Commons Chamber

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

House Of Commons

Monday, 29th January, 1934.

The House—after the Adjournment on 21st December, 1933, for the Christmas Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Private Business

Private Bills Lords

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, namely:

Birmingham United Hospital.
Cambridge University and Town Waterworks.
Dover Corporation.
Lowestoft Corporation.
Middlesex County Council.
Newport Corporation (General Powers).
Newport Extension.
North Lindsey Water.
North Wales Electric Power.

Sheffield Gas.
Somersham Rectory.
South Devon and East Cornwall Hospital, Plymouth, Royal Albert Hospital, Devonport, and Central Hospital, Plymouth (Amalgamation, &c.).
Sunderland and South Shields Water.
Torquay Corporation.
Tyne Improvement.
Tynemouth Corporation.
Wandsworth Borough Council.
Wantage Urban District Council.
Watchet Urban District Council.
West Gloucestershire Water.
Workington Corporation.

And that, in the following case, one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills has made a Special Report, namely:

Durham County Wafer Board.

Private Bill Petitions Lords (Special Report)

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, he had made a Special Report, namely:

Durham County Water Board [Lords].
Special Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Ministry Of Health Provisional Order (Belper) Bill

Ministry Of Health Provisional Order (North Buckinghamshire Joint Hospital District) Bill

Read the Third time, and passed.

Mr Speaker's Warrant For New Writ

Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had issued, during the Adjournment, a Warrant for a New Writ, for the Borough of Cambridge, in the room of Sir George Douglas Cochrane Newton, K.B.E., called up to the House of Peers.

Oral Answers To Questions

India (Forest Service)

asked the Secretary of State for India what is the existing situation in respect of the recruitment of officers for the Indian Forest Service?

For reasons of economy, such vacancies as now exist in the Indian Forest Service are being left unfilled, and recruitment for this service is therefore at present suspended.

asked the Secretary of State for India what facilities are at present in existence in India for training Indian entrants to the Forest Service?

The Indian Forest Service College at Dehra Dun, where candidates recruited in India to the Forest Services were trained, was closed down in November, 1932, owing to the absence of any recruits requiring training. It can, however, be reopened if and when the training facilities it provided are again required.

Disarmament

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the present position of the Disarmament Conference?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the desirability that His Majesty's Government should give a lead on the question of disarmament and that other Powers should know our position, he will now make a statement regarding His Majesty's Government's policy?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position with regard to the negotiations for the conclusion of the Disarmament Convention?

As I reminded the House on the 21st December last, the Bureau of the Disarmament Conference decided on the 22nd November that the work of the conference could, at that stage, best be assisted by parallel and supplementary efforts between various States and the full use of diplomatic machinery. These efforts have been continuously pursued in the interval.

It was, indeed, with a view to facilitating them that I took advantage of my holiday in France and Italy at the close of the year to renew contact with the French Foreign Minister and with the head of the Italian Government. I had conversations with Monsieur Chautemps and Monsieur Paul-Boncour on the 22nd December and with Signor Mussolini on the 3rd and 4th January. These personal exchanges of view were of assistance in establishing points of agreement and in clarifying the issues.

Steps have also been taken by His Majesty's Government through the diplomatic channel to obtain from the German Government fuller and more detailed information as to the real intent and purpose of the declarations made by the Chancellor of the German Reich subsequent to the announcement of the withdrawal of the German Government from the Disarmament Conference.

The German Government replied to these inquiries on the 19th January. In the meantime there had also been exchanges between the French and German Governments. His Majesty's Government have been informed of all these communications and have followed them with the closest attention.

As a result His Majesty's Government have arrived at the decision that the time has now come when they should make known their own attitude in the present situation, the gravity of which must be apparent to every thoughtful mind, and should thus make a further positive contribution so far as lies in their power to promote agreement.

His Majesty's Government have accordingly expressed their views in a Memorandum which has now been despatched to His Majesty's Representatives abroad for communication to the Governments chiefly concerned in the recent negotiations. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to publish this Memorandum as soon as there has been an opportunity for its consideration by those Governments.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea as to how much time it will take to enable the Government to decide to publish the Memorandum, so that Members of this House can have an opportunity of studying it?

I am sure my hon. Friend will see that there are very good reasons why publication should not take place immediately, but I do not anticipate that there will be an interval of more than a few days.

Will the correspondence preceding this Memorandum be published at the same time?

That needs consideration. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that we have no right to publish communications which we receive from other Governments or which pass between other Governments, even though we have copies of the documents, without the consent of all parties, but the matter will certainly be considered.

Are not these prolonged negotiations providing Germany with an excellent opportunity for rearmament?

I gather then that the hon. Gentleman, for once, approves of what the Government propose to do.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the new Memorandum differs fundamentally from the previous one?

I could, of course, very easily answer the question, but I think, on the whole, as the document is going very shortly to be published, it is better to make no statement verbally.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is possible within this present system of what we call capitalism——

Order!

German Refugees

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position with regard to the efforts that are being made by the governing body appointed by the League of Nations for assisting German refugees?

The governing body held its first session at Lausanne from the 5th to the 8th December last and discussed many matters arising from its duty of assisting the High Commissioner appointed to deal with the question of refugees coming from Germany. The High Commissioner will no doubt himself decide when a statement can usefully be made regarding the progress of his task.

League Of Nations

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have now formulated a policy regarding the reform of the League of Nations?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any proposals from the Italian Government for the revision of the Covenant of the League of Nations; and whether His Majesty's Government will give some indication of its policy for the guidance of other Governments which may be contemplating such revision?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding the question of strengthening the authority of the League of Nations; and whether he will report upon the progress of discussions on this subject?

His Majesty's Government take the view that any questions connected with the reform of the League are secondary to and successive upon the more immediate and urgent question of disarmament. As a result of the discussions which I was enabled to have on this subject some weeks ago with the head of the Italian Government, I am glad to be able to inform the House that this view has been confirmed by the Italian Government, and was also approved by the French Government. I may add that Signor Mussolini made it plain that the object of any proposals he might hereafter make would be to strengthen and make more efficient the machinery of the League. While, therefore, His Majesty's Government have the situation under careful consideration, pending the outcome of the efforts at present being undertaken to secure an agreed disarmament convention it is not their intention to take any present steps in the matter.

I want to ask the Foreign Secretary if he considers that it is possible under capitalism——

Order!

China And Japan

10.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the situation in the Far East and, in particular, upon the developments in Manchuria and China?

In China the principal recent event has been the successful conclusion of the action taken by the National Government—the National Government of China—against the insurrectionary regime set up in the province of Fukien. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing appreciation of the friendly way in which the Chinese Government received the representations by His Majesty's Representatives in China regarding the protection of British lives and property during the operations. In December last the neutral zone between the Chinese and Japanese forces in the north was violated by certain irregular rebel Chinese troops. Apart from this and one or two other incidents involving action either by Japanese or Chinese troops, there has been no disturbance of the position. In Manchuria the chief event has been an announcement that the "Chief Executive," Mr. Pu-Yi, will ascend the throne and inaugurate a monarchical regime on the 1st March next. The discussions between representatives of the Soviet Union and the Manchurian authorities concerning the Chinese Eastern Railway do not appear to have been resumed as yet.

Naval And Military Pensions And Grants

11.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has now reconsidered the case of Mrs. Fieldhouse, of 25, Ash Street, Leicester; and whether, as the prior allocation of 5s. weekly has been stopped by the Minister in his discretion since a refusal by her husband to contribute, in disobedience to a separation order of the court, he will now restore the weekly allowance to Mrs. Fieldhouse with effect from the time of cessation?

Under the terms of the Royal Warrant an allowance in respect of the wife of a pensioner is granted specifically to him and can only be granted as replacing support normally given by him and reduced or stopped by reason of his war disability. In the case of a separated wife a discretionary allowance may be given but only on evidence that the husband is making an adequate contribution to her support and only for so long as he does so. As my hon. and learned Friend has already been informed, it appears that Mrs. Fieldhouse has received no support from her husband for some considerable time and consequently no allowance can be issued. If, however, she can induce him to make a reasonable and permanent weekly contribution towards her support I shall be enabled to re-issue to her a separated wife's allowance. In this connection I may say that Mrs. Fieldhouse has recently requested the Ministry to forward a letter to her husband and this has already been done.

May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether it is a fact that this husband, in defiance of the order of the court, has left the neighbourhood, and that his whereabouts are unknown to his wife; and in these circumstances, now that the husband has deserted her, will he exercise his discretion in her favour?

No, Sir; we are doing what we can to help the wife by forwarding her letter to the husband, and, as a result, I hope we shall be successful.

Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this man, in defiance of the court, has left his wife destitute, and is it likely, if he defies the magistrates, that a letter from his wife will have any effect on him?

Or a letter from the Minister?

I find that in other similar cases a letter of this kind has led to a resumption of payments, and I hope that in this case it will have the same effect.

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman put an end to this matter by exercising his discretion in favour of this unfortunate and deserving woman?

No, as I have already informed the hon. Gentleman by letter.

Agriculture

London Quarantine Station

14.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether arrangements have yet been made for the continuance of the quarantine station?

As indicated in the reply

BEEF (Per cwt.).													A.
Description.	Year.	July.		August.		September.		October.		November.		December.
		s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.
English (steer and heifer) longsides.	1931	80	6	74	6	69	0	66	6	63	0	66	6
	1932	74	6	73	6	67	6	59	6	58	6	63	0
	1933	62	0	60	6	57	0	56	0	57	0	59	6
English (cow and bull) longsides.	1931	58	6	55	0	51	6	50	0	48	0	49	0
	1932	51	6	50	0	46	6	42	0	42	0	43	0
	1933	43	0	42	0	41	0	41	0	39	6	41	0
Argentine, chilled, hinds.	1931	58	6	69	0	65	6	64	0	56	0	56	0
	1932	51	6	57	0	57	0	53	6	55	0	53	6
	1933	49	0	53	6	56	0	56	0	51	6	55	0
Argentine, chilled, fores.	1931	27	0	32	6	32	6	34	0	31	6	29	0
	1932	23	6	25	6	28	0	25	6	34	0	32	6
	1933	23	6	27	0	29	0	31	6	32	6	32	6
Australian, frozen, hinds.	1931	30	6	35	0	36	0	37	6	36	0	34	0
	1932	34	0	34	0	32	6	30	6	34	0	35	0
	1933	27	0	28	0	30	6	30	6	30	6	31	6
Australian, frozen, fores.	1931	21	0	24	6	25	6	27	0	27	0	24	6
	1932	24	6	23	6	23	6	22	0	27	0	30	6
	1933	22	0	24	6	25	6	25	6	25	6	24	6

I gave on 9th November, to questions on the subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown) the station will be continued under existing conditions until 31st March next. Following discussions with the Royal Agricultural Society of England and the Breed Societies, proposals for its continuance after that date are under consideration by the Government.

Meat And Bacon (Prices)

12 and 13.

(for Mr. T. WILLIAMS) asked the Minister of Agriculture (1), the average wholesale and retail price of Home- and Foreign-produced meat per cwt. during the past six months, and comparable figures for 1931 and 1932;

(2) the average wholesale and retail price of Home- and Foreign-produced bacon per cwt. during the past six months, and comparable figures for 1931 and 1932?

The answers involve long tabular statements, which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the statements:

Tables A, B, C, D and E are the monthly average wholesale prices (per cwt.) obtained by the Ministry's Reporters.

The Table F of retail prices is based on figures collected by the Ministry of Labour.

MUTTON (Per cwt.).													B.
Description.	Year.	July.		August.		September.		October.		November.		December.
		s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.
English (teg and wetber)	1931	99	0	92	0	84	0	79	6	73	6	72	6
	1932	66	6	62	0	58	6	55	0	57	0	65	6
	1933	72	6	69	0	65	6	66	6	73	6	76	0
Argentine, frozen	1931	42	0	43	0	45	6	39	6	32	6	34	0
	1932	29	0	28	0	29	0	29	0	34	0	37	6
	1933	36	0	37	6	41	0	38	6	39	6	43	0
New Zealand, frozen	1931	49	0	49	0	52	6	45	6	39	6	37	6
	1932	36	0	35	0	35	0	32	6	38	6	42	0
	1933	42	0	43	0	45	6	44	6	44	6	46	6

LAMB (Per cwt.).													C.
Description.	Year.	July.		August.		September.		October.		November.		December.
		s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.	a.	d.
English	1931	118	0	102	6	92	0	85	0	79	6	80	6
	1932	83	0	73	6	64	0	58	6	63	0	72	6
	1933	81	6	77	0	73	6	74	6	77	0	80	6
Argentine, frozen	1931	58	6	63	0	71	0	65	6	56	0	51	6
	1932	44	6	42	0	41	0	41	0	45	6	50	0
	1933	53	6	56	0	59	6	60	6	60	6	59	6
New Zealand, frozen	1931	71	0	71	0	78	0	72	6	65	6	63	0
	1932	53	6	51	6	50	0	48	0	55	0	60	6
	1933	62	0	63	0	66	6	66	6	66	6	64	0

PORK (Per cwt.).													D.
Description.	Year.	July.		August.		September.		October.		November.		December.
		s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.
English	1931	67	6	69	0	74	6	76	0	73	6	73	6
	1932	53	6	56	0	62	0	62	0	64	0	73	6
	1933	59	6	62	0	73	6	78	0	78	0	85	0
New Zealand, frozen	1931	57	0	57	0	60	6	64	0	64	0	57	0
	1932	48	0	48	0	50	0	52	6	53	6	60	6
	1933	43	0	45	6	55	0	58	6	59	6	62	0

