sickness experience of men and women, the provision in regard to the sickness of women is no less than 60 per cent, greater than that in respect of men. Therefore, already there is an enormous advantage for women in comparison with men on the very basis of the scheme. The average age of women in the scheme and their contributions are less. Under the weighting for sickness, the average amount which women receive out of insurance in a normal state of affairs is greater than that which men receive, so that you have already a big weighting of the scheme in favour of women. I suggest to the Committee that in view of the fact that you have this special deficiency to make up which is due to the additional sickness experience of women, it would be quite unfair to call upon men to bear a bigger share of the sickness expense. That is the case as between married women and men.
    I turn to the case as between married women and unmarried women. Is the distribution which we make as between the two just in that respect? I think I can convince the Committee by figures quoted directly out of the Actuary's Report that as between the married women and the unmarried women the slightly greater burden in contribution to the deficiency which is cast upon the married women in comparison with unmarried women is nothing less than fair. If Members of the Committee will look at page 5 of the Actuary's Report on the financial provisions of the Bill they will see, at the bottom of the page, that the losses to the benefit funds of the societies
    286
    attributable to the respective claims of unmarried women and married women were approximately as follows. Of my£850, 000 which I have mentioned several times to the Committee,£430, 000 comes from the unmarried women and£420, 000 from the married women. But the number of married women in the last valuation return was 1, 100, 000, while the number of unmarried women was 4, 300, 000. The Actuary saw that although the aggregate annual loss was about the same in the case of both sections—the married and the unmarried women—the loss per head resulting from the claims of the married greatly exceeded that due to the claims of the unmarried. The Actuary summarises the position in the following figures. The average yearly loss per member for unmarried women was only 2s. and for the married women it was 7s. 6d.
    In view of these figures, the Committee will see that we have differentiated between the married women and the unmarried women far less than the actuarial proportion of the losses borne by the two classes would justify. I have demonstrated by the irrefutable figures of the scheme that the amount of loss which we have to make up is not more than covered by the changes which we are making, and that, assuming throughout as an accepted principle that that loss must be made up, the way in which it has been distributed between men, married women and unmarried women is certainly justified by the actual figures which show where the loss comes from, with only this difference, that, on the whole, we have made less difference between men and women than would be justified by the figures, and we have made less difference between married women and unmarried women' than would be justified by the figures.
    What would be the inevitable effect of the Amendments? It would be this. By failing to cover outgoing benefits by incoming contributions you would throw the societies into a deficiency. Let me once more say a- word on this essential point and try to carry the Committee with me in apprehending that you cannot meet this deficiency and you cannot prevent the insolvency of the insurance scheme simply by a redistribution of surpluses within the scheme. There is an old Indian. proverb that

    287
    "A bear cannot live by sucking its own paws."
    Just in the same way, the approved societies in the position which they now find themselves cannot maintain solvency by a redistribution of their surpluses. At the rate at which that deficiency is accruing against the societies at the present time no surpluses can stand against it, and I repeat, with every sense of responsibility, what I said to the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, that if this deficiency is allowed to go on accruing against the insurance scheme the surpluses which you have at the present time will only serve to enable you to conceal the insolvency of the fund for a period, and when you come to the end of the next valuation period you will find the approved societies falling into such deficiency that the whole scheme will fall into rack and ruin. To suggest that you would gain by a redistribution of surpluses would only tend to dupe you into thinking that things are all right for a year or two to come.
    The Amendments are not aimed at the whole of the reduction of benefit which the Bill suggests, but I have had a most careful estimate made of the effect of the Amendments, and I discover that they would cost me one half of the whole effort which is to be made in order to restore the solvency of the scheme. To deny towards the solvency of the scheme one half of that which is required would be, in effect, nothing less than a denial of the whole benefit which is to be expected from the measures proposed in the Bill. Let me repeat, and this is really the key-note of this Measure, that in regard to all the proposals which we here make, although they are difficult and painful, I believe as firmly as can be believed that if we fail to take the measures that are here proposed there are disasters ahead of the insurance scheme which will be more difficult and more painful still. We are dealing here with a small class, a small category of the insured. We are dealing with the contribution which is to be made in a difficult time by a. class of insured women. That little sacrifice which we claim from them is not to be reckoned for a moment against the avoidance of the enormous disasters which would come to the 17, 000, 000 subscribers to the scheme if, by refraining from taking measures in
    288
    time, we allow the scheme to drift from one state of insolvency to another.
    Miss RATH BONE: I have listened with great and growing disappointment to the speech of the Minister, which amounted to this that he deems it impracticable to give any kind of mitigation to the effects of the Clause. He regards the Clause as the only possible way of meeting the deficit of the fund. It is extremely difficult for any private Member who has not the Minister's figures at his command to meet at a moment's notice the kind of argument that the Minister has put forward, but I think that most Members of the Committee will, in spite of the Minister's statement, be disposed to cling to the broad facts of the case as they are familiar to those of us who have studied the documents which the Government have supplied, especially the Actuary's third valuation, and the report of the test group of societies.
    The picture which the Actuary has drawn is very difficult to reconcile with the despairing picture which the Minister has put before us. He has made a great deal of the£800, 000 per annum deficit that has to be met, but the broad fact is this, that out of 7, 600 societies the Actuary's report shows that 7, 001 had surpluses, that 6, 263 had a disposable surplus, that the average amount of the disposable surplus per member was larger in quantity than the amount of the deficiency in the case of those societies that had a deficiency, that 93 per cent, of the whole of the insured population belong to societies with surpluses, and that 88 per cent, of men and 38 per cent, of women belonged to societies with disposable surpluses. It is extremely difficult for hon. Members with these facts in their minds not to believe that if the Minister really wanted to find a way out of this particular Clause other than that which he has found he might have found that other way.
    The whole assumption which underlay the Minister's reply was that the particular group of people who incurred this deficiency must meet the deficiency, and that it can only be met by lowering benefits. He referred to the suggestions which have come to him from various quarters that the deficits on married women and women generally might be shared by the men, but he told us that that could not be done by the societies

    289
    with surpluses within the exact terms of the Royal Commission's report. Possibly those exact terms would have to be varied. When the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) wanted to raid the surpluses of insurance societies, he did not say that he was going to raid the surpluses in the future, but he raided the surpluses already there.
    There is another possible method with which the Minister did not deal. Why could not something be done to meet this deficit out of the fund which was expressly formed to meet deficiencies of societies, namely, the Central Fund? I only speak from memory, but I believe the calculation is that something like one-tenth of a farthing per week per member would produce£200, 000 a year. It is an easy arithmetical calculation that in that case something like one farthing per member would produce more than the£800, 000 per year. Why, then, is it impossible to increase the Central Fund? There are many who contend that it should be done. The right hon. Gentleman did not allude to the very heavy deficits incurred by sections of the male population, miners, steel-workers and so on, though these are to be met because it is possible to have recourse to the Central Fund. If it was considered just to do it there, why is it not possible in the case of women?
    Is it just, is it essentially fair, that the married women should meet the deficit incurred by married women? I do not think it is possible to deal with this subject without saying a very few words on a matter which is so important not only to the question of finance, but to the honour and repute of the working-class women of the country. Why is it this position has arisen and why has the Actuary been so far wrong in his calculations? It is clear there has been a very much larger amount of sickness among women, and especially among married women than the Actuary allows for. It can only be due to one or more of the following reasons. It may be that the sickness among women has been much greater than the Actuary thought, and has been increasing all through the period and that the number of married women in employment has increased, as we know. Married women are a much unhealthier class than spinsters. Up to a certain point in life they are unhealthier owing to maternity and its
    290
    results. It may be that because there are more married women remaining in work there is a larger proportion of sickness. A third possible reason is that women are appreciating more and more the value and benefits of health insurance and therefore are applying for benefits more readily.
    9.30 p.m.
    A fourth reason—and I will call a spade a spade—is the charge that married women are malingering. I am almost the only speaker in the Debate who has used that unpleasant word openly, but it has permeated the whole Debate and the Actuary's report. We can see perfectly well that he thinks that this deficit is largely due to malingering. I said when I spoke on the Second Reading that I did not deny that malingering does account for a proportion of the deficit, but I think there are features in the Actuary's report which do point that way though they are susceptible of another explanation. For example, there is the very considerable proportion of young claimants, and the fact that the number of weeks claimed for disablement pay has been nearly as large as the weeks claimed for sickness pay. As the Actuary has pointed out, that is a strange fact in an insured population of which only 15 per cent, are over 45 years of age. There is the still more awkward fact that a very large proportion of those who are put on disablement pay find in a very short time afterwards that they are able to return to work, and the implication is that as soon as sickness benefit ceases they find they can return to work. As far as that is. the case, and there is malingering, all women will want the matter to be dealt with drastically. I claim to speak with some authority about married women, because I have probably had more experience of married women than most people in this House. It happened that when the Minister and the Under-Secretary were fighting in the Navy and Army I was mainly occupied in assessing claims of married women to benefit out of public funds, and I must have dealt with, or superintended the dealing with by others, thousands of such claims, besides visiting many hundreds of married women in their homes and speaking at scores of meetings. I think I know something about the married working class woman, and I say she is one of the most self-sacrificing, devoted, unselfish and funda-

    291
    mentally honest human beings in the community. You might leave a bag of gold in the house of a poverty-stricken married woman for weeks, and in nine cases out of 10 not a farthing would be touched. But the pressure of the struggle for existence is so heavy that she is very often open to example and once she gets an idea that she has a right to make claims on public funds because other people are doing it the habit soon spreads. If malingering is going on, it is not something which is going on for ever and ever, and you should make provision for it by ascertaining how far it is going on, and then deal with it as an evil which must be remedied.
    So far as heavy claims are due to other causes than a real increase in sickness, that calls for a remedy, and for analysing it and discovering how far it does exist. My experience also told me that this sickness among married women is a real and serious factor. I am not at all surprised that the Actuary finds that it transcends his expectations, because we must remember his original calculations were made at a time of relative prosperity soon after the War. Even at that time the health of the married woman was causing very great disturbance in the minds of those of us who cared about her. I should like to quote if I may a few words I wrote eight years ago on this subject which will show I am not merely trying to make out a case about this Bill. I alluded to the fact that there were often very few statistics available about the health of married women and I said:
    "In default of official evidence, therefore, I will venture to give my own impression of the health of married working women. It is that among those of the poorer sections from early middle age onwards, the standard of health is deplorably low, and that, if any method existed of testing their condition comparable to that of the medical examination of school children or troops for enlistment, the proportion of those found suffering from some definite defect or chronic ailment would startle everyone."
    We see the truth of that proved. Figures are now available and they do startle everyone, and everybody says, "Oh, but they must have been shamming." I can quote other testimony and other extracts from book after book, by those who have carried out health inspection, as to the conditions of the working class in different quarters, and as to the health of married
    292
    women. I will quota only three very short extracts. In Glasgow they said:
    "The midwives say they have to get more medical assistance now because the women are not as strong as they used to be. Our opinion is that this is due to under-nourishment."
    In Stoke-on-Trent it was said:
    "The increasing evidence of malnutrition of mothers is unmistakeable."
    In quite a recent report by a committee of clergy of Newcastle-on-Tyne it was said:
    "We have observed that the mothers are suffering from under-nourishment, particularly in families where there are several children. This is endorsed by doctors in charge of welfare centres who affirm that long-continued unemployment is telling increasingly on the health of mothers."
    So far as it is true that increased sickness among married women is largely due to unemployment, the lowering of the benefit will only intensify it. If married women have too little to eat now, they will have still less if their benefit is dropped from 12s. to 10s. per week. A remedy must be found. The question I put to the Minister of Health is this: Is there not a case for a much more careful inquiry than has been undertaken before he adopts this drastic remedy; before he assumes that this high rate of sickness is going to be permanent and lowers the benefit to all married women? Before unemployment pay was lowered we had two important inquiries. The Blanesburgh inquiry showed that. there was far less shamming among those applying for unemployment pay than the public generally believed, and the same results would follow if we had an inquiry into excessive sickness among married women. There was also the Royal Commission on Unemployment.
    Why is it that it is so much easier to take action with regard to the excessive claims of women? Is it because this Government, and any other Government, thinks once and twice and thrice before it takes any action which may affect the money going to trade unions because they are highly organised and before it does anything which approved societies may dislike because they are also strongly organised, but that the Government thinks that married women are fair game and an easy prey because they are inarticulate and an unorganised class? I cannot believe that, if married women had

    293
    been as highly organised as the men, that this Bill would have been brought in in this way, with only two days' discussion in Committee, and with only a few hours in which to discuss the position of women. It is a light way in which to deal with the interests and the honour of the whole mass of married working women in industry.
    I hope that the Minister of Health will consider the matter more carefully before the Report stage. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper which raises the question in a somewhat different aspect. If that Amendment were accepted, it would be a gross injustice. Cannot we, before the Bill finally leaves this House, think of some method of dealing with this problem by spreading the burden over the whole body of the insured class? If married women are sick, have not their husbands some interest in the matter? I pointed out on a former occasion that in regard to unemployment insurance women have a claim in proportion to their contributions, but that they are pooled with the men so that the men get the whole of the benefit. Why should women in the matter of Health Insurance bear the burden of their fellow-citizens? We want a much more scientific method of dealing with this great problem, and I hope the Minister will indicate that he does mean to grasp the nettle a little more firmly, do something which would be more just to married women, and spread the burden more evenly over the whole body of insured persons.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman earlier in the evening said that women, because of sickness, take 40 per cent, more out of the fund than men. Surely that is a justification for our Amendment. It has always been the care of men to guard women, but here because women are more liable to sickness than men they are to be penalised. It is reducing human beings to mere machines. And to think that we can have a man, a representative man, a very intelligent man, a man who carries some weight in the country, who can get up in 1932 and make a statement like that; and expect to be supported in this House. He said that if we take away the surpluses from certain organisations it would be confiscation, and he was not
    294
    going to do it. It would be better to take surpluses from those who do not require them and give them to the women who do. There is not an hon. Member in this House who would say that the amount it is proposed to allow to women would be sufficient for their own wives and daughters. It would not be enough pocket money for a day, let alone keep them for a week. Confiscation; the word has no terrors for us. We have always stood for confiscation without compensation. [Interruption.] We lived during the War, when our flesh and blood were confiscated. We are not going as far as that in confiscating money or food or anything else that we require. We are more humane. We would not do as the ruling classes of this country did. We would not confiscate human lives. We would not put them into the trenches, unless it was into the trenches to overthrow capitalism, I would put them there to-morrow for that purpose, and I would have no hesitation in going there myself.
    Viscountess ASTOR: You would not kill a fly.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The next statement of the Minister to which I took exception was the statement that "They will have more after this reduction than they had before the War." Just think what that means. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to put back the hands of the clock. Of course, they will have more. The Minister remembers, as well as I do, when they got nothing, no allowance, no Unemployment Insurance benefit at all. Why did they get these things? Because the ruling classes of this country were terrified lest there should be a revolution. That was the reason why we of the working-class got; these things during the War and after the War. It was not that the ruling classes were any kinder to my class after the War than they were before the War. It was because they were afraid of the working-class. It is because to-day the Government think the working-classes are crushed, that they bring forward these proposals The men and women who fought in the War—it is those the Government are crushing to-day, not foreigners, but our own kith and kin. The Minister himself says it; he is admitting it. But he thinks it is quite safe to make the reduction. And

    295
    they are to apply, to whom? Single disabled women are to get a reduction from 7s. 6d. to 6s. a week? Is there any man in this House who believes that 6s. a week will keep any woman? Everyone knows that it will not.
    Everyone probably has at the back of his mind the thought, "Well that is not all that will be going into a house. There will be other forms of contribution going into the home where the single woman is living, and she will share with all the others." I ask hon. Members who are going to vote against us to bear in mind that all the incomes going into a house, no matter how small they may be, have been reduced already. [HON. MEMBERS: "So has the cost of living!"] The incomes have been reduced out of all proportion to the reduction in the cost of living. I appeal to hon. Members, think of what you are doing. In every form you have attacked the incomes of every section of the working classes, the father, the mother, the sister and the brother. Now you are attacking the disabled. Oh, if I was able to portray to you, not an imaginary picture, but a picture of actual life that we see. We do not read about working-class women; they are bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh) and we know the life that they live. Think what this means. Here is a daughter, disabled probably for life. Everyone who has any spark of humanity left knows that the first thing he would do would be to rush to that one's assistance. But here is a Government attacking that poor individual. Up to now she has been receiving 7s. 6d. a week. Now this great Christian Government is going to take Is. 6d. from her, and she is to get only 6s.—Is. 6d. off the poor unfortunate women to save the great British Empire!
    Then the next thing is the case of the disabled married women's payment. Think of it! I wish my voice was all right, because otherwise I am in excellent fettle for going the whole way on this subject. If I would not have my say here, the very paving stones would cry out. Disabled married women—think what you are proposing to reduce their benefit to. Not disabled married women of Members of Parliament, not disabled married women of the ruling classes. There is no talk about that, irrespective
    296
    of how the ruling class married women are disabled; but an attack made on the married women of my class. You are going to take from them 2s. a week. They have 7s. now, and you are going to make it 5s. a week. Is there any hon. Member who believes that 5s. a week will maintain a woman?
    Viscountess ASTOR: No.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Then why vote for it? I hope that every woman who is in the House to-night will vote against the Government. If they do not, they are not worthy of the name of women. The last item on which I wish to touch is the proposed reduction in the case of married women who are not disabled. Think of it! The British House of Commons, with all the brains of the country, with all the bright young Tory Lords, all the young bloods, all the boys of the bulldog breed is considering a proposal like this. Here they are, some of them great athletes, well set-up men who have had every chance to fit themselves mentally and physically for the struggle of life, able to give a good account of themselves in every sphere. They came here with a great flourish of trumpets. They were going to put the British Empire on its feet, but to-night they are going into the Lobby to vote for a reduction from 12s. a week to 10s. a week for married women—the mothers of the British race.
    Remember that the mothers of the British race are the working-class mothers. Hon. Members can boast of Britain's greatness from now until Doomsday, but Britain's greatness rests on the working-class mothers. They are the greatest heroes in Britain's story. They have a harder job spending the money than the men have in earning it. They are the mothers of those who stood betwixt the onrushing Germans and Paris. They are the mothers of the boys who smashed the mightiest military machine on which the sun has ever shone—the German Empire—and you are going to treat them in this fashion. These are women who at the moment have to struggle, as with a steel band, trying to make ends meet each week, and those ends are eternally bursting apart. Those are the conditions which prevail in this great British Empire for the mothers of our children, and Members are going into

    297
    the Lobby to vote for a reduction of a few shillings a week in what is allowed to these poor women. But you can take it from me that while the mothers may be treated in this way, their daughters and their sons are watching. They will arise in their might and smite you who are their oppressors. It is not foreigners who are the oppressors of the working-class of this country but the British ruling class. No German ever attempted to crush the British people in the fashion which a British Minister is proposing to-night, and the Minister is asking a British House of Commons to support him in measures which mean nothing less than the starvation of the poorest section of the British community.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. MELLER: There are few Members on this side who could agree with many of the propositions advanced by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), but I think there are also few who would deny that he has shown fervour and enthusiasm in his plea for the married women. To-night, however, we are considering a question which, turns not upon sentimentality but upon facts. I listened very patiently yesterday and to-day to the speeches on this Bill, and I could almost have persuaded myself from those speeches that we were considering a Bill for the distribution of some surplus funds which the Government had at their disposal, rather than a Measure designed to deal with the possible insolvency of this great insurance scheme. Later speeches have been devoted more particularly to the question of the married women, but it seems to me that this is a question which should not be considered from the point of view of the married women only. There is a very large class of insured women who have also to be considered, namely, the single women and the proportion of single women to married women is as four to one.
    I cannot understand why so much feeling should be displayed on behalf of the married women. If it be a question of need, surely the single woman has an even greater responsibility thrown upon her in times of sickness than the married woman. As I endeavoured to explain on the Second Reading, Members should have clearly in mind the fact that there is a distinction between the married woman and the widow, and, in consider-
    298
    ing the case of the married women we must recollect that in the very large majority of cases, there is income coming into the home in. respect of the husband. We are not considering the case of a woman who has no support either financial or moral but the case of a woman who has some support at home, and, while she may have responsibilities, her case, in the main, is not so drastic or so trying as that of the single woman.
    There is another aspect of the case which seems to be lost sight of in these discussions. One would think that the question of the liability imposed upon the Insurance Fund by married women had never been brought up until now, and that the House of Commons and the country had only just discovered that the married woman was a drag upon the insurance scheme. One would also imagine that no attempt; had been made to have any special consideration given to the women's section in insurance. This is a mistake.
    Perhaps hon. Members have not cast their minds back or have not been interested in the question of social insurance in its earlier stages, but the fact is that the position of women and children in national insurance has been a factor of considerable concern to all those who have been working in connection with this subject for the last 20 years. From time to time funds have been bolstered up either by special contributions or special allowances or postponements of reserves. All these things have been done in order to keep up the solvency of the women's section of the fund, and to pay benefits in accordance with the provisions of the original Act.
    What is the position which faces this country to-day? It is not that you have money to distribute. It is said that you might use the surpluses of those societies which have surpluses. It is all very well to quote a number of societies, but you have to take the total number of insured persons in the successful societies and then divide the surplus and see now far it goes.
    There is an idea that has been put forward from time to time, that if you collected all the gold in this country and distributed it among the people, how rich we should be. But when we come down to the real facts, we find what a small distribution there would be, and

    299
    that we should not be richer at all, but probably poorer than before. In this matter we find that there is an impending insolvency unless the scheme is grappled with and the trouble is met. I thought, from the very lucid explanation given by the Minister, that there would be no second thought as to what was the right line to take with regard to this Bill. The hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) put forward a powerful plea for the married women, and asked, Is it really necessary to take this important step at this moment? Can we not wait a little longer? Is the sickness experience likely to be a permanent one? That has been answered very clearly by the Actuary in his Report. He says, first of all:
    "I have computed the contribution required to support the benefits of the scheme as it is proposed to amend them in the Bill, on the assumption that the sickness and disablement claims in the future will conform to the average experience of the years 1928–30."
    He goes on:
    "The question of what will be the future level of, the sickness and disablement claims of women is a matter of peculiar difficulty at the present time."
    Further he says:
    "If the rate of sickness should thenceforward be maintained at a level 10 per cent, lower on average than that of the years 1928–30, the present contributions will support the benefits at the rates proposed in the Bill, and if these rates be adopted it will be unnecessary to provide for any increase of contributions."
    Therefore, it is not a question of dealing with the position as we find it to-day. What we have to contemplate is a reduction in benefits or an increase in contributions, and in addition a very marked improvement in the sickness experience of women. What is the use of talking tonight as though the funds will provide that? We are told that the existing funds and the surpluses would be insufficient. The Minister has clearly demonstrated that. He comes forward with a scheme which says that we can only expect solvency on the condition that you have reduced benefits, and the actuary is not prepared to advise the Minister that even the reduced benefits will be sufficient unless there is a marked improvement in the sickness experience.
    The hon. Lady said something on the question of malingering. I do not like
    300
    the word. Those who have had experience—and let me say at once, because there seems to be some mystery surrounding the members of the Consultative Council, that it is composed of representatives of all types of society, who know from experience, not from a casual acquaintance such as may come to Members of the House by circulars distributed by this society or by that organisation. I have spoken to some hon. Members, who have come to me and said, "I shall vote against this." They have asked questions of the Minister and have then said, before they have got his answer, "I shall vote against you." They have not a semblance of a notion of what the scheme means. When I speak of the Consultative Council, I know the composition of that body. I have had the honour of serving on it for a good many years.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Are there women on it?
    Mr. MELLER: There are women on the council, representative of the women's approved societies, and there are men representing the organisations connected with trade unions, men with co-operative society experience, and men from the great industrial organisations. I have had the honour to serve on the first Consultative Council, which started for a limited period of years, but which has been re-elected from time to time, not by the Minister, but by the recommendation of the organisations. I have been through the discussions there carefully, because I happen to have been the Chairman of the Consultative Council. Let there be no mystery about it. My hon. Friends in front know it quite well. Some people talk as though there are men behind this who do not know what they are talking about, but the men and women who compose that council have come forward with their advice to the Minister, not because they think it will be an advantage to their particular society; they have come forward with the desire and the sole reason that they may protect the interests of the members of the societies who are committed to their charge.
    The great advantage held out by the author of this scheme was this: "You shall have your own types of society, you shall work out your own salvation, you shall not be kept down to a common

