§ Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I was putting the point in regard to what the Bill means. It is clear that we ought to know what the Bill actually means. What in effect was the duel that the Minister of Health had with the hon. Member for Gower? The Minister of Health said that the hon. Member for Gower stated that the Bill would make the position worse; that that was a misuse of language, and was not fair to the Government. I propose, as calmly and quietly as I can, to say that that view is wrong arid that the position is going to be made infinitely worse by this Bill in many cases. I asked, what does the Bill mean? It means that no public assistance committee can go beyond its provisions in dealing with applicants as a class. They can, in individual 990 cases, give more, but in those individual cases it must be shown that there are extra circumstances that differentiate them from others.
Consider the administration. There are Labour authorities which allow 75 per cent. of the pension. Others allow 100 per cent. There are some that are not Labour authorities that give more than this Bill will allow. I had a conversation with the Minister of Labour, and he said that one of the best administered public assistance committees from the official point of view was that in the city of Glasgow. He said that he had had less trouble in the city of Glasgow than in most places. I disagreed with him, but that is his view. Even in Glasgow, the position is going to be worse. There, if a man has a 60 per cent. pension, he is given 40 per cent. of his transitional benefit. If he has a 50 per cent. pension, he is given 50 per cent. If he has a 40 per cent. pension, he is allowed 60 per cent. If he has a 20 per cent. pension he is allowed 80 per cent. of his benefit. The result is that it works out to an average of five-eighths. The man is one-eighth better off than he will be when this Bill comes into operation. On that public assistance committee there is a Conservative majority.
In addition to that, they have found that from an administrative point of view it is good business to fix a minimum for a pension, so they have fixed a minimum of 5s. A man with a 4s. 6d. disability pension gets the whole lot; that is done not merely out of sympathy with the man, but because the authority find that administratively it is hardly worth while making inquiries into the details. What is to happen now? It he has 6s., he gets 5s. now, but under the Bill he can only get 3s., because, as a class, everyone cannot be given 5s.; it must be 50 per cent. The consequence is that in the second city of the Empire—I mean as regards size; I am in constant disagreement with others as to which is the first city in the Empire—with a population of 1,100,000, the disability pensioners will, in my view, be definitely worse off, and not better. The Glasgow Corporation have followed the practice I have indicated, not with regard to classes, but fairly universally, and they will not be allowed to do that under this Bill. With regard to savings, 991 in the case of a married man with a family—not if the man is single—the first £100 is exempt if they think he has saved the money in order to provide a better education for his child, or, again, if he is nearing the age of 65, and has saved some money to keep him from going to the Poor Law when he qualifies for an old age pension. In that case also they exempt the first £100, and thereafter, up to £500, only take into account the interest.
Those conditions must be made worse under this Bill, and yet the Minister of Health gets into a white heat of indignation because the hon. Member for Gower says that things will become worse. In the City of Glasgow matters will be worse than in Edinburgh as regards disability pensions. So far from the Bill making any concession, it really makes no concession at all; indeed, in my view, it will make the position worse; and yet we are asked not to vote against it. Taking the populations of Glasgow and Edinburgh together, it will make matters worse for well over 1,500,000 people, and yet we are told that it will make things better. That is a kind of logic that one cannot be expected to follow.
I want to raise another question, on which I hope I may get a reply, with regard to administration. The family income has been a subject of discussion in this House, and I want to give a typical example, not by way of erecting a dummy to be knocked down by myself, but in order to base my case on reason. In my native city, which is not badly administered, you have a man, his wife and one child, plus a son who is working. The father is on transitional benefit. The son earns £2 per week. The son is allowed 15s. for himself; that is not taken into account; and thus, if there is a child with the mother and father, the father is entitled to 3d. per week. I would point out that the 15s. allowed to the son has to cover health and unemployment insurance, which amount to 1s. 8d. That reduces the 15s. to 13s. 4d. Again, he would have car fares to pay, amounting to, say, 3s., which would further reduce it to 10s. 4d., and if he is a member of a trade union his subscription will still further reduce the amount. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that he is left 992 with 10s. a week for every form of activity. That is not all. What guarantee is there that the man gives the 25s. to his mother and father?
There is no guarantee that be goes home and gives them the money, and they have no legal power to compel him to give it. It is said that there is no starvation, but the position is that the man may not give up the 25s.; in fact, he might not be in a position to do so. I have known a case in which the son, before the father went on to transitional benefit, entered into certain commitments which did not allow of his giving up the money. The result is that the woman is credited with an income which is not legally guaranteed to her. If the son is out of the house, she is legally guaranteed 25s. 3d. That is a very important and valuable point. I ask the Minister what legal guarantee is given to the mother and father? It is said that in this country, under the Poor Law, every man, woman and child is guaranteed an income, but in a case such as I have mentioned, when the son stays at home, the income is not guaranteed; it is left to mutual good will, and that is all. I should like an answer from the Minister to-day as to the actual position that he takes up. He will probably say that, if the son does not care to give up the money, that is all right, but the question is not whether the son gives the money or not; you have a duty to the mother and father, apart from the son.