BACON (Per cwt.).													E.
Description.	Year.	July.		August.		September.		October.		November.		December.
		s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.
English, Wiltshire cut, green.	1931	83	6	86	0	80	0	76	0	71	6	71	0
	1932	79	6	77	0	78	6	71	6	69	6	75	0
	1933	81	6	89	6	95	6	82	0	82	6	81	6
danish, Wiltshire cut, green.	1931	64	0	74	6	66	6	62	6	53	0	48	0
	1932	56	0	68	6	70	6	58	0	57	6	64	6
	1933	76	0	85	6	91	0	81	6	81	0	80	6
dutch, Wiltshire	1931	55	6	67	6	58	6	58	6	49	0	44	6
	1932	50	6	58	6	53	0	48	0	50	6	56	0
	1933	64	6	77	6	86	6	74	0	81	6	72	0
swedish, Wiltshire cut, green.	1931	59	6	71	0	62	0	60	0	50	0	46	0
	1932	54	0	66	0	68	0	55	6	56	0	62	0
	1933	68	0	79	0	86	6	77	6	77	0	76	6

													F.
Retail Prices (converted to per cwt.) of Meat based upon those ascertained by the Ministry of Labour for calculation of "Cost of Living" Index. The Ministry of Labour's prices are collected and published as lb. prices.
Description.	Year.	1st Aug.		1st Sept.		1st Oct.		1st Nov.		1st Dec.		1st Jan.
BEEF.		s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.
British, ribs	1931–2	147	0	147	0	144	6	144	6	142	6	142	6
	1932–3	140	0	140	0	137	6	133	0	133	0	133	0
	1933–4	130	6	130	6	130	6	130	6	128	6	130	6
British, thin flank	1931–2	79	6	79	6	79	6	79	6	77	0	77	0
	1932–3	74	6	74	6	72	6	70	0	70	0	70	0
	1933–4	70	0	70	0	70	0	70	0	70	0	70	0
Chilled or frozen, ribs.	1931–2	88	6	91	0	91	0	88	6	88	6	88	6
	1932–3	86	6	86	6	84	0	81	6	84	0	84	0
	1933–4	81	6	84	0	84	0	84	0	84	0	84	0
Chilled or frozen, thin flank.	1931–2	46	6	46	6	46	6	46	6	46	6	46	6
	1932–3	44	6	44	6	44	6	42	0	44	6	44	6
	1933–4	42	0	42	0	42	0	42	0	42	0	42	0
MUTTON.
British, legs	1931–2	161	0	161	0	150	6	154	0	151	6	151	6
	1932–3	144	6	142	6	137	6	130	6	130	6	133	0
	1933–4	135	6	135	6	135	6	135	6	135	6	135	0
British, breast	1931–2	84	0	84	0	84	0	81	6	79	6	79	0
	1932–3	74	6	72	6	70	0	65	6	65	6	67	6
	1933–4	70	0	70	0	67	6	67	6	67	6	67	6
Frozen, legs	1931–2	95	6	95	6	95	6	95	6	93	6	91	0
	1932–3	88	6	86	6	86	6	84	0	84	0	84	0
	1933–4	86	6	86	6	86	6	86	6	86	6	86	6
Frozen, breast	1931–2	42	0	42	0	42	0	42	0	39	6	39	6
	1932–3	37	6	37	6	35	0	32	6	35	0	35	0
	1933–4	35	0	35	0	35	0	35	0	35	0	35	0
BACON.
streaky^*	1931–2	102	6	107	6	105	0	102	6	95	6	93	6
	1932–3	93	6	98	0	100	6	95	6	95	6	95	6
	1933–4	107	6	121	6	123	6	119	0	119	0	116	6
^* NOTE.—As regards bacon the statistics of retail prices do not distinguish separately the prices of home and foreign produced, also if "streaky" is seldom sold in a locality the returns quote the prices of another kind locally representative.

Livestock Industry

15.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can yet make a statement as to the effect of Government policy upon the prices of fat stock?

18.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a statement concerning the result so far of his recent order limiting the imports of beef and fat cattle?

The average prices per live cwt. of first and second quality fat cattle in England and Wales in the four weeks ended 24th January, have been steady at about 38s. 6d. The average prices in the corresponding period of last year were slightly higher, ranging from 39s. 1d. to 39s. 10d., but my hon. Friends will appreciate that the full effect of the steps recently taken with a view to im- proving the situation in the live-stock industry is hardly likely to be felt at this early stage.

Has my right hon. Friend in his own mind any period within which the effect should be felt?

The figures suggest that the market for fat cattle is, if anything, hardening, whereas at this time last year prices were sliding downwards.

Milk Marketing Scheme

16.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made with measures to safeguard the Milk Marketing Scheme in view of the expected surplus of milk above the needs of the liquid milk market?

I am not yet in a position to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 7th December.

Irish Turkeys (Imports)

57.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the number of turkeys imported into this country from Ireland during November and December last; the total weight; and the amount of duty involved?

The weight of dead turkeys imported into this country from the Irish Free State during November and December, 1933, was 2,450 cwts. and 52,324 cwts. respectively, on which the duty collected amounted approximately to £5,200 and £119,800 respectively. No figures are available as to the imports of live turkeys, which are included under the general heading of "live poultry," or as to the number of dead turkeys imported.

Horses (Export)

17.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that horses are being exported from this country for use in bull fighting, and that the export of ponies to the Continent for the purpose of being killed for food is still taking place; and whether he will take steps to prevent the continuance of these practices, which involve unnecessary cruelty to the animals concerned?

I have recently caused inquiry to be made on the Continent and no evidence was found that horses exported from this country are used in bullfighting. No horses were sent from Great Britain to Spain during 1933. With few exceptions, the 358 ponies exported to the Continent last year were either high-class animals such as polo ponies, or shetlands sent to Holland and Belgium. Three or four of the latter class are reported to have been slaughtered soon after their arrival on the Continent, and the rest were sold for working purposes. The exportation of horses is rigidly controlled by the Diseases of Animals Act, 1910, and the Exportation of Horses Act, 1914.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any means of ascertaining what happens to these horses when they reach Dutch and Belgian territory?

We can only make such inquiries as are possible. I have given my hon. Friend the result of these inquiries in my answer.

May we have an assurance that if the right hon. Gentleman gets any information regarding the export of horses for bull fights he will take instant action?

Certainly, I shall be glad to inquire into any cases which may be brought to my notice.

Post Office (Telephone Service)

19.

asked the Postmaster-General to what extent the measures taken by his Department to prevent pilfering from telephone kiosks have been successful during 1933?

The success of the steps taken to prevent pilfering from telephone kiosks is measured by the reduction in the aggregate amount stolen from about £4,000 in 1932 to about £500 in 1933.

20.

asked the Postmaster-General what saving in expenditure has been effected by the introduction of the dialling system on telephones in the London area?

It is difficult to assess precisely the savings so far effected by the introduction of the dialling system in London. It is, however, estimated that, despite the difficulties of the transition period, a saving at the rate of £50,000 per annum had been secured by the 31st October, 1933. The annual savings will materially increase as conversion proceeds.

21.

asked the Postmaster-General what is the estimated cost of a telephone to a private resident in the London area originating 1,000 local calls annually; and how does such cost compare with the last period, when a flat rate was in force and no charge incurred for individual local calls?

The amount paid by a private resident telephone subscriber in London, making 1,000 local calls a year, is £10 13s. 4d. The unlimited-service rate in operation immediately before the introduction of the present message-rate tariff in 1921 was £20 a year.

Business Of Courts Committee

22.

asked the Attorney-General what action it is proposed to take with regard to the recommendations of the Committee on Legal Reform?

The recommendations made in the second interim report of the Business of Courts Committee to which I presume my hon. Friend refers, were received shortly before Christmas, and are at present receiving the careful consideration of my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. I am not at present able to make any further statement.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the advisability of inviting the observations of the Bar Council and the Committee of the Law Society on this matter?

I understand that both these bodies are about to consider the proposals.

Housing

Slum Clearance

23.

asked the Minister of Health the total number of houses to be demolished under the five-year plan; and if all local authorities approached by the Ministry have now submitted satisfactory schemes?

The programmes received contemplate the demolition and replacement of 224,515 houses containing over 1,000,000 persons. There are in all 1,716 authorities of which 591 are rural. One thousand six hundred and four have made returns; of these 1,257 have been accepted. The remaining 347, together with the 112 who have not yet made a return, are under investigation and discussion with the authorities concerned.

24.

asked the Minister of Health whether he has any information to give the House on the position of slum clearance?

I would refer the hon. Member as regards the work to be undertaken under the Government's new campaign to the reply given to-day to my hon. Friend the Member for South Salford (Mr. Stourton). As regards actual progress, during the year 1933 orders were confirmed under the 1930 Act providing for the demolition of 10,313 houses, while approvals were given for building 15,667 new houses under the Act. The corresponding figures for the whole period between the passing of the Act and the end of 1932 were 6,449 and 9,902, respectively.

Is it proposed to publish reports of the inquiries which are now taking place in various areas?

Including Croydon?

I shall want notice of that question.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that, in the life of this Government, they will, at the rate they are going, tackle more than half the slums?

I am quite satisfied that, if one takes any proper and well-known test, the magnitude of this evil is being met by the magnitude of the effort.

Non-Subsidised Houses

25.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is now prepared to encourage local authorities which have made adequate progress with their slum-clearance schemes to build unsubsidised houses in cases where the needs are not being met from other sources?

Yes, Sir. Local authorities desiring to build unsubsidised houses in the circumstances indicated are encouraged to do so. On this matter I would further refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend's statement in the Debate on the Address.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the kind of encouragement given by local authorities to build houses greatly handicaps building under the Housing Act of 1933?

The conditions have been made perfectly clear. Where private enterprise has failed to meet the housing needs of an area the local authority in that area can apply for our sanction to provide unsubsidised houses.

Private enterprise has not failed, but the local authorities are showing persistent opposition to the 1933 Act.

Irish Free State

27.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he has any statement to make on the subject of our relations with the Irish Free State?

I have nothing to add to the statements which I made to the House on the 14th November and the 5th December last.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will have something to say to the House which will show that he is going to bring about a settlement of this unfortunate dispute?

Immediately the Irish Free State gives an indication that it desires to meet its just obligations.

Does the right hon. Gentleman have any regard at all to the profound dissatisfaction with his policy which exists in South Wales?

I have been in South Wales recently, and I found profound satisfaction with my desire to secure justice for this country.

Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute the fact that correspondence has been received by Members of Parliament from all parties concerned in the coal industry complaining of this matter?

Certainly; and I also know that Members of Parliament in South Wales are receiving correspondence saying that it would be a good thing for South Wales if they could be given their just rights.

28.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he has any further statement to make on the dispute with the Irish Free State; and will he state to what extent the United Kingdom taxpayer has been called upon to make good the losses caused by the Irish Free State default up to 17th January, 1934?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative. As regards the second part, it is estimated that the cost to the Exchequer up to the end of the current financial year will be £7,063,000, towards which there has been collected from the special duties £6,243,000 (up to 13th January, 1934). It will be remembered (1) that the special duties were not imposed until a later date than the beginning of the default, and (2) that certain items in default are not at present being made good by the United Kingdom Exchequer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why it is that only 10 per cent. duty is charged upon salmon, whereas other fish are liable to a duty of 40 per cent.?

My hon. Friend may take it that I intend, and these figures demonstrate that I am going, to succeed in getting what is due to us.

Scotland (Poor Relief)

29.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons in Scotland in receipt of able-bodied poor relief, and the number of their dependants, on the last available date, and comparable figures for the same period in the previous year?

As the answer involves a tabular statement I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Number of able-bodied persons in Scotland in receipt of poor relief at the 15th December, 1933, and the 15th December, 1932.
—		15th Dec., 1933.	15th Dec., 1932.
Males	…	43,245	34,802
Females	…	5,954	4,856
Dependent wives	…	24,275	19,981
Dependent children	…	55,940	47,907
Totals	…	129,414	107,546

30.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons in Scotland in receipt of Poor Law relief on the last available date, giving separately the figures for men, women and children, and comparable figures for the same period last year?

As the answer involves a tabular statement I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Number of poor persons in Scotland in receipt of poor relief (including relief to the able-bodied poor) at the 15th December, 1933, and the 15th December, 1932.
—		15th Dec., 1933.	15th Dec., 1932.
Males	…	91, 227^*	79, 420^*
Females	…	51, 685^*	48, 861^*
Dependent wives	…	45,497	38,786
Dependent children	…	119,753	106,701
Totals	…	308,162	273,768
^* These Figures include children who are not dependents but are in receipt of poor relief in their own right. The precise numbers of such children cannot be separately stated.

Trade And Commerce

Japanese Competition

30.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to state what steps he proposes to take for the protection of the cotton industry from Japanese competition?

36.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has taken any further steps to ameliorate the Eastern competition from which the cotton and rayon trades are suffering?

The Government trust that it may prove possible for the question of Japanese competition in the cotton and rayon industries to be settled by negotiation between the industrialists of the two countries. As my hon. Friends are aware, arrangements are now being made for these discussions to commence on a formal basis and it is hoped that they may speedily be brought to a successful conclusion.

May I ask whether any time limit is being placed by the Government upon these negotiations?

No, Sir, but everything that can properly be done to facilitate the discussions will be done.

Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether the Japanese have now definitely agreed to include artificial silk within the ambit of the negotiations?

We have made it perfectly plain that the discussions must include artificial silk, and I have no reason to believe that that will not be agreed to.

Has the hon. and gallant Member seen the statement made by Sir Harry McGowan regarding competition between this country and Japan, in which he states that the competition is due to Japan being more efficient than we are? Is there any truth in that statement? Do the Government agree with Sir Harry?

I do not think that I am called on to answer that question.

Shipping Industry (Subsidised Competition)

32.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if the Government have yet formulated plans for the protection of British shipping from subsidised competition?

This question is under consideration by His Majesty's Government in consultation with the Shipowners' Associations.

Import Duties

34.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the approximate percentage change in the volume of retained imports of wholly or mainly manufactured goods in Class III, which are dutiable under the Import Duties Act, in the year 1933 as compared with the year 1923?

As the answer is long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

As the answer contains only one figure cannot the hon. Gentleman give it?

The answer asks for the approximate percentages, and there is a good deal of information.