    301
    level, but as you, by your good management, can succeed in getting together your surpluses, so you shall have the advantage of them, "But there has been a measure of pooling within the scheme. My hon. Friend who sits on the Front Opposition Bench and who has had some experience of approved society work knows what sacrifices have been made by societies, and indeed in this Bill, although it would not be proper to refer at length to Clause 6, I think I may in passing say that the question of pooling has been recognised and is extended within Clause 6. There provision is made that no societies shall be declared insolvent until not only they have gone through reserves piled up by any particular society, but until they have had their dip into the central fund. That being so, it seems to me that the societies are meeting the difficulties of the moment.
    In this case you have an inherent difficulty that cannot be met merely by dipping into the central fund or distributing among all women's societies the surplus funds which may exist. Why should there be the distinction between the married and the single women? Why is it, as the hon. Lady behind me suggested, that you should force this upon the women and not go upon the men? I suggest that there is the very simple answer, that it would be a very unfortunate thing, in the present state of the employment market in this country, if you were going to penalise the men who are in the main the breadwinners. After all, out of 17, 000, 000 of insured people, some 12, 000, 000 are men, and therefore you cannot rightly disregard the responsibilities of the men. On the other hand, of the 5, 000, 000 women, some 4, 000, 000 are single women, and one-fifth of the total insured population may be affected by this particular scheme. It is not unfair to say to the people who for some years past have been battening upon the good experience of their single sisters that at least they should come down to something like the terms of insurance in this matter.
    In the Second Reading Debate I applauded an hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench when he said that he delighted in the principle of insurance. Under this scheme we are being asked to pay a greater benefit to married women than the scheme itself will bear or that
    302
    the contributions will bear. For a long series of years the married women have been an uninsurable proposition so far as their contributions were concerned under the existing Acts. It is not unreasonable in the circumstances to ask them to bear their particular burden. It is an unfortunate thing. I do not agree, and never did agree, that the benefits under the Insurance Acts were adequate, but they went as far as we could go within an insurance scheme. If there were in the coffers of the State an amount available and sufficient to pay benefits adequate to meet the views of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, I should be glad, and I look forward to those days when there is such prosperity in this country that we shall be able to distribute money lavishly.
    What is the position to-day however? The question has been asked more than once whether any Member will dare to say that he came back with a mandate from the people to deal with the question of women's and men's benefit. Of course, there was not a mandate. What the Conservatives and the National party had as a mandate was to deal with the finances of the country. There was no mandate to spend money and to pile indebtedness such as has been happening for many years past. If in years gone by we had had a little more thought for the future and had not been so lavish in State contributions to meet deficiencies from time to time, the times through which we are passing would not have been as difficult as they are. I ask hon. Members to come back to a sense of reality and responsibility. Let the lady Members of the House throw over their sentimental ideas and realise what their duty is. If they clearly and properly understand the answer which has been given by the Minister, there is no alternative for them, or for any other Member who loves the country and really believes in economy, but to go into the Lobby in support of this Measure.
    Major MUIRHEAD: I should like to refer to a serious statement made by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone). She repeated the old Socialist tag that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), when Chancellor of the Exchequer, robbed the Health Insurance Fund. That old tag did a certain

    303
    amount of service during the election of 1929, but I hoped that it was dead for good and all. The hon. Member said that it was not a question of dealing with some surplus that might be accrued in future, but that it was definitely a case of finding a surplus existing and taking it. Such, of course, was not the case in any way. What the right hon Gentleman did was to reduce the State grant from two-ninths in the case of men to two-fifteenths, and from two-ninths in the case of women to two-tenths. That was entirely for the future, and not one penny piece of any existing surplus was touched.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is it not a fact that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) had not reduced the State grant, the societies would have had a surplus to meet the difficulties with which we are now confronted? Is it not a fact that approved societies have lost in actual State grant and interest thereon nearly£30, 000, 000 owing to the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping?
    Mr. MELLER: Is it not a fact that if that Economy Bill had not been introduced, probably we should have arrived at the stage of insolvency in health insurance very much earlier?
    Major MUIRHEAD: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has tried to trail a red herring across the track. I rose to deal with a perfectly specific statement on a specific point, and I propose to deal with it, and not to chase off after a red herring wrapped in a rabbit skin, because I am not a drag hunter myself. The hon. Member evidently understands the technique of drag hunting. The hon. Lady specifically stated that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer took money from an existing surplus, and she emphasized that particularly by saying that it was not merely a question of stopping money that was going to accrue in the future, but that he found an existing surplus there and took the money from it.
    Miss RATHBONE: The point I was trying to put was simply that the Minister used the argument that it would not be fair to the approved societies to deprive them of a fund on which they were counting. That is exactly what the
    304
    right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) did. He took it out of the State's contributions, but it was a sum which the approved societies had to find, and therefore they had less money for their other purposes.
    Major MUIRHEAD: I do not know what point the hon. Lady is trying to make, but I am quite clear about the statement that she did make, and which she went out of her way to emphasise, or I would not have intervened. I think she will agree that I quoted the sense of her words quite correctly—that the then Chancellor found a surplus there and took money from it. Now, that is absolutely untrue.
    Miss RATHBONE: I am sorry to interrupt again. Surely what happened was this. He found there was a surplus there and because of that surplus, which the societies counted on being able to use for certain purposes, he felt he could cut off supplies. It comes to the same thing.
    Major MUIRHEAD: The fact is that the hon. Lady said that he found a surplus there and took money from it. He did nothing of the sort. There has been a great deal of loose thinking and, worse than that, of loose talking about the disposal of surpluses. Getting to the bottom of the hon. Lady's statement, I think it raises a matter of far wider importance than the mere question of this Debate, and that is the general attitude of people towards the disposal of surpluses. It is rather interesting to realise that even in this age of sex equality the diminution in the rate of State grants then made was considerably smaller in the case of women than in the case of men; but that is merely incidental to my argument. The point is that not one penny piece of any existing surplus was touched by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. MAXTON: I have been very much interested in the controversy as to precisely what the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) did when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Those of us who know him best and admire him most know that it is always better not to try to say precisely what he has done or is doing at any moment; but the fact of the matter is that he made inroads on the resources of the approved societies.
    Major MUIRHEAD: Not the existing resources.
    Mr. MAXTON: It all depends on what we call resources. The serious position of the great societies is not merely because of what has taken place to the funds that were collected last year or the year before, but to the funds that they calculate on collecting in the current year. There is no doubt about the position of those funds to-day. The whole framework of our insurance system—I do not merely mean our national insurance system, but also the insurance system that is run by private enterprise—is in a very serious position, not because of anything that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping did in the past, or because of anything that the Minister of Health is doing to-day. It is because the whole economic system has failed to fulfil the high hopes that were placed in it by hon. Members here who supported it. Far be it from us to minimise in any way the nature of the financial catastrophe that this nation is experiencing and the more serious financial catastrophe that it will experience. We do not attempt to go into that; we simply come here and we plead, admitting your financial catastrophe and your very great difficulties, is statesmanship limited, in its attempts to deal with these very serious difficulties, to making further inroads into the meagre livelihood of the poor? That is the proposition we are putting before the Committee.
    On this Clause we are asking whether it is sensible from the financial point of view or from the social point of view, and whether it is right from an ethical point of view, to put the married women of the working-class into worse conditions in their periods of sickness than they have been in during recent years? Our view is clear and definite. On the general question of the financial difficulties of the country, we say that every step that diminishes the purchasing-power of the masses of the common people, whether it is by making cuts in unemployment benefit, by reductions in wages, or, as here proposed, by taking shillings out of married women's pockets, everything that you do in that direction, intensifies the difficulty with which you are attempting to deal. On that general principle, and on that principle alone, we oppose
    306
    this Clause, which reduces working-class purchasing-power when it takes a couple of shillings out of the pocket of a sick married woman.
    10.30 p.m.
    What has worried me more than anything else in the discussion on this Clause is a matter raised by the Minister which had escaped my notice, although I have attended very faithfully during the discussions on the Bill. On the Second Reading I listened carefully to all that was said, and I have studied the Memoranda, the Bill and the Acts upon which it is founded: and yet it escaped my notice that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to save£500, 000 at the expense of the sick by more drastic forms of administration. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) supports that aspect of the Bill, as I gathered from his speech to-day. I gathered that he was prepared to stand for this more drastic administration, and suggested that, if more drastic administrative methods were adopted, the cuts on the married women would not be necessary. The Minister replies to that by saying that, when he allows for a saving of£500, 000 by a stricter administration, he is making the most optimistic estimate of what he can possibly save, that it only gives him about£500, 000, and that he must have£2, 000, 000 or£3, 000, 000 more.
    This reminds me very much of our old friend "not genuinely seeking work." Everyone who has been in the House of Commons for more than one Parliament knows all the trouble that Governments and individual Members have had over the question of "not genuinely seeking work." Now we are coming to the other device of not being genuinely sick, and, by a tightening up of administrative methods, we are going to find out a whole lot of people who are malingering. We know quite well that the "not genuinely seeking work" provision was devised to catch that man who, with 100 jobs offered him, was dodging round a corner lest one of the jobs should hit him. That was the creature of fiction that was created. In actual practice, we knew that it was a device used to save the resources of the Unemployment Insurance Fund at the expense of men for whom no jobs were available—who, after having searched all day, after having visited all the works in the neighbourhood, after having done

    307
    everything that a man could possibly do, still found themselves at the end of the week with no job, and yet were turned down by the local Employment Exchange as not genuinely seeking work.
    Now we are proposing administrative methods particularly against the married woman, who, it will be remembered, was a, tremendous offender in not genuinely seeking work. She is going to be pursued—by whom, I wonder? First, there will be the panel doctor, who is to act the martinet with the sick married woman. "You must get up; you have been in your bed long enough; away out to your work; the fund has to save another£500, 000."This is a. very serious thing, because it would seem to me to wreck the established tradition that exists between the medical man and his patient. The medical man going into the home is, in the normal practice, a family friend, a man whom you can trust, not merely with your life and your health, but with your secrets. If he is the right type of man, as many of them are, he is a confidant, adviser and friend. Now he is to be made a sort of policeman; his help is to be enlisted to save£500, 000; he is not to allow any sentiment to interfere with the absolute letter of the law, which none of us like when we are sick men. Every one of us knows, or has known at some time of his experience, how very fine are those last two or three days at the end of a period of illness, when the doctor knows, and you know, that you could be back on the job if you made a special effort; but you just do not want to get back until you are perfectly sure that you are all right again. I have no doubt that£500, 000 might be saved in that way.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised at Question Time the other day the case of a woman who came under the stricter administration that is now operating. She was called up to be examined by the regional medical officer. Her panel doctor permits her to go and, in the office where she is being examined as to whether she is fit for work or not, she becomes so ill on the spot that she has to be sent home in a taxicab.
    Mr. M. BEAUMONT: Is it in order to address the Committee leaning against the Bar?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I had not observed the hon. Member leaning against the Bar.
    Mr. MAXTON: I am sorry if I have offended the hon. Member's refined susceptibilities, but I do not think there is anything more ungraceful in my posture than, in that of Ministers when they lounge across the Dispatch Box. Here she goes to be examined as to whether she is fit to return to work. She is in such a condition that she is sent home and dies within 24 hours, while the medical officers are still arguing whether she is fit for work or not. You might have that on an extended scale throughout the country, because, if the Minister is going to save£500, 000, he has not to rely on one doctor for this sort of thing. He has to rely on a whole regiment of panel doctors, health visitors and insurance officials, all acting as detectives to decide the precise day and hour when a man or woman who has been sick shall go back into employment again.
    Mr. HOWARD: That is what every trade union does now.
    Mr. MAXTON: I know how the visiting committee of a trade union works, and I know how the visiting committee of a friendly society used to work in these matters. They never went to a man in the spirit of saying, "We have to save£1." They went to him as a brother and said: "Are you feeling fit to go back?" The trouble against them was not being too strict in saving the funds of the society at the expense of the man who was sick. It was great liberality and generosity, which was seldom taken advantage of, because there was as much common sense on the part of the person receiving benefit as on the part of the local people who were administering it. Moreover, it would not be regarded by me as an adequate excuse for the Government doing a wrong and a harsh thing that the trade unions had established a precedent for it, and I am sure the hon. Member who interrupted would not admit for a moment that a precedent set by trade unions in their various activities should form the basis upon which the Government should found its policy for dealing with its citizens.
    I do not know what to say in the way of persuading the Minister. Obviously, it

    309
    is no use for a group like this to threaten. There is no sense in threatening. I have never believed in making threats which you were unable to carry out to the letter, and at the moment there is no threat that I can make that I can see an opportunity of carrying out except that we will raise our voices outside to the maximum extent and try to let the country see exactly what we are doing in this House of Commons. One of the greatest difficulties in democratic Parliamentary politics is the time lag between Parliament doing a thing and the population waking up to the fact that it has been clone. The House of Commons gets away with a tremendous lot with which it would not get away if the people were alert to what was happening.
    I do not expect, after the service which the Minister has paid to the genuine sincerity of his desire for actuarial solvency, that anything we can say will persuade him just now to make any concessions on this Measure at all. He tells us that he has gone to the last limit of generosity, which means that his conception of generosity is, that where he might have taken five shillings, he has only taken half-a-crown. That is the extent of his generosity. He can go no further than that, and I do not expect that we can have a majority in the Committee to carry the Amendment which we are proposing. I have said before, and my hon. Friends have said it, that we have seen several Parliaments. We are not callow Parliamentary waifs. [Interruption.] An hon. Member behind me takes that as being a commentary upon new Members who have come in for the first time, but I do not mean it in that way at all. The nasty thing which I have to say about them is coming later. I have never seen in any preceding Parliament a body of men. or women who were so absolutely slavishly tied to the chariot wheels of the particular Government which they are supposed to support.
    Viscountess ASTOR: What about the Labour party?
    Mr. MAXTON: The Noble Lady knows that Sodom and Gomorrah would have been saved if there had been one or two just men among them. Even in the period of the Labour Government there were always some hon. Members who would protest. They were admittedly, very few, but here not one voice and not
    310
    one vote. The women of the House are going to submit to this Clause. In fact, they are not merely going to submit to it, but they are going to walk into the Lobby in support of it—in support of a Clause to make a sick woman subsist on 10s. a week or, if totally incapacitated, upon 5s. a week. And it is because the Whips have told them that it is the right thing to do. As I once said in a previous Debate, in regard to the Noble Lady, when she presents herself at the judgment seat and the is asked why she gave her vote to reduce the health benefits to women, it will not be accepted as an adequate excuse that the Whips had told her to do so. The only appeal that I make is that some hon. Members who can visualise the nature of the thing they are doing, who can imagine the kitchen and the sick room of working class folk in their constituencies, who have enough imagination to transplant themselves into the home of a Borrowing family and imagine what is in the minds of that family, should have the courage to vote against the imposition of additional suffering and sorrow.
    Mr. MACMILLAN rose—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the Committee is ready to come to a decision.
    Mr. MACMILLAN: I should not— [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I shall only intervene for a few moments, but this is a Clause which has aroused very considerable interest in many quarters of the Committee, and a certain division of opinion exists. I have risen to express the hope that the Government will take into serious consideration some of the arguments presented during the Debate. It has become rather the practice that when economy has to be made, which, unfortunately at the present time is sometimes necessary, to put it on to a class of women, especially married women. Curiously enough, in certain parts of our social insurance the women are of benefit and general value to the Insurance Fund. That is true of Unemployment Insurance and the pensions part of Health Insurance. In that part of the fund we never hear of any desire to cut down their benefit, but in this part of the fund, where it is argued that they are a charge upon the fund, the saving is to be made at the expense of married

    311
    women. I think the Government, on the case that has been presented, ought to recognise that in many parts of the Committee there is a certain uneasiness about this Clause.
    It is all very well to say that it is necessary to make these economies, and we all recognise that in present circumstances the fund is in a state when economies are necessary, but the fact that economies are necessary does not prove that these specific economies are the right ones to make and does not prove that the particular sacrifice should fall upon this particular class. Indeed I think it is arguable that either by an increase in the contributions now paid to the Central Fund or by the imposition of sacrifices upon all the classes who benefit, it would be possible to make these economies in another way and yet achieve the same financial result. We have heard the Minister's statement about the contributions and the Central Fund, and that even if he went to the extreme lengths proposed in the Minority Report of the Royal Commission of 1&26 on the subject of pooling, it would not produce solvency. That must be based on his estimate of the future. The National Government cannot one day produce an optimistic estimate of the future and the next day produce a pessimistic estimate, and when they want to justify economy, say they look forward to three years' continuous unemployment, but when they want to justify expenditure say things are getting better and going on all right. We cannot have conflicting speeches such as those made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week and the Minister of Health to-day. The view that it is not possible even by the provisions of the Bill to obtain solvency must be an estimate reflecting a very pessimistic view of the next few years.
    The argument I am putting forward is that between now and the final stages of

    Division No. 236.]

    AYES.

    [10.54 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Balniel, Lord

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Barclay-Harvey, c. M.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Ayletbury)

    Buchan, John

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Burghley, Lord

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Bossom, A. C.

    Burnett, John George

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Boulton, W. W.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    the Bill we should consider whether some alleviation cannot be made on this Clause. If it is said there is malingering on the part of this class of beneficiaries, then it should also be recognised that that may possibly be partly due to what we all really know is the actual position in which medical services are carried on. As long as claimants have the right to choose a doctor you will always have a danger of temptation on the part of the medical profession itself. These great questions must be settled in a permanent measure and in a much wider scheme than this Measure, which is a purely temporary Measure. I only urge the right hon. Gentleman that between now and the final passage of this Bill he should see whether some alleviation cannot be made. He says that this is a slight sacrifice, but the sacrifice involves a reduction of sickness benefit by two shillings and of disablement benefit by two shillings and sixpence. Having read in the report of the medical officer of health for my own constituency that the state of poverty arising from unemployment there is causing grave alarm to the medical authorities of the town, I am bound to say that the description of it as a slight sacrifice does not altogether commend itself to ordinary people, because really the sacrifice is very great. If it were possible even to make some small reduction of what the Minister is now asking from this class of beneficiary, it would be very well received in every quarter of the House, and most of all in those quarters which are most anxious to support the Government in these difficult times.
    Sir H. YOUNG Sir H. YOUNG 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, 44.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

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

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

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

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Ramsden, E.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Rood, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Remer, John R.

    Clayton Dr. George C.

    Jones, Sir G.W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Copeland, Ida

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R,

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Knebworth, Viscount

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Knight, Holford

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Crossley, A. C.

    Lees-Jones, John

    Salt, Edward W.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Curry, A. C.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Dawton, Sir Philip

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Denville, Alfred

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Scone, Lord

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Selley, Harry R.

    Donner, P. W.

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Drewe, Cedric

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington, N.)

    Mabane, William

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. sir A. (C'thness)

    Dunglass, Lord

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Slater, John

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    McKeag, William

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

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Erskine, Lord (Wetton-super-Mare)

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Magnay, Thomas

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Stevenson, James

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Manningham-Butler, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Meller, Richard James

    Templeton, William P.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Thompson, Luke

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Milne, Charles

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Greene, William P. C.

    Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Ward, Iren Mary Bewick (Wallsend).

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Hales. Harold K.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Normand, Wilfrid Guild

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Hanbury, Cecil

    North, Captain Edward T.

    While, Henry Graham

    Hanley, Dennis A,

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Harbord, Arthur

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Hartland, George A.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Womersley, Walter James

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Wragg, Herbert

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P

    Peat, Charles U.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

    Petherick, M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hornby, Frank

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Major George Davies and

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Commander Southby

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Potter, John

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Kirkwood, David

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Batey, Joseph

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Lawson, John James

    Briant, Frank

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Leonard, William

    Buchanan, George

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Cape, Thomas

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

    Lunn, William

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Hirst, George Henry

    McGovern, John

    Daggar, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    John, William

    Maxton, James

    Edwards, Charles

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

    Milner, Major James

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    314

    315

    Price, Gabriel

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Thorne, William James

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Mr. Cordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

    Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)

    Questions put accordingly, "That the word 'ten' stand part of clause

    Division No. 237.]

    AYES.

    [11.2 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Greene, William P. C.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Hales, Harold K.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Petherick, M.

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(Wverh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Harbord, Arthur

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Balniel, Lord

    Hartland, George A.

    Potter, John

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Ramsden, E.

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th. C.)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Blindell, James

    Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Alton)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hornby, Frank

    Remer, John R.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Roberts, sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

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

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Buchan, John

    James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Burghley, Lord

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Burnett, John George

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Salt, Edward W.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Scone, Lord

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

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Knatchbull Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Knebworth, Viscount

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

    Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Latham Sir Herbert Paul

    Slater, John

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Lees-Jones John

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Lennox-Boyd A. T.

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Lindsay Noel Ker

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

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Mabane, William

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

    Stevenson, James

    Crossley, A. C.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    McEwen Captain J. H. F,

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Donner, P. W.

    MaKie, John Hamilton

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Drewe, Cedric

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Templeton, William P.

    Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington, N.)

    Maitland, Adam

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Thompson, Luke

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Ward, Lt. Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Meller, Richard James,

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Erskine-Boist, Capt. c. C. (Blackpool)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    White, Henry Graham

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Milne, Charles

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Womersley, Walter James

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Munro, Patrick

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Normand, Wilfrid Guild

    Major George Davies and Lord Erskine.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    North, Captain Edward T.

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 47.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grithffis, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maxton, James

    Batey, Joseph

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

    Milner, Major James

    Brlant, Frank

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Buchanan, George

    Hirst, George Henry

    Price, Gabriel

    Cape, Thomas

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    John, William

    Thorne, William James

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

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

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Edwards, Charles

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lunn, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    McGovern, John

    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 5, line 17, to leave out the word "five," and to insert instead thereof the word "six."
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not know if there is an agreement about having no discussion. I have no intention of breaking it, and I did not want to make the Minister move the Closure on the last occasion, but I put some questions to him on the main discussion, and I understood that he intended to reply. Those questions were: Was a widow to be treated as a married woman, and did he intend to treat a woman whose husband was permanently disabled as a single woman, in the same sense as in unemployment insurance? I had no intention on the last occasion of making the right hon. Gentleman move the Closure, but I expected him to say a word or two in reply, because when I was speaking he

    Division No. 238.]

    AYES.

    [11.13 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Dunglass, Lord

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Burnett, John George

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Albery, Irving James

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Elliston. Captain George Sampson

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Atholl, Duchess of

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

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Balley, Eric Alfred George

    Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Balniel, Lord

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th. C.)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Bossom, A. C.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Boulton, W. W.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Greene, William P. C.

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Crossloy, A. C.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Hales, Harold K.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

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

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Buchan, John

    Donner, P. W.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Drewe, Cedric

    Hartland, George A.

    Burghley, Lord

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    nodded as if he intended to reply. Can he now say a word or two without breaking any agreement?
    Sir H. YOUNG: A widow is treated as a single woman, not as a married woman. As regards a woman whose husband is disabled, I should be very sorry to judge the general by the particular case, but, generally speaking, a. woman whose husband is alive is a married woman.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, but would the right hon. Gentleman not consider, between now and the Report stage, making the Amendment made in the Anomalies Act and treat that woman as being single for the purposes of the Act?
    Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 45.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Salt, Edward W.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    May hew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

    Meller, Richard James

    Scone, Lord

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Hornby, Frank

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Milne, Charles

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

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

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Slater, John

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Munro, Patrick

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

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

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Normand, Wilfrid Guild

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Stevenson, James

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Knebworth, Viscount

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Petherick, M.

    Templeton, William P.

    Lees-Jones, John

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Potter, John

    Thompson, Luke

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Ramsden, E.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Mabane, William

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Remer, John R.

    White, Henry Graham

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Robinson, John Roland

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Womersley, Walter James

    McLean, Major Alan

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Maitland, Adam

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton(S'v'noaks)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Salmon, Major Isldore

    Lord Erskine and Mr. Blindell.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

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

    Maxton, James

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Milner, Major James

    Buchanan, George

    Hirst, George Henry

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Cape, Thomas

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Price, Gabriel

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    John, William

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

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

    Thorne, William James

    Daggar, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Kirkwood, David

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

    Edwards, Charles

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lunn, William

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    McGovern, John

    Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 5, line 19, to leave out the word "six," and to insert instead thereof the word "seven."

    Division No. 239.]

    AYES.

    [11.23 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Balniel, Lord

    Bossom, A. C.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Boulton, W. W.

    Question put, "That the word" six' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 45.

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Petherick, M.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

    Potter, John

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hornby, Frank

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Ramsay, T. B. w. (Western Isles)

    Buchan, John

    Howitt, Or. Alfred B.

    Ramsden, E.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Burghley, Lord

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Burgin, Or. Edward Leslie

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Burnett, John George

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Remer, John R.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    James, Wing.Com. A. W. H.

    Roberta, Aled (Wroxham)

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Robinson, John Roland

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Rosbotham, S. T.

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

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Rose, Ronald D.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcatdy)

    Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Kerr, Hamilton W,

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Knebworth, Viscount

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Salt, Edward W.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Copeland, Ida

    Lees-Jones, John

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Scone, Lord

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Sinclair, Ma). Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Mabane, William

    Slater, John

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

    Mac Andrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-ln-F.)

    Donner, P. W.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

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

    Drewe, Cedric

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph paton

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Eastwood, John Francis

    McLean, Major Alan

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Maitland, Adam

    Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Stevenson, James

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Meller, Richard James

    Templeton, William P.

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Mills, Major J. 0. (New Forest)

    Thompson, Luke

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Milne, Charles

    Thornton, Sir Frederick Charles

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Munro, Patrick

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    White, Henry Graham

    Graves. Marjorie

    Normand, Wilfrid Guild

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Greene, William P. C.

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Womersley, Walter James

    Halos, Harold K.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Hall. Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Mr. Blindell.

    Hartland, George A.