I hope I may be allowed to say a word about the statement of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). I could hardly credit it when I heard of it, but I have read it. One thing which has annoyed me very much in this House has been the constant reiteration of statements as to the poor telling lies; and another thing that annoyed me was the reference made by one hon. Member to "soup-kitchen politics." I think it is shocking, in a matter like this, to attempt to get at poor people by references which in themselves bear the most callous inferences that can be drawn, and I think that a man who talks like that from the Front Bench of a Labour party has no place in working-class politics at all.
There has been a good deal of discussion in the House about the paragraph 993 dealing with the Poor Law, and one hon. Member—the hon. and learned Member for Maryhill (Mr. Jamieson)—wanted the Government to be even more reactionary than they are. I should like to deal with the point of view of the hon. and learned Member, although this is not, comparatively speaking, a national issue. The City of Glasgow say that they want the whole of the disability pension to be exempt, and they send a deputation to impress the views of the corporation on Members of Parliament. I am with them in their demand for the exclusion of 100 per cent., or any percentage, of a disability pension, but I wish, when they are spending the ratepayers' money on sending deputations here, they would at least have some regard for the decencies of public life. If they want generous treatment, they must themselves use the powers which Parliament has given to then of being generous to the people; and yet we have the corporation of Glasgow coming here and demanding more generous treatment while they themselves will not operate an Act of Parliament.
I want the Minister to give me a reply on another point also. The National Health Insurance Act says that the first 7s. 6d. must be exempt. That law may be good or it may be bad, but it is the law, and it, should be carried out so long as it remains the law. The City of Glasgow and its chief officials have, however, defied the law. Glamorgan has defied the law. Rotherham has defied the law, and now it is being frightened with inspectors. In West Ham also the same thing has happened. Glasgow defies the law, but it defies the law the other way—it takes the 7s. 6d. from the poor; and the Minister says that Glasgow is allowed to do that. I want some kind of fairness. I do not ask Tories to become Socialists, 'out Ministers constantly stand at that Box and say, "We are responsible for carrying out the law." We used to hear that from Labour Ministers until it almost made me vomit, if I may be pardoned for using such a vulgar expression. When we asked about test work, we were told, "It is the law, and, unfortunately, one must carry out the law." I say that this exemption under the National Health Insurance Act is the law. Why is it not being carried out?
994 6.30 p.m.
With regard to the Bill itself, the issue that hon. Members have to keep before them is this: The Bill is introduced for the purpose of benefiting three classes of people, and we have to make up our minds as to whether, in the main, it is going to mean a material step forward for the great mass of the people, and whether its rejection will mean worse conditions for the great mass of the people. I say to the House of Commons that this Bill definitely marks a step backwards in many parts of the country; it definitely means worse conditions. I say, further, that, if this Measure be rejected, it will not mean that the Government can do nothing. Hon. Members who are acquainted with Parliamentary procedure know that the only way to get a Vote increased is to move a reduction of £100. If this Bill is rejected, it will be a direct instruction to the Government to bring in another Bill to deal with the problem in a much more, generous fashion. The Bill proposes to give Poor Law authorities the right to apply the same conditions to Poor Law applicants. They have joined in chorus that they will not give that power because it means higher rates. In the terms of this concession it would mean a few miserable pence, and they are not to be allowed to do it. The hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) joins them. What the Labour and Independent Labour party members of the Glasgow Corporation were thinking when they sent a deputation here to demand that they should spend less on the poor, I cannot understand.
§ Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT
I said that this extension would involve an additional charge on municipalities. The Nottingham Corporation was concerned about the additional charge, and asked that the Government should give some help to meet it.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I am sorry if I misrepresented the hon. and learned Gentleman, but the Glasgow Corporation people demanded that they should not go on with it at all. The one bit of the Bill that I thought of value, which gives power to get these people treated in an equitable fashion, is the one part that the Glasgow Corporation have demanded not to have. I do not deny, as the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Lieut.- 995 Colonel Kerr) said, that many unemployed were in favour of the means test at the last election, because men who were out of work saw that, if they shoved off the married woman and the women in seasonal work, their benefit would be secure. That is the case that I made against the Anomalies Act. A large mass of the unemployed, thinking they could secure their benefit, were prepared to put the other people off. It was a natural thing, and men faced with poverty, as they are, will do the natural thing. They see what they think less deserving people getting benefit. Just as you get that crowd shoved off, another section, seeing their benefit in jeopardy, see someone else less deserving, and they join to shove him off. Men with no children, or those who are outside the family income under the means test, say, "We know families with £10 a week. Put them off. It would not be natural or human if they did not.
But that form of appeal, I think, is wrong. The whole basis of either the individual or the family means test is wrong. If you appeal to the base feelings of anyone, you can always get a hearty and full response. But, while the Government can quote some people who are unemployed who demanded it, they have to face the position that this means test is playing havoc. On Saturday I travelled home to my division, and, sitting in the carriage beside me, was a full grown man who, I should think, had won a great distinction in the War, and who cried as he read about the mining disaster. I think he must have been through terrible sufferings in the War. I hope I shall not be accused of being callous, but I did not feel so awfully sorry. I feel sorry for men who die by a slow, painful process. Their death was not painful in that sense. It was quick, it was sudden, it was a call, when it came, not without a certain form of glory in the sense that they were serving their fellow-workers in digging for coal, which is the lifeblood of the people.