Is the Minister aware that spare parts—steel and bi-metal—are still on the 25 per cent. list and that customers' factories and mills are closing down awaiting the spares French manufacturers cannot supply?

Following is the answer:

I regret that the precise information desired is not available. The volume of retained imports during 1933 of all articles wholly or mainly manufactured was 12·4 per cent. less than in 1924. Comparison with 1923 is impracticable owing to the different statistical treatment of the Irish Free State in that year. The value of articles wholly or mainly manufactured dutiable only under the Import Duties Act, which were entered for home consumption during the period March to December, 1932, amounted to £62·2 million, or 54 per cent. of the total value of retained imports of all such articles during the same period. Of this amount, £13·1 million represents the value of Empire goods admitted free of duty. Corresponding particulars in respect of 1933 are not yet available.

53.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the industries whose claims for additional duty are still awaiting a decision by the Import Duties Advisory Committee?

My right hon. Friend does not think that in the interests of the industries concerned it would be desirable to publish a special list of goods upon which import duties may be in contemplation.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in his opinion, any machinery is necessary to prevent the forestalling that takes place from time to time, when great changes are about to be made by the tribunal?

Those matters are always under observation.

Russia (Trade Negotiations)

35.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the negotiations for a trade agreement with Russia?

33.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, if he has any statement to make on the Anglo-Russian trade negotiations?

I am not yet in a position to make any further statement on this matter.

Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether the question of the Lena Goldfields has been set aside for a later date?

There is a question on that subject later, and I think the hon. Member had better await that.

Will the hon. and gallant Member assure the House that he will not get the question of the Lena Goldfields mixed up with this trade agreement, which is very important?

Can my hon. and gallant Friend give any indication of when he is likely to be able to make a statement and to give any general indication of what is holding up the agreement?

As regards the first supplementary question, there is a question on the subject later. As regards the second supplementary question, I cannot make a statement yet, except to say that many of the difficulties have been removed.

Can the hon. and gallant Member give the House any information as to the obstacles which are in the way?

No, Sir, I cannot say more at this stage.

Will the hon. and gallant Member take the House into his confidence on this extraneous subject which blocks the way?

I cannot add to my previous statement.

Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the whole herring industry is being held up by the delay in entering into this agreement as there are few markets where herring can be disposed of, and can he give the industry some indication that they will be able to get a move on?

We are aware of the interest of the herring industry in this matter, but there is nothing to prevent the Russian Government from buying herring now.

45.

asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to give the House an opportunity of debating the Anglo-Russian trade negotiations?

As soon as an agreement is signed it will be laid before Parliament, and there will then be an opportunity of debating the matter.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Government have so far been unsuccessful in obtaining a trade agreement, he will give the House an opportunity of putting forward more effective methods, as, for instance, restricting the imports of goods from Russia into this country until the agreement is signed?

I am afraid that the hon. Member's premise is mistaken.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister what it is that is holding up the negotiations, because it is holding up work that we could get in our engineering and shipbuilding industry, as well as in the herring industry, and the Prime Minister knows that better than anyone else?

Those are questions which must be addressed to the Departments concerned.

France: British Goods, Quotas

(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make a statement as to the French quotas?

Yes, Sir. A decree and Orders of the French Government were published on the 31st December fixing the quotas for the first quarter of 1934. The amount of the existing quotas was in general reduced to 25 per cent. of the basic quotas for the previous quarter, and at the same time the quota system was applied with a corresponding reduction to a large number of items which had not previously been subject to quotas. The French Government stated that the balance of 75 per cent. should be made the subject of negotiations with individual countries with a view to securing advantages for French exports.

It was subsequently learnt that the quotas applicable to the United States of America and, more recently, to Belgium, had been increased to 100 per cent., thus creating a discrimination against this country. The matter was then raised with the French Government, who on 10th January undertook to restore 100 per cent. quotas on a "very abundant list" of United Kingdom products. This list was handed to His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris on 19th January, and (like the earlier quota lists) has been published in the Board of Trade Journal. On examination it was found not to restore 100 per cent. quotas in numerous important cases: in particular, cotton yarns and most classes of cotton goods remained on a 25 per cent. basis, while the quotas for various other categories were raised only to 75 per cent. In these circumstances, the French Government have been informed that we cannot accept the discrimination in favour of United States and Belgian goods which is thus maintained. They have also been told that, having regard to the grave interference with United Kingdom trade resulting from the new French quota policy and to the discrimination to which I have already referred, we shall very reluctantly have to take immediate retaliatory action by imposing additional duties on a range of French products unless within 10 days of the intimation the quotas in force before 1st January are restored to their original level and the new quotas imposed as from 1st January are similarly increased. I need not remind hon. Members that we have full power to impose such duties by Order under the provisions of Section 12 of the Import Duties Act.

I should add that we have also drawn attention to the grave impediments to United Kingdom trade which result from the methods adopted for the fixing and the administration of the quotas, and have informed the French Government that we propose to return to this matter at a later stage when we have obtained satisfaction in regard to the quantum of the quotas.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that these ultimatums which are flying about are retained at his own office, and that they do not extend to the War Office and the Foreign Office?

Education

Teachers (Employment)

37.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many student teachers who left training colleges in July last were without an available position to go to as teachers in schools?

According to the returns received from the training colleges and university training departments, of the 8,604 students who left in July last, 6,889 were reported, as at 31st December last, as having obtained teaching posts, and 1,450 had not then secured employment as teachers. In the case of the remaining 265 no information is available, but it can be assumed that some of these have, in fact, secured employment.

Would not this be a good time for the Government to reduce the size of classes and in that way find employment for these unemployed teachers?

Children Leaving School (Wales)

38.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the estimated number of boys and girls that will leave school in Wales during the next five years, giving figures for each year separately?

As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The estimated numbers of children who will leave the elementary schools in Wales for employment during the next five years are as follow:

Year ending 31st March—
1934	…	…	…	35,250
1935	…	…	…	37,770
1936	…	…	…	37,080
1937	…	…	…	33,640
1938	…	…	…	32,560

It is anticipated that the numbers of boys and girls will be approximately equal.

Workmen's Compensation

40.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is proposed to introduce any Measure this Session to deal with the question of workmen's compensation?

I regret I cannot promise to introduce any legislation on the subject this Session.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the universal desire for amendment of this Act, especially to compel employers to insure for workmen's compensation, and will he, in view of the importance of this matter to a large body of industrial workers, reconsider the position?

All I can say is that I recently received a deputation on this subject—only on the 25th of this month—and I promised consideration, which I will certainly give, to the matters that were placed before me; but I can give no undertaking as to legislation.

Betting (Legislation)

41.

asked the Home Secretary whether the Government have yet decided upon the provisions of the new betting legislation?

A Bill is in course of preparation, but I am unable to anticipate its provisions.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill is likely to be introduced?

I cannot give any definite undertaking. Before very long.

World Economic Conference

43.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any statement to make with regard to the World Economic Conference?

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in his speech at Leeds on the 23rd January, the monetary and financial situation is not at present one which affords a prospect of successfully carrying further the work of the Conference, but His Majesty's Government will continue to watch the position carefully.

United States (British Debt)

44.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to resume negotiations on the subject of Britain's War Debt to America at an early date?

As stated in the White Paper published on the 7th November last (Command Paper No. 4448), His Majesty's Government will be ready to resume negotiations whenever, after consultation with the President of the United States, it may appear that this can usefully be done. My right hon. Friend is not at present in a position to add anything to this statement.

Have the United States Government given any indication that the time is opportune to discuss this matter?

That is covered by the answer that I have given.

I do not appreciate that that is a reply, Mr. Speaker.

Air Power

46.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the officially announced decisions of the Soviet, United States, Belgian, Swiss, and Japanese Governments to strengthen their air forces forthwith; and whether, having regard to this country's dependence on air power, and the fact that we rank fifth in terms of first-line strength, His Majesty's Government will bring the situation under early review?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, His Majesty's Government are fully alive both to the importance of air power to this country and to the present relative inferiority of the Royal Air Force in terms of first-line strength. As my hon. and gallant Friend will be aware, His Majesty's Government have, in fact, throughout made it their earnest endeavour to secure parity for the principal air Powers at the lowest level on which international agreement can be secured.

British Broadcasting Corporation

48.

asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to appoint a committee to review the present and future working of the Broadcasting Corporation before the charter of the Corporation next falls to be renewed?

I have been asked to reply to this question. The Charter granted to the British Broadcasting Corporation does not expire till the 31st December, 1936. As the present Charter has nearly three years to run, it would at present be premature to appoint a Committee to consider whether, and if so in what form, it should be renewed.

House Of Commons (Procedure)

49.

asked the Prime Minister if he can now make a statement of the proposals which the Government intend to make to the House, as a result of the report of the Committee on its procedure?

My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that the recommendation relating to the Estimates Committee has already been dealt with, as well as the suggestion relating to the revision of the Standing Orders of the House. I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the remaining Recommendations contained in the report of the Select Committee on procedure.

Coal Industry

Reorganisation

50.

asked the Prime Minister what action the Government proposes to take as a result of the failure to co-operate by the Mining Association of Great Britain and the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the report made by the Reorganisation Commission to the Secretary for Mines, and presented by him to this House, in which indication is given of the action which the Reorganisation Commission are taking.

Is the Prime Minister not aware of the urgency of this situation, which has already resulted in the importation of foreign coal into this country?

I am not aware that the conclusion which the hon. Gentleman draws is accurately drawn. The Government are fully aware of the urgency of the situation, but certain procedure, as the hon. Gentleman knows, will have to be taken and tested before the Government can take any further action.

May I ask whether the Prime Minister is aware that firms on the Thames have been unable to secure adequate and prompt supplies of suitable British coal?

That question had better go to the Department.

Supplies (Foreign Purchase)

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been called to the importation of 1,600 tons of coal from Poland at a cost of 15s. 9d. per ton delivered to a London wharf, and that this was in consequence of deliveries from British collieries having been in arrears with their commitments; and whether, as plenty of British coal is available for all purposes, and in view of the large number of unemployed in the British coalfields, he will immediately take steps to prevent a repetition of this?

I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for giving me an opportunity of making a full statement with regard to the delivery of 1,600 tons of Polish coal to Messrs. Bowater's Paper Mills at Gravesend. I have taken advantage of the offer made by that firm to investigate the statements included in their published announcement of the 14th January, and I am satisfied that there were arrears on some of their contracts, that in consequence their stocks of coal were depleted, and that their contractors advised them that they were in difficulties in obtaining British coal. I have been in communication with the contractors, one of whom endeavoured to obtain a cargo for Messrs. Bowater's outside their contracts, and they inform me that their inquiries were pursued "in the ordinary commercial manner and with more than the usual commercial diligence." In these circumstances, I deemed it necessary to ask the Central Council of Colliery Owners to ascertain whether it was possible to obtain from the collieries in the last weeks of December a cargo of at least 1,600 tons of suitable coal for delivery not later than the early part of January.

The Central Council's inquiry covered all the coal shipping districts, all of which replied that they would have been able to supply the required cargo within the stipulated time. I will, however, give details only in respect of Scotland and Northumberland, the districts from which Messrs. Bowater's normally draw their supplies. In Scotland, five important collieries could each have supplied the coal required, and I understand that one of these collieries, early in December, offered one of Messrs. Bowater's contractors an extra cargo of 1,500 tons of Pearls for shipment to the Thames during the month, which the contractors were unable to accept. 1,350 tons of this cargo were actually retained in trucks and carried over the Christmas and New Year holidays. Three other Scottish collieries could have supplied part cargoes of suitable coals which in total would have more than covered Messrs. Bowater's immediate requirements, as reflected by the Polish cargo bought by them. Nine important collieries in Northumberland have stated that they could have supplied suitable coal at the time mentioned.

I have no doubt that Messrs. Bowater's were genuinely concerned about the position of their coal supplies, and, on the advice they received from one of their contractors, considered that the situation justified the purchase of foreign coal. I am, however, satisfied that there was, in fact, no need whatever to import Polish coal to meet the requirements, which could have been met as promptly from British sources of supply.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether he has submitted already to Messrs. Bowater the reply which he has read out to the House, and given them any opportunity of making their observations upon it?

Why?

Is it not rather unfair to make a statement which reflects upon a firm without having given them that opportunity? Further, I would like to ask my hon. Friend whether he has had brought to his notice further complaints from other firms on the banks of the Thames that they are unable to obtain suitable British coal in adequate quantities, and promptly?

I do not know why my hon. Friend should assume anything of the kind. I think he had better inquire from Messrs. Bowater about the matter. That is all I need say about it at the moment. With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I have received no other complaint. There is no evidence whatever of shortage of coal owing to the quota. During the last quarter of 1933, the allotment made by the Central Council under the Coal Mines Scheme to those coalfields which cater for the Thames exceeded their annual output by over 500,000 tons. During that quarter Northumberland and Scotland both applied for, and secured, two additional allotments.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware whether the coal that he is talking about could have been supplied to the mills that are mentioned at the same price as their contract price?

I am aware that Messrs. Bowater have specifically stated that price was not an issue in this matter.

Does not this propaganda convince the Secretary for Mines that it is high time that His Majesty's Government brought in a comprehensive Bill to supersede the Act of 1930?

My hon. Friend is drawing large conclusions on a very small basis.

Was the failure of the original contractors to supply the quantity of coal required due to the operation of the quota system, and, if so, at what date was the allocation made to the particular contractors, and how was it, if the allocation was made at a suitable period, that they were unable to fulfil the contract?

The contractor concerned was only one of those who normally supply Messrs. Bowater. The others were not concerned. My answer has shown, although they alleged great energy, that their inquiries could not have been as widespread as they might have been of the people who normally operate in the trade.

Has the hon. Gentleman any knowledge, official or otherwise, of any further orders being placed for Polish coal by British firms?

I have made the most careful inquiries, and I know of no other cargo coming to Great Britain.