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Dagger, George

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Batey, Joseph

    Edwards, Charles

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Buchanan, George

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

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

    Cape, Thomas

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Hirst, George Henry

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Jenkins, Sir William

    322

    323

    John, William

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Tinker, John Joseph

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

    McGovern, John

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Kirkwood, David

    Maxton, Jamas

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Milner, Major James

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Lawson, John James

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don valley)

    Leonard, William

    Price, Gabriel

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Lunn, William

    Thorns, William James

    Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

    The CHAIRMAN: Before a Division is taken OH the next Amendment, I would invite the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp), in whose name it stands, to give a short explanation of it.
    Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to delay you, Sir Dennis, but my recollection of the arrangement, so far as the Amendment in question is concerned, is that it involves a different idea altogether, and that it is a subject for discussion. The arrangement was that the Amendments on which we have just divided were not to be discussed, but the next one raises an entirely new matter.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am obliged to the hon. Member for raising that point. I have not been in the Chair for the last two hours. I understand that it is the case that the principle involved in this Amendment has not been discussed, and, therefore, it can be discussed at this stage.
    Mr. THORP: I beg to move, in page 6, line 19, at the end, to add the words:
    "Provided that where any approved society shall have reason to believe that the funds at its disposal would permit of the payment of sickness or disablement benefit to its members or to any specified class thereof at a rate or rates higher than those aforesaid, such society may at any time after the passing of this Act submit to the Minister a scheme for the payment of either or both of such benefits at any rate not exceeding the corresponding rates paid by the society at the date of commencement of this Act.
    Any such scheme shall apply either to all members of the society or to any specified class thereof, and stall not have any effect unless and until confirmed by the Minister, and the Minister shall not confirm any such scheme unless satisfied that by reason of the sickness experience of the society during the two years last preceding the date of submission of the scheme, the annual expenditure under the scheme is not likely to exceed the normal annual expenditure expected to be paid by the society calculated upon the actuarial basis of expectation of sickness and rates of benefit upon which the principal Act was framed.
    The rates of benefit under the scheme shall be deemed to be the ordinary rates
    324
    for the society in lieu of the ordinary rates aforesaid, and shall be payable from such date and during such period as the Minister shall prescribe."
    At so late an hour I rise with a good deal of hesitation to move this Amendment, which stands in the names of my hen. and learned Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Mr. Cassels). the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and myself. My hesitation is due to more reasons than one. The first is that this is the first occasion upon which I have had the honour of addressing the House. The second is that I am only too conscious of the fact that many right hon. and hon. Members are more familiar with this class of legislation than I am; and the third is that this legislation is so extremely complex that I am satisfied that no one really knows what it means.
    The object of this Amendment is to enable those approved societies which are in a position financially to do so to continue to pay the rates which they have been paying hitherto. I am given to understand, though I speak subject to correction by the better information of the Minister, that, if this Amendment be carried, it will only affect some 250, 000 people. As the Bill stands, the effect of this Clause will be to reduce the benefits paid by approved societies to one lowest common level, and I submit with some confidence that it is not right, in legislation of this kind and in times of difficulty such as these, that we should set our pace by the most ungenerous rather than by the more generous approved society. Furthermore, when insurance was introduced in 1911, people were specifically requested to be wise in the selection of the approved societies they joined and it was pointed out that they themselves would reap the benefit of joining a society that insured comparatively valuable lives. Yet this Clause would take away from those who took that advice the benefits and advantages they would derive from having exercised their choice somewhat more

    325
    carefully than other people not so well advised.
    I should hesitate to move the Amendment if there were in fact any machinery in existence at present for the pooling of the accumulated funds of the approved societies, but there is no such machinery existing. One must assume that the present position is, and will remain, that the approved societies which have accumulated funds will be allowed to retain those funds. That being the case, unless these approved societies are enabled by the Amendment to pay the benefits that they are now paying, and the benefits that their funds would permit them to pay, the effect must inevitably be that they will accumulate large sums of money which will not go to benefit the Treasury and will not go to the central fund, but will benefit the insurance funds in general. They will not go anywhere where they can serve any useful purpose and, in a somewhat dog in the manger spirit, approved societies which by prudent and careful administration have been able to accumulate these funds will be denied the right of distributing the benefits that they are now paying. It is somewhat unfair that the members of these societies should be penalised in that way. I have in mind a society formed shortly after 1911 which has a membership of 71, 437. It might be somewhat invidious to mention its name. Its members are extremely healthy. They belong to a class that does not so often have occasion to appeal for medical benefit as other members of the community. The valuation in 1918 showed that the society had a gross surplus of£124, 000. In 1923 they had a surplus of£239, 000 and in 1928£192, 000. The benefits that it has been paying over to its members are very considerably in excess of the amount it will be allowed to distribute should the Bill pass in its present form. It is at the moment paying 15s. a week sickness and 9s. disablement benefit to those qualified to receive it and to those only entitled to ordinary benefit, 12s. sickness and 7s. 6d. disablement benefit. Moreover, it is clear from actuarial calculations and from the audit that the society is well able financially to continue to pay benefit at that rate.
    We should do nothing to preclude a society that is financially capable of doing so from continuing to pay those benefits. They are small enough in all conscience upon which people can live. Whether
    326
    they are the result of care, attention and prudence on the part of those responsible for the society or not, it is a distinct hardship that they should be denied the right of continuing paying what after all is an extremely small sum of money upon which people can be expected to live. At the present moment, as far as that society is concerned, there are 1.864 members in receipt of either sickness or disablement benefit. The effect of reducing the payments by the society to the limits proposed by the Bill would be to force many of those 1, 864 members to seek relief either at the hands of charity or the Poor Law. That would not be a desirable state of affairs, and in those circumstances I move the Amendment standing in my name.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I am sure that I am expressing the wish of all Members of the Committee in congratulating the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) upon his excellent maiden speech. Its lucidity and brevity will lead us to hope that we shall often hear him speak in future Debates. I ought to make it clear that nothing in the Bill before the Committee affects additional benefits. It is not true to say that owing to the Bill members of approved societies are not getting the advantage of good management and thrift. The hon. Member pointed out that the great incentive to thrift and good administration ought to lead, in the course of each successive quinquennial valuation, to additional benefits over and above the standard rate. That has been the experience of the society of which my hon. Friend spoke. I should like the Committee to notice that the argument advanced on this Amendment is a complete answer to nine-tenths of the views put forward during the last two days that the strong ought to help the weak and that surpluses ought to be subject to pooling. I hope that Members of the Committee have noted that fact. The difficulty is that you are asking for two bases of valuation inside the one scheme. That is impossible. As the Committee know, the whole scheme proceeds upon the basis of the quinquennial valuation. At the end of the five-year period, according to the results of the valuation, each individual secretary of the 7, 500 societies and branches is able to distribute to its members additional benefits as well as the standard benefits.

    327
    The Amendment asks us to do an impossible thing. It asks us to determine at a period inside the valuation period whether the Minister can say that the society is in a financial position to pay cash benefits in excess of the standard rate. That is a proposition impossible of solution until the actual valuation is completed. Take the particular society to which, the hon. Member has referred. It has given large additional benefits, but that society has not been without experience of the problem of heavier claims in the last few years. At the end of its second period of valuation it was able to increase the normal sickness benefit by 5s. 6d. a week, and disablement benefit by 2s. 9d., but on the third valuation the increases instead of being 5s. 6d. a week came down to 3s., and instead of 2s. 9d. fell to Is. 6d. The Committee will therefore see that it is not so simple as it seems to solve this difficult problem. I believe the Bill proceeds on the right lines. It says that there are three types of societies—the large society which is in surplus and, even in this bad period, is able to pay additional benefits, although they be smaller than in previous valuations. Large numbers of societies are not in deficiency or in surplus, but are just paying their way, but there are societies that are in deficiency. By tackling the problem in the way it does the Bill seeks to help societies now in deficiency to get out of deficiency.
    It would be impossible to solve this problem by asking the Minister to say that a particular society at any particular time inside the valuation period was able to give additional benefits above the standard rate. Equally, it is impossible to depart from the fundamental basis of the insurance scheme. The ordinary rates of benefit payable to women under the scheme are determined actuarially, having regard to the general sickness experience of women as a class, and there is a standard measure applied in determining what benefits the contributions can support, but that can only be determined at the end of the actual valuation period. To get the scheme back to solvency is the surest way to increase the additional benefits. Additional benefits not only mean
    328
    ophthalmic treatment, dental treatment and other treatments, but the society if it desires to add to the ordinary rate— the rate determined in this Bill—can add so many shillings a week according to the valuation as additional benefit. I am sorry to have to refuse the first Amendment moved by the hon. Member in his maiden speech, but I think the arguments that I have put forward show that we could not accept the Amendment.
    Mr. LOGAN: In regard to any society now giving reduced benefits, and being able to give additional benefits later, may I take it that, if that society were to adopt the "want and distress" rule, which is one of the additional benefits, the society would be able to make up their additional benefits, like the benefits which in ordinary circumstance? the society would receive?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The answer is that the additional benefit will not alter the standard rate, which is statutory.
    Mr. J. JONES: Some of us have been confirmed in our views by the Debate this afternoon. When the National Insurance Acts came in, the were hailed as a great solution of all our social difficulties, and we were told that the sun would shine and that everything in the garden would be lovely. Now we have got a scheme, and we have been informed that with each different section some may be fortunate and others may be unfortunate, but they have all got to stew in their own juice. If you belong to a particular section of insured people, everything will be all right as far as you are concerned, but, if you happen to be one of the down-and-outs, such as a casual labourer and a man who has no guarantee of a day's work from week to week, you have to suffer all the disabilities. I come from a constituency where the dock labourer formerly got on the average one day's work in three days. To-day they do not get one day's work a week, but the insurance money is stopped for every day they work. Where do they stand when it comes to a question of making up the balance? They belong to approved societies, and, when they go to ask for benefit, they find that, owing to the circumstances of their employment, they have not been able to pay in enough to guarantee them benefit, so they are always more or less out of benefit. The

    329
    Amendment says, "Let the people who are well off keep what they have got." That justifies our view when we say that if you are to have national insurance let it be really national and let the nation shoulder its responsibilities, and, if our people are ill or unemployed or not capable of working in times of great industrial depression, the nation ought to find them either work or maintenance.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member does not follow the effect of this Amendment. Whether the Amendment is passed or not, it makes no difference whatever to the point the hon. Member is making.
    Mr. JONES: I understand that. I understand exactly what it means. It means that the poor man will be hit right through to the end of the chapter and that the working man will always find himself in a state of bankruptcy. your schemes are bankrupt already.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not discuss those schemes, but must confine himself to this particular Amendment.
    Mr. JONES: The particular Amendment means, of course, that those who have got it can keep it.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member does not follow me. No question arises here as to whether an approved society and its members shall part with their funds or not. The only question is the way in which a particular approved society should use its funds. There is no question as to any other society or its contributors.
    Mr. JONES: I quite understand what is meant by the Amendment. It means that because you happen to belong to a particular section you can keep what is your own. The other fellow over the garden wall has to go down, down the pan. We all appreciate the difference between the man who works in a regular job, who pays in because he knows that he gets out all that he pays in, and the poor fellow who has to go to the docks every morning to line up for a job. It is only half a day when he gets it and when he gets his half day's pay he has the insurance money deducted. I say
    330
    quite frankly that the whole insurance scheme, both National Health and Unemployment, is a fraud, because the nation has not accepted its real responsibility.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt again, but up to the present the hon. Member has not said a single word relevant to the Amendment under discussion.
    Mr. JONES: I thank you very much for that compliment. If I ever said anything relevant in this House I think I should not be a Member of it. I only want to express the feelings of the people I represent. Their feeling is that this is not a National Health Insurance Bill but a national insult to the general body of workers.
    Miss RATHBONE: Let me come back to the point under discussion. I put this question to the Parliamentary Secretary: Is it not the case that the process of valuation is going on all the time, and that societies are taken by groups? If that is so and a staff is at work all the time on the job of estimating the assets of societies, would it not be practicable to avert the grave inconvenience inflicted on a substantial number of societies by being compelled to cut down their ordinary benefits when there may be no financial obligation to do so I Would it not be possible for the Ministry to arrange for any necessary inquiry to take place and to ensure that those societies which believe themselves to be in a-position to pay the present rate of benefit, or something approximately to it, can continue to do so? We have heard a great deal of the right of societies to pay additional benefits to their members and to be considered as; individual units. It seems to me from the Minister's reply that we are in the position where we get neither Socialism nor individualism. The women are being penalised as a group because there is no principle at work of the poor helping the rich.
    12 m.
    Mr. E. BROWN: The hon. Member is, of course, asking for favouritism in the valuation. What happens is that there is a continuous valuation, and there are four groups of societies. The only possible basis for valuation, in order to ensure that the standard benefits can be

    331
    paid and to determine what surplus is available for distribution in additional benefits—I do not like the word "fancy," no single benefit can be called a "fancy" benefit—is the full picture over an adequate term of years, five years, and it would be quite improper for any Minister to bring forward the valuation of any group of societies in order that they might have an advantage over other societies. I think that the hon. Lady will see that there is great force in that contention.
    Mr. MAXTON: I am not at all attracted by the principle underlying the Amendment. It is the converse of the point of view which the opponents of the Measure are putting forward, but I want to understand clearly the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary. Do I understand that he is resisting the Amendment because the principle is already embodied in existing legislation; that a society which is able to do this can do it now as an additional benefit?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The hon. Member must not understand that. I said that additional benefits are always distributed at the end of the valuation period. When that period comes if there is a surplus it can be dealt with by the members of the society in such a way as is prescribed in the Schedule to the Act.
    Mr. THORP: Has the Parliamentary Secretary overlooked Section 74 of the principal Act, which provides for a valuation every five years or
    "at such other times as the Minister may appoint."
    Mr. MAXTON: As I understand it, a society may do this provided that the quinquennial valuation proves that they are financially capable of doing it, that they are not debarred from doing it as an additional benefit provided that the quinquennial valuation of the society showed that it was financially possible. Presumably all societies are working on a quinquennial valuation which has been completed and which included the payment of benefits on the scale for which the hon. Member is pressing, and presumably the last quinquennial valuation, which cannot have been long completed, proved that some societies can pay scales
    332
    on the existing rates and additional benefits as well. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether his reply means that approved societies which could pay 12s. benefit to a single woman two months ago or three months ago when the valuation was completed will now be permitted to pay the 12s. benefit until a further quinquennial examination has taken place? Is it barred from this particular form of benefit for five years?
    Mr. E. BROWN: If there have been additional benefits at the standard rate, either for men or for women and those additional benefits have taken the shape of cash benefits, nothing in this Bill interferes with that. What the Bill does, as far as it affects the scheme with regard to women, is to make provision in reference to the valuation to determine the new rate of statutory—not additional— benefit.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I had not intended to intervene, but perhaps I ought to show, if I can, some of the weaknesses, as they appear to me, of the new provision proposed in the Amendment. I happen to be secretary of a society and, as regards the effect of this Bill on that society, I am glad to say that I think we shall be able to pay the same, by way of additional cash benefits, in spite of that provided for in this Bill. But if this proposed new provision were carried out, there would be two statutory benefits under the National Health Insurance scheme, that is to say, the 12s. statutory benefit for women, in my society for instance, and the 10s. statutory benefit for women in societies which have no surpluses. That is one weakness of the proposal. The other is this. At the end of the proposal it is stated that the rates of benefit under the scheme are to be deemed to be the ordinary rates and so forth, and then occur the words "as the Minister shall prescribe." What is to prevent the Minister prescribing exactly what we pass into law as it now stands? We should be putting one thing into this new provision and then handing over to the Minister the power to do-what he likes by regulation.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The Minister could not prescribe benefits less than those provided for in the Act. All that there

    333
    is here is that the Minister can prescribe additional benefits. The hon. Member knows that the Minister does prescribe additional benefits now or that additional benefits must have the Minister's sanction and agreement.
    Mr. DAVIES: That is exactly the point. The Minister, if we adopted this provision, would not be entitled to prescribe a rate lower than the statutory rate. What he would be able to do— destroying at the same time most of the effect of this new proposal—would be to prescribe by rules, additional benefits equal to the old statutory benefits. Consequently we should be in just the same position as before. There is another point against this proposal. When I saw it first I was rather attracted by it, but on examination it appears to me that if it were accepted, there would be a tendency on the part of approved societies to do away with treatment benefit— optical, dental, convalescent home benefit and the like—in order to use the money for additional cash benefits. If there is one thing more than another which we ought to aim at under this scheme it is to avoid, as far as possible, spending money on cash benefits but rather to spend it on treatment benefit. It is better to prevent sickness than to pay benefit when sickness comes. On the whole, it would be better for the scheme if this were not passed.
    Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Member has not explained the point with which I was dealing. Ho must remember that we are typical Members of this Committee, without the day-to-day experience which he possesses of running the affairs of an approved society—a very special kind of approved society. I would remind him that our specialised experience is in dealing with our constituents, who are insured in a variety of approved societies, but who are not selected lives, if I may use the term, as are the members of his society; and we want to be quite sure, because if there is one scrap of benefit to be got for our constituents by adopting this Amendment instead of the scheme of the Minister, we shall vote for the Amendment.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: It is the other way about.
    Mr. MAXTON: We are trying to be satisfied as to what the position is, and I do not think that up to date there is a toss of the coin between the two, but the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary and the additional reply of the hon. Member on behalf of the Government's scheme lead us to think that what the Minister said is that if a wealthy society has given to a married woman as additional benefit to the existing 12s. a cash payment of 4s., that society can continue to pay 16s.; or is that society now to be allowed to pay 10s. and 4s.? It was giving a 4s. addition to the previous statutory rate, which meant 16s., and an hon. Member above the Gangway here tells me of a society that now pays 17s., which is a 5s. addition to the 12s. basis. Do I understand that the society that is paying 17s. may now not continue paying 17s., but may pay 15s., up till the time when its next quinquennial valuation is completed, or must it drop all its women members to a 10s. level?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I will try once more. It will continue to pay every additional benefit which it was allowed to pay its-members, cash or other. Nothing in this Bill interferes with any additional benefit, but it will have to pay the lower rate of standard benefit as prescribed in the Bill.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I am not quite clear on this question yet. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) quotes a society that has been paying 12s., plus an additional payment of 5s. from its surplus funds. Can that society now pay 12s., plus 5s., or can it pay only the 10s., plus 5s.?
    Mr. BROWN: It can only pay the 10s., plus additional benefit.
    Mr. LOGAN: I am most anxious to understand the position, and I think I do, but I do not want any subtlety of language to be used, and I know that the Minister is not anxious to be subtle at all, but that he wants to explain quite honestly what the Bill means. If my memory serves me rightly, what has happened to-day means that you have now determined that, from the point of view of sickness and disablement benefit, what, we have passed to-day, so far as women, are concerned, will be the standard rate of benefit. There need be no ambiguity about that. It means that you are to

    335
    bring all societies on to a common basis with this smaller amount in order, from the point of view of valuation, to bring them within the ambit of actuarial proposals which will enable the societies to be solvent. I understand that we are deciding now that there is to be a definite reduction of standard benefits in the approved societies. It has been made clear, however, that so far as quinquennial valuations are concerned, it is not intended to interfere with rights of societies in respect of additional benefits where a declaration has been made that the funds are absolutely solvent, and that they can prove that they have a surplus. The Minister has made clear that the Government do not intend to take those amounts which the societies can give in the form of additional benefits. The point which has been raised by an hon. Member below the Gangway has not been honestly dealt with. I am in a society which is second to none in the benefits that it gives. It gives full dental and optical treatment, hospital treatment with pay for the dependants of the person in hospital, full convalescent treatment, medical and surgical treatment, and sick nursing. In addition, it gives up to£12 to members in cases of want and distress. From an actuarial point of view, my society is quite sound in doing this. I am convinced that there must be differentiation between societies, but not at the cost of the bottom dog. The particular

    Division No. 240.]

    AYES.

    [12.21 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Buchan, John

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Burgin, Or. Edward Leslie

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Albery, Irving James

    Burnett, John George

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Carver, Major William H.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Balniel, Lord

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Bateman, A. L.

    Copeland, Ida

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Fox, Sir Gilford

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Crookshank, Col.C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Blinded, James

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Bossom, A. C.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Boulton, W. W.

    Curry, A. C.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Bracken, Brendan

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Graves, Marjorie

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Dickie, John P.

    Greene, William P. C.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Donner, P. W.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbra'. W.)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Drewe, Cedric

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    grown, Ernest (Leith)

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Hales, Harold K.

    class of people whom we want to benefit are the casual labourers and those who are not well employed, who ought to get as good benefits as those who are better placed.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting beyond the Amendment.
    Mr. LOGAN: With all respect, I am simply pointing out by contrast what I feel the Committee is anxious to avoid.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not discuss that. It is not before the Committee at the moment.
    Mr. LOGAN: What I do wish to point out is that we have decided that there shall be a reduction of benefits, and that this reduction will certainly bring solvency to those particular societies, and I am wondering—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is still entirely out of order.
    Mr. THORP: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    HON. MEMBERS: No!
    Sir H. YOUNG Sir H. YOUNG 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, 233; Noes, 31.

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Salt, Edward W.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Meller, Richard James

    Scone, Lord

    Hartland, George A,

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Selley, Harry R.

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Milne, Charles

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd A Chitw'k)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Slater, John

    Hornby, Frank

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. sir Walter D.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Munro, Patrick

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Howitt, Dr. Allred B.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Normand, Wilfrid Guild

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Stevenson, James

    James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Storey, Samuel

    Jamieson, Douglas

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Janner, Barnett

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Pearson, William G.

    Sugdcn, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Penny, Sir George

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Petherick, M.

    Templeton, William P.

    Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Knebworth, Viscount

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Thompson, Luke

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quintan

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Law, Richard k. (Hull, S.W.)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Lockwood, John c. (Hackney, C.)

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Mabane, William

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Womersley, Walter James

    McKeag, William

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Wragg, Herbert

    McLean, Major Alan

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Maitland, Adam

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and Lord Erskine.

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    McGovern, John

    Buchanan, George

    Hirst, George Henry

    Maxton, James

    Cape, Thomas

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Milner, Major James

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

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

    Price, Gabriel

    Daggar, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Kirkwood, David

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

    Edwards, Charles

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Lawson, John James

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Leonard, William

    TELLERS FOB THE NOES.—

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Lunn, William

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

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Question put accordingly, "That those words be there added."

    Division No. 241.]

    AYES.

    [12.30 a.m.

    Kirkwood, David

    Milner, Major James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Maxton, James

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Mr. McGovern and Mr. Buchanan.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Bateman, A. L.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Albery, Irving James

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Balniel, Lord

    Blindell, James

    The Committee divided: Ayns, 4; Noes, 250.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Boulton, W. W.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Harbord, Arthur

    Pearson, William G.

    Bracken, Brendan

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Penny, Sir George

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Hartland, George A.

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Petherick, M.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hellgera, Captain F. F. A.

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Hirst, George Henry

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Buchan, John

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

    Price, Gabriel

    Burgin, Or. Edward Leslie

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Burnett, John George

    Hornby, Frank

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Horsbrogh, Florence

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Cape, Thomas

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Howitt, Or. Alfred B

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Carver, Major William H.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Heed, Arthur c. (Exeter)

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

    Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Roberta, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    John, William

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Jonos, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Daggar, George

    Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Scone, Lord

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

    Knebworth, Viscount

    Selley, Harry R.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Dickie, John P.

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Donner, P. W.

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Orewe, Cedric

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Slater, John

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A,

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Edwards, Charles

    Lunn, William

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Mabane, William

    Stevenson, James

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

    Storey, Samuel

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    McLean, Major Alan

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Templeton, William P.

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Maitland, Adam

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Thompson, Luke

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Fox, Sir Gilford

    Meiler, Richard James

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Milne, Charles

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Glucksteln, Louis Halle

    Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

    Golf, Sir Park

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

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Graves, Marjorie

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Greene, William P. C.

    Munro, Patrick

    Womersley, Walter James

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Wood, Sir Murdoch MeKenzie (Banff)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesoro', W.)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Wragg, Herbert

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Normand, Wilfrid Guild

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    O'Connor, Terence James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hales, Harold K.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and

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

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Commander Southby.

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Ormlston, Thomas

    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 38.

    Division No. 242.]

    AYES.

    [12.40 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Fremantle, sir Francis

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Albery, Irving James

    Goff, Sir Park

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

    Gower, sir Robert

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Greene, William P. C.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Gunaton, Captain D. W.

    Penny, Sir George

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Petherick, M.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Balniel, Lord

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Harbord, Arthur

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Bateman, A. L.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Hartland, George A.

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portstm'th, C.)

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., skipton)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Rarmbotham, Herwald

    Blindell, James

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Bossom, A. C.

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Boulton, W. W.

    Hops, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

    Bracken, Brendan

    Hornby, Frank

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridgs)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Buchan, John

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Burnett, John George

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Scone, Lord

    Carver, Major William H.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

    Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Chorlton. Alan Ernest Leofric

    Knebworth, Viscount

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Slater, John

    Conant R. J. E.

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Cook Thomas A.

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Sonwervell, Donald Bradley

    Cranborne, viscount

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Spender-clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Croom-Johnson R. P.

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Stevenson, James

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

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Storey Samuel

    Dawson Sir Philip

    Mabane, William

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Dickie John P.

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Donner P. W.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Drews, Cedric

    Mccorquodale, M. S.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Templeton, William P.

    Dunglass, Lord

    McLean, Major Alan

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Eastwood John Francis

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Thompson, Luke

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Thomson, Sir Fredcrick Charles

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David H.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Ellis Sir R Geoffrey

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Meller, Richard James

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir Victor A. G.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Entwistle cyril Fullard

    Milne, Charles

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tfd & Chisw'k)

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Erskine-Boist. Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

    Wilams Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

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

    Wills, Willfrid D.