Those who stand at the Employment Exchanges die in the most painful fashion that I know. You kill them not merely by depriving them of food, clothing and shelter. You kill them by a mental process which is more cruel than any physical process. Recently I saw women in Glas- 996 gow making arrangements about their rent. The next month broke the arrangement and the women are dying. Mental worry is destroying them. A. wife-beater does not inflict half the injury on his wife that a man who goes with other women inflicts. The mind kills them quicker than anything else. It is one of the awful things in city life to see the mothers of bairns, instead of being, comparatively speaking, free to develop the family life, being smashed. There are people going down, down, down, and you just let them die. It would be much more humane to go out and kill them than to allow them to die in the way they are doing.
This Bill represents to us no advance at all. I ask the House to reject it. If they do, it will not mean that the unemployed will be worse treated. The only way the House of Commons can show its disapproval of the Measure and instruct the Government; to go ahead and give more generous treatment is to reject the Bill. Many hon. Members opposite came here with great ideals. They have found, as I have found, that the party machine has beaten them. There are decent men in the House who hate this Bill as much as I do, and who see that there is hardly anything good in it, but the machine has got them beaten. The machine always beats us. But they have less excuse for it than we. They are men with incomes who can defy the machine, whereas poor men cannot. There is a grave responsibility on supporters of the Government. Let them make up their minds now and vote against the Measure. It will be taken by the Government as a definite instruction that they must deal with human beings in a more generous manner than they propose now.
§ Mr. HICKS
I am sure that Members who have listened to the Debate cannot be unimpressed by the tragedy of human life reflected in the speeches that have been made, particularly from this side. I had hoped that the Debate we had last week on the general problem of unemployment and the tragedy behind that unemployment would have created a better understanding of who these people are. There is, I feel sure, a great underrating of the problem and an insufficient understanding of the types of people who are receiving transitional payments. 997 They are from all walks of life, from every calling, just ordinary human beings like ourselves. They are victims of the economic welter and chaos. They are anxious to find employment. They have been thrown into the position of having to ask for Unemployment Benefit, and then for transitional payment. I had hoped that we should approach the matter from a different angle. The occupants of the Treasury Bench have their heads buried in the national ledger with their eyes upon the figures. I wish that they would look up from the figures upon which they are so constantly glancing down and try to see the problem which confronts them, and the wretchedness, misery and sadness associated with millions of their fellow-countrymen. They should ask themselves whether they are tackling the problem in the right way by granting concessions here and there. I feel pretty certain that we are going on the old lines of trying to regard the people who are unemployed as a sort of class below us, a subnormal class of the community who are not wanted, hoping that they will go down into the shades and shadows and gradually slide out. We are not regarding them as human beings and asking ourselves what should be our responsibilities as national representatives.
Suggestions for relief and for more generous administration have been made in abundance by Members on this side of the House. I have listened to most of the speeches—and those which I have not heard I have read in the meantime—of hon. Members who have pointed out how handicapped unemployed men and women really are and the standard of life which obtains in the homes of these people. What a low miserable standard it is! It is below workhouse and prison fare, and lower than any expert in poverty would say was necessary. This sort of thing is regarded as being right: the standard should be kept down to the barest possible minimum. You look at the national ledger and try to terrify people about the necessity for balancing this or balancing the other, and for looking after their savings. The Government have looked after the savings all right. The workers have no savings now, because they are being compelled to withdraw them for the purpose of supplementing the transitional payment. There is a fundamental question here which, in truly 998 reflecting the desires and position of our people, we, ought thoroughly to understand. The Chairman laid down the conditions for the Debate on the Financial Resolution when he said:I hope I made it clear that the question of what being in need means is fully within the limits of discussion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1932; col. 349, Vol. 270.]What do hon. Members mean by "being in need"? Has any one made an inquiry as to what being in need means? It is possible, I believe, without selecting any street, to go from this House, make inquiries in the immediate neighbourhood and to find that every house is full of needs of all sorts. Those households would be able to establish their needs as human beings and to justify a standard below which all would agree that they should not be compelled to exist. The fundamental issue is whether these men, women and children have a right to live as human beings. Do the Government and hon. Members opposite agree that they should have the right to live as human beings? If so, certainly the contribution which we are making towards that end falls very far short of what it should be. A fearful misfortune has come upon ordinary, decent people. How can we treat this misfortune? It is terribly obvious to me that the Government do not conceive that these people have the right to live in normal human circumstances, have ordinary meals, clothe themselves decently, enjoy ordinary recreation and possess proper housing accommodation. We have the knowledge, the money and everything necessary, apart from the will, to provide those amenities. Why are we tinkering with the problem by trying to cut down this and to cheesepare that? How can hon. Members say that they are making a great contribution to the solution of the problem? It is like dropping a crumb to Lazarus. This sort of tinkering will create conditions which will rebound upon the Government or whoever is responsible in greater volume, and compel them to readjust their views in regard to the matter.
