§ Mr. WESTWOOD
I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, at the end, to insert the words:(2) A widow who has attained the age of seventy shall be entitled to an old age pension payable in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act relating to such a pension if she is the widow of a man who would if he had survived have been entitled to an old age pension under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924, by virtue of Section twenty of the principal Act.I trust that it will be possible for the Government to accept this Amendment, as both sides of the Committee support me upon the principle of the Amendment. Let me state the reasons why I feel I may claim support from all parts of this Committee. First of all, all through this Debate the Government have declined to accept any Amendment imposing a means test as regards those individuals who would be entitled to get widows' pensions under this Bill, and as this seeks to remove the means test so far as the Acts of 1908 to 1924 are concerned, I think the Amendment ought to be accepted by the Government. The Conservative Opposition have certainly impressed me, as one Member, with their anxiety to remove anomalies, and as there would be an anomaly unless we provided for the removal of the means test in the case of the widow over 70, as it is already removed by Clause 1 so far as widows up to the age of 70 are concerned, I feel sure that in their earnest desire to remove anomalies the Conservative party will support this Amendment. Again, the Liberal party has particularly emphasised the fact that the Government made some references during the Election to a non-contributory scheme, and as this Amendment will give the benefit of Old Age Pensions under the non-contributory Acts of 1908 to 1294, it, therefore, meets some of the claims put forward by the Liberal party also. Therefore as this Amendment, as I have pointed out, meets the arguments which have been submitted from all parts of the Committee, I am hopeful that it will be accepted in the interests of justice to widows over 70 years of age.
Under the existing Acts, and also under this Bill so far as we have gone, 2362 we have removed the means test, first, as regards men over 65 years of age who have been in the insured class, and we have removed the means test as regards widows of men over 65 years of age, those widows having reached the age of 65. We have also, under Clause 1, which has now been approved by the Committee, removed the means test so far as widows from 55 years to 70 years of age are concerned. As I read the Clause, unless this Amendment is accepted it will not remove the means test as regards widows over 70 years of age. They are an ever-diminishing number, and the removal of the means test would not cost too much, and would see justice done to a number of very deserving and aged women. There will be an anomaly—I believe the only anomaly which would be created by this Bill—unless this Amendment is accepted; because with that one exception I do not believe that this Bill has created any anomalies. It has removed 500,000 anomalies.
The anomalies which have been discussed up to the present time are anomalies which were created by the principal Act. If you are going to abolish the means test, so far as widows between the ages of 55 and 70 are concerned, you should also, when they come to old age at 70 years, remove the means test there; and you will find on page 7 of the Financial Memorandum on this Bill that the means test is to be removed, in so far as widows of 55 to 70 years of age are concerned, when they reach the age of 70 and become entitled to old age pensions. I think it would be only justice to accept this Amendment, which would extend one of the beneficent pro visions of the 1925 Act, which did remove the means test in so far as insured contributors are concerned. Surely it is only fair now to extend that particular concession to aged widows over 70 years of age.
I take only one case in my own Division which illustrates exactly how this Bill will work unless this Amendment is accepted. It will mean that the widow of a man who has paid Health Insurance contributions from the coming into force of the 1912 Act until 1924, because she has been able to save a little money and therefore has now more than is allowed under the 1908 to 1924 Acts to entitle her to a pension, will be debarred from it, although she is actually not 2363 getting the income which is credited to her under the 1908 to 1924 Acts. Hon. Members know how the means test applies under the principal Old Age Pensions Act; they know that if an individual has saved £400, and has perhaps invested it in property, it is regarded as a capital of £400, and although there may be an actual loss on the property, that individual is credited with having an income of £18 15s. If she has saved £800 and has invested it in property, although she proves to the pensions officer, to the Old Age Pensions Committee and to the Minister of Health in England or to the Secretary of State for Scotland, that there is actually a loss on that property, under the regulations which the means test established she is credited with having an income of £38 15s.