Is it not a fact that a cargo of Scottish coal consigned to Messrs. Bowater arrived two days before the cargo of Polish coal?

I should not like to answer that in the affirmative, because there are other issues involved. There was some delay in the unloading of the coal.

Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that his Department will endeavour to expedite the allocations, particularly the additional allocations, in order that the collieries concerned, when they are faced with a situation like this, may be able to look ahead and be in a position to fill orders under contracts which they obtain?

The answer is that the Department does everything it can with promptitude and dispatch. In regard to allocation, the new system, as has been shown by the results of the last six months, has proved elastic enough for areas to get, not one additional allocation inside the period, but two.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that modern plant has been erected to burn certain grades of coal, and that other coals are inefficient or impossible to burn? Is he also aware that there were at least five firms on the Thames in desperation for coal during November and December—one, burning over 1,000 tons a week, had less than 200 tons—and they found it impossible to get coal of their particular grade? Will the hon. Gentleman give a list of the collieries which could have supplied Messrs. Bowater with suitable sized coal?

I am well aware, and all those concerned with the trade are aware, of the new problem which has arisen between large and graded fuel, owing to the new demand and the new technique in using graded fuel. That is not only a problem here, but is a world-wide problem. As far as that problem is technical, my Department is in the closest touch with the trade on the matter, and the coalowners themselves are considering the matter of the large as against the graded fuel. More than that, the Fuel Research Board at the moment is engaged in the investigation of breaking down large coal in order to meet this new demand.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this attack on the quota is really directed to lowering the price of coal and to reducing miners' wages?

In this case, the firm have made it abundantly clear that price was not in issue, and, in the event, as a matter of fact, the coal was actually dearer.

National Finance

Customs Duties

51.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of Customs duties that have been collected during the years 1931, 1932 and 1933, respectively?

The net revenue from Customs duties during the years in question was:

In 1931, £130,825,148;
In 1932, £162,153,862, and
In 1933, £175,284,578.

Unemployment Benefit

52.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the cost of restoring one-half of the cuts made to unemployment benefits in 1931?

I have been asked to reply. The restoration of one-half of the reduction in rates of benefit made in October, 1931, would increase the amount of benefit, in respect of the present number of claimants, by about £2,200,000 per annum. This figure does not include transitional payments.

Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to say whether, when circumstances permit, the restoration of these benefits will be the first consideration of the Government?

Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the very great cut of something like 30 per cent. on those who used to receive interest on War Loan?

Tax Collection

54.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will so frame his Budget that it shall be possible to give consideration to proposals which may be put forward with a view to remedying injustices which are inherent in the present methods of tax collection?

I am afraid that my right hon. Friend can neither anticipate his Budget statement nor give any assurance as to the framework of its proposals.

Monetary Policy

55.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government will consider reducing the gold content of the pound and establishing a new gold parity; and whether he can form any estimate of the consequent capital loss on our foreign investments?

No, Sir. Such a proposal would be inappropriate in present circumstances. My right hon. Friend has repeatedly stated the conditions which must be fulfilled before this country can safely return to the gold standard. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Are the Government satisfied that it is in the best interest of British industry and those employed therein that the Bank of England should continue as a private concern over which this House has no control?

Germany (British Creditors)

56.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Reichsbank Central Committee to reduce from 50 to 30 per cent. the cash interest payments transferable to foreign long and medium term creditors; and whether it is proposed to take any action to protect the rights of British creditors?

These questions are at present being discussed between the German authorities and the representatives of the foreign creditors of Germany. His Majesty's Government earnestly hope that these discussions will result in an agreement satisfactory to the British creditors, in which case the second part of the question will not arise.

Transport

Road Accidents (Government Action)

58.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now state what steps he is taking to reduce the number of road accidents?

59.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to state what steps he proposes to take to reduce the perils of the roads?

The Government is deeply concerned at the grave position shown by the recently published returns of road accidents during 1933, and has decided to introduce legislation to deal with the subject at an early date. Apart from any legislation proposed, I have considered further steps which can be taken by Regulation, or by other administrative action.

I also desire to bring home to the public during the next few months the nature of the loss caused by road accidents, and the extent to which they can be prevented by the exercise of reasonable care and consideration for others on the part of all users of the highway. I shall in due course appeal to the Press, the British Broadcasting Corporation and the film industry for their co-operation and assistance. I have also made a contribution from the Road Fund towards the cost of a special campaign for the promotion of road safety, which the National Safety-First Association have projected for the spring and summer of the present year, and which in the main will be directed towards a development and extension of their local activities in the more important centres of population throughout the country. I look with confidence to the co-operation and assistance of local authorities and other public bodies, as well as the motoring organisations and associations of motor manufacturers, in this concerted effort to reduce the perils at present attending the use of the public roads.

Has the Minister any means of knowing how many accidents are caused through the practice of keeping to the left on the footpath?

Railway Bridge, Queen's Road, Milfs Platting

60.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will release the grant previously allocated, and then held up, for the widening of the railway bridge over Queen's Road, Miles Platting, Manchester, in order that this narrow and dangerous part may be removed?

No definite proposals have been submitted by the Manchester Corporation for the widening of this bridge, and no grant has at any time been allocated to the purpose. The roadway on each side has, however, been widened, and if the Corporation submit a scheme for widening the bridge, I am prepared to give it consideration, having regard to the funds available for grants to schemes of this character.

Royal Commission On Licensing (Legislation)

39.

(for Mr. RHYS DAVIES) asked the Home Secretary whether the Government will introduce legislation at an early date to give effect to the Report of the Royal Commission on Licensing?

It will not be possible for the Government to undertake any such legislation during the present Session.

Will the Government give an undertaking that they will not bring in any legislation dealing with the trade during this Session? Can I have an answer from the Prime Minister?

Unemployment (Statistics)

26.

asked the Minister of Labour the latest figures for unemployment?

At 18th December, 1933, the latest date for which statistics are available, there were 2,224,079 unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain.

Russia (Lena Goldfields, Limited)

(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals have been made by the Russian Soviet Government in the course of the negotiations relating to a new trade agreement between this country and Russia with regard to the demand of the British Government for the arbitral award of £13,000,000 in favour of Lena Goldfields, Limited?

An intimation has been received from the Soviet Government that if the company were to inform the Concessions Committee that they had not been able to accept the former offer made to them but were ready to resume negotiations, the committee would respond favourably. It was added that the mere fact of a resumption of negotiations would indicate a mutual amendment of terms. His Majesty's Government have accordingly advised the company to send the Concessions Committee a letter proposing to send representatives to Moscow to discuss the claim on the understanding that the terms would be materially amended on both sides. The company have decided to adopt this course.

Was not this proposal forced upon the company by the British Government, and is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that it would place the company in a very embarrassing position owing to the fact that they have been asked to reduce, not the award, but the minimum sum they said they would accept in full settlement some time ago?

I cannot add to the statement I have made except that I trust that negotiations will come to a satisfactory issue.

Will there be some time limit to the negotiations? Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that, when similar negotiations took place in Berlin last year, they went on for three months and nothing came of them?

Are we to understand that the negotiations for an Anglo-Russian Trade Treaty are to be held up because of these negotiations in the affairs of a private company?

Perhaps the right hon. Baronet will read the statement I have made, to which I have nothing to add.

Metropolitan Special Constabulary (Motor Insurance)

(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he can state the result of his inquiries regarding a circular issued to members of the Metropolitan Special Constabulary on the subject of a scheme of motor car insurance?

I have made inquiries regarding the circular my bon. Friend was good enough to bring to my notice. I find that the circular was issued from the headquarters of the Metropolitan Special Constabulary to commandants of the Special Constabulary Reserve, primarily for the information of members of the Special Constabulary who are registered as having cars which they are prepared to use on official duty. The terms of the circular have, I regret to say, given rise to misapprehension, and the Commissioner of Police has given instructions that a further circular is to be issued to the Special Constabulary. This will make it clear that the acceptance of any scheme of car insurance put forward by any insurance company or firm of insurance brokers is entirely a matter for each individual special constable. The Commissioner and Receiver are only concerned to see that before a special constable's car is used on official police duty the policy in force in respect of the car fully covers such use and in- demnifies the Police Fund against any claim. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of this further circular and propose to have it printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Do we understand the circular is now to be withdrawn?

The new circular which will be issued will make the position perfectly clear.

Following is the circular:

NOTICE.

With reference to the notice issued last month to certain members of the Special Constabulary concerning motor car insurance policies, the Commissioner of Police is anxious to remove misapprehensions which have arisen as a result of this circular. The Commissioner wishes to make it perfectly clear that the acceptance of any scheme for the insurance of cars owned by special constables put forward by any insurance company or firm of insurance brokers is entirely a matter for each individual special constable. The Commissioner is only concerned to satisfy himself that, if a special constable has agreed to use his car, should occasion arise, on police duty, such use is fully covered by the policy in force in respect of the car, and that, in particular, the Receiver is indemnified against any claim arising out of an accident to the insured vehicle while so used. It should be clearly understood that so long as a special constable's policy is satisfactory from this point of view he is not under any obligation whatever to accept any particular scheme of insurance which may be brought to his notice or to change his policy from his present company. Any special constable who is in doubt on this point should refer to the Commandant of the Division to which he is attached for advice.

WALTER ALLEN,

Commandant-in-Chief, Metropolitan Special Constabulary Reserve.

Business Of The House

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what business he proposes to take to-day in view of the notice of Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule?

We are not moving that Motion.

New Member Sworn

Wilfred Paling, esquire, for the County of York, West Riding (Wentworth Division).

Ballot For Notices Of Motions

Imperial Defence

I beg to give notice that, on Wednesday week, I shall call attention to the inadequate defences of Great Britain and the Empire from foreign attacks and move a Resolution.

Trade With Russia

I beg to give notice that, on Wednesday next, I shall call attention to the position of trade with Russia, and move a Resolution.

Road Accidents

I beg to give notice that, on Wednesday week, I shall call attention to the serious increase of road accidents, and move a Resolution.

Empire Population (Redistribution)

I beg to give notice that, on Wednesday next, I shall call attention to the redistribution of the population of the Empire, and move a Resolution.

Slum Clearance

I beg to give notice that, on Wednesday week, I shall call attention to certain inquiries which have been made in certain boroughs on slum clearance, and move a Resolution.

Retiring Pensions

I beg to give notice that, on Wednesday next, I shall call attention to the necessity for providing retiring pensions at 60 years of age, and move a Resolution.

Ex-Service Men

I beg to give notice that, on Wednesday next, I shall call attention to certain matters relating to ex-service men, and move a Resolution.

Foreign Trade

I beg to give notice that, on Wednesday week, I shall call attention to the stagnation of British foreign trade, and move a Resolution.

Orders Of The Day

Unemployment Bill

Considered in Committee [1 st Allotted Day].

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clause 1—(Age For Entry Into Insurance And Rate Of Contributions In Respect Of Persons Under Sixteen)

Mr. Cove.

3.58 p.m.

On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman. May I raise the question of the first Amendment on the Paper in the names of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and myself to leave out Sub-section (1)? I had hoped that the Amendment would have been called, because it raises the whole question of whether children of 14 ought to be within insurance at all. I intended to submit to you, before we came to discuss any of the conditions arising out of insurance, that we ought to discuss, first of all, the principle of whether it is wise or not to have children between the ages of 14 and 16 included in insurance at all.

I can tell the hon. Member why I am not selecting the Amendment; it is because I think that it would be better to raise this point on the question of the Clause standing part. It is our practice that the Committee discusses the details of a Clause before it discusses the principle of the Clause on the question whether the Clause as a whole should stand part.

4.0 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out from "Acts" to "of," in line 7, and to insert, "in respect."

The Minister, when he introduced this Bill, made the House realise that the problem of the unemployed juvenile was one with which the Government were gravely concerned, and, apparently, from the statement of the Minister, the Government had given the matter long, anxious and, indeed, very serious consideration. After all their consideration of this problem, which is grave in its magnitude at the present moment, and will become increasingly grave in the next few years, it appears that the contribution of the Government to this very serious problem is contained in this Clause. Coupled with the statement of the Minister there was the statement which we had on the previous occasion from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education when the question was put as to whether the Government would raise the school age, and he replied quite definitely that this was the policy which the Government had accepted as far as the juveniles were concerned. There is embodied in this Clause the first provision that is necessary in order to carry out this entirely inadequate policy of the Government in relation to this major and very grave problem which lies immediately before us. It is a proposal which we, on this side, will fight for all we are worth, and will resist with every justification I believe, because it does not meet the problem which confronts us.

The House considered this question on a previous occasion. I well remember the proposal which was brought forward to insure the children, and many of us joined, some of us in opposition to our own Government, to defeat that proposal. It was eventually defeated, because at that time the House, as then constituted, felt very strongly that once we handed over the children to unemployment insurance, those who desired to maintain them in the field of education could give up any hope. It was felt very strongly in the House at that time that insurance would be an effective bar to raising the school age. Then, I well recall later on—I believe in the last Labour Government—it was suggested that the age for insurance should coincide with the school-leaving age. That, undoubtedly, is the principle of the Labour party, but we made it very clear at that time, by the words of the Clause in which that policy was involved, that it should be dependent upon the school age being raised to 15. In this proposal there is no such qualifying or limiting condition.

I think, therefore, that I am fully justified—and in this I am supported by the party for which I speak—in moving this Amendment in order to relieve the children from the payment of the contribution, for one or two very sound reasons. First of all, this is not ordinary insurance. The finances of the scheme, if they are studied, are very revealing and very illuminating. I think that it can be established without a doubt that the finances of the scheme are such that the Exchequer is actually going to make a profit out of the contributions of these children. The Minister spoke as though the Government's heart were bleeding on account of their anxiety for these children. But when we come to the concrete proposals we find that they are going to make the children pay their quota in financing the junior instruction centres. We on this side say quite definitely that this is an iniquitous proposal. If the National Labour Members present were able to take an independent line this afternoon, even they would say that. If my hon. and learned Friend opposite will look into it, he will agree with me. If not, I cannot help the hon. and learned Member's intelligence and lack of application to the Measure. It is certainly true to say that the contribution which these children will pay into the Insurance Fund will be used in part to finance the junior instruction centres. We say that the Insurance Fund as a whole should not be used to finance the junior instruction centres, that none of the money going into the Insurance Fund should finance those centres and that the total financial burden should be borne by the National Exchequer.