The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) was speaking some time ago about cant, humbug and hypocricy. I do not think that there is much difference in this cold, deliberate and calculated policy to discover every petty trick, artifice, 999 manoeuvre and excuse for establishing conditions under which it is impossible for these people to live. There is no desire on the part of the public assistance committees, or of those who go out to inquire, how much help them can give to these people, except to pry into every little cranny and corner to try to discover how much they are able to compel them to do without. I believe that it represents the policy of the Government to economise at the expense of the wretchedness and poverty of those people, and to press them still lower. Fancy applying the means test to a person who has received 26 weeks of unemployment benefit, and then has to apply for transitional payments! Surely, after having six months' unemployment the overwhelming majority of the people are in such parlous and dire straits that to apply the means test to them is absolutely mean, petty, vexatious and farcical.
I am speaking upon the general condition of these people and not in regard to the cases so disproportionately dilated upon by some hon. Members of this House and sometimes by Ministers. The plight of widows and orphans is usually trotted out when they are speaking about limiting armament firms and things of that kind. Everyone knows how disproportionate such illustrations are in comparison with the realities of the situation. The Minister of Labour has spoken about the £1,000 people, and so on. How ridiculous it is to apply that sort of thing when millions of people are unemployed. The putting of the application of the means test into the hands of public assistance committees means that all Britishers who have received Unemployment Benefit and then have to apply for transitional payment must have the whole of their lives inquired into. I said some time ago in this House that the Englishman's home is no longer his castle. It is becoming the camping-ground of Bumble. It is the camping-ground of Bumble, who is prying into every bit of his life. How many £1,000 people are there? It is ridiculous to use such an illustration when we are seriously discussing the fate and the conditions of millions of our fellow-countrymen.
1000 I also felt a sense of cant in the statement of the Minister of Labour when he referred to the agricultural worker as having to pay taxes through his little luxuries such as tobacco and beer. What have the Tories done for the agricultural labourer apart from trying to keep those luxuries from him? How totally disproportionate and unreal are illustrations of that sort. They are debating points for summer schools, and not for a serious Debate in the House of Commons. It strikes me also as being very mean to apply the means test when we consider that the ordinary workman, through being compelled to keep other members of the family, will have very little at any time to put by for a rainy day. It is farcical to call this a needs test under such conditions. Not one in a thousand who has been subjected to the test is left with means to satisfy his needs. The needs test is not an inquiry to find out the needs of the people in order to satisfy them, but to find out the need's of the people in order to deny them satisfaction. The Bill touches comparatively few persons as far as the concessions are concerned. What is the, proportion of disabled ex-service men and workmen in receipt of workmen's compensation on transitional payment? It is very infinitesimal compared with the millions of people who are unemployed. These cases are a small minority.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) the other day criticised the finances of the Measure, particularly in regard to the question of deducting 1s. per week in respect of each £25 after the first £25. They work the percentage out at 9½. I hope the Shylock conception of this Government will be understood by the people of this country. It is a sort of moneylender's squeeze with a vengeance or, rather, a pound of flesh from the most defenceless people of our land. They are robbed of the agencies and means of defending themselves. They have nothing to defend themselves with, apart from their desire to have a better life, and their appeal to the better feelings of their fellow countrymen. I think it is time we hung three brass balls over Downing Street.
1001 One great factor is being overlooked, namely, the savings of the people in the trade unions. The trade unions, long before the Government thought of the matter, set about trying to provide assistance to their members when they were unemployed, or when they suffered from sickness or old age. Month by month, week by week, people have paid their contributions into the funds of trade unions so that they might be assisted in dark and difficult days. They were expecting to receive from their trade unions some financial supplement to the State benefit. That is denied to those who are on transitional payment. If a trade union to-day decides that any member in receipt of transitional payment shall have unemployment pay, then the Government, or the public assistance committee take into consideration the amount of the payment by the trade union and reduce the amount of public assistance proportionately. I say that the trade union contributions are as much savings as if a man had £25 and less than £50. You have just as much right to excuse the supplemental contributions of the trade unions to a man who is unemployed as you have to excuse savings of £25 and less than £50. I strongly assert that the Government have done trade unions an injustice in this case, and they have done an injustice to the unemployed people as well.
If time permitted, there is an enormous amount I could say on the general question of the demoralisation which has resulted from this means test. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Briant), I think, put the case very well. He said:As long as public assistance committees are laying down, as they are in some cases, a completely false standard of life which is not fit for any human being, it is not only a hardship to the particular family, but it means that the State will in future rue its action by reason of the demoralised families which will grow up, and by reason of the physical deterioration which will affect the next generation."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 9th November, 1932; col. 373, Vol. 270.]There is also the conference of clergy called at the request of parish priests in all parts of the country at The Hayes, Swanwick, on 4th to 7th October. It dealt with the question of unemployment. The Minister who is going to reply knows as well as I do that public assistance committees, councils, churches, and every body of people closely associated, or connected, with the unemployed have sent 1002 their protests against the means test. The volume of these protests is mounting up, and that shows we are not tackling the problem in the proper way.