I do not want to go into the merits of the principal Act; all that I want is that widows who are unfortunate enough to be over 70 years of age shall have given to them at least the same concession as is granted to widows between 55 and 70 years of age. I submit that this is a reasonable Amendment, and I trust that the Government will accept it; that there will be no opposition from the Conservative party, having regard to the fact that they are anxious to remove and to avoid anomalies; and that there will be no opposition from the Liberal party, because they are anxious to get the Labour party to carry out its policy— or I will say its alleged policy-of a non-contributory scheme. This Amendment will give a benefit under the non-contributory Acts of 1908 to 1924, and I trust that it will not only be accepted by the Government but will receive the unanimous support of this Committee.
§ Mr. E. BROWN
I shall not refer to the last sentence or two of the speech of the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) in which he discussed the alleged policy of the Government, but I will say a word or two about the Amendment. I do not know, of course, what the Minister will say about the phrasing of it, nor about carrying out its intentions, nor about the cost—and we shall expect to have a statement about that; but I feel sure that there will be very great sympathy with the intention of the hon. Member who has, as is general in the Debates in this House, hit upon a 2364 practical point which may very well be met inside the terms of the Bill. So far as I am concerned, if it is necessary to divide on this Amendment I shall be quite willing to support the Amendment; and I hope the Minister will be able to meet us, or at least to meet the intention of the Amendment, provided he finds the cost of it is certainly inside his Financial Resolution.
§ Lieut - Commander KENWORTHY
I have much pleasure in supporting this Amendment. We have heard a great deal about the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) and the spinsters about whom he feels so keenly and to whom he has such a romantic attachment, figuratively speaking. I hope he will support us in trying to bring within the four corners of this Measure the oldest class of widows affected, who are only ruled out by a technicality. I would particularly ask my right hon. Friend to accept this Amendment, if necessary altering the wording, which perhaps could be done at another stage. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), who was very generous in sup-porting the Amendment, spoke of the question of cost. The cost cannot be very great, and the number of these widows must be a diminishing number, for in a few years these old people will have joined the great majority. The amount required, therefore, will not be great compared with the total cost of the Measure, and it would be most unfortunate to have it thrown at us that we left out this oldest class of supposed beneficiaries on a technicality. The principle having been applied to the younger widows, surely my right hon. Friend cannot refuse to bring in these old ladies, who, after all, have done their best in their lives, and to whom the House of Commons should now show a little generosity.
§ Mr. GEORGE OLIVER
I would ask the Minister to consider this Amendment favourably. It has been my melancholy experience, and I am sure it has been the experience of other Members of the House, to preside at pension committees under the Acts of 1908 to 1924; and the most deplorable feature of those old Acts is the inquiry that takes place into the means of persons applying for old age pensions. We have seen the last, I hope, 2365 of this prying into the incomes of people at this particular age. It would be a very peculiar situation if, as provided in Clause 1 of the Bill, widows of 55 might be entitled to draw a pension provided that their husbands at some time had been insured persons, and if at the same time we failed to pay attention to those people who are now over 70 years of age. As has already been said, their number is gradually diminishing, and I am sure that the cost must be negligible. I should like to hear what the Minister of Health has to say on this matter, and how he could justify refusing to accept this Amendment. I feel quite certain, after the speeches from him to which we have listened to-night, that he is going to make a generous gesture. When I speak of a generous gesture, I do not mean that it is going to cost a tremendous amount of money, but that it will be generous in its intention. I hope he will accept this Amendment to include in the Bill people who are now 70 years of age without the means limit which in my opinion should have been swept away long ago.