If hon. Members will look at the finances involved, I do not think that this can be disputed. I have taken the figures from the Report of the Actuary, and I do not think what I say will be disputed by the Minister. A total contribution income of £760,000 is expected, and the expenditure on junior instruction centres will be £425,000 out of the Insurance Fund, £425,000 out of the Exchequer and £280,000 out of the Exchequer of the local authorities. The £425,000 which this Clause proposes to take towards financing the junior instruction centres is, in our judgment, an iniquitous proposal. If I am wrong, I am quite prepared to be corrected, but I have studied the Actuary's Report with more than usual care, and I find that, whereas the contributions into the fund are calculated for the period from 14 to 16 years of age, the expenditure side for these junior instruction centres is calculated, not from 14 to 16, but from 14 to 18 years of age. That is not a fair way of meeting the case. If we had the matter balanced properly, there should be a balance between the same periods of time, that is, the expenditure period from 14 to 16 years of age ought to be balanced with the income period from 14 to 16. In other words, I think it is fair to remark that the Government are putting on the expenditure side in this scheme a sum round about £200,000 which ought not to be there, that instead of charging the fund with a sum of £425,000 for educating or rather—I had better be careful about words—for keeping these children in junior instruction centres, it ought to be lessened by somewhere about one-half. It is unfair to put into these finances the cost of the junior instruction centres from 16 to 18 years of age. If that is done, instead of £425,000, the figure I say should be somewhere round about £200,000.

If hon. Members will make a budget for themselves, they will find that, instead of the Exchequer having to make a grant towards the deficiency—I believe it is calculated that the deficiency on this part of the fund is about £65,000—if the ages of expenditure coincided with the ages of income, there would not be a deficiency, but there would be a profit on the fund. Therefore, I am right in my previous assertion that the Government, instead of coming forward generously and meeting this situation by throwing the cost even of the junior instruction centres where it ought to be borne, namely, on the National Exchequer, they are making an actual profit out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. We object to it not only because of the way the scheme is financed, but we object to it also in principle. I said previously that this is not insurance. I do not know how any hon. Member, much less the Minister, whose heart, I understood, bled for these children, and who is cognisant of the tremendous problem that lies before him, can get up here and say, "We are going to take twopence from the children, and twopence from the employers and then give no insurance benefit when the children are unemployed." There is no benefit.

We have heard a great deal about the actuarial basis of the Insurance Fund having to be made sound and that it must be solvent, that it must be run on an insurance basis. That has been the great plea of the Government's spokesmen, as I have understood. They have said that it is in the interests of the unemployed that the Unemployment Insurance Fund should be solvent and that it should be a real Insurance Fund. Where is the insurance here? The children will pay their contributions, but it is specifically provided that although they pay their contributions from the age of 14 to 16 no child, if unemployed, has an insurance right to unemployment benefit out of the fund. I think that fact cannot be disputed. It is true that a dependence benefit is provided, but that will come only if the parent and the child are unemployed together. Both must be unemployed. That is in the nature of a dependence benefit and as such it ought to come out of the insurance of the parent and not out of the insurance of the child. Let me put it this way. The sum for paying dependence benefit ought not to be equated against the contributions paid by the children from the age of 14 to 16. That dependence benefit ought not to come out of the contributions paid by the children. The employer and the State ought to meet the charge. The parents pay to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and out of that fund the dependence benefit ought to be paid.

In order to justify the scheme the Government say: "Look how much we are paying out." The only way that they can show that they are paying out as much as is paid is, first, by imposing a cost for juvenile instruction centres which ought not to be there, and secondly, by including the cost for dependence benefit, which ought not to be there. This is not insurance. We have had many debates during the past 10 or 12 years about raising the school age and it has often been said: "You must not give children unemployment benefit; it will demoralise them." It is terribly demoralising to have 2s., 3s., or perhaps 5s. a week unemployment benefit in the case of children, and I suppose that plea is the justification for the action of the Minister. It is proposed to make the children pay 2d. a week contribution and then to prevent them by law from having one penny benefit out of that. I have very definitely come to the conclusion, after watching the youths who have been unemployed, that it is poverty and lack of income that demoralises and that there is no demoralisation in receiving actual cash benefit, especially when it has been paid for, as it is to be paid for under this scheme.

I think the Minister ought to amend the Bill in this respect. I cannot see what reason there can be for refusing unemployment benefit to an unemployed child who has paid into the Insurance Fund. What justification can there be? How can it be said that it is demoralising to the children to receive unemployment benefit? Such a statement is sheer unadulterated humbug. It has been said in the past that the payment of unemployment benefit would stop the raising of the school age and would have educational disadvantages. I cannot believe any such thing. Under this pseudo insurance scheme the Minister of Labour is coming into a field where the Board of Education, ought to be the Department concerned. The finance of the scheme does not justify itself. The general principles of equity are against this imposition. Take the children's contributions away, cut them clean out. On the ground that this is not an insurance scheme. You are making them pay money for benefits which they will not get, and the Minister of Labour is using funds for the training of these children or for the supposed saving of their moral, which ought not to be used.

4.22 p.m.

In supporting the Amendment I want to point out that it is a well-known and accepted principle that money should not be paid without a pro-rata return. I and my friends object to the payment of these twopences by the children at the age of 14, on the ground that we are unable to see that when they have paid their contributions they are going to get any benefit. The Minister has put up a case and all sorts of things are brought in to show where the money is to be spent. We are convinced that, in the main, the payment of this money with respect to the juvenile instruction centres ought not to be charged against the twopenny contributions of the children. The Government are asking children at the age of 14 to pay 2d. a week into an unemployment scheme from which they will get no benefit. It may be thought by many hon. Members that twopence is a very small amount, but from my personal experience even the small sum of twopence taken out of the very meagre earnings of little children assumes a very big proportionate sum. In the constituency which I represent children at the age of 14 go to the neighbouring city of Birmingham to be employed on machines. The wages they are paid are not more than 8s., 9s. or 10s. a week. Out of that they pay fares sometimes to the extent of 3s. or 4s. a week, and meals have to be provided. Sheer economic circumstances in the majority of cases compel poor parents to send their children into the labour market at that age, and 2d. per week is to be stopped from their earnings.

Does it not seem a little mean to build up junior instruction centres out of the twopences of very poor children and their equally poor parents? I have complained and many hon. Members have complained regarding what many of us consider the shameful exploitation of the labour of young children. If the Government desire or declare that this money shall be found in respect of children between the ages of 14 and 16, surely it would not be a very great hardship if the Government found one penny and the employer the other penny. In many instances the employers so shamelessly exploit the labour of young children that I am not sure that it would not be a wise policy to compel the employers to pay the whole of the sixpence, if it was considered necessary. If the parent is unemployed and the child is unemployed at precisely the same time an allowance of 2s. may be paid to the parent in respect of the unemployed child, and it is suggested that that allowance will amount to something like £75,000 a year. It seems rather mean and paltry to charge that sum of £75,000 against the twopenny contributions of the children.

It is stated that the cost of the junior instruction centres to be charged against these twopences will be £425,000. Does it not strike hon. Members that there is something radically wrong when it is suggested in the Bill that children are to be employed at 14 years of age and that at 16 years of age they are to be thrown upon the labour market? Are they too old at 16 for industry? If so, they are presumably to go to the junior instruction centres? What are they to learn there?

The hon. Member is going rather far away from the Amendment.

I am sorry. I suggest that the twopences of the children should not be used for financing the junior instruction centres. The general principle underlying the question of children contributing to the Unemployment Insurance Fund seems to me altogether wrong. There was a time when hon. Members opposite protested very strongly against bringing children into insurance at such an age. It would be better if the Minister would consider whether other ways and means could not be found of dealing with children entering into industry. The cool assumption that children are to be exploited at 14 years of age and thrown into the gutter at the age of 16 makes me shudder to think of the future of young persons in this country. The Committee ought to be able to find far better means of dealing with this problem than extracting twopences from the very meagre pay of children at 14 years of age. Hon. Members would scarcely credit the big proportion that the twopenny contribution assumes in hundreds of thousands of very poor homes. It will be hard to convince their parents that these children when they are out of work ought not to receive any benefit. There will be numerous complaints and protests, and these parents will be justified in declaring that the Minister has no right to extract this money from the pockets of their children and give them nothing in return. The whole method of dealing with this question is altogether wrong and I shall support the Amendment.

4.31 p.m.

I am surprised at some of the arguments put forward by the last two hon. Members on the subject of insurance for young people. They contradict each other. First of all, objection is taken because the scheme is not real insurance, and later we are told that it would be far better if no contributions at all were paid by children between 14 and 16 years of age. These two arguments do not go well together. The interesting point put forward by the Labour party is that what is wanted is real insurance. Hitherto we have been led to believe that hon. Members opposite have not been in favour of real insurance; to-day we have been informed that what is wanted is real insurance. Therefore, if I can prove that these young people are going to be brought into a scheme of real insurance I presume we shall have their wholehearted support and a withdrawal of this Amendment. It ham been said that these young people are to get no benefit, that they are being exploited. For many years those who have been interested in the problem of young people leaving school and taking up work have all been in favour of bridging the gap between the school and work by some scheme. Hon. Members may think that the school age should be raised, but I would draw their attention to the fact that the Bill we are discussing is an Unemployment Bill, not an educational Bill. I have looked carefully through it and cannot find the age of 14 mentioned, it merely refers to the time up to which parents are obliged to keep their children at full time education.

On a point of Order. I had an Amendment on the Paper raising the issue of the school age, but you, Mr. Chairman, in a Ruling which I did not challenge, said that you could not see your way to call that Amendment as it raised the question of the school leaving age. I want to submit respectfully that the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) is now discussing the point which you would not allow me to raise, and I submit that having disallowed my Amendment which raised the issue of the school leaving age it is somewhat unfair to my Amendment if that question is to be discussed on this Amendment.

The hon. Member will realise that he made a slight slip when he said that his Amendment raised the school leaving age. I was watching the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) very carefully and although I do not think she is out of order in what she has said so far, it is clear that we cannot on this Amendment go into a general discussion on the raising of the school leaving age or the insurance age.

I was trying to point out that the question of the school age was not only out of order now but out of order on the Bill as a whole. It is a Bill for unemployment. The point is whether this is real insurance, and whether there is some return for the twopence which the child is to pay. I think it is quite obvious that there is a return of more than the 2s. which the parent who is unemployed is to receive if the child is also unemployed. In no insurance scheme is benefit paid immediately the person enters into insurance; there is always a time of waiting. It is said that during the two years no benefit will be received except by parents who may be unemployed, but I would remind hon. Members opposite that there are benefits after those two years which are coming to the child who is insured. Under the present scheme young persons who enter at the age of 16 do not draw benefit at the age of 16, the earliest time they can draw benefit is 16 years and 30 weeks. Under the scheme in the Bill, having paid in from the age of 14, a child will be able to draw benefit at the age of 16 and will not have to wait those 30 weeks. Furthermore, when the young person has reached the age of 19 he will then come under the new scheme of the five years insurance. He will have a chance to make contributions during the five years, and should he then become unemployed he will be able to draw the longer standard benefit allowed under the Bill for those under the five years insurance scheme.

It will be a great pity if what has been said by hon. Members opposite lead people to believe that twopence is being taken from these young persons and nothing given in return. Hon. Members opposite know the facts as well as we do about insurance. They know that in no case does a person get benefit immediately on paying insurance. I wonder if hon. Members opposite really think it is a bad bargain for the twopence paid during these two years when they calculate the benefits these young persons will receive if at the age of 16 they become unemployed. If they calculate the benefits they will receive I think they will find that the bargain offered to these persons is not a bad bargain. It has been suggested that the whole thing should be paid for by the employers. Would that be insurance? Would that child be able to draw benefit as a right? The moral point of view has been put forward; whether it is right that these young persons should be asked to pay this twopence. I think it would be wrong if they were asked to pay nothing and then at the age of 16 received the dole. It is far better that from the start of their industrial life the boy or girl should realise that a portion of their money is being put aside for the bad days when they will be unemployed. The insurance scheme was wrong when this gap existed, and there was no reason why the boy and girl should be outside the scheme. It was illogical. Therefore this scheme, apart altogether from the instruction that is going to be given, by which these young persons are being called upon to pay a small amount from their weekly wage is on the right lines. We do not want to pauperise these young people; they should be able to enter into the insurance scheme, pay their contributions—not receive everything from the employer and the State—and then, when they draw their benefits, they will be able to realise that they have assisted themselves by their own contributions. For these reasons, apart altogether from the instruction which is to be given which will be of immense benefit, this scheme, bringing these young people in from the start and asking them to help themselves, is on the right lines and I am sure that the people of the country will appreciate it.

4.41 p.m.

I am not going to follow the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) into the question as to whether the age should be 14 or 16. That is not the Amendment we are now discussing. The Amendment has to do with contributions and benefits, and the question as to whether there should be a gap or not is not really the issue. We are discussing the question of contributions and the benefits which a young person between the ages of 14 and 16 years shall pay and receive. On that issue one point has been raised. Why should not a child between the ages of 14 and 16 qualify for benefit with 30 stamps in the same way as other persons? The hon. Member for Dundee made some reference to the "gap," but did not answer that point. She said she was not in favour of pauperising these young persons. If that is the case why does she not allow a child between the ages of 14 and 16 to qualify for insurance in the same way as other persons? If she does not want to pauperise these young persons then why, once you bring them within insurance, should not a child qualify with 30 contributions? That is the issue. Once you bring in young persons between 14 and 16 years of age there is no reason why they should not qualify for benefit at the end of 30 contributions. I know that they are to receive benefit at the age of 16 instead of 16½ years, but our contention is that they should receive benefit at an earlier stage; that they should qualify for benefit once they are brought within the scope of insurance.