I would like to say this on behalf of London—this wealthiest city of the Empire. There are present members of the London County Council who have control over the public assistance committees in London. The agreed scale of payment, which is not written or printed but is tacitly understood in London, amounts, when rent is taken out, to 8s. for an adult person. They are granted 8s. in this the greatest and wealthiest city in the Empire. But these public assistance committees are taking into their calculations meals received by little children. These meals are received because the children's parents are not able to find employment. The children are compelled to have meals at the schools, or the teaching would be wasted. Here in the greatest city in the Empire these committees take into account the value of the children's meals in order to make a deduction from what they are allowing to the parents. That is mean and contemptible. No one with any soul can give support to any such abuse of power. Is it a wonder that our people loathe the vile business of the means test. It is so abominable in its requirements that it is causing revolt in the mind, spirit and feeling of the people of the country. It is cold, calculated and brutal starvation.
I often wonder what is the value of words. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] I am glad same hon. Members are awake and listening to my words. If it is true, as people are telling us, that there is a standard of life below which people ought not to be allowed to sink, if they are to be kept from starvation, and if as a result of the application of our policy we are allowing them to sink below that level, what is that if not slow starvation. Does it not mean social assassination? What is the value of words if you know that below a certain standard of life means starvation and you allow people to remain below that standard? I remember the old story of Napoleon. A man went to him and told him he had lost his pension. He said to Napoleon, "Sire, I have lost my pension." Napoleon said: "Well." The man answered: "I must live," and Napoleon is reported to have said: "I do not see the necessity." Just as 1003 Napoleon may have said that to the pensioner, I am saying to the Government that they do not see the necessity for the unemployed living or, otherwise, they would take steps to maintain them.
Just one word on the question of the Income Tax. On this question of the Income Tax it is said you should not have a means test. There is nothing comparable between Income Tax and the means test. Does anyone say you are cheats and liars when you fill in your Income Tax form? As one of the Members for a Sheffield division has said, these committees are able to find out the amount of money applicants are earning. They go round to the factory and workshop. That is a thing which ought to be stopped. I have in mind now an instance in the district where I live. A man tried to give his children an education better than he had had himself. One of his children got work of a confidential nature. The man applied for transitional payment. The committee went to the firm where that child, a girl, was employed. She was discharged because the firm expected a girl from a different class of home. Do they do the same with regard to Income Tax? I make bold to say that for every penny out of which you have been cheated by unemployed workmen you have been cheated out of £1 in Income Tax. The whole thing is indefensible. I am asking Members of the House of Commons of all parties, and the Government, to let us get above this tinkering. Why should we not tackle this question in the atmosphere of the Debate of last week? The Minister of Labour is helpless, and I am not blaming the hon. Member who is to reply. It is something larger than one Department, and it is something which the Government have to take in hand. That is why we are demanding the withdrawal or defeat of this Bill.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson)
The hon. Member who has just spoken made an appeal that this Debate should be continued in a spirit which would recapture that which permeated the House in the Debate on unemployment last week. It is a pity he did not address that remark to some of his followers earlier in the day, more especially the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks). I am going to try, if the House 1004 will allow me, to put before it some rather wider considerations. This Debate has turned much more on the question of whether there should be a means test at all than on any other matter. That raises issues which are really fundamental to the unemployment insurance system and, possibly, to the whole future structure of our society. If the House will permit me, I would suggest one or two considerations which, it seems to me, have to be taken into account.
I do not know if the Labour party accept the proposals of the Trades Union Congress put before the Royal Commission, but I imagine they will agree with them as a whole. That scheme is the only alternative worked out in any detail. It is framed on the basis that a man should he guaranteed either work or maintenance and that there should be no means test. Both of these, I understand, are planks in the Labour party platform. The Trades Union Congress proposal proceeds on the assumption that the insurance principle has broken down. We do not admit it. It goes on to suggest that the insurance scheme should be supplanted by a fund the resources of which would be drawn almost solely from the Exchequer. Out of that fund would be paid adequate allowances, without any inquiry into the recipient's resources, for as long as it might be necessary, to every single person who, being willing to work, was not able to find a wage-earning place in industry. The Majority Report of the Royal Commission pointed out that that involves three new elements. In the first place, it enormously extends State responsibility. In the second place, it shifts the responsibility from the local authority to the central authority, and in the third place it scraps the whole of our existing system and methods. It is based on the theory that unless the community so organises industry that every man willing to work can get a job, the unemployed, as the reserves of industry, are entitled to full maintenance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear those cheers from hon. Members opposite, because it shows that I am not in any way twisting their views. The idea that the State should so organise industry is completely alien to our present social system. Therefore, so far as the 1005 immediate present is concerned, the trade union argument founded on that basis fails to the ground.
What I want to show to the House, and what I want to try to bring home to the Labour party is where that theory leads. The Labour party must realise that to make effective a system such as I have just outlined, involves State control in the most detailed fashion over the whole of industry, and also control over the individual recruitment of individuals by industry. The Royal Commission realised that when they said that the principle of "payment for loss of employment only," could be accepted and applied only in a society where State control of industry was virtually complete and where State control extended also to the determination of what wages each, individual was to receive. They added that without the active exercise of such powers of intervention and prescription the profession of mere "willingness to work" was practically meaningless. I do not know whether the Labour party would agree to that.