    Evans Cant Arthur (Cardiff, S.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Womerley, Walter James

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Wood Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Everard W. Lindsay

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Fielden Edward Brocklehurst

    Munro, Patrick

    Wragg, Herbert

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall Bodmin)

    Nation, Brigadier-Genera. J. J. H.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks,

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Normand, Wilfrid Guild

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and

    Commander Southby.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

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

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Graves, Marjorie

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Buchanan, George

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Kirkwood, David

    Cape, Thomas

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Lawson, John James

    Daggar, George

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

    Leonard, William

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Edwards, Charles

    Hirst, George Henry

    Lunn, William

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Jenkins, Sir William

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    342

    343

    McGovern, John

    Price, Gabriel

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Maxton, James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Milner, Major James

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham,

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Watts-M organ, Lieut.-Col. David

    CLAUSE 4.—(Amendments of Section 15 of principal Act.)
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, to leave out the word "may", and to insert instead thereof the word "shall".
    On this Amendment it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I argued the point raised by the next Amendment on the paper which deals with the question of arrears.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that the hon. Member wishes to discuss both Amendments together?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Very good.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I do so for the convenience of us all, because both Amendments raise much the same point.
    Sir H. YOUNG: May I ask the hon. Member to which Amendment he is referring? Is it the Amendment next on the paper to the one he is moving, or is it the next Amendment standing in his own name, which is further on?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The second Amendment to which I was referring is on page 5, line 28, to leave out from the word "that" to the word "arrears" in line 29. The two are obviously connected. Let me make the point quite clear. I fully agree with the hon. Members who are going to move the deletion of this Clause and who have put down an Amendment to that effect. It is not because I agree with the Clause that I am moving this Amendment. I would prefer to see the Clause entirely deleted, but I take the view that it is likely to be carried, and, therefore, I am endeavouring to modify it. By our first Amendment we ask that the Minister shall make certain regulations providing that arrears of contributions shall be left out of account. We make it obligatory on him to make those regulations in regard to
    "arrears of contributions accruing while a person was insured as an employed contributor during any period in respect of which he proves that he was available for but unable to obtain employment."
    344
    Secondly, we propose to delete the words
    "subject to such conditions as may be prescribed."
    We say, first of all, that the Minister must make these regulations, and, secondly, that they shall be according to the conditions laid down in this Bill and not subject to any conditions that the Minister may himself prescribe. In other words, we seek by this Amendment to take away from the Minister the power of prescribing the conditions under which he will grant this concession to the unemployed person. We say, in effect, that the Minister's obligation must be carried out, and we leave him no discretion in the matter as to the conditions that he shall prescribe. The Minister may tell us that he intends in all cases to use his power in a lenient fashion, but we have seen power misused in these cases, and we do not intend to leave it within the discretion of any particular Minister to use this power or not. We say that the Minister shall use it and that he shall not be able to prescribe limitations but shall grant to everybody the benefit of the concession.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I was in some doubt as to what was the object of the Amendment, but I think I follow it now that it has been explained by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The purpose for which he proposes to make the Amendment is already provided for by the very nature of the Clause and such a limitation as he proposes would not add anything whatever to the protection which he desires. Let me show him how that is so. The provision he would like to strike out gives the Minister power to make regulations to effect certain definite things "subject to certain conditions" as stated in the Clause. The fact that the Minister may make conditions will not release him from the obligation of doing what the Clause tells him to do. In other words, the conditions he makes cannot run contrary to what is specified in the Clause. Of course, the most important thing specified in the Clause is contained in the words

    345
    "available for but unable to obtain employment."
    There is no power whatever in the Minister to impose any regulations which would restrict the rights of any person
    "available for but unable to obtain employment."
    That will remove a great deal of the doubt in the mind of the hon. Member for Gorbals. The words have always been known in insurance legislation, and they are in this Clause for a necessary purpose. Their purpose is to allow the Minister to deal with minor details. I have a list here of the little matters with which we have to deal. They include such matters as adjustment of benefit where proof of unemployment is submitted late, the application of the Clause to voluntary contributors, and the time in which an insured person can submit proof of unemployment. The main point is that these conditions do not release the Minister from his obligation.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the explanation given by the Minister, I do not desire to press the Amendment and shall ask leave to withdraw it. We were rather afraid that the Minister would take power to prescribe the conditions of unemployment, and what we were concerned about was whether he would prescribe the type of employment available. Provided that is not his intention, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move in page 5, line 35, at the end, to add the words:
    "(2) The provisions of this section shall have effect with respect to arrears of contributions accruing after the third day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-two."
    This is a technical Amendment which is necessary because the change in the arrears provisions will be made as from 1st January, 1934. The calculations governing benefits for the year from 1st January, 1934, will not be made until the autumn of 1933. The period to be taken into account will be the contribution year beginning on 4th July, 1932. It is thought desirable and convenient for the insured persons themselves and for the societies that they should be informed at the earliest moment what the effect of the change is likely to be.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    1.0 a.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: A word ought to be said about the provisions of this Clause. It is a Clause which provides the machinery to abolish the provisions of the prolongation scheme. The memorandum which has been supplied makes the position quite clear. It states that in the National Health Insurance Act of 1928 a provision was included to enable regulations to be made whereby all the arrears due to genuine unemployment would be excused and no reduction of benefit involved. Regulations to this effect were made and have been in operation since July, 1928. The position, in fact, was this, that no Government of whatever political colour dared to let the unemployed down. This Bill, however, and Clause 4 in particular, abolishes the prolongation scheme and thereby puts the unemployed, although safe for part of his benefits, on a reduced rate in comparison with the provisions of the Prolongation Act. I have been unwilling ever since we commenced our Debates to-day that the Government should make it appear that they are conferring a favour on the unemployed by what they are doing under this particular Clause. I want to make the position clear so far as I see it. The Government could not afford to let these people down entirely, but they are Letting them down gently, and the unemployed are, as I have already indicated, in a worse position than they would have been if the prolongation scheme had been extended.
    We propose to vote against the Clause in order to indicate our dissent from the treatment of the unemployed by the Government, and I must enter a caveat on the issue raised earlier in the Debate to-night, because it pertains to this problem. An hon. Member, speaking during the evening, made a statement on a point I raised to the effect that these provisions would not have been required, if the provisions of the Economy Act of 1926 had not been carried out. He said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Ohurchill) did not, in fact, take money from this scheme. It is a misuse of words to say he did not take money from this scheme, what he did was

    347
    to prevent money coming into the scheme that was contracted in 1912; that is exactly the same as saying that he took money from the scheme. It was because of the provisions of the Act of 1926 that we have the problems with which we are now confronted. After making that statement, I want to repeat once again that we are dissatisfied with what the Government are doing for the unemployed. Instead of shouldering the whole of the contributions for the unemployed to maintain them in the National Health Insurance scheme, they are going more or less to throw the whole of the weight of maintaining them in insurance upon the employed plus a little contribution from the societies. Instead of the Government helping, they will not pay a penny contribution to this scheme in respect of an unemployed person. For these reasons, we shall vote against the Clause.
    Mr. TINKER: I would like the Minister to explain what this Clause means. Reading it, it would appear that something is being given to the person unemployed, but, judging by the speech to which we have just listened, it is making the position worse than it was before. Anyone reading Clause 4 will find it very difficult to understand it.
    Sir H. YOUNG: As regards Clause 4, the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has already given an analysis but I think perhaps I should try and make the matter clear. It is a clause which deals with that very difficulty in the scheme to which I referred earlier. The Committee will remember that I referred to two deficiencies. The first— the deficiency owing to the increase of benefits that had to be paid to women— we have already dealt with and the other deficiency is due to the falling off of the income of the approved societies owing to the general state of depression and the number of persons unemployed. As I pointed out to the Committee before, there is this grave burden of£2, 000, 000 a year which now rests upon the approved societies owing to the deficiency in their income due to arrears caused by unemployment. The approved societies at the present time are able to collect ninety per cent, of the income which they ought to collect, and members will appreciate that ten per cent, of their income is
    348
    a grave deficiency and that£2, 000, 000 has to be dealt with in some way. I have already described to the Committee the manner in which it is proposed to deal with it. This Clause provides for the deficiency being covered—not as the hon. Member for Westhoughton suggests by small contributions from the approved societies; that would be misleading. Approximately, half of the burden will still rest upon the shoulders of the approved societies, and a very great burden it is, but they tell me they can bear it; and the rest of the burden we have to cover by reverting to that state of affairs under which, not the whole of the arrears for unemployment will be excused, but only one half.
    This is all that is dealt with in this Clause and in order to keep the field open the Clause has been drafted in a manner to which I would specially draw the attention of the Committee. I think the desire expressed in the discussion tonight has been that, while regretting this is necessary now, there should be some chance when things take a turn for the better to get back to less restrictive provisions. I am conscious that that is the expressed desire, that, if and when national conditions improve, we should no longer impose restrictions such as are imposed in this Bill. That is a very reasonable desire. As regards the question of arrears, provision has been made for this in the way in which the Clause has been drafted. The Committee will see that the Clause does not tie the Minister down hard and fast to excuse only half the arrears of unemployment. It allows him to make regulations as to how much should be excused. The Clause has been drafted in that form so that if and when things improve we shall be able to restore a more generous and less restrictive treatment as regards excusing arrears than at present prevails. I should like to make it clear that that is the purpose for which the Clause has been cast in that way, and that it is the intention of the Government, if and when things take a turn for the better, to review the position, and to let out the stitches which we are now taking in.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The Minister's very detailed explanation is very welcome, because I find this Clause a very confusing one. I wish the Minister could see his way to give a similar explanation

    349
    on each Clause without us having to ask for it, because that would save a lot of time. The Bill constantly refers to previous Acts and that makes it very difficult. I cannot quite follow why Subsection (2) of the 1924 Act is now to be omitted. There will be no Sub-section (2) in Clause 15 of that Act, but there will be added a new Sub-section (4). I was wondering if the Minister could tell me his exact reason for omitting that Sub-section (2)? The second point I want to make is that this Clause is bad, because, as the Minister has confessed, it reverts to the pre-prolongation period and inserts a much longer period for the man or woman to qualify for retaining his or her health insurance benefit. It is true, as the Minister has said, that it modifies it to some extent by taking powers to deal with the position when the national situation shows improvement, but I doubt whether he or I would be optimistic enough to think he would still be on the Treasury bench then. I am very hopeful that by that time his Government may have been supplanted by another Government which will bring in a new Bill. I do not think his proposal has any value, because I am afraid there will not be any improvement so long as this Government remains in office. The gesture is there that he intends, if the national situation so improves, to take steps, but I do not think even the most optimistic Member of this Committee thinks those powers will be used between now and the next general Election. Therefore, I content myself with stating the position, which is that this Bill takes away something valuable from those whoso benefits have been continued under prolongation for four years and makes the conditions very much worse in regard to qualification. We must vote against it, and, as I understand the Opposition above the Gangway are also voting against it, we shall associate ourselves with them. The last small point I want to make is perhaps really a drafting point. In the Act we have no Subsection (4) now, and, if we take out Subsection (2), there will remain only two Sub-sections. Yet if we put in one more we are to call it Sub-section (4). If we omit one Sub-section, surely this one that we are putting in will be Sub-section (3)?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I think I can explain the purpose of the change in the original
    350
    Statute to which the hon. Member refers. The essence of the matter is this. Under the original Statute, the power of exempting from arrears penalties in respect of weeks of unemployment was a power made under regulations, but those legulations only gave the Minister power to exempt altogether or not at all. He had either to exempt all franks in respect of unemployment from counting as arrears or none at all. Under the present Bill, we take power to exempt half for the present. As the powers under the original regulations were not elastic enough for that, it is proposed to substitute a more elastic power which would enable one to deal with the whole or part.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The Minister at present accepts the whole of the 52 franked cards, but what he is now doing is to make it 26, and to that extent the unemployed man is in a very much worse position. At the present time the whole 52 are taken by the Minister, but the Minister now announces that he is going back to 26 and to those who have been unemployed for a considerable length of time that is an impossible position. It will be an impossible burden in 99 per cent, of the cases. It may be that by 2 or 3 per cent, it can be borne. They may have relatives to help them. To£5 or 99 per cent, lit will be an impossible burden to bear, and those genuinely unemployed people will now be placed beyond the pale. I think that anybody with any sense of right in connection with unemployed people can do nothing but fight against this machinery Clause. It is the machine for carrying a cruel Bill into operation.
    Mr. MAXTON: I only want to ask the Minister this one point. The Minister estimates the contribution of the approved societies at£1, 000, 000. The adjusted proposal is the, t the approved societies are still to shoulder£1, 000, 000 of responsibility and the nation is shouldering another£1, 000, 000. The unemployed are losing half of the benefit they were previously getting, or rather their stamps are only valued at half that at which they have been under the prolongation Act. I want to ask the Minister if, in the various estimates, which he has made, his experts have, made: any estimate of the capital value of the

    351
    contribution that the unemployed are themselves making. The approved societies' contribution is estimated at£1, 000, 000 and the State's contribution is estimated at approximately another£1, 000, 000. What is the cash value of the sacrifices which the unemployed are compelled to make? I think that is a matter that ought to be known to the Members

    Division No. 243.]

    AYES.

    [1.24 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Munro, Patrick

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Albery, Irving James

    Goff, Sir Park

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

    Graves, Marjorie

    Normand, Wilfrid Guild

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Greene, William P. C.

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Balniel, Lord

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Harbord, Arthur

    Pearson, William G.

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Penny, Sir George

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Hartland, George A.

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsrn'th, C.)

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Petherick, M.

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Blindell, James

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Boulton, W. W.

    Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Hornby, Frank

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Bracken, Brendan

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Bralthwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Ramsay, T. B. w. (Western Islet)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

    Burgin, Or. Edward Leslie

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Burnett, John George

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

    Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Salt, Edward W.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Law, Richard K, (Hull, S.W.)

    Scone, Lord

    Copeland, Ida

    Lennox-Boyd, A, T.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Levy, Thomas

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Shepperton, Sir Ernest W.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

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

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Slater, John

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Mabane, William

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Donner, P. W.

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Drewe, Cedric

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Stevenson, James

    Dunglass, Lord

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Storey, Samuel

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Stourton, Hon. John J,

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E,

    McLean, Major Alan

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F,

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Templeton, William P.

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Meller, Richard James

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Molson, A. Hugh Eisdala

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

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

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Moreling, Adrian C.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    of the Committee before they finally dispose of the Clause. If the figure is available-as I am sure it will be available in his Department-I hope the Minister will give the Committee that knowledge.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 29.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Wragg, Herbert

    Mr. Shakespeare and Sir Murdoch

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)

    McKenzie Wood.

    Womersley, Walter James

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Buchanan, George

    Hirst, George Henry

    McGovern, John

    Cape, Thomas

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Maxton, James

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

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

    Milner, Major James

    Daggar, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Price, Gabriel

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Kirkwood, David

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Edwards, Charles

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lawson, John James

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Leonard, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

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

    Lunn, William

    CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions as to interpretation.)
    1.30 a.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: On this Clause, I want to ask the Minister for an explanation rather than to discuss the actual Amendment in my name.
    The CHAIRMAN: Then the hon. Member does not propose to move his Amendment?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: No.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
    Sir H. YOUNG: If I may say a word in explanation of this Clause, it may save the time of the Committee. It is really a Clause that need not detain the Committee for very long. It deals simply with the interpretation of the phrases used in the Bill. In the first place, it deals with definitions, and the first definition it gives is that of a "contribution half-year." Hitherto, we have had in the Insurance Acts the "contribution year," and now we find it more convenient, purely as a matter of mechanism, to have a "contribution half-year." We have therefore to decide exactly what that is. Then we come to Sub-section (2) which deals with the following matter. It has been found in practice that the existing definition of
    "available for but unable to obtain employment"
    has not properly given effect to the intention of those words and has resulted in anomalies. We have made a new definition in a negative form instead of in a positive form. The substituted form permits of a person being "available for but unable to obtain employment" even though he has obtained a job provided it is not a job from which he derives sub-
    354
    stantial payment. He may be treated as "available for but unable to obtain employment" while he is following any occupation which does not prevent him from being deemed to be unemployed for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. This is really an extension of the class of those who are "available for but unable to obtain employment"— an extension to include persons who are in stop-gap employment earning a small amount and not engaged in regular or substantial employment. It is an extension of leniency, as it were. As regards Sub-section (3), reference is made in certain Insurance Acts to the Government Actuary. Obviously, he is not subject to any statutory definition and has no power to delegate his duties. This Clause will give him power to carry out his duties by deputy and not merely by himself.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: With regard to the man who does subsidiary employment, I understand that he is covered at the moment very much by the decision under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. That is to say, if he follows the subsidiary employment after working hours and only earns a small amount, he can get his cards franked. Now, I understand, the man may follow employment of a subsidiary character but only for a short period. Is this intended to cover classes of persons who may work in the normal hours? At present, I understand, it covers unemployment through the day, but not in the case of a. person who works through the day, even though he derives no monetary benefit from it. Will this cover a man taking for a short limited period uninsurable work although the work may occupy pretty well his full time? Canvassing, which a man might take on without salary, is an example.

    355
    Or you may have the case of a man learning motor driving, as under the Ministry of Labour regulations, and not earning a penny, but actually paying. It may occupy three or four weeks at the end of which the man receives no franked cards, although it is for a strictly limited period. Is it intended in a case of that kind to allow him that limited period?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I think the case which the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has in mind is just the case in point. A man in a non-insurable employment, who is not in receipt of substantial remuneration or profit, is not by reason of that employment to be considered to be outside the phrase
    "available for but unable to obtain employment."
    His hours are irrelevant compared with the fact that he is not deriving substantial remuneration. If he is in insurable employment and is deemed to be unemployed for the purpose of unemployment insurance, he will have no difficulty at all. This is extended to those who are in non-insurable employment and who are not deriving a substantial profit. Members may ask how that is to be decided. It is a question between the man and his society to be decided by the rules of his society.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The society will decide in the first case and, if he is not satisfied, he can apply under the rules.
    Sir H. YOUNG: Yes.
    Mr. LOGAN: Suppose there is a question of the bonâ, fides of an individual and the society refuse to admit him, will he have an appeal to the Commissioners to obtain a declaration?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I understand that in that case there is an appeal.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill ", put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Amendments of Act of 1926, 16 & 17 Geo. 5. c. 9.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again".
    356
    I do so in order to ask the Minister how far he intends to proceed and also to ask the Patronage Secretary whether, as announced earlier to-day, it is intended to take the Hire Purchase (Scotland) Bill to-night.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am prepared to allow the hon. Member to move to report Progress, but not to allow a discussion on it. Under the Standing Order, I can put the Question without discussion.
    Mr. MAXTON: Under the Standing Order, you can permit any hon. Member who is moving to report Progress to state the reasons why his Motion should be granted. My memory for procedure may be defective, but I have taken part in and listened to a good many discussions on the Motion to report Progress.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is so, but I did not think it necessary to have any discussion. If the hon. Member has a special point to raise, he can put it.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I have two points to raise. The first point is that we have made fairly reasonable progress on a Bill which is very technical, very detailed, and very involved. In all my years in this House I do not remember any Bill so technical and so important which was so difficult to follow. I appeal to the Minister to be lenient towards the Opposition. The Opposition are comparatively few and the burden upon them is correspondingly great. Is it not possible to adjourn now and to take the rest of the Bill on another day? [Hon. Members: "No."] We are trying to be reasonable with the Minister. We have not been at all unreasonable, and he knows it. The Patronage Secretary knows that too, and he has had more Parliamentary experience than the hon. Members who interrupt me. I would ask him whether it is intended still to go on with the Scottish Bill.
    Sir H. YOUNG: It is true that we are making very good progress now, but we have only just begun to make it, and it would be a pity to stop now. We all need some encouragement at this time of night. We have now overcome all the principal technical difficulties and all the principal matters of contentious interest in the Bill. There are very few matters of equal interest and contention left to be discussed. In those circum-

    357
    stances the Committee would feel that it would be a pity to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I can give him an assurance that, as we have reached a late hour and as it will probably be some time longer before we conclude the discussion, it is not the intention of the Government to ask the House to take the Hire Purchase (Scotland) Bill.
    Mr. MAXTON: An hon. Member behind me appears to share the illusion of other Members of the Committee that my colleagues and I are responsible for them being detained at this unusual hour. He is quite wrong in that. At a normal hour of the day and in his normal mood he would admit at once that I did everything which it was possible for a private Member to do to get the Government to allocate more time to the discussion of this Bill. There has been no speech delivered by any Member of the party on this bench which could fairly be described as an obstructive speech. [Interruption.] I know perfectly well how hon. Members feel, because I have had exactly the same feeling when I was listening to the tariff Debates. I felt that those people were only talking because they wanted to hear themselves talk and that there was really nothing worth discussing. I asked myself, "Why do they go on day after day?"
    Commander MARSDEN: Because of five people.
    Mr. MAXTON: The hon. and gallant Member makes a very important point. If there are six hundred of them, they can get away with a lot, but five people cannot get away with much. The point has been made already by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that, when a small group has to do the critical opposition to an involved and technical Bill of this description, it naturally follows that each one has to go on repeating himself because he genuinely wants to do his job. It is grossly unfair that five hundred people should say: "We are not interested to do anything in this Bill except what the Government tell us to do, and therefore you five, six, eight or twenty must conduct your job at an un-
    358
    earthly hour of the night. "We are ready to work an extended Session so as to give time for adequate discussion. We are ready to keep our mouths shut, as we have kept them shut on a number of topics that have been discussed in this House. [Interruption.] I can go through the columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT and show that in a number of discussions not one member of this party intervened. We are interested in this Bill, and I appeal to the Patronage Secretary. There are a number who have come here not to take part in a responsible discussion [Interruption]. I just have that impression from the interruptions of hon. Members. There is one Member who has just interrupted. I certainly have not heard his voice on this Bill and the people of Battersea would be glad to hear his voice on this occasion. He ought to be very careful that in a matter that has a vital effect on the poor sections of the community whom he represents, and among whom we live, his contributions are not of an obstructive nature but of an intelligent nature.
    Commander MARSDEN: The hon. Gentleman does not live among the poor section of Battersea, but he lives an one of the best flats there.
    Mr. MAXTON: I did not intend to suggest that I lived in a slum in Batter-sea. Thank God I have never had to live in a slum, but I have never been ashamed of living among the common people and the hon. Member knows the flat in which I live. I know that, because in has climbed up the stairs many times, to shove his literature through the door, and he knows when he has climbed up to our flat that he is then nearer to-heaven than he is ever likely to be. [Interruption.] An hon. Member asks what I am talking about. I am talking about the motion to report Progress in order that the rest of this Bill may be discussed at a time when the House is in a proper frame of mind to discuss it in a reasonable way. If my speech has not given any arguments in favour of that course being followed, then the interruptions of hon. Members produce substantial evidence that this Committee is not in a mood to examine the details of this Bill in the calm, critical way that constituents expected that their Members would apply to the work of the House when they elected them. I do not know

    359
    —it is not my problem—whether the Patronage Secretary has extra time for the discussion of this matter, but I can assure him that so far as this bench is concerned we are ready to wait until the Ministers have gone to Ottawa, and we are prepared to work the normal Parliamentary Session which lasts until the middle of August. That will give him an extra month, and we ask for an extra day to complete the Committee stage of this Bill, which we regard, probably foolishly—we may have a wrong perspective; we may be cranks—as of great importance. The Minister says that he has made substantial progress and

    Division No. 244.]

    AYES.

    [1.59 a.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Buchanan, George

    Hirst, George Henry

    McGovern, John

    Cape, Thomas

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Maxton, James

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

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

    Milner, Major James

    Daggar, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Price, Gabriel

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Kirkwood, David

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Edwards, Charles

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lawson, John James

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Leonard, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. John.

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

    Lunn, William

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Donner, P. W.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Albery, Irving James

    Drewe, Cedric

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Janner, Barnett

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Balniel, Lord

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Bik'pool)

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Blindell, James

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Levy, Thomas

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Mabane, William

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Greene, William P. C.

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Burnett, John George

    Hales, Harold K.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    McLean, Major Alan

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Harbord, Arthur

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

    Hartland, George A.

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Copeland, Ida

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Meller, Richard James

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Hornby, Frank

    Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Curry, A. C.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    that he has got all the essential parts of the Bill, and he thinks it will only be a matter of half-an-hour or so to get the rest of it. That may be so, but there are important parts of the Bill still to be discussed, and I ask him and I ask the Patronage Secretary, having regard to the mood of his own party, and having regard to the fact that there are many employés of the House who have to remain in attendance while we are here, to agree to this proposal.
    Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, 200.

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

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Stevenson, James

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Storey, Samuel

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Munro, Patrick

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Normand, Wilfrid Guild

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Thornton, Sir Frederick Charles

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Salt, Edward W.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Pearson, William G.

    Scone, Lord

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Penny, Sir George

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Petherick, M.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Womensley, Walter James

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Wragg, Herbert

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Slater, John

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Southby, Commander Archibald

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Sir Victor Warrender and Sir

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Murdoch McKenzie Wood.