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
I hope that the Minister of Health may accept this Amendment. He has been twitted to-night from several quarters of the House that his Bill has created anomalies. I hope that at least one more anomaly will be swept away. I believe the Bill sweeps away a good many anomalies as it is, and I hope it will be the Minister's intention, by accepting this Amendment, to see that one more is swept into the limbo of the past. I am sure all of us who have had anything to do with old age pensions must have been grieved from time to time at having to tell our people who were living right up to the neck in poverty that the small means they had debarred them from receiving the little from the State that might have placed them outside the reach of poverty. I hope this Amendment to-night will be accepted in order that at least that bad portion of the pensions system shall be swept away for ever, and so give to the old people who have sought and begged so long for the removal of the barrier that kept them in destitution where they might have been just over the border of destitution, the little that the old age pension can give them to remove that anomaly. I have not the 2366 slightest doubt in my own mind that my hon. Friends on the Liberal Benches will be ready to give their support to this Amendment if the Minister sees his way to accept it. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has given his adhesion to it, and I presume he is speaking for a good many Members of his party. In that case, I should think it will be the wish of the Committee that the Amendment should be accepted. I will credit hon. Members above the Gangway with no desire to put a barrier in the way of this very just provision.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
I rise to congratulate the hon. Member who introduced the Amendment. I consider it is a very sensible Amendment, and I hope the Minister will assent to it. I am certain when the figures are produced it will be found that there is not a large amount of money to be paid out on account of these widows the hon. Member has in mind, because my experience as a member of an Old Age Pension Committee is that the type of person we have the most difficulty about is not the type who will be able to claim under this Amendment, because it is confined to the widows of men whose occupations could be described as insurable. The kind of people we have the most difficulty with are old people who have worked very hard in their younger days at some small business, or in some kind of labour which keeps them outside the insurable class. Men who have been chimney sweepers, hair-dressers, small traders and gardeners are the people in the main that we get a difficulty with about this means test. I quite agree that, in calculating the means test, the present position is very unsatisfactory. Because a person happens to have a little property, it is counted on its capital value and reckoned at a certain rate of interest. It is altogether wrong, and it does not take into account the real income. But this is a start in the right direction to take away the means test. It will never be really satisfactory till you take it away or, at any rate, raise it to what has been suggested from these benches as regards other portions of the Bill, namely £250 a year.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
I merely want to register my opinion that this is a reason- 2367 able Amendment and to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.
The idea that underlies the Amendment is one which will meet with sympathy in every part of the Committee. As I have had occasion to say before now, the imposition of a means test, or the inquiries that are necessary for the purpose of imposing a means test are not, and never have been a part of Conservative policy. Therefore, as far as the principle is concerned, the Amendment has the sympathy of my hon. Friends behind me. There is, however, as it seems to me, a practical difficulty in the way of its acceptance as it stands. How are we to decide that a man who is already dead would have been entitled to a pension under the provisions of the principal Act if he had survived, because under Section 20 there are certain conditions imposed which must be fulfilled before he becomes entitled. Paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) says:if, being a man or a woman who has attained the age of seventy before the said second day of July, he or she is at that date an insured person, and has been continuously insured since the 29th day of April, 1925.Are you to say whether a man who has died would have been able to fulfil that condition if he had survived? That seems to me to be a practical difficulty. No doubt, that difficulty has occurred to the Minister of Health. Taking note of that difficulty, if the Minister of Health can find a way of overcoming it or of meeting the views of the hon. Member in some other way than that sketched out in the Amendment, then I think my hon. Friend and I would not offer any opposition.
§ Mr. GREENWOOD
This is one of the occasions when there appears to be a spirit of harmony in the Committee. I think that the case made out for widows over 55 is really irresistible. [Interruption.] For all widows over 55. It is perfectly plain. You have abolished the means limit for those people between 55 and 70, and there is a strong case for making it operative for all widows who come within the Bill who are over 55. But, unfortunately, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) has pointed out, these words do not quite do it. I would there- 2368 fore propose to accept the spirit of the Amendment rather than the words. The Amendment would, I may say, come within the Financial Resolutions, and I am assured that the cost will not be considerable. It is very difficult to ascertain what it would be, for we do not know how many of these widows at the present time are getting pensions under the Act of 1924. If the hon. Member will agree to withdraw his Amendment, I shall be prepared to substitute these words which will avoid the difficulty into which my hon. Friend has unwittingly fallen in the actual wording of his Amendment.