§ Mr. HUDSON
I do not imagine that the Members of the left wing of the Labour party would deny that that is where their policy logically leads. But that is not the end. Where does the doctrine lead? We have been criticised to-day over the principle of household means. We are told that it is breaking up homes, that family ties are less strong to-day than they were of old, that the young men and the young women to-day feel less responsibility towards their parents, and that they regard it as a hardship, as morally degrading, indeed the hon. Member for Broxtowe said that it was obscene, to ask a son to support his father.
§ Mr. HUDSON
We are being asked to admit that there is something inherently wrong in asking a son to support his father, but that there is nothing inherently wrong in asking someone else's son to support him. We are told that that represents the modern tendencies of the world. That may be true. It may represent the modern tendencies, 1006 but it does not in the least follow that those tendencies are sound, and it does not in the least follow that, if the State is to survive, it must accept those tendencies, much less give them legislative sanction. Since the days of Elizabeth, and even earlier, the State has recognised the duty to relieve destitution, but we are asked to-day to go very much further. We are asked to provide full and adequate maintenance. One hon. Member opposite, I think it was the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) went further and said that they should be kept in comfort. There might have been something to be said for that doctrine in the early days of the industrial revolution, when the Manchester laissez faire doctrine was in full force. What the industrialist wanted then was rapid increase of population, more women and children to man his factories and his mines. Those were the days of expanding markets, when the waste places of the United States and our Dominions were calling for population.
Those were the days when there was an outlet for the surplus population and the problem at home was comparatively small and easy to deal with, There was a great deal to be said in ethics for the theory that a community which had benefited by the rapid increase of population and of wealth should be asked to succour those who fell by the wayside. It was the fact that in the opinion of many people that succour was not adequate, that led to the great increase in the social services which we enjoy to-day. The increase in those social services has brought with it a definite weakening of the sense of individual responsibility, and we are paying for that to-day, at, a time when the fundamental condition of England has completely changed. To-day, instead of having expanding markets, we have contracting markets. Instead of having an outlet for our surplus population in emigration we have actually this year to face the fact that there has been a net immigration into this country.
In such conditions as those with which we are faced to-day the demand that is implicit in the theory of hon. Members opposite means not merely that the State would have to control every detail of industry, to control wages and also control the individual recruitment of industry, but it would be driven to control 1007 also the numbers engaged in industry and ultimately to interfere in the most intimate details of family life. The conclusion seems to me to be absolutely inescapable, that once the State had started upon that path, it could not stop and say: "Thus far and no farther." It would have to take one step after another, and the last step would be that it would have to control the size and number of the working man's family. That is what you will be inevitably driven to. I do not believe that such a step is conceivable, that such control by the State is conceivable in any future that matters to us. [Interruption.] I am trying to deal with the matter as quickly as I can. For this reason alone it is perfectly clear that if the Labour Government came into office to-morrow they would be unable to dispense either with the means test or with the principle of the household income.
I wonder very much whether there is all this objection to the principle of the household income that hon. Members opposite have made so much song about in the Debate. If there is any complaint of individual cases I think it is very largely due not to the inherent principle but to faulty administration. In actual fact members of a family living under the same roof do share their fortune, and they do not disclaim responsibility for each other. We do know of other cases and I certainly know of a particular town in which families have exchanged their grown-up children, in which they have taken each other in as lodgers. It is part of a concerted and deliberate action. No one in that town pretends that it is honest action. They admit that it is fraudulent and in some cases it-has been dealt with. To a local opinion that supports that line of action, no concession on our part is necessary.
There is, however, the other side of the picture. I think that everyone in the House will agree with me that if a man works he is entitled to expect at the end of the week that he shall have some portion of the money that he gets for that work absolutely at his own disposal, and if every penny is treated as available for the purpose of household income, he is legitimately resentful. I doubt whether there is any single local authority in the country that enforces such a 1008 rule at the present time, but if there is such a local authority it ought at once to change its methods. So far as the experience of 12 months working of the scheme goes, I believe that it is quite possible to produce workable rules which will be generally acceptable. I have already referred in the speech that I made last Wednesday to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on this matter.
May I deal with two or three points which were raised by individual Members during the Debate. I will deal first with the speech of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell). The Minister of Health answered most of his points. The hon. Member will not think me discourteous if I suggest that the real criticism of what he said was two-fold, first, that he did not take the trouble to read what I said last Wednesday in winding up the Debate on the Financial Resolution—I have no grounds for suggesting that he ought to have read it—and, secondly, that he had' not read the Bill. We are entitled to criticise him for that. As an illustration of the way in which he did not trouble to read the Bill, let me take a specific instance which he gave of a man with a house worth £350. If I understood him aright he said that man would be deprived of transitional payment because the £350 was above the limit of £300. There is a Clause in the Bill, which was put in for the specific purpose of preventing a local authority from telling a man to sell or mortgage his house. Therefore, the point made by the hon. Member is wholly without foundation.
§ Mr. HUDSON
If he owns the house and does not live in it and gets income from the house, the income is taken into account.
§ Mr. GRENFELL
The hon. Member has challenged me. I say that if you do not take the income you take the capital value of the house.