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Provisions as to Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions.)
    Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 8, line 1, to leave out the word "thereafter."
    The date "31st December" is mentioned, and if the word "thereafter" remained and was related to that date, there are certain persons who might lose the benefit of paragraph (a) though it would be inequitable to deny them that benefit.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move in page 8, line 8, to leave out the words "twelve months" and to insert instead thereof the words "three years."
    I think this is a very clear and simple Amendment. [Interruption.] These interruptions almost tempt me to go on and explain. The temptation is great, but I see a kindly Minister. He has adopted a much more kindly attitude towards me than his rank and file, and I do not want to punish him for their faults. Earlier I argued about this Bill punishing decent people. I do not want to inflict punishment on one or two decent people. It is true that we shall endeavour to amend the Clause later on. We wish to say "within three years of ceasing to be insured" instead
    362
    of "within twelve months." The right of a widow's pension should not be taken away from her until the end of three years. The Minister has not given us any concessions so far, and this would be a very kindly concession. I do not know whether he can give us the figures as to those likely to be affected. The number cannot be large. If he cannot give us three years, two years would be a concession in the right direction. The Minister might also give us an estimate of the cost. I hope that if he does not concede the three years, he will concede the two years.
    Sir H. YOUNG: One righteous man found in the city saved it, and I hope I am not going to lose my title, but the truth is that the admission for which the hon. Member asks would be more than a small concession. It would be a very substantial concession from the pecuniary point of view. As I ventured to explain to the Committee at an earlier stage, one must not approach this Bill merely from the point of view that we have kept up things, or that concessions can be squeezed out of us. The Bill is put forward with a carefully balanced series of adjustments in which every possible concession is made, particularly in this matter. The hon. Member wants to extend the pension rights for the unemployed for an additional two years. I am afraid the only answer is that we have gone to the utmost limits of what is prudent in one additional extension of insurance. I am afraid I cannot give the estimate he asks for as the number likely to be affected is really not sus-

    363
    ceptible to an estimate. As to the amount, I can only tell him that the amount by which I have increased the burden of the Treasury in regard to the Pension Fund by the concessions already given in the Bill is£450, 000. I am afraid it would not be possible to make a further concession.
    Question, "That the words 'twelve months 'stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 8, line 23, to leave out the word "continuously." This Amendment—
    The CHAIRMAN: That Amendment is not selected. I called on the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) first to move the Amendment in page 6, line 37.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 8, line 37, to leave out the word "twenty-six" and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
    The Minister is asking that twenty-six be taken as the period, and we think it ought to be taken as two. In view of the fact that twenty-six is a prohibitive time, the Minister might now concede to us two, and we hope he will be able to give us some concession.
    Sir H. YOUNG: In this case the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is really looking very deep into the mouth of the gift-horse and trying to extract another tooth. One of the most important things that has been done in order to make a concession to the unemployed contributor has been to say: "We cannot keep you in insurance indefinitely, but we will do so as long as we can, and after you have gone out we will make it as lenient as possible for you to come back." The Bill reduces the present period of qualification for reentry, which is 104 weeks for widows' pensions and five years' continuous insurance for old age pensions, to the very much lower period of 26 weeks only for re-entry. Now the hon. Member for Gorbals suggests that we should cut that 26 down to two. That, of course, is only a device for re-qualification. There must be some satisfactory evidence that the unemployed insured person is re-entering employment. The Committee will agree that we have gone as far as possible to make a practical test of actual re-entry
    364
    into employment. The substitution of two weeks would be really abolishing the test altogether and destroying the contributory principle.
    Mr. MAXTON: I do not think the Minister has answered the point in our Amendment, and he is perhaps using an improper description in describing himself as a gift-horse. So far as this Bill is concerned, the gifts on the Committee stage have not been very obvious to us. The Minister says he makes it very easy for a person who has dropped out of Health Insurance to come back. The man who drops completely out of Health Insurance, as the Minister proved on a previous Clause, must have been through a very gruelling time and have had very extended unemployment and been unable to get eight weeks' employment in the preceding 12 months. He is out with social insurance. Then times get better. The Minister expects times to get better. All the Members supporting him in this House expect times to get better. The man gets a job. For six months he is in employment but during the whole of those six months he has to go unprovided for so far as health benefits and medical attention are concerned, and, if he is an old man verging on 65 when he gets his six months' employment, then he has to go without his old age pension, or, if he dies during the period of six months, his dependants get no benefits.
    2.30 a.m.
    We know exactly the nature of the social problem involved. This will not be in operation long before every Member of this House will be writing to the Minister wanting concessions in particular cases. It is a curious anomaly that a Member who will very easily cast a vote to inflict hardship on a mass will nearly run himself off his feet when he finds that hardship affecting a particular case that has come definitely before his notice. Members of this House who say now that a man once dropped out of Health Insurance cannot re-establish himself in it until he has had 26 weeks of employment—every one of them, I prophesy— will be running to the Minister with hard individual cases asking him to make special concessions for people whom they will all agree have been very hardly hit. We say to the Minister: "Make it easy. Back your fancy. This is Ascot, and we will all be able to go down fresh and

    365
    bright to the Royal paddock." We say to Members of the Government side: "Back your belief in the revival of industry and the re-establishment of industrial prosperity. Back it to this extent, that you think you can risk having to pay benefit, or old age pension or widows' pension, as the case may be, in the case of a man getting back into a job-back your belief that there will be a revival to the extent of that man's benefit." Make it only two weeks' qualification instead of the six months you are demanding here.
    Admittedly, six months is shorter than two years. That is admitted, but notice that in every case it is a man who at some previous time had done his two years' qualifying period. He has been a fully insured man in the past, but has ceased to be insured because of a whole series of unfortunate circumstances. This is not carelessness on the part of the individual man. If I drop my life insurance premiums and die, it is my own fault if the insurance company do not pay the money. I have been careless and have omitted to do something which it was in my power to do. But the man we are talking about has not dropped out through personal carelessness and has not failed to pay his premiums. He has dropped out because the social system has failed to provide him with a job, which is a sine qua non of his being in Health Insurance and in Unemployment Insurance.
    The Minister has not given us a solitary concession during the whole course of the Debate. I am not saying that we expected him to keep something up his

    Division No. 245.]

    AYES.

    [2.36 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Broad bent, Colonel John

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Albery, Irving James

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Burnett, John George

    Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Frasier, Captain Ian

    Balniel, Lord

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Copeland, Ida

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Glucksteln, Louis Hallo

    Beaumont, M. w. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Beaumont, Hn. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Greene, William P. C.

    Blindell, James

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

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).

    Bossom, A. C.

    Dawson, sir Philip

    Guntton, Captain D. W.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Donner, P. W.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Drewe, Cedric

    Hales, Harold K.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    sleeve for concessions. I do not suggest that any Minister ever comes forward holding something in his hand and saying: "I shall give this if I am compelled to give it, but not otherwise." The House knows, and the Minister knows, that in certain aspect of this Bill the Minister is already taking gambling risks. We are asking him to take one more. It is what we call a long shot. I have got the advice of a technical expert in these matters. I understand that, when one is gambling, it is quite the usual thing to mix one's bets, some quite reasonable certainties and some long odds. I ask the Minister, since he has gone into the gambling business, since he is taking risks, to take this one more risk which, so far as the nation is concerned, is putting on a very small bet, but which, so far as the mass of the insured are concerned, would be giving a tremendously big return. It is getting well on in the day now and the proceedings are nearly at an end. They have been very harmonius; I have heard no word of public acrimony, and I ask the Minister to consider whether he could not gladden the heart of all of us by saying: "The request is a reasonable one and I am prepared to consider it." If the Minister remains adamant, and refuses to make that concession, I feel with very great regret that it will be necessary for us to put the Committee to the inconvenience of another Division.
    Question put, "That the word 'twenty-six' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 28.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Hartland, George A.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Meller, Richard James

    Salt, Edward W.

    Headlam, Lieut. Col. Cuthbert M.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Scone, Lord

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

    Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forlar)

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

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

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Hornby, Frank

    Moreing, Adrian C

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Slater, John

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Munro, Patrick

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Normand, Wilfrid Guild

    Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Stevenson, James

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Storey, Samuel

    Jamieson, Douglas

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Stuart, Hon. j. (Moray and Nairn)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Pearson, William G.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Penny, Sir George

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Petherick, M.

    Templeton, William P.

    Latham, sir Herbert Paul

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Mabane, William

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Mac Andrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Womersley, Walter James

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham

    Wragg, Herbert

    McLean, Major Alan

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Ross, Ronald D.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Mr. Shakespeare.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Hirst, George Henry

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Cape, Thomas

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Maxton, James

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    John, William

    Milner, Major James

    Daggar, George

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

    Price, Gabriel

    Edwards, Charles

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Kirkwood, David

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Lawson, John James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Leonard, William

    Mr. McGovern and Mr. Buchanan.

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

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Lunn, William

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. BUCHANAN: We do not intend to divide against this Clause as on our reading of it the position would be worse if we defeated it. The Minister said that there was an improvement from 104 to 20 and, while nobody confutes that, the position now is that a great mass of people have come under the effect of the prolongation and therefore do not need the 26. The only reason we do not divide against the Clause is because we feel that if the Clause was rejected it would be a definite worsening of the position.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Application to Northern Ireland) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Short title, interpretation and commencement.)
    Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 10, line 6, after the word "shall," to insert the words:
    "save as otherwise expressly provided therein."
    This Amendment is necessary to give effect to the provisions of the Bill. Most of the changes proposed in the Bill are to operate from 1st January, 1933, but there are certain provisions that will take effect later, and it is to cover those later dates that the Amendment is moved.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill" put, and agreed to.

    New CLAUSE.—(Married Women).
    (1) In section fifty-six of the principal Act (which relates to married women) for Sub-sections (1) to (3) there shall be substituted the following Sub-sections: —
    "(1) Where a woman, being an insured person and a member of an approved society, marries she shall, subject to the provisions of the next succeeding Subsection—

    (a) be treated as an insured person until the expiration of two years from the date of her marriage, but not for any longer period;

    (b) not be entitled during the said two years to the benefits to which she would otherwise have been entitled under this Act and in lieu thereof be entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act, to the following benefits, that is to say:

    (i) sickness benefit for an aggregate of not more than six weeks in the twelve months next after the date of her marriage, and for the purposes of this paragraph the first disease or disablement in respect of which such sickness benefit is payable shall not be deemed to be a continuation of any previous disease or disablement;

    (ii) a single maternity benefit irrespective of arrears in respect of her first confinement within two years from the date of her marriage;

    (iii) medical benefit until the thirtieth day of June or the thirty-first day of December, whichever first occurs, next after the expiration of a period of twelve months from the date of her marriage;

    (iv) during two years from the date of her marriage any additional benefits provided by her approved society in accordance with a scheme under section seventy-five of this Act.

    (2) A woman to whom Sub-section (1) of this section applies and who at any time in the period commencing at the end of the contribution week in which she marries and expiring on the expiration of two years from the date of her marriage is employed within the meaning of this Act, or becomes a voluntary contributor, shall, for all the purposes of this Act, be treated as if she had become insured for the first time on the date on which in the said period she is first so employed, or becomes a voluntary contributor:
    Provided that—

    (a) if she is so employed, whether continuously or not, during twenty-six contribution weeks in the period of fifty-two contribution weeks next following that in which she marries and twenty-six contributions are paid by or in respect of her
    370
    then, as respects future benefits, nothing in this Sub-section shall prevent weeks of insurance which elapsed before the date on which she is first so employed, and contributions paid in respect of those weeks, from being taken into account for the purposes of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of section thirteen and Sub-section (3) of section fourteen of this Act;

    (b) the period for which she remains insured and the benefits to which she is entitled shall not in any case be less than the period for which she would have remained insured and the benefits to which she would have been entitled if she had not been so employed or had not become a voluntary contributor; and

    (c) so far as concerns additional benefits and orphans' and old age pensions nothing in this Sub-section shall prevent her being considered as remaining continuously insured and remaining continuously a member of her approved society;"

    (2)In Sub-section (6) of the said section fifty-six, for the words "after her marriage continues to be or becomes an employed contributor," there shall be substituted the words "after the end of the contribution week in which she marries is employed within the meaning of this Act, or becomes a voluntary contributor," and Sub-sections (7) and (8) of the said section shall cease to have effect.
    (3) A woman, who, having married within two years before the passing of this Act, became at any time before the passing thereof subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of the said section fifty-six shall, as from the passing of this Act, be treated as if this section had been in operation at the date when she became subject to those provisions, and if the said date was subsequent to her marriage as if she had married on that date.
    (3) A woman who, having married after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, but before the passing of this Act, did not before the passing thereof become subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of the said section fifty-six shall for the purposes of this section be treated as if her marriage had taken place on the date of the passing of this Act or, if she was at that date incapable of work by reason of some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement of which notice is or was given within the prescribed time, on the date on which that incapacity ceases:
    Provided that, in reckoning the twenty-six weeks of employment and twenty-six contributions referred to in proviso (a) to Subsection (2) of the said section fifty-six (as amended by this section) account shall be taken of any employment occurring and any contributions paid after the end of the contribution week in which she was married.
    (5) This section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act.—[Mr. H. Williams.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr HERBERT WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time".
    I feel it is a little unfortunate that at this hour I should be moving a new Clause. I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that ever since National Health Insurance was introduced in 1911 it has been recognised that a woman who married occupied a peculiar position in relation to National Health Insurance, and in various ways Parliament has from time to time recognised this situation. In 1918 what is known as Class K was introduced, whereby a woman who married was treated in a way differently from that originally proposed in 1911. In 1924 under the auspices of the Government represented by the party opposite that principle was continued, and in 1928 some modifications took place in the situation. In 1928 there was introduced, no doubt in view of the prolonged unemployment, a system whereby people who could not pay their contributions because of unemployment could have their cards franked. I believe, as a result of the Act of 1928—of which I was one of the supporters—there have grown up certain abuses which I think it is right to correct. It is obviously wrong that people who are no longer in the field of employment should be treated as if they were in the field of employment. When an abuse grows up what is the result? It is that people who have paid for certain benefits are deprived of those benefits because certain persons not entitled, morally, to benefits get them through legal processes. I think it is important that we should correct that situation.
    The position at the moment is that on marriage a woman is presumed to continue in employment provided she is not out of work at any one time for more than eight weeks continuously during the first year after marriage. Obviously, that is a condition which is very easy to satisfy by a person who is not really any longer in full employment but who wishes to appear to continue to be so in order to obtain benefit. We have at the moment an unsatisfactory position, which has led to abuse and which, because of these abuses, has led to this Bill, which is reducing the benefits to married women generally. We have to realize that there is only a certain amount of money available, and, if some people get money im-
    372
    properly, that deprives others who should properly get their rights and their benefit. My belief is that in due course, when this new Clause that I am now proposing becomes law, and when things become more normal, the result will be an increased rate of benefit. Whether or not I am right depends upon actuarial considerations which are not very easy to discuss at this early hour of the morning. I want hon. Members to realise that this is an abuse by those who are exploiting the system and that that abuse involves injustice to those who are trying to play the game straight. I want to see a system in force whereby those who really cease work and go out of the field of insurance are taken out of the field quickly, promptly, and definitely, but, on the other hand, those who remain in the field because they are continuing in work shall have their status rapidly reestablished as they would have under my Clause, whereas, under the existing law, people are left in a position of uncertainty over a prolonged period. I hope that those who have been flooded with propaganda by some who have not sufficiently appreciated the significance of the Clause, will not be led away by such misleading views. I have two purposes in view, namely, to deprive of benefit those who are obtaining it improperly and to secure that benefit to those who are legitimately entitled to it. I want those who are entitled to it to get it, but I do not want those who are not entitled to it to draw money and thus in the long run deprive the righteous people of that to which they are entitled. There are many other things I should like to say, but the Committee will wish this matter to be brought to an early conclusion, and, therefore, I will content myself with now moving this long and complicated Clause.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I rise for the purpose of making a suggestion which may be of assistance both to the Committee and to the Mover of the New Clause. It will have been realized from the very clear exposition of the Clause which has been given that it raises a very important issue indeed and one which is not very closely linked with most of the issues which we have been discussing to-day. It has some relation to them but it stands somewhat apart from them. The Committee will probably be glad of an opportunity, first of all, of giving further consideration to

    373
    this long and difficult Clause, and, secondly, of considering it at a more favourable time and with fresher minds. I think there would be very great advantage in being able to read in the OFFICIAL REPORT the very clear exposition of the Mover and the suggestion that I make for his consideration is that, having made his explanation of the Clause, he might be content to leave it for the present and to give it full consideration on the Report stage. I understand that under the rules of the House this important new Clause would come up first on Report stage and would therefore receive the full consideration which it deserves. My suggestion would be therefore that the hon. Member might consider it not to his disadvantage to withdraw his new Clause at present, and, as far as I am concerned, I give the fullest possible undertaking that that shall not prejudice its full consideration when it comes up on the Report stage.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I respond only too willingly to the suggestion which, the Minister has made. I beg leave to withdraw the Clause, and I hope the Committee will agree to that course.
    Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to object to the withdrawal, but—
    The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the Clause must be withdrawn by leave and that it cannot be withdrawn if a Member insists an speaking to it.
    Mr. MAXTON: Then I object to letting it go. The Minister has adopted a very friendly attitude indeed to the proposal. I hope he does not assume, if the rest of us do not discuss the Clause, that we accept the general contentions in it, or that the attitude of the Committee is, generally speaking, friendly towards the proposal. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) must not think that, because the Minister has been kind to it tonight, it will not meet with criticism on the Report stage.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I just want to say that after the Ruling that there is to be no discussion on the proposal to withdraw the Clause, as some discussion has been allowed—
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman does not follow me. What I
    374
    said was that, if the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) insisted on speaking on the Motion, the Clause could not be withdrawn.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Then it is now open for us to discuss the Clause? I misunderstood the Ruling. I understood the Ruling was that, unless we opposed the withdrawal, we could not speak. That is really what it amounts to, but now that it has been opposed I want to say that the mover's explanation was of something that is not contained in his new Clause, and he must not think that we accept the Clause in the language which he has attached to it. If we were to discuss it, I think we should probably prove that it does not mean anything at all like what he thinks it does.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I have the utmost objection to the Clause as suggested by the Mover. Instead of it being a helpful Clause as far as insured persons are concerned, it is one of the most reactionary Clauses that has been proposed at any time in connection with National Health. Insurance. I hope the Committee will take note that the Minister has adopted a rather friendly attitude towards the Clause and that he is prepared to accept any suggestion that will worsen the position of those affected by this Measure. He is not prepared to accept anything helpful to the insured person, and therefore I look with suspicion on his suggestion that this should be adjourned and debated later. It creates in my mind a certain amount of alarm when he is friendly towards making this Bill, bad, brutal and callous as it is, greatly worse, as it would be, if this Clause were carried.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Duration of schemes under s. 75 of principal Act.
    Any scheme made under Sub-section (1) of section seventy-five of the principal Act which is in operation at the date of the passing of this Act shall cease to have effect on the Sunday preceding the first Monday in January of the year in which the period fixed under Sub-section (1A) of that section for the duration of the scheme conies to an end.—[Mr. Meller.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. MELLER: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."

    375
    The Clause deals purely with, a matter of administrative convenience. The present practice of bringing schemes into operation has been found in many cases to be inconvenient. In order to get over that, it is necessary to get resolutions passed by the Societies. If this new Clause is accepted, they will bring in any measure they desire, and the new schemes will commence at the beginning of the year instead of at the half year and so save a great deal of inconvenience and expense to the societies.
    3.0 a.m.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I listened to the explanation of the hon. Member and I have given some consideration to this proposed new Clause. I think it is clear that it is a matter of common sense administrative convenience to save this unnecessary trouble. I am prepared to ask the Committee to accept the Clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    First Schedule (Transitory Provisions) and Second Schedule (Minor and Consequential Amendments) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow; and to be printed. [Bill 97.]
    The remaining Orders read, and postponed.
    It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Four Minutes after Three o'Clock a.m.

  MANCHURIA (CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION).
  MANCHURIA (CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION).
  REPARATIONS AND WAR DEBTS.
  REPARATIONS AND WAR DEBTS.
  MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED LIMIT).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED LIMIT).
  ART AND INDUSTRY (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  ART AND INDUSTRY (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  SICKNESS BENEFIT AND OLD AGE PENSIONS, FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  SICKNESS BENEFIT AND OLD AGE PENSIONS, FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  AIR DISPLAY, HENDON (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
  AIR DISPLAY, HENDON (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
  DRAINAGE SCHEMES.
  DRAINAGE SCHEMES.
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  WAR. LOAN (BANK HOLDINGS).
  WAR. LOAN (BANK HOLDINGS).
  Public Works and Telephone Development.
  Public Works and Telephone Development.
  Tax Collection (Cost).
  Tax Collection (Cost).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
KENT CORN RENT BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: a further Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMA- TION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been reported from the Committee.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMA- TION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been reported from the Committee.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRANSPORT COMPANY (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ELHAM VALLEY WATER AND HERTS AND ESSEX WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HAILSHAM WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HENLEY-ON-THAMES WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HERTFORD) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

COAL MINES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Continuance of Part 1of 20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 34 and of s. 1 of 21 & 22 Geo. 5. c. 27.
1.—(1) Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930 (which is limited to expire on the thirty-first
826
day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-two), shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, and no longer unless Parliament otherwise determines; and, accordingly, in Section ten of that Act, for the words "nineteen hundred and thirty-two" there shall be substituted the words "nineteen hundred and thirty-seven."
EARL PEEL EARL PEEL moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "nineteen hundred and thirty-five" for "nineteen hundred and thirty-seven." The noble Earl said: I think the purpose of my Amendment is very clear on the face of it, and that is, to reduce the period for which the operation of Part I of the Act is prolonged from five years to three years. I am encouraged in moving this Amendment by some observations which fell from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who is in charge of the Bill. When speaking on the Second Reading he told us that His Majesty's Government
"will be prepared to consider—I do not say accept Amendments, but prepared to consider any argument brought forward to convince them that the period, which so far they think is the best one, can for any good reason be extended or shortened."
It is quite clear that when he made that statement the mind of the Government was still open on that question of the period, and I wish to put before him one or two points which I hope will persuade him that the shorter period is the better. No doubt he has considered that question in the interval, especially during the little holiday he took lately on the Irish Sea.
I admit, of course, that the temptation to the Government, or any Government, to prolong the period to five years is a considerable one. The effect of five years is that this, from the point of view of the Government, or any Government, very troublesome question, is postponed till the next Government. The Government are able to shake themselves free of the question, so far as they can, and I dare say they feel that it is a very great thing to push one of these ugly questions overboard when they have so many other questions to consider. I am not sure, however, that they will succeed in what they are aiming at, because I do not quite agree with what he said, that possibly in any other country it would have been very difficult to have got any undertaking for keeping up wages for another twelve

827
months. We know that there is a discrepancy between the period of price fixing and wage fixing, and therefore I do not think we can expect that this matter will not be brought up again another twelve months from now. I submit that there is a great advantage, when we have a coalition Government, in trying to make a permanent settlement of this question, instead of allowing it to lap over to some future Government five years hence, of which we do not know the composition.
Moreover, one would like to ask the Government this. They are trying to make this Act as permanent as they can. After all, all a Government can do is to say: "We decline to deal with a matter in a Statute again during our period of office." Do the Government and your Lordships really think that the working of this Act has been so successful, and the methods which have been introduced into the management of coal mines are so useful that they may become a permanent part of this industry, and that a precedent may also be set for other industries? We have not heard very much here of the objections to that system, but we all know they have been amply stated in another place and in other quarters. I will only refer to them in passing, because so many of them are familiar to your Lordships. But is it really considered to be a useful and permanent part of the State that we should have the great coal mining industry literally quartered, as it is, upon all the industries of the country? Is it really a right thing that these district committees should be able to fix the price of coal? Is all this immense machinery for dividing up quotas, for settling the standard amounts, and so on desirable? And is this traffic in the right to produce coal, which you do not want to produce, and is the sale of these certificates really a desirable thing in the management of the coal industry, or of any other business in this country?
After all, it produces great difficulties for the consumers, quite apart from the question of price. They find great difficulties owing to the operation of the quota system, especially if their demands for coal are rather small—difficulties in getting their supplies properly given to them, and all sorts of difficulties with waggons, which, taken together, make up a very hazardous and rather troublesome
828
matter for those who are purchasing coal. We might say that these things were tolerable if we were convinced that this was only a temporary method. We have every sympathy with the coal industry, and we know quite well that its troubles are very largely due to the constant interference of Parliament with the whole system. I admit all that; but that ought not to blind us to the fact that we are really deciding to-night whether this system, with all its defects, should be made, as far as Parliament can possibly make it, a permanent part of the management of the coal industry, or whether we should say: "No, this is an experimental phase; we will not allow the business to go on for more than another three years without revision." Because, after all, if a revision has been renewed by one Parliament, and has survived two Elections, I am quite certain that a considerable body of opinion will rise up and say: "Oh, you cannot disturb this now. All these interests have got settled. Why, look at this system of selling certificates —it is part of the market business of the country, and it must not be disturbed by any Government." Therefore we have, I think, to look from a very different angle upon a system which is merely a temporary system, invented to get the coal industry out of great difficulties, as compared with a system which is to be regarded as a more permanent part of the industry of the country itself.
In listening to the speech of the noble and learned Viscount I was very much struck by the almost exclusive interest he took in the views of the coal industry itself. He talked about the views of the owners, about the views of the miners, about the views of the merchants and of the retailers, but we did not hear anything at all about the large consumers or the small industries—in fact, about the whole of the industries which are dependent upon coal. I have in my hand, having received it since I put down this Amendment, a rather remarkable letter from the Joint Conference of Public Utility Associations. This body represents the electricity, gas, water and tramways interests of the country, which consume about 28,000,000 tons of coal per annum. They strongly support the Amendment, and I may perhaps summarise one or two of the arguments which they advance. They point out that this