There is another important point. It is alleged that there is a benefit of 2s. which is now to be paid to the parent who is unemployed if the child is unemployed. In actual effect, in administration, the 2s. will not be paid in great masses of cases. The child is to get the 2s. only if it fulfils the condition that it is able to get a job, or the parent is not to get the 2s. as a right the moment the child is unemployed. The child has first to prove that it has not been able to get a job or that it has not refused a job. The child is hedged round with restrictions. The parent may be refused the 2s. because of something over which the parent has no control.

It is not the parents' insurance.

The Noble Lady says it is not the parents' insurance but the child's. The point I am discussing is the parents' insurance, the dependants' benefit. The parent is refused the two shillings because the child is alleged to have done something wrong. The parent cannot prove that the allegation is unfounded; the boy is the only person who can do that. The position is that a boy of 14 has to go before the court and prove matters which adults cannot prove at the present time. Some say that children to-day, more than formerly, like to remain at school after the age of 14. I do not dispute that that is so to some extent, but the great mass of children look forward to leaving school. That is so in Scotland even. A child wants to leave school, and the Bill makes it a condition of the two-shillings benefit that the child must go back to a form of school. As a matter of fact at the present time under the existing law two shillings is paid to a parent on the condition that a child attends school. The unemployed parent now gets two shillings until the child reaches the age of 16. All the difference that the Bill makes is that a child is able to receive unemployment benefit at 16 instead of at sixteen and a half. Apart from that there is nothing at all in the Bill for the child.

4.50 p.m.

I do not mind a real fight, but I object to a sham fight, and it seems to me that the opposition to this proposal affecting juveniles is absolutely sham from start to finish. Hon. Members forget that the point of insuring these children is to close a gap. Hon. Members know that in the last Parliament we had no way of controlling the employment of children.

The Noble Lady is discussing the Clause now. She must confine her remarks to the question raised in the Amendment.

The discussion has been fairly broad. The last speaker referred to the school age.

I did not discuss the school age.

I was talking about employment. The whole point of the Clause is that children can go into employment at 14 and will not be allowed——

The Amendment does not raise the whole point of the Clause. That can be raised on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

We all know perfectly well that the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has been longing for legislation like this. He has asked for it, but now that the Government are bringing it in he gets up in pretended passion as if we on our side were not interested in juveniles.

I hear the voice of a guilty conscience.

No, the voice of an honest woman facing a dishonest Opposition.

Let us assume that a child between 14 and 16 gets 20 weeks' work and then becomes unemployed and cannot get work again for two years. Would that child be qualified at 16 to receive the benefit, or is it compelled to have 30 stamps before it is qualified for benefit?

4.56 p.m.

I rise at this stage because it would probably be for the convenience of the Committee to clear away this Amendment before discussing the really substantial question raised in the Clause as a whole. I shall deliberately refrain from dealing with the points about bridging the gap and raising the school age, because they come up more properly on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." In reply to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne), as to whether 30 contributions would be necessary before qualifying for benefit, the answer is in the affirmative. Let me pass to the Amendment. It is really of a limited character. The Mover said that the child should not be called upon to contribute anything, but that the other contributions, those of the employer and of the Treasury, should remain. If you eliminate the contribution of the child, automatically you cut in half the contribution of the Exchequer, because the Exchequer contribution is half the contribution of the employer and of the child. Under the finance of this scheme it is contemplated that the total income from contributions will be £760,000 or to be exact £759,000. Of that the Exchequer contribution will be one-third, or £253,000. If you cut down the Exchequer contribution by one-half, the result will be that the £760,000 income will be reduced by £126,000 to £634,000.

If you do not take any children's contributions you further reduce the income by £253,000, which it is estimated will be the total of the children's contributions. Therefore, you will have a fund, not of £760,000, but of not more than £380,000. If this scheme is a good scheme, quite clearly that fund would be insufficient to meet the purposes for which we want it. It has been suggested that the Exchequer is behaving in a rather niggardly way in the matter, that it is making no real contribution at all, and suggestions have even gone so far as to imply that this really is a scheme to be financed out of the children's pence. On a basis of about 100,000 children attending the centres, it is estimated that the additional cost of the centres will be £1,130,000. With regard to this estimate of 100,000 children, let me remind the Committee of a fact which I am sure the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has not forgotten, namely, that we are approaching a time when the number of children leaving school will be considerably in excess of what we have had in previous years. In making this estimate I deliberately fixed the number of children at a rather high figure having that fact in mind.

Let me point out what will be the cost to the Exchequer in this matter. It is a very considerable sum. It is open to hon. Members to take the view that it is inadequate, or, on the other hand, to take the view that it is not an ungenerous contribution. But let me point out to the Committee what the Exchequer is actually doing. First, it is paying normally a half of 75 per cent. of the total cost of the centres. It will be remembered that the cost is to be borne as to 25 per cent. by the local authority, and, of the remaining 75 per cent., half is borne by the fund and half by the Exchequer.

Why should the fund pay half of it?

I am trying to show what the figures are, and the hon. Member can comment upon them afterwards. The half of the 75 per cent. of the cost comes to £425,000. That is to be borne by the Exchequer. In addition, it pays, of course, a one-third of the total contribution—that is, the child pays 2d., the employer pays 2d., and the Exchequer pays 2d. The Exchequer's one-third of the contribution is estimated to come to £253,000, and that added to the figure which I have already given, makes a total of £678,000 additional to be paid by the Exchequer. When hon. Members criticise the action of the Government let them not forget that that very considerable sum is being paid by the Exchequer for this service. Now we come to the question of what the children will get out of it, and I propose to give one or two further sets of figures in view of the criticism which has been made to the effect that the children are being asked to pay their twopences and are not getting their money's worth. As the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) has pointed out, no less than £230,000 will be the cost of lowering the age of benefit from 16½ years to 16. A child in future will not have to wait until the age of 16½, but will have the benefits and advantages of insurance at 16.

Assuming that he has 30 stamps.

And subject to conditions. Every one of these children will be subject to conditions which do not now apply. You are imposing extra conditions.

No.

Oh, yes.

I am prepared to argue that point with the hon. Gentleman, but what is certain, at any rate, is that in future the child gets at the age of 16 what formerly he did not get until he was 16½ and, as I say, that is going to cost £230,000. Then there is the 2s. benefit in respect of the unemployed child of an unemployed insured parent. I should have thought that that was an additional advantage and that it would at any rate be of some use to the unemployed parent with an unemployed child.

He has to pay £500,000.

The hon. Member is scarcely doing justice to the proposal.

I divided it up. Is it not true that the figure is £253,000? He is paying that for two years. He is paying from 14 to 15 and he is paying from 15 to 16. Then he is given £230,000.

On the other hand he is getting, first, the advantage of the reduction of the age of benefit from 16½ to 16 and he is also getting the advantage of these courses of instruction, to which I attach great importance. In addition, the contributions under the age of 16 will have value when we come to consider the child's interest under the ratio rule for additional benefit at a later age. As I say, it is open to hon. Members to take the view that it is a bad scheme or a good scheme. I am certain of this, that in the interests of the children it is the very best scheme that has been put before the House of Commons for a very long time. The passing of this Amendment would necessarily mean the end of the scheme, and therefore those who vote for it will incur a responsibility which I think they will regret.

5.10 p.m.

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not met our case. We do not propose in view of the curtailment of debate to divide on every Amendment, but we must divide on Amendments of substance and we regard this as an Amendment of substance. I hope later to have something to say on other questions which have been hinted at in the course of this Debate, but the discussion of which has been prohibited; the proposal of the Clause which is now before the Committee, however, is a simple one. It is to reduce the age at which children enter unemployment insurance from 16 to 14, but not to give them the benefits which ought to accrue to them as insured persons between those ages. That is the proposal of the Bill. It is a financial swindle. It is based on very good bookkeeping, from the Government's point of view, but men are in prison for the same kind of bookkeeping. It is dishonest accountancy. I am not an accountant, but I can add up honest figures. These are not honest figures. We are told by the Minister that the three sets of contributors will contribute £760,000 per year. That is the income side.

The expenditure side includes benefit after the age of 16, during 30 weeks of insurance only, amounting to £230,000. The whole purpose of such a scheme as this is insurance against unemployment. But those who are now to be brought into it will have no insurance against unemployment until they are 16, and then they get it 30 weeks earlier than would otherwise have been the case. That as I say is going to cost £230,000. If I were a financier I should like to run an insurance scheme of that kind. The people concerned in the scheme will by that time have paid in £1,500,000—£760,000 per year—and all that is to be paid out to the insured persons is £230,000. I do not think it honest but it is very good high finance. The insured children themselves will have paid £500,000 and at the end of two years these youngsters in the aggregate will draw £230,000.

Suppose the unemployment situation were to improve very much and that all these people were in employment and no benefit had to be paid out at all, would the right hon. Gentleman regard it as a fraud—as he has just now described it?

If the Government are so confident that the unemployment situation is going to improve in the future then the terms of this scheme represent a bigger swindle than ever. The second item of expenditure which is loaded into the other side of the account is the payment of dependents benefit. What is the position of the juvenile between 14 and 16? If he is out of work he gets nothing unless both he and his father are unemployed together. Under successive Insurance Acts a parent has been given the right to receive benefit in aid of his dependants. This additional £75,000 goes to the parent. The child has no right to receive it. The parent receives it and it ought to be regarded as an addition to the normal expenditure of the fund. After all it is very small. The law of the land to-day is that if a child remains at school after the end of the term in which he reaches the age of 14, then in the event of the parent being unemployed, dependant's benefit continues to be paid in respect of that child up to the age of 16. Now we are putting into the hands of the Minister the power to compel children to attend training centres. The educational aspect of the matter can be discussed on another occasion, but this is merely a small extension of the existing law of the land and it is unjustifiable to load that side of the account with the expenditure of £75,000.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, as a matter of practice, that the unemployment money ought to go to the parents of the children rather than to children under 16. Would he not rather have it that way if it were the case of his own child? I am sure his wife would.

The Noble Lady is always interesting but usually irrelevant. That is not the point with which I am dealing. These children are minors and, no doubt, the parents would handle the money if they had benefit. The point that I am making is that these children are compelled to contribute, but that they do not, in respect of their own unemployment, receive unemployment insurance benefit, whether it is handled by them or by their parents. Now I come to what I regard as the greatest hoax in all this bookkeeping account—this weighting of the scheme with a very considerable proportion of the cost of courses of instruction. These children are expected to pay 2d. per week for two years, to contribute a substantial proportion of the cost of the training courses, from the years 14 to 18. Either this is an educational service or it is not. I cannot argue that point at this stage, but if the Minister is regarding this as an unemployment service, it ought to fall upon the community as a whole and not upon the fund in the way that it is going to do. The right hon. Gentleman assumed an attendance of 100,000 at these juvenile training centres, and he said he did so——

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that that would come under another Clause?

The only point that I am arguing is the figure. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the cost of £425,000.

I thought the right hon. Gentleman was getting on to the general question of instruction centres.

No, Sir. I will observe your Ruling. As I understood the right hon. Gentleman, he is basing his cost of the scheme, the £425,000 per year, on an attendance of 100,000, and his argument was that of this cost the State paid 37½ per cent. That is far less than it is paying for any education in this country to-day conducted by local authorities. This kind of training is necessitated by economic circumstances over which no local authority has control. Why should a local authority be expected to pay 25 per cent., the contributors to the scheme a very substantial proportion, and the State less than it is providing for any other educational service in this country? When the right hon. Gentleman says that it is not only £425,000, but also the State's contribution and that therefore the cost is £678,000, that, I think, is really comic arithmetic. What about the £230,000 which the juveniles are contributing to this scheme? Those figures really ought to be excluded. We do not believe that this is the right way to deal with this question. We believe that this scheme, in its financial arrangements, is mean and unworthy of any Government, we believe that juveniles are being exploited under this scheme to help the solvency of the fund, we believe that this kind of bookkeeping is not straightforward and honest, and we think that in these circumstances those of us on these benches are entitled to carry our views into the Lobby and to vote in favour of the Amendment.

5.19 p.m.

A great deal has been said about the 2d. which is to be contributed for two years by these children before they come into benefit; that is, assuming that all the children start at 14. I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether, assuming that a child started at 15 and contributed for only one year, that child could then receive benefit at 16 instead of 16½, provided, of course, that it paid 30 contributions?

5.20 p.m.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say why a child who has contributed 30 stamps should not be entitled under an insurance scheme to receive benefit for the 30 stamps, even if the age was below 16? Would it not be better to put them on the same rate of contribution as people over 16 and give them their insurance rights at 30 stamps, the same as anybody else? Why is the child differentiated against on this alleged insurance principle?

Before the Minister answers, I would say that I do not want to cut out these points in so far as they refer to this Amendment, but hon. Members will realise that the Minister, in replying, must not go into detail.

5.22 p.m.

The answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) is "Yes." The answer to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is that it is a matter of opinion. We do not think it is to the advantage and benefit of a child between 14 and 16 to draw what is called the "dole." As a matter of principle, we do not think it is to the child's own advantage that it should draw this.

5.23 p.m.

I do not know whether I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but he said that of the cost of this educational scheme the Exchequer would only bear 37 per cent. I have in front of me the Financial Memorandum on the Bill, in which it is pointed out that the Exchequer will pay half of the immediate charge.

One-half of 75 per cent. of the cost.

But the fund also bears part, and that fund has been contributed as to one-third by the Exchequer, and I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman took that into account.

The whole of my point on that side of my argument was that it was improper to take contributions into account at all in that respect.

It is an ultimate charge on the fund, and you should take into account everything that the Exchequer pays.

5.24 p.m.

I want to enter my protest against the use of the word "dole" by the Minister a moment or two ago.