§ Mr. HUDSON
I will deal with the telegram that was read by the hon. Member. He suggested that the telegram from Dundee was an attack on the means test. There was no reference to the means test in that telegram. All that the local authority referred to were the 1009 basic scales of transitional payments. Those scales are the same as those for unemployment benefit. Therefore, the telegram had nothing whatever to do with the Debate. He said that the results of the administration were harsh, and that the percentage of people whose claims were disallowed when they came up for consideration the second time was greater than the percentage when the claims first came under consideration. Exactly the opposite is true. The percentage of full determinations for men is 50 in the case of the first determination and 57 in the case of renewals. Therefore, far from what the hon. Member said being in accordance with the facts, exactly the opposite is true.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) and several other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), had a good deal to say about disability pensions, and asked that I should make the matter clear. I cannot make the matter any clearer than I made it on Wednesday night, but it will perhaps help hon. Members opposite to understand what this Bill really does if they will remember what the present situation is. At present any general rule to disregard the whole, or indeed any specific proportion, of pension or compensation irrespective of the needs of the individual is illegal. What the Bill does is to make mandatory and imperative a rule on all local authorities to disregard 50 per cent. of pension and compensation in all cases. As regards the remaining 50 per cent., no rule to disregard the whole of disability pensions or workmen's compensation irrespective of needs is legal now or will be legal when the Bill is passed. All such flat rules in the administration of a discretionary service which must be based on varying individual circumstances defeat their own end. They either go too far or not far enough. But, transcending all rules, is the duty of an authority to consider needs, and there is really no legal limit to the exercise of their discretion if based upon the consideration of the needs and resources of each individual case. In the case of disabled men there is a presumption of need beyond the ordinary requirements of maintenance, and where this presumption is supported by facts the committee can act accordingly. Time is 1010 getting on, and I will not therefore attempt to deal fully with some of the points which have been made during the course of the Debate.
Let me turn finally to the objection which is felt by great numbers of the unemployed to a means test owing to its association with the Poor Law. I think that there is a great deal of truth in the assertion that one of the main objections felt by the unemployed man to the means test is its association under present circumstances with the old stigma of the Poor Law. I have read and re-read with great care the evidence submitted on this point to the Royal Commission. It must be remembered that this evidence was given for the most part before last November. On balance it indicated that very largely as a result of recent reforms and more especially of the 1929 Act, the old stigma had tended to disappear. Our experience of the last 12 months shows pretty clearly that that evidence was wrong, and it is quite clear that, although in some areas frequent resort to the Poor Law has in fact tended to remove the old feeling of disgrace which attaches to anyone applying for relief from public funds, nevertheless, taking the country as a whole, the old distaste for the Poor Law remains; and I am not sure that it is not a good thing that it should remain.
My right hon. Friend and I have always insisted that it was only the emergency of last year, and the impossibility of devising any alternative machinery in the time at our disposal, which led to the issue of the Order-in-Council of 7th October, 1931. We have always insisted that these were purely temporary measures to last until the Royal Commission's Report was received, and until we could get through this House a wide and comprehensive Bill dealing with the whole matter. The Royal Commission have taken two years over their report and the House will hardly expect me to say whether we are going to accept the scheme they propose or some other scheme. What I can say is that the House may be sure that this matter is under our immediate discussion and that no avoidable time will be lost in the development of the new scheme and in its presentation to Parliament. Finally, I suggest to the House that the 1011 Bill itself is only a temporary Measure. It does very much more than hon. Members opposite are willing to admit. It confers valuable privileges on disabled men, whether they have incurred the disability in war or in industry, and it does safeguard the small savings of the people. Therefore I confidently recommend it to the House.
§ Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN
There is one important point which the hon. Member has not answered. The Bill exempts allowances in respect of the applicant for transitional payment. Is this exemption of allowances extended to other members of the family? If an applicant for transitional payment is allowed to retain cer-
§ tain of his savings surely the same should apply to other members of the household.