As from the first day of July, 1930, a widow shall be entitled to an old age pension under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924, if she would have become entitled to a widow's pension under Section 1 of this Act had she not attained the age of seventy before the said date.Sub-section 2 of Section 20 of the principal Act shall apply to a pension to which a widow becomes entitled by virtue of this sub-section as it applies to a pension to which a person becomes entitled by virtue of the said Section 20.That, in rather more complicated and not less comprehensible language, does, how-ever, actually meet the point which my hon. Friend has raised, and, if he will withdraw his Amendment, I shall be able to move this Amendment.
§ Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE
Does this Amendment, if carried, mean that all means limits will be eliminated up to the age of 70?
§ Mr. WESTWOOD
Without hesitation, I withdraw my Amendment, and I am prepared to accept the suggested Amendment or even an Amendment ten times more complicated if it meets the case in view.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. GREENWOOD
I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, at the end, to insert the words:As from the first day of July, 1930, a widow shall be entitled to an old age pension under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 190S to 1924, if she would have become entitled to a widow's pension under Section 1 of this Act had she not attained the age of seventy before the said date.Sub-section 2 of Section 20 of the principal Act shall apply to a pension to which a widow becomes entitled by virtue of this 2369 Sub-section as it applies to a pension to which a person becomes entitled by virtue of the said Section 20.
§ Sir B. PETO
I do not rise to oppose the Amendment, but to point out to the Committee in what position certain people will stand if we take this action. We shall have two women of exactly the same age, one of whom has been married, and one who, for some reason, has never been married. One has had to struggle along with the lone hand right through life, and has managed to save a little money for herself, but she is to be denied a pension at 70 years of age or over, whereas the other woman, in precisely similar circumstances in every respect, except that perhaps for a single year during her earlier life she happened to be married, is to be entitled to a pension. We have never, as a party, opposed any proposal to abolish the means limit. The Act of 1925 went on the principle of abolishing the means limit, but that was coupled with pensions as of right, by virtue of contributions. On the broad principle, so far as the question of widows is concerned, it will be ridiculous to grant pensions to widows of 55 and to refuse them to widows of over 70, who are in the same position in every respect. I support the Amendment, but I wish to point out the utterly illogical position in which the Government have landed us by this attempt to bring into a contributory scheme a vast system of non-contributory pensions, without ever having thrashed out the question, without weighing one thing with another, and without seeing exactly in what direction they ought to amend the law before they begin in a great hurry to try to redeem some portion of their pledges.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to move, in page 3, line 43, to leave out Subsection (2).
I do so for the purpose of asking the Minister what is meant by the expression—she is the wife of a man who is, or was at any time, entitled to an old age pension under this Act.As I read the Act I discovered that there were certain conditions, namely, being in receipt of poor relief other than medical relief, or where the husband had been taken into a lunatic asylum, where claims 2370 under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924, cease. I understood that that was what was meant by the words "or at any time," but it has been suggested to me that these words bear another meaning, and go further. It is in the object of clearing up the point that I have moved the Amendment.
§ Mr. GREENWOOD
Under the proviso to Section 7 of the principal Act a woman over the age of 62 who marries a man also aged 62 cannot receive an old age pension in right of her husband's insurance until three years have elapsed since the marriage. If at the end of the three years the woman is under the age of 70 she becomes entitled under Section 7, Sub-section (1, c) of the principal Act to a pension for persons between the ages of 65 and 70. If, however, at the end of the three years of married life she is then over 70, that is if she was 67 years of age on her marriage, she cannot be granted a pension under Section 7, Sub-section (1, c) of the principal Act because that only refers to pensions between the ages of 65 and 70. Under Section 20 of the Act of 1925 a woman may be granted an over 70 pension if her husband is still in receipt of a pension under Section 7, that is to say, if he is under 70. Where the husband and the wife are both over 70 when the three years have elapsed since the marriage, that is they were both over 67 when they were married, the wife cannot under the principal Act obtain an over 70 pension, and the present provision in the Sub-section to which the hon. and gallant Member refers is intended to remove what is an obvious anomaly and an unintentional oversight in the case of the principal Act by including within Section 20 of the principal Act the wife of a man who has been in receipt of a 65 to 70 pension and is thereafter because he is now over 70 in receipt of an over 70 pension. The case is a little complicated. It has nothing to do with lunacy, but it has to do with these complications of the varying ages of spouses. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman in framing his Bill in 1925 did not appreciate that this kind of case might arise where the wife was debarred because of the age of her husband and the intention of this Sub-section is merely to put that right and to see that the woman is not penalised.