829
Bill will increase the cost of living in every home by raising the price of coal, gas, and electricity. They point out how it will affect our export industries—and surely the value of the exports of our export industries is many times greater than the value of the export of coal. They point out that it will have the effect of keeping in business low grade mines which might be closed, and of checking the efficiency of the better mines. They point out that the Bill is really a subsidy to one form of fuel over another and, above all, in that tremendous contest that is going on between coal and oil, it is oil which will have preferential treatment and which will be able to gain over its dwindling rival.
It is rather interesting, in this connection, to observe that, while a few years ago unrestricted competition was supposed to be the salvation of the State, there hardly seems to be anybody now who comes forward in favour of free competition in the case of coal. The noble and learned Viscount said he was advised that about 2s. a ton would be the amount by which the price of coal would fall if there were free competition, and if this Act came to an end. Looking at the way in which our industries have been able to keep their heads above water—so far as they have done—during the last two or three years, one can see that it has been due to one cause, and one cause only, and that is that the price of all raw materials has been so abnormally low. They have in many cases fallen to 25 or 30 per cent. of what they were four or five years ago. If you take the metal industry and the great textile industries, like cotton, wool and jute, it is only through these knock-out prices for their raw materials that businesses have been able to maintain themselves.
Now this, I imagine, is only a temporary situation Everybody is asking that the prices of raw materials should rise and should go back at least to the level of 1928. Besides that, we have a large number of financial doctors, professors of economics, and so on, who are constantly speaking of what they do not like to call inflation—they christen it by some other alias like "reflation"—but at any rate all tending towards a rise of prices. It is clear, therefore, that though industries may be able to bear better to-day a rise in the cost of coal
830
because of this particular situation, it is not at all certain that this is going to obtain during the next five years. I therefore submit that it is a very dangerous thing to allow the price of coal to be fixed for the next five years, when it may have a far greater influence on the prosperity of other industries because the prices of other raw materials may have risen. Noble Lords are very well aware that we trade nowadays on very small margins indeed and it may well be, if you tie your hands in this respect, that you may find that your industries are suffering because of that 2s. or 3s.—or it may be more—addition to the price of coal beyond the price that would have had to be paid if the coal industry was a little more free. May I suggest also that it may be that the extra price of coal, stereotyped through five years and perhaps raised in five years, may be the one thing which prevents the industries of this country from making those large demands for coal which would be the very thing that would absorb the people who are at present unemployed in the coal industry? I submit that it is rash and unwise so far to anticipate the future as to fix the price of one of the great raw materials which is mostly used for industry.
There is one other argument on which this increase of time to five years has been advocated, and that is founded upon the work of the Organisation or Amalgamation Commission which has been going about the country. We have just had the benefit of seeing the Report of that Commission, and the members seem to think that they have not been, as everyone knows they have not been, extremely successful in persuading people in the coal trade to amalgamate, but they say—and they use what is almost the language of menace—that now they may be prepared to make use of their compulsory powers. I am glad to say they also observe that they are not in favour of very large amalgamations. I am glad of that because, as your Lordships know, the history of large amalgamations in industry during the last few years has been singularly unfortunate. I think everyone would agree that those large amalgamations have been pressed too far. While I do not pretend in any sense to be an expert on the coal industry, I have some knowledge

831
of other industries, and I cannot myself believe that compulsory amalgamation can be of very much value. You may look at prices, you may look at contiguous coal mines, you may look at all sorts of things, but so much depends on the history of a particular industry, and very much on the personalities of the people who are engaged in running that industry, and I do not believe compulsory amalgamation made against the will of an industry can be of much value. Therefore I discount as one of the reasons for having this measure for five years the fact that it will give five more years for these gentlemen to practise their beneficent operations.
On those grounds I urge the adoption of the Amendment. The main ground which I would press upon your Lordships is that with the terrible uncertainty which faces us in regard to matters of trade, with everything in the melting pot, with loans repudiated, with disturbances in other countries, with difficulties abroad and so on, it really is very unwise to fix one element in the management of our industries at this time of day and to say that for the next five years we are to be precluded from dealing with it. I submit that it would be much wiser to fix three years, which is a fairly long period. At the end of that time this Government, which has probably a life of three or four years, may have the opportunity of dealing with it, and of dealing with it as an experienced Government, instead of leaving it to be dealt with by some new Government which may have to tackle it in the first years of its existence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("thirty-seven") and insert ("thirty-five").—(Earl Peel.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): As the noble Earl has truly said, I expressed my willingness on the Second Reading to listen attentively to any arguments which might be adduced to induce the Government to change the opinion which it had formed that five years was the right period for the extension of this Part of the Act. I have listened to the arguments of my noble friend, and nobody who has worked with him, as I have, will doubt that he has put the strongest case that it is possible to put in favour of the
832
change; but, having listened very attentively and very carefully to what he has said, I hope he will forgive me when I say he has not succeeded in convincing me, and I hope he has not succeeded in convincing the majority of your Lordships' House.
To deal at once with one or two very minor matters, I would remind your Lordships that what we are discussing this afternoon is not whether or not Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, should be continued. We are accepting that there should be a continuation, and the only question raised on this Amendment is whether the continuation shall be for three years, to the end of 1935, or for five years, to the end of 1937. My noble friend said that the object of the Government was to push off the decision as to what is to happen when that Act comes to an end to another Government, because, said he, at the end of four years this Government must come to an end. Will he forgive me for saying I make no such assumption? I do not see any reason why this Government should come to an end in four years. This Parliament may come to an end in four years, but, if we conduct the affairs of the country with the same prudence as I trust we are showing in asking for the continuation of this Act for this period, I hope that when the four years are finished a grateful country will renew our mandate and give us more opportunities of giving settled rule to the country. At any rate I am not arguing this on the basis that whenever Parliament comes to an end this Government is, of necessity, doomed.
I would like to tell your Lordships why it is that we think the period which is proposed is the right period. They are really reasons which arise out of the grounds upon which we have asked for any continuation—grounds which, I gather, have met with general acceptance. The first ground is this, that in the judgment of the Government there has been too much Parliamentary interference with the mining industry in the past, and we are not anxious to encourage Parliamentary interference with that industry in the future. There was made on the Second Reading a very powerful speech by my noble friend Lord Crawford—I am not sure whether he is present this afternoon—in which he laid a great many of the losses from which the industry is suffering at the door of Par-

833
liament, because, he said, successive Governments and successive Houses of Parliament had insisted on legislating and interfering with the management of the industry, and in that way had so unsettled it and had so disturbed its due administration that it had become almost impossible to carry it on. We are desirous not to interfere more than is absolutely necessary with this industry, and whereas we are expecting that Part I of the existing Coal Mines Act will come to an end, if our proposals be accepted, five years hence, we are not suggesting that when that five years elapses and when that period is reached it will be necessary to pass a new Act again interfering in some different way with the industry.
On the contrary, we believe that if a reasonable opportunity be given to the coal owners and to the workers in the industry to get together, to reorganise, to rearrange their methods and to enter into voluntary arrangements of their own, it may very well be that when the five years have gone there will have been sufficient time for the coal owners to have devised a voluntary system which will be fair to the industry as a whole and will not necessitate any further Parliamentary interference. I observe that in the debate in Committee in another place a member who has deservedly a very high place in the counsels of that Chamber and great experience of this industry, Sir Geoffrey Ellis, as he now is, said:
"This is the first time that the coal owners as such have been given any stability to get on with their own suggestions for the improvement of the trade. It may be the last time that they will get that opporunity, but it is not right for the Committee to-day to put any obstacle in the way of giving them that opportunity. If they do not take the opportunity, then the judgment will be on their own heads."
I believe that is a very true statement of the position. We are anxious to give such a measure of stability as will enable the coal owners to make such reorganisation and such alteration as will, I hope, in the future render it unnecessary for Parliament to intervene. If we are going to do that, then surely five years is none too long an interval to allow.
There are other minor reasons, but I think they ought to be mentioned. At present, unfortunately, there is no doubt that a considerable amount of evasion is taking place with regard to the provisions
834
of the existing Act. The President of the Board of Trade said that he had himself come across a number of instances where, not of course the majority of the coal owners, who have quite loyally acted fairly to one another, but where some individuals had succeeded in evading the provisions of the Act by such methods as the manipulation of freights, or the combination of sales of coke with sales of coal, or by similar means had got round the terms of the Act and the prices which are fixed in the Act. At present some at any rate of the coal owners, according to the President of the Board of Trade, whose business it is to know these things, think that the attempt to bring pressure to bear on these isolated individuals would create a degree of ill-feeling and friction and would expose them to an amount of dislike and criticism which would render it not worth while if the Act was soon coming to an end. Coal owners, after all, are the people who have to frame these schemes in the first instance and administer them, and they have a number of amendments which they are discussing, some of which they are likely to wish to incorporate in their schemes. They desire a sufficient time to enable these amendments to be carefully worked out and they desire them to be enacted at a time when it is still worth while to do it and when it would give full time for them to have effect before any change takes place.
My noble friend has said—this, I think he said, was his main argument—that it is very unwise in existing circumstances, when industry is in such a difficult situation, to fix the price of so essential a commodity as coal for such a long period as five years in advance. Of course, my noble friend did not quite mean that. He knows very well that this Act does not fix prices for five years.
EARL PEEL: I said gives the power, I think.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: What is done, subject to the appeals which he and I were so careful to get incorporated in the Act when we were discussing it two years ago—the appeals of the consumers and others—is to give power to the districts to frame schemes fixing output and minimum prices. My noble friend says that he hopes and, I gather, anticipates—I hope anticipates—that prices of raw

835
material will be going up in the course of the next few years. I hope that will be so. I think it is generally conceded that prices now are too low and that that is one cause at least of our present economic difficulties. If that happens, can anyone think that the price of coal will remain stationary? It will be much easier at any rate to maintain the price than at present. I would like your Lordships to realise what would happen if prices are no longer fixed and this regulation no longer prevails. I am speaking from memory, but I think the figures are substantially correct, when I say that there is demand now for 220,000,000 tons of coal. There is a potential output of something like 300,000,000 tons. Suppose people have 300,000,000 tons of coal to sell and there is a demand for 220,000,000 tons, what sort of drop in prices would you get? The drop would not be proportionate to the difference between those two figures, because when supply outruns demand everybody who has goods to supply wants to have his particular goods used. The result is that prices are cut and cut, and the drop in price is disproportionate altogether to the amount of the excess supply.
In the old days it was preached and believed in this country that the one thing that mattered was cheapness, that the one thing we ought to aim at was unrestricted competition. I had hoped that my noble friend was with me in, regarding that as an exploded heresy and that there are other things to think of besides cheapness. Suppose you succeeded by bringing about unrestricted competition in effecting—as you undoubtedly would effect—a substantial reduction in the price of coal. It would be a reduction which would not help our industry as opposed to foreign industry, because a great proportion of our coal output is an export trade, and it is the export trade which would probably get at least as much of the advantage as the domestic trade. In all probability it would get more of the advantage since there is more competition in foreign markets than there is even at home. Let it be taken to be the same. There would be a tremendous fall in prices which would cheapen for us and for our competitors the cost of fuel. What would happen to the industry? At present the miners are getting a wage which I think
836
nobody suggests is high and which certainly nobody suggests is too high. At present coal owners are carrying on their industry practically without profit in any case, and in many cases carrying on at an actual loss and finding out of their own pockets money to make up the minimum wage for the miners, so that they shall not throw people out of employment and intensify distress which unhappily is already too prevalent.
You cannot cut prices without disastrous consequences to coal owners and miners alike, and disastrous consequences the limit of which it would be very difficult to measure. It is to avoid that sort of catastrophe that we have thought it right to continue this measure for a limited period, in order that in this time of stress there may be—not any exploitation of the consumer, which nobody suggests is taking place; but in order that there may be maintenance of such a price as will give at any rate the possibility of keeping the collieries open without inflicting an impossible loss upon their owners, and of keeping wage levels steady at a time when they have unfortunately already dropped to too low a figure. In the judgment of the Government it would be a disaster for the mining industry if this control were suddenly removed at too early a date. We believe it is not unreasonable to give them that stability, for which Sir Geoffrey Ellis pleaded, for a period of five years. We decline altogether to assume that at the end of that five years fresh Parliamentary interference will be necessary, but, if Parliamentary interference were necessary, then the longer it is put off the better. On all those grounds, which I hope are reasonable grounds, the Government feel that the period which they have fixed is the right period and I would ask your Lordships, if my noble friend remains unconvinced, to support the Government in the view they have formed.
LORD JOICEY: I listened to the speech of the noble Viscount with great interest and have been much impressed by the statements he has made. I have always been against Government interference in the industries of the country. I have always thought it better to leave them in the hands of those people who have been trained in them and who understand them, for a Government, no doubt, must

837
be largely influenced by political considerations. Take our own case in Durham and Northumberland. We used to deal with our own men direct, and any difficulty that arose with regard to wages or any question about the working of the mine was dealt with in the locality by proper committees representing both the masters and the men. But, as soon as the Miners' Federation was formed, they began to see that it would be much better for them to deal with the politicians than with the employers. The result has been that they have taken away most of our communications with the men in our own localities, and matters have now to be settled up in London. Our chief managers have now to spend most of their time every week in dealing with questions in connection with the Miners' Federation.
I am bound to say that I was surprised when my noble friend accused the Government of looking forward to making this a permanent Bill. I look upon it as a Bill which will only last for a certain time. I do not believe in legislation by instalments. It has a very bad effect and I am quite sure that, as time goes on, the public, the Government, and the workmen themselves—if they have any say in the matter—will be only too glad to hand matters back to be dealt with by the miners and owners themselves. Only those who are connected with the industry know the difficulties that there are in working coal. I was very glad indeed to find that the late Minister of Mines and the present Minister of Mines, Mr. Foot, took the opportunity of going through the various coal fields to get some information with regard to this great industry with which they were dealing. I feel sure that they changed many of their views with regard to this question. They found that the difficulties were very hard to surmount and it made them very much more moderate in dealing with the owners.
This industry is at present in an abnormal condition. I should be sorry to think that this Bill was going to become a permanent measure because, to a large extent, it would prevent us from working our industries in the way we should in order to compete with the foreign producer. I have always believed in competition. Competition is a good Wholesome thing both for the competitors
838
and for those who benefit from it. But there are times, such as the present time, when competition will do more harm than good. Notwithstanding this legislation, I find that many contracts which we have been accustomed to make have gone to our competitors, even at lower prices than the prices fixed. How it is done I am not prepared to say, although I have my own opinion on this matter. If we shorten the life of this measure, it will have a very bad effect on the industry of this country. Most contracts in connection with coal are made for twelve months and are very often made three or six months before they come into operation. What is the result? If there is any uncertainty, they will not deal with the British producer but with the foreign producer. I have lost contracts for many thousands of tons because of the uncertainty which exists with regard to the future of this industry.
I am very glad to find that the Government intend to insist on the five years. It is beneficial to the industry and I feel sure that, as time goes on, we shall find flaws in connection with this measure, flaws which ought to be remedied. One of the chief objects of the original measure was to prevent one district competing with another. That is not being completely carried out. There are some districts which are cutting in and taking orders from other districts. Can one be surprised when there are orders for 70,000,000 or 80,000,000 tons less than we can produce? Naturally, the great object is to get more coal and more sales, because it pays to reduce the cost of production. If one district takes orders from another, the one district is penalised while the other becomes more profitable. The producer who sells for home consumption only has an advantage because he is getting a higher price than is obtained for export coal. If he uses that higher price in order to get export trade, he does his neighbour a very serious wrong. I quite agree with what was said by the noble Viscount who has just spoken, that it would be very much better if we could prevent this and if we could have some means of insisting upon the Act being carried out fairly and with consideration for everybody.
I am sorry I was not present at the Second Reading of this Bill for I should have liked to have spoken upon it, but,

839
being an invalid, I was unable to do so. I hope that the Government will stick to the period of five years because it is beneficial not only to the industry but to the consumers who benefit from it. I hope that, as time goes on, we shall find this Bill being properly worked and very beneficial, and that after the five years the industry will be handed back to those accustomed to manage it.
EARL PEEL: Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a brief word in reply to the speech of the noble and learned Viscount. I am sorry that I have not had as much support as I had hoped, because there is no question that the feeling in the country is very different to the feeling on this subject in this House. I do not in the least repent that I am here representing in your Lordships' House what is a very widespread feeling in the country. The noble Viscount says that he thinks this Government is going to be immortal—going to last, I think he said, over the next Parliament. I am a little more sceptical myself about the vitality of the Government. No doubt we hope it may be so. He also said that he thought Parliament should not interfere with industry. I applaud again the sentiment, but this Bill is as great an interference with the action or freedom of industry as any Bill could be. He also referred to free competition, but my argument went much further. I was criticising all those defects in this Bill and asking whether they are going to be fixed and part of the industry of this country, and whether they are going to set a precedent for other industries. There is no more skilled debater than my noble and learned friend and if he had had an answer to that I am sure he would have given it, but he passed the question by and left my criticisms unanswered. I do not know now what is the mind of the Government regarding the merits and defects of this particular Bill.
I also asked whether in the mind of the Government this was regarded as a temporary or permanent measure. The answer of the noble Viscount is clear and the result of it is that it leads inevitably to the conclusion that this should be regarded as a permanent measure, because he asked what would happen now if you took off this system. He said that you have now 220,000,000 tons required and a
840
producing capacity of something like 300,000,000 and there is therefore an immense gap. If that is the argument it is an argument that is likely to stay. Do any of us suppose that with the enormous competition of all the different forms of power, the demand for coal is really going to increase so much that it is likely to bridge the gap between the productive capacity and what is required of the product? I do not wish to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division, but I regret that the Government have made up their minds on the subject. The truth is that the Government generally make up their minds before measures come into this House and it is extremely difficult when matters have been settled in another place for your Lordships to have any effect on legislation. I therefore do not wish to press my Amendment further. I only regret that the noble and learned Viscount has not been more persuadable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD GAINFORD: On this Question I want to deal with two points. One has some relevance to the argument we have just heard from the noble Earl who moved the Amendment. He has criticised the operation of Part I of the Act and pointed out that in the opinion of a great number of people outside this House the work carried on under that provision is not satisfactory. The coal owners admit that Part I has not been a complete success and they are considering what amendments should be sought from Parliament in connection with the provision. I expect that in due course suggestions will come from them and will be submitted to Parliament for confirmation by Resolution under the terms of the Act of 1930, so that the public may realise that so far as Part I has not been a success up to the present there is a prospect of improving it by Resolutions passed by both Houses on the initiation of the Central Council or the district boards under the Mines Act.
The other point has reference to some little misunderstanding which I think occurred on the Second Reading debate as to the draft Convention referred to in the Bill. I criticised that draft Convention and even the noble and learned Viscount in charge of the Bill also stated

841
that it would require some modification. I objected to the inclusion of the reference to the Convention in the Bill, not because I am opposed to the principle of the Convention but I am opposed to that particular Convention in its present form as prejudicial to national interests. If we can regulate hours of labour in the coal mines on a uniform system throughout Europe and in the States of America we shall accomplish a great deal to secure fair competition between nation and nation. Conditions as well as wages ought to be revised with a view to securing fair treatment. If we have uniformity of hours, pay and conditions we are all confident that British labour and industry will look very well after itself after such an international agreement has been reached.
In a debate which occurred rather more than two years ago in the House of Commons dealing with improving the standard of labour on international lines, the late Mr. William Graham gave a somewhat prophetic warning of the dangers connected with these Conventions. He said:
"Even when you have got agreement there is a danger, as we all know, on the part of certain countries of failure to observe rules or else such exceptions are driven into the rules that a nominal agreement becomes a very unreal one. That is a state of affairs with which every student of this problem is familiar."
Therefore, when I criticised the Convention which is named in the second subsection of Clause 1 of this Bill, I did it having in mind the possibility of those evasions, and what I want to impress upon the Government is that in the event of ratification of this Convention they must not only see that evasions are not possible in the terms, but that means are taken to enforce obedience by every signatory. It is that point which I regard as a very important one and which I want to emphasise before we reach the Third Reading of this Bill.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

SOLICITORS 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 ONSLOW in the Chair.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, it will be within your recollection that this Bill was referred to a Joint Select Committee of the two Houses for considering Consolidation Bills. I beg to move that the Amendments made by the Joint Select Committee be agreed to.
Moved, That the Amendments proposed by the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills be made.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CARRIAGE BY AIR BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

FINANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, it devolves upon me this afternoon to move the Second Reading of the Finance Bill in this House. It is not for me to remind your Lordships of the limitations of the powers of this House in relation to Bills of this character. Your Lordships are well aware that we in this House can only reject such measures. We have no power of amendment. However, I need not assure your Lordships that I am not relying upon the fact that your Lordships' powers are limited, to secure the consent of your Lordships to the Second Reading of this Finance Bill. Whatever criticism of detail we may be desirous of making, I am sure that the House will take no serious objection to the Bill and its principles as a whole.
May I remind your Lordships briefly of the circumstances under which the present Government took office? I shall not trouble your Lordships by any reference to the financial policy or financial measures anterior to the date when my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, framed a

843
Budget which demanded immense sacrifices from every member of the community, but at the same time sacrifices no less serious than the circumstances warranted and demanded. All I will venture to say on the present occasion is that those sacrifices, the sacrificial Budget, if I may use the expression, to which I have alluded, were the result of financial circumstances for which the Socialist Government as a whole must assume a certain responsibility. We can congratulate ourselves and the country upon the courage with which the Lord Privy Seal, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs faced the situation; and in spite of their former colleagues, who were urging them to desert what they believed to be a sinking ship, joined with the other two Parties in the country and formed a Government of a national and non-party character. The vindication of that decision, if vindication is required, is found in the high esteem in which this country is now held throughout the world, a position which it appeared momentarily to have lost, and in the outspoken admiration of other countries for the manner in which Great Britain is mastering her difficulties and giving an example to the rest of the world.
Your Lordships are familiar with, in fact I think most of you have painful recollections of, my noble friend's second Budget last year; and I need not remind the House of the appeal made to the country by the Prime Minister, which followed those financial proposals—an appeal for support of the National Government in its immense task of reconstruction. I think we can say that the result certainly justified the appeal. The strength of this country is truly immeasurable. No one can place any limit on the courage and determination of its people. The more desperate the challenge, the higher and the more valiant the response. When the history of this dramatic period through which we are passing comes to be written, I believe there will be every reason to be proud both of the achievements of the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of the policies of the National Government which guided them through the crisis.
May I draw your Lordships' attention for a moment to the magnitude of the task and to the grandeur of the national
844
achievement? The present Finance Bill gives me a suitable opportunity for making a very brief review. I can assure you that while I venture to trouble your Lordships with a few figures, they will be as few as possible. I may remind your Lordships that when my noble friend made his second Budget statement in September last, he had to provide for meeting a then prospective deficit on the year's accounts of no less than £74,000,000. At the close of the financial year 1931–32, there was, as the result of the stupendous efforts of the country in carrying out the financial policy advocated by my noble friend in September last, a small apparent surplus of £364,000. The magnitude of the achievement as thus shown is amazing enough, though as a matter of fact, as I shall endeavour to prove to your Lordships, it is even greater than appears at first sight. I spoke of an apparent surplus of £364,000, but the real surplus is greater than that, because this result, this balancing of the national account with a small revealed surplus, has been achieved after taking into the revenue of the year from the assets of the Exchange Account £12,000,000, which is £10,250,000 less than the amount which had been provided for by my right hon. friend in the Estimates which he put forward, and in spite of the losses of revenue, resulting from the world-wide industrial depression, which amounted to some £21,500,000, from the receipts of Estate Duties, Stamps, and the Post Office.
I have mentioned deficits in revenue under certain heads. Let me call your Lordships' particular attention to the manner in which these deficiencies of revenue were made up. They were counterbalanced to the extent of no less than £19,000,000 by Income Tax and Surtax receipts in excess of the Estimates and to the extent of £13,000,000 by un-anticipated savings in estimated expenditure. Your Lordships there have a proof of two outstanding facts. First, the British taxpayer has answered the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to his patriotism to the full. This country, even in the stress and strain of the Great War, has in my opinion never shown itself to the world in a more favourable light. We are all of us taxpayers and, therefore, it is hardly fitting that I should indulge in too many raptures upon the

845
fine spirit and other virtues exhibited by the taxpayer, but I cannot help drawing your Lordships' attention to the fact that the second Budget of last year not only increased the burdens of the Income Tax to the existing Income Tax payers, but also brought into the ranks of the payers of this heavy tax a large number of men and women who had never been called upon to contribute before. I think I can best sum up the situation if I say that no part, no class, of our population has failed to do its duty and to make its full contribution to the common stock.
Secondly, the National Government has achieved very considerable economies, but as I shall return to the subject of economy before I sit down, I will say no more on that head at present, though many who are now crying out for economies speak as if we had not already made considerable steps in that direction. Let me turn now to the finances of the current year, 1932–33, in connection with which the present Finance Bill is drawn up. On the basis of existing taxation and including the estimated yield of the various new Import Duties, and after making allowance for heavy reductions in the yield of the Income Tax and Surtax, there is a prospective deficit of £1,700,000 which is increased to £2,800,000 by the proposed changes in the Sugar Duties. This prospective deficit, is to be met and a surplus of some £800,000 provided for by the reimposition of a Customs Duty on tea, giving a 50 per cent. preference to Empire tea. It will be observed that provision is made in the present Bill for the reduction of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt by £13,500,000, which is the amount of the half-yearly instalment of interest on the American debt. All receipts and outgoings on account of Reparations or War Debts are being treated as being in suspense at present in order to avoid prejudicing the results of the Lausanne Conference.
Upon this Conference I do not propose to say anything to-day, and I am sure your Lordships will not expect it. The world is in a sad state of financial chaos to-day. The present dislocation of international finance is undoubtedly the aftermath of the War, complicated and enormously increased by regrettable shocks such as those concerned with failures of great magnitude. This state of
846
financial chaos gives every pessimist his cherished opportunity of painting a dark picture and indulging his fancy for gloomy forebodings. At the same time, he should realise that he may do enormous damage by the spread of the dangerous psychology of defeatism. Nothing ever was so bad as it is painted by the pessimist and nothing ever will be. On the other hand, it would be foolish to indulge in an unreasoning optimism and to proceed as though there was nothing to worry about. There is of course plainly much that requires remedy. We know that numberless remedies are being propounded daily by numberless prophets in the newspapers and reviews and in monographs upon the subject. In my view, my very humble view, there are two prerequisites for the cure; first, that the nations should pull together and adopt the same financial policy; and, second, that the nations should look up again and take confidence. The secret of financial success lies in the restoration of confidence and in the general recognition of the increasing interdependence of the nations in financial matters. We in this country at any rate have no reason to lack confidence or to hang our heads. When I was at Geneva recently nothing impressed me more than the manner in which the nations look to us to give them a lead. A confident, enterprising Britain is still, thank goodness, a necessity to the world at large.
Your Lordships will quite justifiably expect me to say something on the subject of the Exchange Equalisation Account, for which powers are taken under Part IV of this Finance Bill. I think that my right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking in another place on the Report stage of this Bill, on Thursday last, made the position perfectly clear. The object of the fund and the purpose for which it will be operated is to secure the stability of the pound in the exchange markets of the world. It is not for me to attempt to teach your Lordships an elementary lesson in international commerce and finance. In your Lordships' House there are many who are far better qualified than I am to speak upon these matters and at whose feet I am always glad to sit. But it as a self-evident proposition that the merchant cannot trade with any facility, and often cannot trade at all, unless he is able within narrow limits to