§ Mr. HUDSON
I covered that point very fully in my remarks last week. I said then, and I repeat now for the benefit of the hon. Member, that where a local authority at present takes an applicant's savings into account they will be bound by the rule; where now a local authority have taken an applicant's household savings into account they will equally be bound by the rule.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 344; Noes, 45,1013
|Division No. 364.]||AYES.||[7.38 p.m.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke||Castle Stewart, Earl||Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Fox, Sir Gifford|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Cayzer, Mal. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)||Fraser, Captain Ian|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Fremantle, Sir Francis|
|Albery, Irving James||Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Fuller, Captain A. G|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'l, W.)||Chaimers, John Rutherford||Ganzoni, Sir John|
|Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)||Chamberlain,Rt.Hon.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W)||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Gibson, Charles Granville|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Christie, James Archibald||Gillett, Sir George Masterman|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Clarke, Frank||Gledhill, Gilbert|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe||Clarry, Reginald George||Glossop, C. W. H.|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Clayton, Dr. George C.||Gluckstein, Louis Halle|
|Atkinson, Cyril||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Goff, Sir Park|
|Baillie Sir Adrian W. M.||Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey||Goldie, Noel B.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Conant, R. J. E.||Goodman, Colonel Albert W.|
|Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.||Cooke, Douglas||Gower, Sir Robert|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Cooper, A. Duff||Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)|
|Balniel, Lord||Copeland, Ida||Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.||Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter|
|Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey||Cranborne, Viscount||Greene, William P. C.|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)|
|Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)||Crooke, J. Smedley||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John|
|Beaumont, Hon, R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)||Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro', W.)|
|Belt, Sir Alfred L.||Cross, R. H.||Grimston, R. V.|
|Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley||Crossley, A. C.||Gritten, W. G. Howard|
|Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel||Culverwell, Cyrll Tom||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.|
|Bernays, Robert||Curry, A. C.||Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.|
|Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.||Gunston, Captain D. W.|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)||Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)|
|Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)||Davison, Sir William Henry||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)|
|Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hamilton. Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'ti'nd)|
|Blaker, Sir Reginald||Denville, Alfred||Hanley, Dennis A.|
|Blindell, James||Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Borodale, Viscount||Dickle, John P.||Hartland, George A.|
|Bossom, A. C.||Donner, P. W.||Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)|
|Boulton, W. W.||Doran, Edward||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Drewe, Cedric||Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.|
|Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton||Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington,N.)||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P|
|Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Dunglass, Lord||Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)|
|Briscoe, Capt. Richard George||Eady, George H.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Eales, John Frederick||Holdsworth, Herbert|
|Brockiebank, C. E. R.||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)||Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)|
|Burghley, Lord||Eimley, Viscount||Hopkinson, Austin|
|Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie||Emmott, Charles E. G. C.||Hornby, Frank|
|Burnett, John George||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Horsbrugh, Florence|
|Burton, Colonel Henry Walter||Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||Howard, Tom Forrest|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.|
|Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)|
|Caine, G. R. Hall-||Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)|
|Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)||Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)|
|Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)||Everard, W. Lindsay||Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.|
|Carver, Major William H.||Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Iveagh, Countess of|
|Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)||Munro, Patrick||Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)|
|James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.||Nall, Sir Joseph||Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Jamleson, Douglas||Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.||Smith-Cariagton, Neville W.|
|Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)||Nathan, Major H. L.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Somervell, Donald Bradley|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)||Newton, Sir Douglas George C.||Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)|
|Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)||Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Ker, J. Campbell||Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)||Soper, Richard|
|Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)||O'Connor, Terence James||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.|
|Kerr, Hamilton W.||O'Donovan, Dr. William James||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)|
|Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Stevenson, James|
|Knight, Holford||Patrick, Colin M.||Stones, James|
|Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton||Peat, Charles U.||Storey, Samuel|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Stourton, Hon. John J.|
|Law, Sir Alfred||Petherick, M.||Strauss, Edward A.|
|Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Lees-Jones, John||Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bliston)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Pike, Cecil F.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-|
|Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Potter, John||Summersby, Charles H.|
|Levy, Thomas||Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Lewis, Oswald||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Templeton, William P.|
|Liddell, Walter S.||Procter, Major Henry Adam||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest||Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)||Thompson, Luke|
|Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Lyons, Abraham Montagu||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Mebane, William||Ramsbotham, Herwaid||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)||Ramsden, E.||Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)|
|MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)|
|McCorquodale, M. S.||Rea, Waiter Russell||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-||Train, John|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Reid, William Allan (Derby)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|McEwen, Captain J. H. F.||Remer, John R.||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|McKie, John Hamilton||Renwick, Major Gustav A.||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton||Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.||Wallace, John (Dunfermline)|
|McLean, Major Alan||Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Walisend)|
|Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Robinson, John Roland||Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)|
|Magnay, Thomas||Ropner, Colonel L.||Wardiaw-Milne, Sir John S.|
|Maitland, Adam||Rosbotham, S. T.||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.||Watt, Captain George Steven H.|
|Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.||Runge, Norah Cecil||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Marsden, Commander Arthur||Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)||Weymouth, Viscount|
|Martin, Thomas B.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Whiteside, Borras Noel H.|
|Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Mills, Sir Frederick (Layton, E.)||Salmon, Major Isidore||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Saft, Edward W.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Mline, Charles||Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Mitcheson, G. G.||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart||Withers, Sir John James|
|Matson, A. Hugh Eisdale||Savory, Samuel Servington||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley|
|Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres||Scone, Lord||Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)|
|Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Morgan, Robert H.||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)|
|Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)|
|Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Sinclair, Maj. Rt Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Morrison, William Shepherd||Skelton, Archibald Noel||Sir George Penny and Mr. Womersley.|
|Muirhead, Major A. J.||Slater, John|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||McGovern, John|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Grundy, Thomas W.||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Banfield, John William||Hail, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Milner, Major James|
|Batey, Joseph||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Hicks, Ernest George||Price, Gabriel|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Jenkins, Sir William||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Buchanan, George||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Cape, Thomas||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Wellhead, Richard C.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Kirkwood, David||Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David|
|Cove, William G.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Craven-Ellis, William||Lawson, John James||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Dagger, George||Leonard, William||Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Logan, David Gilbert||Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)|
|Edwards, Charles||Lunn, William|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||McEntee, Valentine L.||Mr. John and Mr. Groves.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Sir H. Betterton.]1014
§ Bills accordingly considered in Committee.1015
§ [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]