Division No. 67.]	AYES.	[5.25 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke	Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Conant, R. J. E.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Brass, Captain Sir William	Cook, Thomas A.
Agnew, Lleut.-Com. P. G.	Briant, Frank	Cooke, Douglas
Albery, Irving James	Broadbent, Colonel John	Copeland, Ida
Alexander, Sir William	Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)	Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Browne, Captain A. C.	Cranborne, Viscount
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Buchan, John	Craven-Ellis, William
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Crooke, J. Smedley
Apsley, Lord	Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Aske, Sir Robert William	Burnett, John Gege	Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Crossley, A. C.
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.	Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)	Culverwell, Cyrll Tom
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm	Dalkelth, Earl of
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Caporn, Arthur Cecll	Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Balniel, Lord	Carver, Major William H.	Davles, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Dawson, Sir Phillp
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Chamberiain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)	Denman, Hon. R. D.
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathanlel	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Denville, Alfred
Bernays, Robert	Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)	Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.	Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Dickie, John P.
Blindell, James	Clarke, Frank	Donner, P. W.
Boulton, W. W.	Clarry, Reginald George	Doran, Edward
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Clayton, Sir Christopher	Drewe, Cedric
Bower, Lleut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Cobh, Sir Cyril	Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Duggan, Hubert John

I willingly withdraw that word, and I am sorry that I used it.

I hope that in the course of this Debate we shall not use the word "dole." I most emphatically object to it, and I know many self-respecting unemployed men who object to it. This fund is supposed to be a solvent fund, and the word "dole" is not at all fit to use here in any sense whatever, and I protest against it. I want to add that this is, in my opinion, a niggardly method of dealing with an entirely new problem. We have to bear in mind that the Government are now dealing manifestly with the emergence of a new problem in our country's industry. I think most men of my age at any rate, and probably of a decade or two younger than myself, recognise that until very recently the question of unemployment among juveniles never arose at all. There was no question of boys being out of work. Always there was employment for young boys and young girls, but now——

I think the hon. Member should raise that point on the Clause.

I just wanted to draw attention to that fact.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 303; Noes, 41.

Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington, N.)	Leckie, J. A.	Remer, John R.
Eden, Robert Anthony	Leech, Dr. J. W.	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Lees-Jones, John	Rickards, George William
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson	Levy, Thomas	Ropner, Colonel L.
Elmley, Viscount	Liddell, Waiter S.	Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)	Ross, Ronald D.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Liewellin, Major John J.	Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)	Runge, Norah Cecil
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)	Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)	Russell, Albert (Kirkcaidy)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)	Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Flint, Abraham John	Lyons, Abraham Montagu	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Mabane, William	Salt, Edward W.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)	MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Fracer, Captain Ian	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Fremantle, Sir Francis	McCorquodale, M. S.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Gillett, Sir George Masterman	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Savery, Samuel Servington
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	McEwen, Captain J. H. F.	Selley, Harry R.
Glossop, C. W. H	McKie, John Hamilton	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton	Shaw, Heien B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.	Macmillan, Maurice Harold	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forlar)
Goff, Sir Park	Macquisten, Frederick Alexander	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Gower, Sir Robert	Maltland, Adam	Skelton, Archlbald Noel
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest	Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot	Smithers, Waldron
Greene, William P. C.	Mander, Geoffrey le M.	Somervell, Sir Donald
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro', W.)	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Soper, Richard
Grimston, R. V.	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Southby, Commander Archlbald R. J.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.	Martin, Thomas B.	Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Guy, J. C. Morrison	Mellor, Sir Richard James	Spens, William Patrick
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)	Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)	Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Hanbury, Cecll	Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)	Storey, Samuel
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Moreing, Adrian C.	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Harris, Sir Percy	Morgan, Robert H.	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Hartington, Marquess of	Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hartland, George A.	Moss, Captain H. J.	Summersby, Charles H.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)	Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n,S.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)	Munro, Patrick	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)	Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald	Thompson, Sir Luke
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Thompson, Sir Frederick Charles
Hepworth, Joseph	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Normand, Rt. Hon. Wllfrid	Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswlnford)
Holdsworth, Herbert	North, Edward T.	Train, John
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Nunn, William	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Horobin, Ian M.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Turton, Robert Hugh
Horsbrugh, Florence	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.	Wallace, John (Duntermilne)
Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.	Patrick, Colin M.	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Peake, Captain Osbert	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)	Pearson, William G.	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Peat, Charles U.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Penny, Sir George	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Perkins, Walter R. D.	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)	Peters, Dr. Sidney John	Weymouth, Viscount
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Petherick, M.	White, Henry Graham
Jamieson, Douglas	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)	Whyte, Jardine Bell
Janner, Barnett	Ptckford, Hon. Mary Ada	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato	Procter, Major Henry Adam	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)	Pyhus, Sir Percy John	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)	Ramsbotham, Herwald	Withers, Sir John James
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)	Remsden, Sir Eugene	Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Kerr, Hamilton W.	Ratcliffe, Arthur	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Knight, Holford	Rea, Walter Russell	Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Knox, Sir Alfred	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Law, Sir Alfred	Reid, William Allan (Derby)	Mr. Womersley and Dr. Morris-Jones.

NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Cape, Thomas	Edwards, Charles
Attlee, Clement Richard	Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Banfield, John William	Cove, William G.	Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Batey, Joseph	Cripps, Sir Stafford	Grundy, Thomas W.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Dagger, George	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Hicks, Ernest George
Buchanan, George	Dobble, William	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Mainwaring, William Henry	Wallhead, Richard C.
Kirkwood, David	Maxton, James	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Lawson, John James	Paling, Wilfred	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanlly)
Leonard, William	Parkinson, John Allen	Wilmot, John
Logan, David Gilbert	Price, Gabriel
Lunn, William	Smith, Tom (Normanton)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
McEntee, Valentine L.	Thorne, William James	Mr. John and Mr. Groves.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Tinker, John joseph

5.35 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, at the end, to insert:

"Children who have not attained the age of fourteen but who have been specially exempted from attendance at school owing to taking up insurable work, shall be regarded as subject to the provisions of Section one of this Act."

This is a manuscript Amendment, and is brought forward on behalf of a local authority in my constituency as a useful addition to the Bill. I believe that the point arises only in Scotland. The total number of children so exempted last year was 2,923, but this total included all those who had reached the age of 14 but had not reached the prescribed age for leaving school. It was thought that if such children were left uncovered by the Bill there might be an incentive to dismiss them when they became insurable and to replace them by other children under the insurable age. Now that children are being brought into such a Bill as this the Amendment appears to carry on the principle of the Bill and seems to make it rather more complete. I apologise that the Amendment was not on the Order Paper, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give it consideration.

5.38 p.m.

Evil grows by what it feeds on, and evidently this Amendment is proposed in order to make the Bill even worse than it is. The suggestion is that boys and girls who have not yet reached the age of 14 who may be employed in insurable occupations shall be taxed to the extent of 2d. per week without any provision for benefit. Does the Noble Lord who moved the Amendment really mean that? We have been trying for years to get the school age raised, and, instead of dealing with the problem of children in employment, we shall, by this Amendment, simply reduce the present low standard in connection with the entry of children into industry. In the industrial world men and women in hundreds of thousands are vainly seeking work, and we are now being asked to bring still younger children into industry. If that is the mentality and the industrial outlook of some of those who represent constituencies in this country, God help us! We are getting into a worse state than we imagined we were in. In my constituency boys and girls from 14 years of age are lining up outside the factories looking for employment and they are not wanted. There is a surplus of young people looking for work, and yet we are now told we ought to reduce the age at which they can enter employment. That is what this Amendment means, and it is one of the most reactionary Amendments that has ever been moved. I want to protest against it on behalf of the younger people in my constituency and of the general body of workers in the country.

5.41 p.m.

I have never met a more monstrous Amendment. We have, at the beginning of this Bill, an inquitous provision and a most reactionary state of affairs, but now the Noble Lord proposes that, in addition to children being allowed to leave school before 14 in order to be exploited in various ways, they shall come within the provisions of this Clause, and they shall pay twopence a week and have no insurance benefit. In this instance the children may be in areas where junior instruction centres have not been organised. This is a most monstrous suggestion, and I hope that the Minister has not got to the stage when he can accept an Amendment of this character.

5.42 p.m.

This manuscript Amendment has been sprung upon the Committee, and very often in such a case there have been prior arrangements about it, but I hope the Minister is not going to yield to the proposal, because it really is, as my hon. Friend has stated, a monstrous proposal. The whole trend of thought in this country has been in the direction of favouring the raising of the school age. Indeed, the words in this Bill which make it possible for the child to pay the twopence and become insurable have been taken out of the Bill which was intended to raise the school age to 15. Now an hon. Member wants to persuade the Committee to agree to the lowering of the age to 14. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is what it means in effect. The House of Commons is being asked to assent to children working before they are 14. I hope that the Minister will not yield to the proposal. I would not have spoken but for the fact that I have seen manuscript Amendments sprung upon the Committee, and very often passed by arrangement.

5.44 p.m.

There is some misunderstanding about this Amendment. It applies to certain exemptions in Scotland, and was actually brought up by a local authority because they thought there was a risk of children under these exemptions being exploited. It is in order to prevent such exploitation that they asked for the Amendment to be moved.

5.45 p.m.

I have had some little experience of the working of these exemptions in Scotland. The system in operation there was introduced a good many years ago to prevent the raising of the school age to 14 from bearing too harshly on the people, and to give a transitional period for the change-over. In my opinion, that transitional period has lasted long enough, and the time has come when not only should it receive no further statutory recognition, because that is what the Noble Lord is proposing, but when the statutory recognition should be withdrawn. I do not think any education committee in Scotland grants an exemption nowadays save in cases where there is desperate poverty in a home—that is, an exemption allowing one child to leave school under 14 years of age to become a wage-earner. In our view, that poverty problem should be met in some other way. I recall that the existence of this power of exemption in Scotland has been made an excuse by a previous Government for not endorsing certain agreements proposed by the League of Nations. They said they could not do so because there was not compulsory school attendance up to 14 years of age. I trust that the existence of this very objectionable practice in Scotland will not be made a reason for encouraging the employment of children at 13 years of age at a time when, as the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) has pointed out, not only can boys and girls of 14 not get employment but people of all ages cannot get employment. I hope the Minister will consider the proposal of the Noble Lord seriously with a view to suggesting to his friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that the time has now arrived when these exemptions should be wiped out of the Scottish education system.

5.49 p.m.

I received notice of this Amendment only just before luncheon, about 12.30 p.m., but, none the less, I have looked into it and endeavoured to inform myself of precisely what it would do if it were passed. I think I can at once set at rest the anxiety of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) and the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) by saying that even if the Amendment were accepted it would not apply to England. It could apply only to Scotland, because there exemption has been granted in a limited number of cases; but the system has not been recognised in England at all. Quite frankly, I am not prepared to accept the Amendment. To do so would be distinctly a retrograde step, and it might also cause further difficulties in a direction indicated by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in his reference to international affairs. From every point of view it is not an Amendment that I can fairly commend to the Committee as one which is worthy either in its principle or in its application.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.50 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, to leave out from "shall," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:

"credit any persons who after attaining the age at which under the law for the time being in force their parents cease to be under an obligation to cause them to receive efficient elementary instruction have continued to receive whole-time education with the number of contributions equal to the number of weeks that they have continued to receive whole-time education."

The effect of this Amendment would be that children attending school from 14 to 16 years of age would have insurance stamps credited to them free for that period. Under the Bill children who have attended school will, on leaving at the age of 16, be credited with a maximum number of 20 stamps and, therefore, they will have to get another 10 stamps added in order to qualify for benefit. Under our proposal a child attending school between 14 and 16 years of age would be credited with a stamp for every week, so that if on leaving school at 16 it could not get employment it would automatically receive benefit. It was said by the Minister in an earlier reply that it would be reactionary or degrading for a child below the age of 16 to receive benefit, but curely he will not say that this proposal to credit a child with a stamp for every week that it attends school, thereby allowing the child to qualify for benefit at the age of 16 is in any way degrading. It has been said by the Minister and by the Parliamentary Secretary that they are anxious that every child who cannot get work should remain at school, and if they are genuinely anxious on that point here is a proposal which will be an incentive to keeping children at school.

5.55 p.m.

It is extremely difficult to give adequate discussion to these various Amendments with the Guillotine in operation, and, therefore, I will be as brief as possible in supporting this Amendment. I understand that the provision in the Bill was inserted because of a desire to induce children to remain at school, and if there is anything good about this part of the Bill I think we may say that that might prove to be a useful feature. But I believe that the effect of the Measure, so far as inducing parents to allow their children to remain at school is concerned, has been greatly exaggerated. When parents are deciding whether a child of 14 shall remain at school or go to work I do not think they will be greatly influenced in favour of school by this consideration.

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain to us how the provision in the Bill as it stands is going to operate. We have to turn to the Schedule for the details. It is stated that a child who remains at school for 12 months or more shall obtain a certain number of stamps. Am I not right in assuming that a child who remains only 11 months will not get any stamps? There are further provisions as to 18 months or more and 24 months. In the same way as I have just indicated, a child who stays a little less than 18 months will not get the benefit of 15 stamps; and so on. I cannot yet understand—and I am putting this question quite sincerely—how every child who remains at school for the 24 months can get the 20 stamps as provided by the Bill, because legally the school-leaving age is not 14 but 14 plus—they leave at the end of the term. The school-leaving age of a child may in that way be 14 years and three months, and such child could not complete a period of two years before reaching 16 years of age and thus establish a claim to 20 stamps. If I am correct in that assumption, this provision will not operate in the case of a number of children. If the Minister really means the Bill to be of service in keeping children at school, it seems to me that a shorter period than a year should serve as a qualifying period. Twelve months is far too long; after the 12 months there is a jump to 18 months and then to 24 months. If the Amendment cannot be accepted I ask the Minister to consider seriously whether he cannot make the periods much shorter, and thus make the provision more effective.

5.58 p.m.