§ Captain BOURNE
In view of the explanation of the Minister of Health I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I should also like to thank him very much for the lucid explanation he has given. If I was mistaken about lunacy, in trying to follow the complications of this Bill I have been very nearly driven into lunacy myself.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to move, in page 4, line 11, at the end, to add the words:(3) In paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the principal Act there shall be inserted after the words 'appointed day' the words 'or in the case of an un-married woman if she attains the age of fifty-five after the appointed day.'In the first place, I should like to apologise to the Committee for having committed the sin of drafting this legislation by reference. I always dislike it, but it is somewhat difficult to work an Amendment into this Bill unless one follows that rather difficult process. The object of the Amendment is to deal with the case of the unmarried woman, and, if I am right, its effect would be that the unmarried woman who was herself an insured person, would be entitled to a pension on arriving at the age of 55, provided that she was at that time in insurable employment and had been in that employment for three years. At least, that is the intention of the Amendment, and if my draft does not entirely express that intention I again plead the difficulty of drafting Amendments to such a complicated Bill as this, without expert advice. I have always felt that the unmarried woman who was herself an insured person had a very distinct grievance in that she is not entitled to a pension under the principal Act as the married woman is. I know it has been said that the contributions are not sufficient, but I believe that the majority of young unmarried women would willingly pay a fraction more per contribution if they were certain of getting a pension at the age of 55.
They have a special grievance in that they cannot see why a widow, perhaps many years younger than they are, and perhaps better able to go back into industrial life, should be granted a pension, while they having borne the heat and burden of the day are not entitled 2372 to one, although they are contributors under the National Health Insurance Act. I do not feel that this proposal in any way violates the principles of the Constitution because these women are them-selves insured, and have in many cases been in insured occupations for many years, and have punctually paid their contributions towards the National Health Insurance scheme. Should the Minister be inclined to accept the principle of the Amendment I am not wedded to the form of words on the Paper. I am sure that he will sympathise with me on the extreme difficulty which an unofficial Member has in drafting Amendments to this Bill which would enable this case, even to be raised in the Committee, and that he will forgive the shortcomings of the draft which I have made.
§ Mr. GREENWOOD
At last the spinster has really appeared. She has been brought, metaphorically speaking, to the Floor of the House by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). His proposal concerns not all spinsters but the insured spinster, and it is that the insured spinster should be entitled to an old age pension at the age of 55 years. It seems to me that that is going to create an entirely new anomaly. We have heard a great deal about anomalies during this Committee stage, but here is an attempt to create quite a new one. Why should there be any distinction between the insured unmarried woman, the working widow of an uninsured man and a working married woman. There are, among insured persons, widows whose husbands are not insured, and women who are married, but are yet contributing to the insurance scheme, as well as unmarried women. Why should the insured unmarried woman get her old age pension at 55 when the married woman or the widow who is insured and working has to wait until 65? This is the creation of a new anomaly and would mean new injustices. It is difficult to defend two definitions of old age. I feel quite sure that the unmarried insured persons would rise in their wrath, and I can imagine what Oxford City might be like—
§ The CHAIRMAN
We are dealing with another Clause now, relating to old age pensions, not widows' pensions.