847
estimate the position of the national currency in the exchange markets of the world with some certainty and for some time ahead. He wants to be able to quote and to accept "firm" offers at "firm" rates, and we hope that the Exchange Equalisation Account may assist in establishing this very desirable state of things. We are not unaware of the risks involved and the position will be most carefully watched.
I will only make one further remark of a general character and briefly refer to economy in which the whole country is vitally interested. Let me begin by saying that the Government is determined upon a policy of economy and retrenchment. So far as we are concerned we shall not spend a penny extravagantly. We stand for wise spending, not for waste. We know that this country cannot stand taxation on the present scale indefinitely, taxation which bears the more hardly with the falling prices in the wholesale markets, and places us at a disadvantage in the competitive markets of the world. But, as my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in another place on Friday last, we do not want to be rushed into taking rash decisions without adequate investigations. I agree with him. Hard thinking is necessary, and there is a great deal more to be done than simply take up the pen and strike out or reduce certain items of expenditure. We must see where it will all lead us to. We are all apostles of economy, particularly, perhaps, when it effects other Departments than our own. As a House of Commons man, I have often reflected with a certain melancholy upon how many were the questions from private members which were directed towards objects that would result in increased public expenditure, and how very few tended in the other direction. That is, I am sorry to say, many years ago now, and for all I know there may have been a subtle change of spirit since the time when I sat in another place; but I doubt very much whether things have altered much, or, if they have, I regret to say evidence of the change has not yet reached me.
However, be this as it may, let me assure your Lordships that the Government have exercised, are exercising, and will continue to exercise the closest supervision over public expenditure. But we
848
must remember that true economy means wise spending rather than a reduction in expenditure where the spending is productive. We have a certain standard of living for our people which we are determined to maintain. We must aim at raising the lower standards of other countries rather than allow them to pull ours down. Thrift, I am glad to say, exists in abundance. Notwithstanding unnecessary expenditure here and there —and it is true we do see some examples of extravagance perhaps—the records of our savings banks, building societies, and other co-operative organisations to-day give us real cause for confidence and satisfaction. They give one reason to believe that the truly vast sums which are expended in what are known as social services are not altogether lost, for it is obvious that a substantial part of them finds its way back to the nation's resources in the shape of more or less permanent investment.
It cannot be urged with any justice against this Government that they have no care for economy when in the face of an increase in expenditure upon armaments, which is nearly general amongst other nations, we have pared our Defence Services to the bone. Some of your Lordships, I know, think we have gone too far in this direction. The fact remains that we have made these economies in the Defence Services, and the determination of the Government thus to give a lead to the world in the reduction of the burden of armaments is a great example which I sincerely hope we shall find the world willing to follow and adopt before the close of the present Disarmament Conference. I do not know whether there are other matters in the Finance Bill to which your Lordships would like me to make reference, but I can assure your Lordships that in the course of the debate I shall be prepared to answer any questions noble Lords may like to put to me. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, this Bill is not capable of any amendment in your Lordships' House, and very rightly so. The noble Marquess who has moved the Second Reading of the Bill can be trusted to make a very effective and telling speech out of very

849
poor material. If I may say so, I think, in his own words, he perhaps a little over-indulged in his raptures over the present so-called National Government. The news we heard this afternoon from the noble and learned Viscount (Viscount Hailsham) that this Government is to all intents and purposes eternal, will fill the country with dismay, but I may be excused if I cannot quite see the glowing picture that the noble Marquess has painted for your Lordships. I see a different picture, one that I think is perhaps rather more accurate and one that appeals perhaps to a larger number than the picture painted by the noble Marquess.
The trouble that is in store for the Government arises from the very fact that they have rather overblown their own trumpet, that they have raised people's expectations too high, that they have held out such magnificent hopes, and that as in the course of time it is perfectly clear those hopes cannot be realised, the disappointment is going to be very deep. The noble Marquess made a few passing remarks with regard to the advent of this Government to power, and stated once more that a great deal of blame was to be placed on the late Labour Government for having brought the country to the pass that it was in. We have heard that so often. The reply is that the Labour Government having brought the country into such a pass, the National Government chose the leaders who were responsible for the policy of the Labour Government to be their leaders, and that has always seemed to me something that required further explanation.
What strikes one about this Finance Bill is its absence of any constructive plan with real conviction behind it. It is clear that it is the outcome of plans conceived by men who are shackled by compromise with one another. I have said that very often in your Lordships' House, because I feel it so very important that a. Government should be in power with men united by common conviction, which this Government is not. However, the Conservative majority in the Government have gained the upper hand, and they have been able to bring forward their policy of Protection, which they have advocated for many years past. Perhaps the most outstanding feature in
850
this Finance Bill is the introduction of the Import Duty Advisory Committee, a body outside Parliamentary control, which is going to have a free hand in the imposition of indirect taxes. That is an innovation to which insufficient attention has been drawn in the country. A great deal has been said about the impartiality of the three individuals who compose the Committee, but if they were archangels it would be perfectly impossible for them not to get entangled in the pressure, and very often worse than pressure, that a system of Protection, once it starts down the slippery slope, is bound to involve. The Liberals in the National Government have protested, and one is always waiting to see when the breaking point is coming for them to come out. The ex-Labour Ministers are prepared to swallow everything, and remain merely as a decorative appendage to the Government.
As the noble Marquess said, the situation to-day is a very serious one. He described the world as being in a sad state of financial chaos. Perhaps I may be forgiven if I quote an utterance with regard to the present situation in the world from a man who is in a key position in the financial world, and who is also a member of your Lordships' House. It has been quoted in another place, it has been quoted at meetings and I make no apology for quoting it again in your Lordships' House. Lord Revelstoke, speaking just two months ago, on April 13, said:
"What do we see when we look abroad to-day? We see a world writhing, as it were, in a purgatory of its own making. We see the stream of international commerce which is said to require, for its normal flow, some £400,000,000 of fresh credit every year, reduced to a trickle and losing its way 'in bogs and sands,' the price of goods having fallen below the cost of production. We see these goods losing value daily, because they have ceased, or nearly ceased, to change hands. We see the burden of debts and of taxation intensified to breaking point, solvent debtors in default, banking facilities at a standstill. We see the delicate mechanism of exchange crippled by arbitrary control, barter between Governments supplanting the efforts of individual traders, foodstuffs being destroyed in despair, warehouses glutted with a surplus that is only redundant because the consuming power of millions of people has been either frustrated or paralysed. Worse than all, we see standards of honour debased, and good will, the leaven which ought to permeate humanity, slowly perishing while distrust,

851
that fear of our neighbours which it is the mission of Christianity to dispel, spreads like a pestilence from day to day."
No more eloquent description of the world to-day could have been given.
When one comes to the effort of the National Government which is embodied in this Finance Bill in such a situation as that, it must strike everybody that it is entirely inadequate and in no way meets any of the evils from which we are suffering. In spite of the rapturous language of the noble Marquess I would remind him that trade is not reviving. I would remind him that in the last two months 173,000 have been added to the list of unemployed. I cannot see that we have any reason for congratulating ourselves to-day. But we are ready to look forward to a series of Conferences that are going to meet. We are hoping that a new direction will be given to the Conference at Geneva which has arrived at a deadlock. I was rather condemned and laughed at a few weeks ago when I criticised the proceedings at Geneva, but everything I said then has proved to be absolutely correct. Let us hope that a change will come there. Although disarmament may not seem relevant it is fundamentally so because until the burden of armaments is lifted from off the backs of the taxpayers in all nations, and until greater confidence is restored between nations, the economic situation is very unlikely to improve.
We have the Lausanne Conference coming, and nobody can quite foresee what will be the outcome of that, but the delay has already made the European situation more difficult to cope with than if the Lausanne Conference had taken place in January. After that we have the Ottawa Conference. I for one cannot see what benefit is going to come to this country from the deliberations at Ottawa. I do not know how the raising of barriers around the Empire in order to promote trade within the Empire is going to help the world problem with which we are confronted to-day. Beyond that there is to be a World Conference in which America is to take part to consider methods of stabilising world commodity prices. Let us hope something will come from that. We are waiting and I do believe that by international action there may be some hope. I remember that when the Labour Government were in
852
power, and when the Labour Government at that time said that this was not just a national crisis but that it was a world crisis, we were often jeered at and were told that we were shirking our responsibility. Now everybody has clearly come to the conclusion that that was true, and that by these international Conferences, and by these Conferences alone, are we likely to get any improvement.
But, my Lords, this contribution to the difficulty is really pitiable. The burden of taxation is placed still more heavily on the poorer classes of the community—as if they had not enough to bear already, what with unemployment and the various cuts in pay. There is no doubt that the burden of taxation is being felt by, and is almost intolerable to, the middle classes of moderate means and also the large masses of the workers. At the same time we do not see that it is intolerable to the really well-to-do. I do not suppose that those of your Lordships who go this week to Ascot—where I see accommodation for 20,000 motor cars will be provided within a mile of the grand stand—will see any noticeable signs of poverty on the part of the rich. I think we can all notice that the life of luxury is extending rather than retrenching. At the same time, hidden from the public eye, there is an intensity of suffering going on which is being still further aggravated by the present Government's method of putting further burdens on to the backs of the workers.
I do not want to detain your Lordships as others are going to take part in this debate, but I must say that I regard procrastination and delay as fatal. What is wanted is to grasp this great problem with far more initiative than the Government are prepared to show. The noble Marquess said in the course of his remarks that when he was at Geneva—I was very much struck by what he said on this point—he found people were looking to Great Britain for a lead. I believe that is absolutely true. I believe that other nations are waiting. When is that lead coming? We have been hoping for it. Is there going to be a lead at Geneva? Is there going to be a lead at Lausanne? Is there going to be a lead at any of these Conferences? Or is there to be just a tentative advance, the cautious finding of fresh expedients to make further delay before any drastic

853
step can be taken? No, my Lords, this Finance Bill is insufficient. Mrs. Partington's mop was a far greater barrier against the waves of the Atlantic than this Bill is a defence against the very severe economic forces which are shaking the nations to-day.
LORD RHAYADER: My Lords, rising to speak for the first time in your Lordships' House I venture to crave indulgence for the few remarks I propose to make on the general financial policy of the present Government. The Budget which is embodied in this Bill is the second Budget of the National Government. The first Budget was introduced in September last by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, and he will not be surprised if I tell him that I much prefer the first Budget of the National Government to the second. The Budget of the Lord Privy Seal in September was designed to bridge a vast gap between the public expenditure and the national income. He succeeded in that Budget in accomplishing an almost unparalleled feat by arriving at a surplus in the beginning of this financial year. The second Budget, which we are discussing to-day, also, I am prepared to believe, will leave us with a surplus at the end of the financial year, although the prospects are not very encouraging. Both these Budgets aimed at being balanced at the end of the year, and I hope the second one may achieve it, but in one respect they come before the country with very different credentials.
The first Budget had behind it the backing of a united Cabinet and the support of every member of the Conservative and Liberal Parties in the House of Commons; and, although it asked for great sacrifices from all classes in the community, the country acquiesced and approved of what the Government did. The present Budget comes to us from a divided Cabinet. Many of the most important clauses, upon which the noble Marquess who introduced the Bill preserved a complete silence, are opposed by some members of the Cabinet. That is a unique position in which the country finds itself in considering the financial proposals of the present Government. I doubt if it has happened
854
before in the history of Parliament—at any rate in recent years—that a Budget, the financial scheme for the year, has been presented to the country with the admission that the strongest difference of opinion exists in the Cabinet in regard to certain parts of it. The Bill, therefore, lacks the authority with which Finance Bills have hitherto arrived in your Lordships' House. I submit that this makes it all the more necessary that your Lordships should devote a certain amount of time to the examination of the Bill.
I have a few observations to make ranging over rather a wide area. I shall not attempt to deal with them in great detail, but there are so many matters in the Budget to which I wish to refer that I would appeal to your Lordships for patience. The first thing I wish to say is this. I think—and this opinion will be shared by many people here and in the country—that the Government are spending too much money. The gross expenditure covered by the Estimates this year is no less a sum than £894,000,000. That is a figure which very seldom occurs in any of the publications which go out to the world, but the total figure is £894,000,000, nearly £90,000,000 more than the corresponding figure eight years ago. From that the appropriations in aid of some £47,000,000 are deducted —and may I suggest to the Government that an examination of those appropriations in aid is a possible means of economy?—leaving a net total of about £848,000,000. Further to ease the minds of the public, the Government always present the total without the self-balancing services and so reduce it to somewhere about £767,000,000. But the gross amount to be spent by the Government this year is £894,000,000.
That is far too much for the nation to spend on government. It is one-third of the national income. There is one point on which there is no difference between the Government Benches and the Opposition in this House and in another place—that that is too large a proportion and presses too heavily upon all classes in this country. It may be urged that this expenditure is sanctioned by the House of Commons and that therefore the Government are exonerated. I want to put, it to representatives of the

855
Government here, in the hope that they may pass it on to another place, that it is for them to lead and for the House of Commons to follow. I have had a great deal of experience in this matter and my conviction is that the House of Commons can never really effectively exercise economy unless the Government keep a very strict hold. The demands made upon members from their constituencies, the schemes put forward, the suggestions made always involve expenditure. What ought to be done is that, like any prudent individual, the Government should estimate beforehand what expenditure we can afford to make in the next twelve months. Then let them apportion that money among the Departments; in short, ration the Departments.
That is of course a reversal of the present procedure. What is done at the present time is that every Department furnishes its estimates to the Government, beginning some time before the end of the financial year. The estimates received from the Departments are added together and the total is the amount which the Chancellor of the Exchequer sets himself to raise for the national expenditure. I want that process to be reversed, and I suggest that if that were done it would be possible for the Government to make a great economy. In order that I may put a figure upon it, I urge them next year to look for a reduction of ten per cent. on the average in the present total expenditure. I do not see why, if they exercise real economy, they should not get the Estimates down to a gross £800,000,000 instead of the £894,000,000 at which they stand to-day. At the same time I hope there is going to be no delay in putting through the conversion scheme for War Loan. There is between £15,000,000 and £20,000,000 to be saved annually by a conversion scheme. The Lord Privy Seal smiles, but I do not know whether it is a smile of welcome or of a sarcastic nature. I am sure he wishes to see that scheme carried through at the earliest possible moment.
The second point to which I wish to draw attention is the Exchange Equalisation Account, which is Part IV of the Finance Bill. In spite of the words of the noble Marquess, I view those clauses with misgiving. £150,000,000 are to be
856
set aside for the purpose of stabilising the exchange. The Treasury, if I may quote Clause 24, are to cause the funds in the Account
"to be invested in securities or in the purchase of gold in such manner as they think best adapted for checking undue fluctuations in the exchange value of sterling."
Those words have a very fair appearance, but, in effect, they mean that the Treasury are going to speculate in sterling, that they are going to buy or sell sterling according as they think the market is going. Usually they will be operating against the tendency of the market. Is not that a very certain way of incurring loss? Already in the Finance Bill there is £8,000,000 of loss. There is a good deal to be said for a very careful watching of the position of sterling, but I think this is a new and dangerous power the Government have taken and I hope they intend to keep the most careful watch over it. They are going to stabilise the pound, if they can. Have they made up their minds at what figure, at what final figure, they would wish it to be stabilised? They will be surrounded by people desiring to profit by the opportunities their operations will give, and therefore it is most essential in the interest of economy, and if we are not to lose millions of money, that this should be most carefully watched all the time, not only by the Treasury, but by all the financial representatives of the Government.
I hope the Government will be prudent, and if I am doubtful about the prudence of the Government. I think they have themselves to blame. They have shaken my confidence by the precipitate way in which they have plunged this country from Free Trade into Protection. I speak as a lifelong and unrepentant Free Trader. I supported the National Government last August at its formation by every means at my command, as the Lord Privy Seal well knows. I stood as a supporter of the Government at the General Election and met the fate of most Free Traders supporting the Government who were not actually members of the Government because, though I had zealously supported the policy of the National Government, I did not support the fiscal policy of the Conservative Party. It is to that defeat in some

857
degree that your Lordships owe the infliction that is falling upon you to-day. But I gave the Government full support and I speak to-day with some sense of grievance. We were promised a full inquiry before the fiscal system of this country was changed. We have not had that inquiry. We have had ill-considered temporary measures, and finally the House of Commons and the Government have handed over the whole problem of tariffs to a body described as the Import Duties Advisory Committee, a new and strange body outside Parliament.
The financial position of the House of Commons in this country is based upon the Parliament Act in which the House of Commons was made supreme in matters of finance. The country has delegated to the House of Commons the power of dealing with finance. I am no lawyer, but a lawyer's tag comes to my mind: a delegated power should not be delegated. I really would like to draw the attention of the Government to the constitutional position in which the House of Commons places itself when it relinquishes the taxing power entrusted to it by the Parliament Act and puts that power into the hands of Commissioners or Committees outside Parliament. I have not seen much reference to that matter in the debates that have taken place, but it is an aspect of the question that has always interested me and I did not believe, until I read the debates in the House of Commons and saw the Finance Bill and the Import Duties Act that the House of Commons would give up this trust placed in their hands and put it into the hands of a Committee outside Parliament.
With regard to the proposals of the Finance Bill—and I apologise for having detained your Lordships so long—why is there this change-over to Protection? There are many objections to it. Commerce has asked for stability. There is nothing more unstable than tariffs. At this moment what do the industries of the country know as to the duties that are to be put on in the near future—to-morrow, in a fortnight, in a month? There is no possibility of foreseeing the future. I think a great part of our success in the nineteenth century, the Victorian age, which has already become a kind of Golden Age, was due to the fact of an established fiscal system, and I do not think we could have done a worse
858
thing at this moment than to make this change. We are given many reasons for the change. The reasons given by different members of the Government are frequently inconsistent with one another. The Chancellor of the Exchequer triumphantly asks how we could have raised the £27,000,000 or whatever the amount is—he warned us not to rely too much upon the estimates, but where else could we have got this sum of £27,000,000? I have already told your Lordships that I think it might be met by economy, by the Conversion Loan, and in other ways; but it was certainly unnecessary to change the fiscal system of this country for the sake of £27,000,000.
Then I am told that the tariff is going to be a great cementing influence in the British Empire. The cementing of the British Empire by means of a tariff is a mysterious process which I confess I do not understand. My observation through life has been that there is nothing that members of families fall out about so much as questions of property and the equal division of benefits. If the tariff is to be used for bargaining purposes inside the Empire I think you are going to do a very dangerous thing. I do hope that however you may deal with foreign countries, you are not going to bargain with the Dominions with regard to what their fiscal system is to be. I think it would be a fatal thing to say to one Dominion: "You will have ten per cent. here or twenty there," and you give to another different figures on condition that they make concessions to you. I implore the Government if they have any such idea not to pursue it. Let them tell the Dominions that here in this country there is a free market for their products, that they may send here whatever good things they have to send, and that we shall be glad to receive them all on an equality. I would go further. I would say to every foreign country at the same time that if they are prepared to treat us on equal terms we shall be ready to make agreements to that effect. Therefore I do beseech the Government not to try cementing all the Empire by making bargains about tariffs, and to keep the door open for favourable arrangement with other nations.
Then there is a peculiar thing called the balance of trade, about which I think more nonsense has been talked in the last twelve months than about any other

859
publicly discussed subject. I never hear of the balance of trade without thinking of the persistence of human error. If ever there was an economic fallacy thoroughly exposed it was this balance of trade theory which ruled the world down to about the middle of the eighteenth century. Two Scotsmen, Hume and Adam Smith, blew the doctrine sky high, and that it should be revived now seems to me most strange. Hume said of it:
"The apprehension of the wrong balance of trade discovers itself whenever one is out of humour with the Ministry, or in low spirits."
Adam Smith showed successfully that you cannot arrive at what this balance of trade is, that if you could it would be of very little value, and, lastly, that the worst way of dealing with it is by putting on duties to keep out imports.
The members of the Government have dwelt largely upon the balance of trade, and it has produced the worst effects throughout the world and among the British people at home. There is growing up an attitude of hostility towards foreigners and foreign goods which I deprecate in the highest degree. I have just come back from a Mediterranean journey to Constantinople. I came back by the Orient Express, in seventy-two hours from Constantinople to London. It was a wonderful journey. A well-laid track, crossing great rivers, over magnificent bridges and through long tunnels under mighty mountain ranges. All natural obstacles to the movement of goods and men have been abolished, and in that journey I passed the frontiers of Turkey, Bulgaria, YugoSlavia, Italy, Switzerland, France, and our own country. Everywhere, in place of the natural obstacles which had been overcome, instead of mountains and rivers dividing nations, I found Customs barriers set up. I protest that, to-day, it is more difficult for goods to travel from Constantinople to London, overland, than it was in the days of the founder of the Eastern Empire.
That is the work which modern tariff-makers have done for us. The Government have joined them, and there has been a campaign against the buying of foreign goods or the taking of journeys abroad. There has been agitation about the building of the new Cunarder. If we are not to have goods from abroad, and
860
are not to travel abroad, why should we build ships? I went out by sea, and we touched at port after port. In every harbour we went into there were ten, fifteen, or twenty ships laid up, rusting in the docks, and likely never to go to sea again. That is the condition of Europe and the world to-day, and it is largely due to the restrictions placed upon ships and men by Governments. It is a matter of infinite regret to me that His Majesty's Government have followed that course instead of heeding the wise words of the Lord Privy Seal, and opening our doors to commerce.
We have in the Government Protectionists who regard tariffs as a gospel of salvation, and on the other hand Free Traders who believe in the real gospel of peace among men. Between them there are those who are not sure about it all and who think that at any rate there is a tariff and they may use it to bring foreign countries to reason. The Secretary of State for the Dominions and my old friend the President of the Board of Trade are very keen on using tariffs in order to make foreign Governments more reasonable. History is against them. The plagues hardened Pharaoh's heart, and the tariffs which we use against foreign countries almost invariably harden the hearts of foreign Governments. I want to ask the representatives of the Government whether they have yet got any benefit from their bargaining with foreign Governments. I have seen wrangles in the newspapers with Germany about our new taxes, and wrangles with France; and poor little Denmark, which has grown to depend upon our markets, is complaining. Have the Government had any success in their bargaining?
This is really not an economic but a political matter. As Adam Smith said, it belongs not to the economist but "to that crafty and insidious animal vulgarly called a politician." I suggest to the Government that the tariff wars on which they have now embarked are working out according to plan, and that in truth they have no prospect of inducing foreign Governments to be more reasonable because of our tariff. I do not say one word in defence of the action of foreign Governments in this matter. I think we Free Traders have every reason to complain that they have