§ Mr. GREENWOOD
I can imagine the consternation there may be in Oxford City when it becomes known that the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford regards spinsters of 55 as old people who ought to have pensions. My somewhat limited knowledge of this class of lady leads me to believe that they regard themselves as being in the heydey of youth, and I feel sure they will resent any suggestion that they should be brought into the category of aged people. As a matter of fact, the problem of the aged spinster is a real problem, and I do not wish to deny that, but I think the effect of dealing with insured spinsters of 55, but not with uninsured spinsters of 55, who, as hon. Members opposite have pointed out, may be in as hard circumstances as the insured widows, would only be to create difficulties instead of to solve them. The whole question of failing, ageing people who are unable adequately to maintain themselves is one that is worthy of very careful and very sympathetic consideration. It is indeed precisely one of those problems which is now before our minds in the survey that we have undertaken, but I feel that this attempt to drag the spinster, so to speak, by the hair of her head into this Bill is one which ought to be resisted, not from any lack of sympathy, but because this partial method of dealing with her does not appear to me to be happy and because the whole question is so large that if it is dealt with at all, it will have to be dealt with in a Measure of an entirely different character. I hope, in view of this very sympathetic, but not perhaps entirely sympathetic, answer, the hon. and gallant Member may feel moved to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Sir K. WOOD
We have had a very illuminating speech from the Minister of Health. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman has discovered that there may be certain anomalies and injustices caused by the incorporation of this Amendment, which would give some benefit to the spinsters. The only comfort he can give them—and I hope hon. Members opposite have as carefully noted his words as I have done—is that 2374 apparently these spinsters are to pass under the review of the famous Cabinet Committee. I hope everyone understands by this time that if anybody goes before this famous Cabinet Committee, for review or anything else, it means what we may call "Postponed sine die." The fact is, if the right hon. Gentleman had had the courage to say so, that he is not prepared. He is prepared to deal with widows of 55 but, when it comes to spinsters, there is no provision made for them. He tells us that he is very sympathetic and that the problem is one of great difficulty. He reminded me very much of a famous divine, of whom probably the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) knows more than I do, who, in the course of one of his sermons, said, "Brethren, we are faced with a great mystery. Let us look it in the face and pass on." That is all the right hon. Gentleman is able to offer to a class of the community as deserving as the widows of 55. If this is an example of the kind of legislation that the Socialist party is presenting to us with injustices of this kind, I hope that the hon. Ladies who belong to this class and who are in the House to-night will note how successful their efforts on behalf of their class have been and what results they have got for sitting still and saying nothing during the discussions on this Bill.
§ Mr. SHAKESPEARE
I can only congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) on the ingenious way in which he has pulled the spinster into the Bill. Having examined the Bill at some length, I came to the conclusion that it was easier for a spinster to go through the eye of a needle than to get into any of these Clauses. I cannot speak for my party in this matter, but I intend to support the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member in the Lobby if necessary because, although this Bill deals with widows, it is time someone started doing something for the spinsters. I agree with the Minister of Health that anomalies may be created, but we have now spent over 30 hours in creating anomalies. Why worry about creating one more? It is not an exaggeration to say that, for every widow that comes into this Bill, two widows will be excluded. You cannot bring in a Bill of this sort imposing all 2375 sorts of restrictive qualifications without finding, when the cases come actually in front of you, that, as in the principal Act, you are excluding more people than you admit. It does not worry me one iota that the anomalous and precarious spinster is brought within the ambit of the Act.
The Minister of Health said it is unfair that a spinster of 55 should get an old age pension when a married woman of 55 does not, but then a married woman of 55 has consolations which a spinster of 55 has not. Up to the time when she becomes a widow she has a husband. There is a considerable chance that if she has lived to 55 she has a quiverful of children. I would say if I were a married woman [Interruption]—more remarkable things have happened—that I would rather forgo my pension for 10
§ years if I had children, and, if I were a spinster within the meaning of the Act, being deprived of the joy and solace of children, I should have the pleasure of knowing that I would get my pension 10 years earlier than my more fortunate married sister. I can only speak for myself, but I am encouraged to believe that there are very many Liberals on these benches. [Laughter.] After all, we consider that there are not just 58 Liberals sitting on these benches, but 5,500,000; and, speaking for the 58 Liberals, and through them, for the 5,500,000, I believe that this Amendment would be a great boon to a large number of deserving cases.