861
resisted our arguments for nearly 100 years. I raise no word therefore in defence of the action of foreign Governments in refusing to be influenced, but I suggest that the history of tariff wars is almost invariably this. Two nations fall out, they put up tariffs against one another, each in turn increases its tariffs, and while those two nations are fighting some third nation comes in and snaps up the trade about which the two are fighting. That has been the past history of tariffs.
I am afraid that I have wearied your Lordships, but I was unable to be present when this subject was debated at an earlier date. My heart is hot within me about those matters and it was necessary that I should speak. In this matter of Protection I think the Government have made a grave mistake. They have, by a majority only—not with the unanimity which would have carried great authority —decided to follow the path of restriction at a time when all the world is crying out for the freer movement of men and goods. I do not think they have helped this country, and they have made the world position worse. Economic nationalism is the curse of the world at the present time. Hence all these Conferences about to take place. My last word is an appeal to the Government. I want to ask the Government when they go to Ottawa, when they go to Lausanne, when they go to Geneva and to that further Conference that is to be held, to have one aim only before their eyes. Let this be their guiding principle: Considering all the circumstances, what would be best for the world as a whole? Let them look at the problems from the point of view of all the nations, as well as their own. If they do that they will not only help this bewildered, groping, and most unhappy world, but they will also hest serve the interests of our own country and of the Empire.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I could only wish that the noble Lord, upon the next occasion when he takes a long journey, will not travel through Europe, from Turkey to Yugo-Slavia, or from Italy to France, or to Gibraltar, or to any of those other places that he has mentioned, but will make a tour through the British Empire and visit Australia and Africa.
LORD RHAYADER: I was at school in Australia.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Well, perhaps the noble Lord has not been there since he was at school and perhaps he will return there and see what the conditions are to-day. Let him see the conditions also in Canada and South Africa. He will then perhaps once more realise that there are there vast expanses of country waiting for settlement and development, and that by this measure which is before your Lordships to-day there is a possibility of developing those lands and of creating a fresh era for this country and for the British Empire.
I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said in regard to the Bill. As usual, he poured cold water upon the actions of the Government, and he was very lugubrious about the future. But I cannot see the conditions in the same light as he does. I believe that this Government have done extraordinarily well in the very short time that they have had at their disposal. I do not agree that they have produced no effect, as was stated by the noble Lord who has just sat down, upon the balance of trade. We have had figures disclosed this morning in the official publications showing that the balance of trade has considerably improved during the last two or three months. I do not think there is any doubt, whatever that that, is due to the Import Duties Bill, which was passed by this House only a few months ago. And now to-day in this Bill we have an extension of the preferential system, especially in the matter of tea and sugar, and we have the basis upon which we may be able to extend those Preferences at Ottawa.
I quite agree with the noble Lord that we must not go to Ottawa in a haggling spirit, but I do not see eye to eye with him in his view that the only way that we shall develop our Empire is by allowing the products of all the world, including our Empire, to come into this country upon equal terms. That is why we are going to the Conference at Ottawa and why I believe, with the good will which there is going to be on all sides to make that Conference a success, that we shall certainly attain a great measure of agreement from it. I am not one of those who think that the whole of the world is going

863
to be changed by that Conference. But at least if we start and get a basis for greater co-operation in the future we shall have made a start which will lead on to better things. I also think that it is not accurate when the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition states that we have given no lead to the world. We have given a lead to the world in that we were the first to cut down expenditure on a large scale. We were the first to form a Government on a national basis and if the noble Lord—as I know he does sometimes—were to visit Paris or the United States or any capital centre in Europe or any part of the world, I think he would find that this country is held in great admiration for the way in which it grappled with the difficult conditions in which it found itself and the difficult problems with which it was confronted.
I agree with the noble Lord who says that we must have economy. We have a Budget of some £894,000,000. That Budget is produced only by the exaction of the highest degree of direct taxation that the country is able to bear. If another straw were placed on the back of the unfortunate taxpayer the taxpayer would collapse. If that is so, I am inclined to believe that, with conditions as they are in the world, and the uncertainty that exists as to whether those conditions will be ameliorated within any reasonable time, it is quite possible when the autumn comes that the Government will find that, however carefully their estimate was prepared, they have not been able to obtain sufficient revenue to meet the Budget which they have drawn up.
The noble Marquess who moved the Second Reading said that this question was giving the Government very great concern. He said the Government were doing a great deal of hard thinking about it. I am very glad to hear that, but I should like to see the Government take a sharp and ruthless knife and cut through a great deal of the expenditure which we have to-day. I believe that it is only in that way that they are going to economise—only by saying: "To-day our expenditure is £894,000,000; tomorrow it is not going to be more than £700,000,000 or £750,000,000." Then, having done that, let them tell the heads of Departments that they have to make those reductions in some way. I believe
864
that is the only way in which we shall get real economies. Ten years ago we had the Geddes "Axe" Committee, and economies were obtained through that Committee. I am not suggesting that the Government should set up another such Committee, but I do say that if the Government take a strong and definite line on this matter they will have the whole country, or at any rate the best part of it, behind them.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, owing to the limitations to which I ventured to make allusion, the Finance Bill does not occupy in your Lordships' House so long a time as it does in another place, but I feel that there are one or two matters to which I should make a reply. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in his speech painted a very gloomy picture. I made an endeavour in advance to remove the gloom from his mind, because I felt that when he came to speak he would relapse into the depths of gloom. To create an atmosphere of gloom in the country is a most dangerous thing. It. may be described as creating a feeling of defeatism, which is very dangerous from every point of view.
The noble Lord drew particular attention to the creation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and led your Lordships to believe that that Committee was outside the control of Parliament. That is not quite correct, because any arrangement made by the Import Duties Committee can be annulled by Resolution of the House of Commons. What I think the noble Lord had in mind when he alluded to that subject was that the Import Duties Committee have the power of removing articles from the Free List, and in that respect it may be said that the control of Parliament has been impaired compared with what it was previously. But I would suggest to the noble Lord that there could be no better body for the control of these matters than this particular Committee. I think he must agree that from their intensive and expert knowledge they are a far better body to deal with such a matter than Parliament as a Whole. Beyond the respect to which I have made reference the authority of Parliament is not impaired.
The noble Lord who followed in the debate made a long and very interesting

865
speech, and drew attention to the actual Estimates. He suggested that there was some method of what I might almost call sleight of hand in the publication of Estimates by the Government. I think the noble Lord is as fully aware of the manner in which Estimates are controlled as I am myself, and I can assure him that there is as much supervision of the full Estimates as of the net Estimates. Speaking as one who has been in the perhaps unenviable position of a Minister I can assure him that we have a particular amount of expenditure in mind in relation to our own. Department, and that we have the greatest possible difficulty in getting our expenditure sanctioned by the Treasury.
LORD RHAYADER: May I interrupt the noble Marquess to state what my suggestion really was? I do not doubt the carefulness with which Estimates are at present prepared, but at this moment the question is put to the Department: "What are your Estimates for the year?" Those are collected and the total arrived at. What I want done is to send for the head of each Department and tell him what you have to spend in that Department in the year, and then set him to work to prepare his Estimates accordingly.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Lord advocates a policy of rationing, which, possibly, would be an excellent one to adopt, and I have no doubt, with his great influence, he can get that policy approved in the House of Commons, or at all events he can get the subject raise there and discussed by that House. I am not altogether out of sympathy with that policy myself, but at this moment I am not sure that we can make further headway with it. The noble Lord also entered, as I thought he would, into a disquisition upon the relative merits of Free Trade and Protection. I may say that I am willing to go with him a long way. I should like to see tariffs reduced all over the world. I agree that the heightening of tariffs renders the community of nations, and the coming together of nations, a very difficult problem. The noble Lord may not have been in his place some time ago when I moved the Second Reading of the Import Duties Bill in your Lordships' House. I then based my advocacy of that Bill on the necessity of Great
866
Britain using her influence to get tariffs lowered and not increased. I have always felt that by standing out of the whole controversy we have allowed other nations to continue the raising of their tariffs, and I think that the best chance we now have of lowering tariffs is to place ourselves in a position in which we can bargain with other countries. The noble Lord asked me whether I could point to any improvement in the position —whether we had been successful in bargaining with other countries. At this moment I am not prepared to answer that question, but I am quite sure that if we are going to get tariffs down we shall have a better chance of doing so now that we are able to speak to foreign countries in their own language.
The noble Viscount who followed countered the noble Lord, as I expected he would do, with the arguments on the other side, and I do not think there is any need for me to enter into this controversy at the present moment. The noble Viscount had the usual cut at the Government in relation to extravagance in expenditure. I can assure him, as I ventured to say in my opening remarks—
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I had no cut at the Government in regard to extravagance. I said I thought the Government had done extraordinarily well, but that we wanted more. I thought it might do something in a certain way. I do not think the noble Marquess would wish to misrepresent me.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I entirely withdraw and apologise to my noble friend if any expression I used has wounded his feelings. We are much too old friends to have any differences of opinion. The point I wanted to make—perhaps I put it too strongly—was that he was urging upon the Government that they should reduce expenditure. I agree with him that expenditure should be reduced, and I can assure him that the Government are doing everything in their power to reduce it; but, as an old member of the House of Commons, I am quite sure that he cannot place his hand on his heart and say he has not urged the Government to increase their expenditure upon various things in which he was himself interested. That is the danger to all Members of Parliament. They will preach economy as an abstract

867
subject, but when it comes to their own constituencies there is no expenditure which satisfies them. I do not know that there is any further question raised in the debate to which I need reply. We have had a most interesting debate, and I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, on his maiden speech in this House. I never thought at one time that it would be my privilege to congratulate my noble friend upon making a maiden speech in this House, and I am very happy to do so now. I hope we shall often hear him making contributions to our debates.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

LAND VALUATION AND TAX.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to move to resolve, That this House regrets that the Finance Bill does not repeal the valuation and Land Tax imposed by the Finance Act, 1931. The noble Lord said: My Lords, at this time of the day I shall not go very much into the merits of the case, but deal rather with the Parliamentary situation as regards the Motion standing in my name upon the valuation and Land Tax. What has happened in regard to this matter? Up to December of last year the amount expended under the Finance Act of 1931 was £120,000, and 700 officials were engaged. A debate was raised upon the question upon a Motion which I placed on the Paper last December. I did not move my Motion, but we had a debate upon it, and the Government were then asked to state their attitude with regard to repealing this Land Tax valuation in the future. The noble Lord who replied for the Government said he could give no authoritative answer. Of course he could not do so, for he was not a member of the Cabinet. The Leader of the House, who I understood was sitting upon the Bench opposite, did not think it worth while to say what the intentions of the Government were.
One may take it that the Government last year absolutely refused to give any indication as to whether they were going to repeal that Part of the Act or not. What has happened this year? This year in the House of Commons the Finance Bill was again introduced with this most objectionable clause providing for valua-
868
tion and a tax upon all land. It was debated at considerable length in the House of Commons and when a Division was taken the figures were very interesting. There voted against the repeal of the Land Tax Clause 298 and for the repeal 71. That is to say, there was a majority against of 227. What was most remarkable was that more than half the House of Commons refused to vote on the question. Members abstained to the number of 317, showing that evidently there was no great support for the Government in this matter, although no doubt a number of new members did not care to oppose the Government at that particular stage.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to another remarkable fact. No Conservative member, with one exception, spoke in favour of this tax. Colonel Acland-Troyte moved the rejection of the clause. A very distinguished agriculturist and a very old member of the House of Commons, Sir George Courthope, denounced the clause and said he regretted that his leader refused to repeal it. Another prominent agriculturist, Mr. Michael Beaumont, asked for its withdrawal. Then before the Lord President of the Council replied Mr. Gordon Macdonald quoted a long statement made by Viscount Snowden. I regret that the Lord Privy Seal is not in his place. What did Mr. Gordon Macdonald say? He quoted a long statement from Viscount Snowden, with which I will not trouble your Lordships at length, but at the end the noble Viscount said that this was
"one further stage towards the emancipation of the people from the tyranny and the injustice of private land monopoly."
Mr. Gordon Macdonald was followed by Mr. Baldwin, who made a remarkable statement. He described what Mr. Gordon Macdonald had said as "the beautiful words which the hon. member quoted from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Government." I will not comment upon that statement. I will leave it to the landed interests outside this House as well as in it, the bulk of whom supported Mr. Baldwin at the General Election, to comment upon those words.
Mr. Baldwin made the further statement that the valuation and the land tax were in a state of coma for the present Parliament. Is it not possible that

869
they may wake up from that state of coma? It is not unusual for a patient in a state of coma suddenly to revive and come to life again. I rather think that there may be some intention that the patient may come to life again because I was very much interested, and at the same time surprised, to see it reported that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Major Elliot, made this statement at the annual meeting of the Property Owners Association:
"Lord Lloyd might also have spoken of the taxation of land values which was postponed to a period when the country could afford to pay better."
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not say that when they had time or when there was no longer a National Government or in another Parliament they were going to repeal the land valuation and the Land Tax. He only said they were waiting to put it in force until there were better times and the country could afford to pay it.
There was a still more remarkable statement made yesterday in the House of Commons. I quote this passage from the OFFICIAL REPORT:
"Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum of money has been expended since 1st January in carrying out the provisions of Section 28 of the Finance Act, 1931?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: About £2,000.
Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: May I ask what use it is to come down here and preach economy, and allow this waste of money to go on?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is a waste of money."
What does Mr. Chamberlain mean by saying it is not a waste of money? It must mean that on some future occasion he intends to put into force this valuation and this Land Tax. Otherwise it is a waste of money to spend £2,000 a year—or no doubt more—to keep alive this valuation. Then I notice that Mr. Baldwin said it was in gratitude to Viscount Snowden that they had maintained this provision for valuation and the Land Tax upon the Statute Book. I would not fat one moment depreciate the great value of the part played in the General Election by Viscount Snowden, but on the other hand I cannot understand why there should be a special form of gratitude to Viscount Snowden.
Why is not the same form of gratitude applied to Sir Herbert Samuel? I should
870
think Sir Herbert Samuel gained as many votes for the Government as Viscount Snowden, but how is gratitude shown to Sir Herbert Samuel? Reference has already been made to a very remarkable state of things when you get one Cabinet Minister rising from the Government Bench and reading a statement in favour of import duties and another Cabinet Minister denouncing him for making it. I venture to suggest that Mr. Baldwin might have shown gratitude to Viscount Snowden by treating him exactly as he has treated Sir Herbert Samuel, by telling him: "You have a perfect right, of course, to get up in the House of Lords and denounce me because I have repealed the land valuation provisions and the Land Tax which my Party dislike very much indeed." It seems to me that that would have been a reasonable way to do it. What is good for the House of Commons might be applied here, although of course it might be applied here under more difficult circumstances.
There is another point to which I should like to refer, and that is the way in which this clause is actually at the present moment discouraging the development of land and discouraging employment. I hold in my hand a memorandum which was given to me by a member of your Lordships' House, who is well known to most, people. This memorandum says:
"A lay-out for the development of about eleven acres in the London area had been negotiated at the moment of the introduction of the 1931 Budget, a year ago last Easter. The scheme provided for the construction of a length of about 3,400 feet of roads, severed and drained, and the construction of eighty-four houses, of a type suitable for the neighbourhood. Arrangements in detail had been made, as necessary preliminaries to the scheme, the burden of which fell directly upon the owners and the promoters.
The terms for the carrying out of the constructional works were settled between the two parties and the formal agreement was about to be entered into, but owing to the uncertainty created by the Finance Bill, 1931, as to the valuation of the land and the placing of the Land Value Tax thereon, both parties were in accord that the development scheme could not be proceeded with, and since that time the promoters have not been able to make any progress in the matter; consequently, the opportunity of a considerable capital out-lay in the construction of the roads and the houses with the resultant loss of employment, has been rendered impossible."

871
That is a very strong statement indeed and shows what an unfortunate effect is being caused by the state of coma in which the Land Tax and land valuation are being maintained by the Government at the present moment.
There is no doubt that, if the Government cannot make up their mind to show their gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, in another way than by keeping the Land Tax and valuation in a state of coma, they will discourage more employment, more development, and more capital being put upon the land. This legislation has a paralysing effect on anyone who desires to put more capital into the land. If we put more capital into the land, we shall have our valuation raised and have to pay increased taxes on what we spend. The real object of this Land Tax, which was imposed by the Labour Government, was simply land nationalisation in the future. I cannot do better than quote the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, last May:
"By the measure we assert the right of a community to the ownership of land. If private individuals continue to possess a nominal claim to the land, they must pay a rent to the community for the enjoyment of it … The taxation of land values may be described as a rent paid to the community for the use of the land."
That is how Lord Snowden justified his Land Tax, which he pointed out was merely a step towards land nationalisation. We ought to leave it to Mr. Baldwin's supporters to protest against this first step towards land nationalisation.
It is interesting to notice that at a later date Lord Erskine, one of the Somerset members, said:
"This is a method, not of imposing an equitable tax, but of confiscating the land, making it worth nothing and then nationalising it.
Mr. MACLAREN: Hear, hear!
Lord ERSKINE: Then why not say so?
Mr. MACLAREN: I do say so."
I see the Leader of the House is amused at that. I hope that he is going to say that he is not in favour of land nationalisation. I can assure him, having spent a great many years in the House of Commons and having fought many elections, that he will find at the next General Election that there are a large number of landowners like myself who did all they
872
could to support the Government but will not support a Government which is helping half way towards the nationalisation of land.
Moved to resolve, That this House regrets that the Finance Bill does not repeal the valuation and Land Tax imposed by the Finance Act, 1931.—(Lord Strachie.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved this Motion said that I showed amusement at a quotation which he read to your Lordships. The amusement, which I confess I felt, was at suggesting that the quotation, which certainly represented the opinions of a Party as far removed from my own as it is possible to be, had any relevance to the subject which your Lordships are engaged in debating this evening. My difficulty is that at this late hour I have to choose between dealing with the Motion and dealing with the noble Lord's speech. It is difficult to do both and impossible to do both at the same time.
Let me say a word about his speech. He began by telling us that in the Division lobby on a Motion to delete this clause there voted some 340 members and that therefore there were some 300 abstentions, which showed, he said, how unwilling the Conservative Party was to support the Government in this matter. I have looked at the OFFICIAL REPORT for that evening and I find that there was a series of Divisions on various clauses of the Finance Bill, of which this was only one, and on none of them was there a bigger attendance than in the one on which the noble Lord commented, the others having nothing to do with land taxation or land valuation in any shape or form. As to the reason why the 300 members were not there that evening, I hope that they were doing what I have often encouraged them to do when there is a big majority, as there is to-day. I have encouraged them not all to come down to the House of Commons but to spend their time in their constituencies educating their friends as to the real merits of the National Government's policy.
My noble friend suggested that the right plan was to have an agreement to differ and a speech by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, protesting against the decision of the Government. I doubt

873
whether he was serious in that suggestion. The arrangement made about the tariff was one made in exceptional circumstances to meet an exceptional emergency. I for one have always disclaimed any view that joint Cabinet responsibility should be shelved or that it should be made the rule for any Cabinet Minister, whenever he likes, to dissociate himself from the Government as a whole. That would be a very unfortunate precedent to establish. The noble Lord read a letter which described how some scheme for development in London was dropped last year when the 1931 Budget was introduced. I am not in the least surprised to hear it.
LORD STRACHIE: It is still held up for the same reason because this still remains in the Budget.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That is not what the letter said. I entirely accept that the reason the scheme was dropped in 1931 was that they were alarmed at the prospect of land valuation.
LORD STRACHIE: The memorandum also refers to the present state of things. It was only given to me a few days ago and the noble Lord told me that the same state of things exists as when there was a Labour Government. They are equally afraid of this Government.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That only shows how foolish some people's fears are. The noble Lord's speech and the Motion which he invites this House to pass would encourage idle fears and would persuade people that the position is different to what it really is. Let me turn to what the position really is. Your Lordships are not asked under this Motion to discuss whether land valuation is a good thing or a bad thing or whether a Land Tax is a good thing or a bad thing. The noble Lord said that it is still in the Budget. Let me explain what the law is and what the present Finance Bill does, and then your Lordships can judge whether the Government is deserving of censure. Under the Act of 1931 it was provided that there should be a Land Value Tax charged annually for the year ending 31st March, 1934, and each subsequent financial year, and it was provided by the succeeding clause that there should be a valuation as soon as might be after every valuation date.
874
That is to say, until the valuation date has arrived there can be no valuation, and the valuation date—it is important to deal with this legal phraseology as it is otherwise difficult to make the point clear—was defined in that section as meaning, with regard to the first valuation, the 1st January, 1932, and, with regard to the second valuation, the 1st August, 1936, and thereafter every five years.
That was the position which was embodied in last year's Act and what the Government have done in this year's Finance Bill is to alter that and to say that, instead of a tax being payable for the financial year ending 31st March, 1934, and each subsequent financial year, it is not to be paid until such financial year as Parliament may hereafter determine, and that, instead of the valuation dates being, as was stipulated in the 1931 Act, the 1st of January, 1932, and the 1st August, 1936, and thereafter quinquennially, under the present Bill by Clause 27 those dates are to be wiped out and there are to be substituted such dates as Parliament may hereafter determine. The legal effect of that is that there can be no Valuation Tax, no valuation date, and no valuation, because valuation cannot happen until after a valuation date, until Parliament enacts some legislation which reintroduces the Valuation Tax and the valuation date. Unless and until that is done the Valuation Tax is dead and no valuation can take place. It would be just the same if the noble Lord's proposal were adopted and the section of the Act of 1931 repealed. Any future Parliament could re-enact those clauses. In either event Parliament has it in its power to enact land valuation. Under the noble Lord's suggestion it could be done by re-enacting the clauses of the Act of 1931, and under the Finance Bill which received Second Reading a few minutes ago, it could be done by bringing in an Act or embodying clauses in an Act which would provide for such and such a valuation date. But unless and until Parliament enacts legislation the Land Valuation Tax is dead. As soon as Parliament enacts legislation which imposes a Land Valuation Tax it, of course, becomes operative whether it is done by fixing a date or by means of the re-enactment of the two clauses, and

875
therefore to suggest that there is some subtle design, some danger in its being done in this way instead of that is to ignore facts and to seek for imaginary bogies.
The noble Lord said that there were some economies—at least I so gathered from his speech—to be achieved by his proposal. I can assure the noble Lord that he is quite mistaken in that. Undoubtedly since January 1, 1932, there has been an expenditure of £2,000 resulting from the aftermath of the Land Valuation Clauses in 1931. That expenditure has been incurred not by reason of any postponement or repeal of the date, but by reason of the fact that the Finance Act of last year became operative in June or July, a number of officials were appointed, and a number of liabilities were incurred which do not entirely disappear when the policy is changed. But there can be no further valuation and no further expenditure incurred on land valuation until Parliament otherwise determines. That is the plan the Government have adopted, and so far as economy and expenditure are concerned the effect is exactly the same as if the Government did as the noble Lord would have us do. That being so, there being no difference in the result, and the matter being only one of verbiage, the question may fairly be put to the Government why it chose the one way instead of the other. I doubt whether it would be quite a sufficient reason to invite this House formally to censure His Majesty's Government, which is the effect of the Motion, merely because we adopted one way rather than another, but I would like to make it clear why we have adopted our particular plan.
The reason is that we are a National Government and that we embrace in the present Cabinet four members of the old Socialist Cabinet of a year ago. Let me explain what that means. I hope it is not necessary in this House to defend or to elaborate the importance of the establishment of the National Government last August or the value from the national point of view of having established such a Government. I propose to assume that you agree with me in thinking it was worth while. Assuming that, what was the purpose of the National Government? First of all, it was to effect economies
876
and impose sacrifices, which could hardly be done except by the general consent, of the nation; and, secondly, I think it was to endeavour to unite all political opinion and all classes of the community in support of a Government which was trying to speak for the nation and to face the great emergency and crisis we had to undergo in a national and not in a sectional spirit. If that be true, would it be wise for the Government, which embraces in its numbers four representatives of the Socialist Party who were originally responsible for this Land Valuation Tax, not merely to get them to assent to our postponing the operation of the tax and postponing the whole matter till Parliament shall hereafter pass an Act which shall re-establish it, but to ask them to accept the humiliation, for it would be nothing less, of having this year solemnly to repeal what last year they had solemnly enacted? One of the members particularly identified with this legislation was then Chancellor of the Exchequer and is to-day Lord Privy Seal. No doubt we could have invited those members of the Government either to undergo that humiliation or to break up the Government by leaving it and retiring.
LORD STRACHIE: Was it no humiliation to agree to Protection?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: "No humiliation" is perhaps putting it too far. It is perhaps not humiliation, but a sacrifice of opinions which they held in virtue of their consciousness of the supreme importance of the national crisis and of keeping the National Government in existence. This is an easier way, a less disagreeable way, and an equally effective way, and the only object of doing it in any other way would be that of imposing on them a public humiliation that it would be unreasonable to ask of them. I am not in the least ashamed of saying that although it has been my duty to denounce in no sparing language the policy of the Socialist Government of which these four gentlemen were members, we and the country have every cause to be grateful to them for the attitude they adopted last August. I think their courage and their preferment of national to sectional interest deserving of real gratitude from the nation. We have valued their co-operation during the

877
last six months, we look forward to the continuance of that co-operation in the future. We regard their presence as a real strength to the Government in its work at home and in its very difficult negotiations abroad, and we believe that any attempt to weaken their position or to undermine their position in the Cabinet, or make their continuance in the Government impossible, would be a real source of weakness to the country at the very time when the Government most need to present a united front to the world as a whole.
On those grounds, although I quite agree with the noble Lord that I am entirely opposed to the policy of land valuation, and do not in the least dissent from any of the criticisms levelled against
Resolved in the negative and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past seven o'clock.
it by my Party, I think the attitude we took up is the right one. I should be very sorry if this House were to censure the Government for taking means to effect that end, which does not involve this consequence of driving from the Cabinet those who were responsible for a course of legislation with which I profoundly disagree, but who have been good enough to subordinate their views to those of their colleagues in the Cabinet, in order to present that united front which the noble Lord's Motion would seem anxious to condemn.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 16.

CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Hereford, V. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Newton, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Phillimore, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Biddulph, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Morton, E.

Lamington, L.

Wharton, L.

Selborne, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Redesdale, L.

Bath, M.

Sanderson, L.

Danesfort, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Stanmore, L.

Plymouth, E.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Marley, L.

Hailsham, V.

LORD STRACHIE: Lost by Labour votes.

Preamble
The Lord CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Mid Southern Utility.
Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Oxford),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Paignton),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (River Dee).

And also the Certificated that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

London United Tramways, Limited (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Abergavenny and Newcastle-upon-Tyne),

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Bridlington and Wells),

880

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Leyton).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

WOKINGHAM DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Brought from the Commons read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

CHESTERFIELD AND BOLSOVER WATER BILL.
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

COMMERCIAL GAS BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
BARMOUTH AND DISTRICT ELEC- TRICITY ORDER, 1932.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.