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 97; Noes, 225.2377
|Division No. 36.]||AYES.||[10.58 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||Ormsby-Gore, Bt. Hon. William|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)|
|Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)||Glassey, A. E.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Purbrick, R.|
|Atkinson, C.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Pybus, Percy John|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Remer, John R.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Reynolds, Col. Sir James|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Rothschild, J. de|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Hammersley, S. S.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Blinded, James||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Harbord, A.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar.& Wh'by)||Scott, James|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Skelton, A. N.|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Bracken, B.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)||Hurd, Percy A.||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Cranbourne, Viscount||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Tinne, J. A.|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Liewellin, Major J. J.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Locker-Lampion, Com. O.(Handsw'th)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Long, Major Eric||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Lymington, Viscount||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Edge, Sir William||Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)||White, H. G.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Ferguson, Sir John||Marjoribanks, E. C.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Fielden, E. B.||Millar, J. D.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Fison, F. G. Clavering||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Foot, Isaac||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Forestler-Walker, Sir L.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Ganzonl, Sir John||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||O'Neill, Sir H.||and Mr. Shakespeare.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Bellamy, Albert||Burgess, F. G.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Benson, G.||Cameron, A. G.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Cape, Thomas|
|Ammon, Charles George||Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)|
|Angell, Norman||Bowen, J. W.||Chater, Daniel|
|Arnott, John||Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Clarke, J. S.|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Bromfield, William||Cluse, W. S.|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Bromley, J.||Cocks, Frederick Seymour|
|Barr, James||Brothers, M.||Compton, Joseph|
|Batey, Joseph||Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Daggar, George|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Dallas, George|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)|
|Day, Harry||Lindley, Fred W.||Sanders, W. S.|
|Denman, hon. R. D.||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Sandham, E.|
|Dickson, T.||Longbottom, A. W.||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Dukes, C.||Longden, F.||Scurr, John|
|Duncan, Charles||Lowth, Thomas||Sexton, James|
|Ede, James Chuter||Lunn, William||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Egan, W. H.||McElwee, A.||Shield, George William|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||McEntee, V. L.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Mackinder, W.||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||McKinlay, A.||Shinwell, E.|
|Gill, T. H.||MacLaren, Andrew||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Gossling, A. G.||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Simmons, C. J.|
|Gould, F.||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Greenwood, Rt hon. A. (Colne).||Mansfield, W.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||March, S.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Groves, Thomas E.||Markham, S. F.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Marley, J.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mathers, George||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Matters, L. W.||Sorensen, R.|
|Hardie, George D.||Messer, Fred||Spero, Dr. G. E.|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Middleton, G.||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Haycock, A. W.||Mills, J. E.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Hayday, Arthur||Milner, J.||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Hayes, John Henry||Montague, Frederick||Strauss, G. R.|
|Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Sullivan, J.|
|Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Morley, Ralph||Sutton, J. E.|
|Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)|
|Herriotts, J.||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Hirst, G. H.(York W. R. Wentworth)||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Tillett, Ben|
|Hoffman, P C.||Mort, D. L.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Hollins, A.||Moses, J. J. H.||Tout, W. J.|
|Hopkin, Daniel||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Townend, A. E.|
|Horrabin, J. F.||Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)||Turner, B.|
|Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Muff, G.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Isaacs, George||Muggeridge, H. T.||Viant, S. P.|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Murnin, Hugh||Wallace, H. W.|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Naylor, T. E.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Johnston, Thomas||Oldfield, J. R.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Palin, John Henry||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Paling, Wilfrid||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Perry, S. F.||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||West, F. R.|
|Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Phillips, Dr. Marion||Westwood, Joseph|
|Kelly, W. T.||Pole, Major D. G.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Kennedy, Thomas||Potts, John S.||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Kinley, J.||Quibell, D. J. K.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Lang, Gordon||Raynes, W. R.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Richards, R.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Lathan, G.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Law, Albert (Bolton)||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Law, A. (Rosendale)||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Lawrence, Susan||Ritson, J.||Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Wise, E. F.|
|Lawson, John James||Romeril, H. G.||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Leach, W.||Rowson, Guy||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.|
|Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.|
Question put, and agreed to.