The effect of this Amendment, as I see it, would be that a young person would be entitled to walk out of school straight into unemployment benefit. I think that represents substantially what the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) wants.

No!

Yes—at 16. The point is that a child who has attended school from 14 to 16 and leaves school at 16 ought, if it cannot get employment, to have unemployment benefit in the same way as a child who has worked from 14 to 16 would be able to get benefit at 16 if thrown out of work. We cannot see why there should be any discrimination in favour of work as against school.

I was assuming that the date for commencing to receive benefit was left unaltered; but the definite point I was raising was that this Amendment would make a big change. A young person could walk out of school into unemployment benefit.

As you did.

No, I regret to say I did not, because there was not any insurance system in existence at that time. When I left school my outstanding merits were recognised, and I walked into employment. The remuneration was a very modest one, only one penny per hour. The last time it was proposed to reduce the age of employment insurance to 14 with benefit at—I think I am right—the end of 26 weeks, that was a most unpopular proposal among the general mass of the manual workers throughout the country. On moral grounds they strongly disapproved. I am quite satisfied that that is still the view.

On moral grounds it is apparently the case that the bulk of hon. Members on the Opposition benches do not to-day represent, and never have represented, working-class opinion. The average manual worker has never in the slightest degree sympathised with many of the views commonly expressed by the bulk of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am satisfied that, on moral grounds, 90 parents out of 100 would strongly object to a system whereby children who had never worked in ordinary income-earning occupations, as distinct from school, and had never in their lives had a job as is normally understood, should be entitled to go on to unemployment pay. In making this point I am not thinking in the slightest of what the proposal would involve financially. I am not concerned with what it would cost, but only with the moral point of view. It would be thoroughly bad and demoralising to instil into the minds of the young people of this country that they could, without ever having entered any form of industry, be regarded as unemployed persons entitled to draw money towards which they have not contributed a penny piece. I hope that the Minister will reject this Amendment without any hesitation.

6.3 p.m.

I understand that in this system of crediting no cash passes at all as regards the finances of the scheme. If I am right, in connection with the First Schedule on page 56, no account is taken of the crediting of contributions, and any increase of these credits is a direct, charge upon the fund, and can only be at the expense of the other beneficiaries of the fund. This crediting system is not as generous as it looks on the surface. Instead of the State paying, as you might think, 6d. in respect of the five or 10 weeks, nobody pays anything at all. Therefore every week that is credited to these children is a direct charge upon the fund, and pro tanto upon every potential beneficiary of the fund.

It would be out of order to suggest that the State should make some direct contribution in respect of the credits for the children who are at school, because that would be to impose a charge, and I am not able to suggest that. All that the Committee has to decide is to what extent it is fair and reasonable, in rspect of children who remain at school, that a charge should be made upon the other potential beneficiaries of the fund. Some compromise might be made between the Amendment and the Schedule as at present drawn. The Amendment would certainly go too far by crediting too many contributions, but the Schedule might, perhaps, with wisdom, be extended. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary when replying will be able to say that he will consider at a later stage whether the maximum number of contributions to be credited should be slightly extended; without going as far as is suggested in the Amendment.

6.5 p.m.

It is always interesting to hear the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) delivering dissertations upon morals. We know how very keenly he feels cal these matters, but I do not know that the Committee stage of the Unemployment Insurance Bill gives him the scope that his knowledge of the subject entitles him to have. I look forward to his bringing forward and publishing sometime in the future a magnum opus on the subject. I remember Locke on "The Human Understanding" in my student days; I hope the hon. Member's work may stand alongside that on our bookshelves as "Williams on Morals." It is perhaps true that hon. Members on this side have not always been able to voice the moral outlook of the working class. It is a difficult task fully to represent the moral outlook of the working class. The working-class moral sense is revolted at the idea of policemen coming under the benefits of unemployment insurance. The ordinary member of the manual-working class does not regard a policeman as a worker. He is revolted at the idea of soldiers and sailors walking out of these public services into unemployment insurance, because, again, he does not regard them as being part of the industrial workers. Parliament in its wisdom has overborne the moral repugnance of the working class to these persons being included in unemployment insurance. When the hon. Member raises morals as the issue, his statement is that the working class will stand for school-children between the ages of 14 and 16 being credited with 20 contributions, but experience complete revulsion of feeling if the children are credited with 30 contributions. That seems to be a very fragile foundation for the moral outlook of the nation.

I appreciate the action of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in taking this line. Does he not think that the difference between paying nothing and paying 10 contributions sounds very different from the difference between paying 20 and paying 30? My point was that, under the Bill, children might be in benefit after they had paid contributions for 10 weeks; under his proposal they get benefit after no contributions. There is a big difference between nothing and 10.

There is one-and-eightpence worth of difference. The total cash value of the moral problem with which our souls are wrestling at the moment is 1s. 8d. This dragging in of the moral issue is scarcely necessary. I do not imagine that the Minister will have any serious difficulty in resisting the Amendment, but bringing in the moral issue at this stage, when it might be brought in much more strongly at some subsequent stage, is firing away your big ammunition in a profligate fashion. The case which was put by the hon. Member for Gorbals, and which I am supporting very strongly, is that when the child walks out of school at 16 years of age, after having received the best education that we are capable of giving him, he should if we are incapable of finding him a niche in our national industrial life, be entitled to walk into the very miserable sum of unemployment insurance benefit that is payable under the existing legislation to a youth of that age. It is our incapacity that is really under review, if we are incapable of finding a useful niche for this young man or woman, whom we have educated to the best of our ability up to 16 years of age.

If the child manages to get some job, however stupid or futile, that displaces an older experienced worker—[Interruption]—and as the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) says, if he does his own father out of a job, he is credited with the appropriate number of stamps, and at 16 years is entitled to benefit, but if he goes into our educational system, which most hon. Members think is the best educational system, and comes out at 16 years of age to face life with absolutely no income, or with continued dependence upon parents who are probably unable to support him adequately, we make no provision for him, although to all intents and purposes he is a grown man with the needs of a man. That is the assumption underlying the opposition to this Amendment. The argument of the hon. Member for Gorbals and of myself is that full unemployment insurance benefit should be available for the child on the day upon which his education ceases.

6.13 p.m.

I do not know whether the Minister will accept this Amendment, but I am sure that, from the moral point of view, the best that the State could do would be to encourage children to stay at school until 16 years of age. Do I understand that the Amendment proposes that when children come out of school at 16 they come into full benefit?

Yes.

I do not think that I agree with that, but everything that the Government can do to encourage children to stay at school until 16 years of age will be for the moral benefit of the State as a whole. If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot accept the whole of this, can he assure us that every encouragement possible will be given to children to stay at school until 16 years of age? No matter what the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) says about the moral outlook, everybody who is interested in juveniles knows that sooner or later the State will have to encourage children to stop on from 14 to 16 years of age.

6.14 p.m.

I am afraid that the Government cannot accept this Amendment.

I told you that they would not.

I might perhaps begin by replying to the point made by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). He is quite right. If the child remains at school only for 11 months, under the existing terms of the Schedule no contribution will be credited to him. Between now and the time when we get this Bill passed, if the hon. Member cares to have a word with the Minister or myself we shall be very glad to consider whether any alteration can be made. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan) was equally right in saying that this crediting of contributions is purely a paper transaction. But it imposes a very definite liability against the day when the child subsequently becomes unemployed after the age of 16.

As regards the question of the number of contributions to be credited, it appears to us on broad grounds to be undesirable that a child should be in the position of leaving school and going straight away to an Employment Exchange to draw benefit, but that, before he actually draws benefit in his own right, he ought to have a certain number of weeks of actual employment in a factory or workshop. If that be admitted, we are governed by the limit of 30 contributions, and obviously the number that can be credited must be something less than 30. We came to the conclusion that on the whole it would be reasonable to suggest that there should be an interval of 10 weeks before the child becomes entitled to draw benefit. That leads us to the figure of 20, and we divided that up over the two years between 14 and 16. That is how we reach the figure of 10 for the first 12 months, 15 for the first 18 months, and 20 for the full two years. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton will realise, therefore, that, much as we might like to alter the figures in the Schedule, we have not really any margin to play with, because we are governed by the 30 weeks rule for the receipt of benefit, and the number credited to a child must be substantially below 30.

6.17 p.m.

I do not know that the Committee will agree that the Parliamentary Secretary has made a satisfactory reply to my hon. Friends. It seems to me to be a resonable proposition that a principle which has been accepted in unemployment insurance should be carried into this proposal. If a child's parent is unemployed, he receives compensation in respect of the child up to the age of 16. When the child reaches the age of 16, that compensation ceases; it is assumed that at that age the child becomes an adult. If it be said that the unemployed parent is not entitled to receive any payment in respect of a child over the age of 16, surely that carries with it the implication that the child ought to receive something in his own right. Indeed, at the present time, under some Poor Law authorities in Great Britain, an unemployed child at 16 years of age receives certain payments in his own right. Consequently, I cannot follow the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman. In the first place there is the argument, to which he has not replied, that it is desirable to keep these children at school as long as possible if they cannot get employment. If the parents have to be bribed to do that, if the child has to be bribed to do that, the higher the bribe the greater the response will be, and, if there is no employment for the child in the industrial system, it is desirable that that should be done.

I do not quite see how this is going to affect the proposal for the training of children between the ages of 14 and 16. It is provided in another part of the Bill that children shall pass into a special system of training if they cannot find employment. Do I gather that in those cases they will be credited with the contributions, or do I understand that, if it is impossible to construct training centres for all children in those areas where there are children who will be idle, they are to be encouraged by a provision of this kind to remain in the educational system? It seems to me that the Minister has not answered that point, and he certainly has not dealt with the other question—if a child on reaching the age of 16 cannot obtain employment and has no means of income, to whom will that child then become chargeable? [HON. MEMBERS: "That is Part II.] That is the point to which I am coming. We understand, then, that the principle is admitted—the principle against which arguments have been put forward by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). They object to the child becoming a recipient of benefit——

Of unemployment benefit as of right. Other forms of benefit are now based on circumstances of need.

The moral argument is now given a strange twist, and my hon. Friend seems to have lost his way in the labyrinths of this new morality. I understand that it would be considered demoralising for the child if the child were given to understand that he receives insurance benefit at the age of 16 as a reward for having attended school, but that it would not demoralise the child to receive transitional payments having done nothing at all for them.

It is paid to the householder, not to the child.

That is over the age of 16. It is certainly true that the resources of the householder will then be taken into account, but the Bill admits the principle that the adults in the household who are earning wages must have some allowance made for them before their income can be thrown into the household assessment.

My point was that it is not to be paid to the child.

The hon. Member knows that under the Act an adult person's benefit can only be taken away from him if misconduct or bad character is proved; it cannot be taken away from a child of 16 merely because the child has left school. The right of the recipient can only be taken away if there is proved against the parent something which is morally wrong.

We have got ourselves into a most complicated position. On the one hand the Bill throws out the child at 16 as no longer actuarially dependent on the parent, by withdrawing the 2s. from the unemployed father, leaving the child with no provision at all under the insurance system, and yet in another part accepts the obligation to regard that child as an adult, as a recipient of unemployment assistance. Surely, that exposes grave inconsistencies in our legislation. Would it not be much more desirable to cut out the inconsistency at once by accepting this Amendment, rather than merely resisting it because it has been moved from this side of the Committee? Will not the Government recognise that the case has been made out, and allow children, if they remain at school until 16 and cannot then be employed, to receive unemployment benefit on the approved scale immediately, as a reward for having attended school? That seems to me to be much the more desirable course of conduct, and I would press the Minister, if he cannot accept the Amendment now, to consider before the Report stage the very cogent arguments which my friends have advanced, and see whether he cannot accept an Amendment to give effect to our intentions.

6.25 p.m.

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has introduced another irrelevance, namely, the question of this being compensation for keeping children at school. It may be that the first irrelevancy was introduced on this side, but what the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) calls morals the Parliamentary Secretary calls broad policy, and therefore I think the less we say about the actual words the better. The main point is that in this scheme you have to make a purely arbitrary arrangement. As I understand it, it seems good to the Parliamentary Secretary and those who have drafted the Bill that there should be an interval of 10 weeks, but that is purely arbitrary—there is no morality about the whole thing. It is not, as I understand it, compensation for remaining at school, but is a purely arbitrary arrangement, because on broad lines of policy it seems, as I understand it—I may be wrong—a bad thing that a child should go straight from school into insurance. Personally, I would rather see the school age raised, and I make no complaint about that, but, if we are going to have these arbitrary arrangements, I think it is reasonable to assume that there is a better prospect of work for a child who has remained at school till the age of 16. At the present moment there happens to be a shortage of unemployment between the ages of 14 and 16, but things may be very different in 18 months' time, when there may be a big problem. I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that he is basing his computation on a considerable increase in unemployment between the ages of 14 and 16 when the "bulge" comes during the next two or three years.

If this were in any sense a compensation for keeping a child at school between the ages of 14 and 16, my attitude towards it would immediately change, but in fact it is a purely arbitrary arrangement, as most of these insurance arrangements are. From beginning to end they are not really insurance at all. You cannot insure against unemployment in the real sense of the word. Everyone knows that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It seems to me to be completely illogical that hon. Members opposite, while they are in such complete accord with me on that point, should stand up and give other reasons for this arrangement. This question will come up time after time during the passage of the Bill. If we leave out the question of morality—and I am quite content to do that—let us also leave out wrong reasons for making perfectly ordinary arrangements under unemployment insurance which will roughly make it balance. The hon. Member for South Croydon and other hon. Members on this side may say that it is bad for a person to walk out of school and take unemployment insurance benefit as a right, but nobody would deny that, whether under the Board or under a public assistance committee, if need is going to be assessed, that person should receive some payment, and personally I and others would be in favour of that. There is, however, a difference if you are going to accept the principle of insurance. If you do not accept the principle of insurance, there is no difference between right and need, and there is no point in discussing whether we should have a board and unemployment insurance. If we are going to agree to the principle—which we never discussed on the Second Reading of the Bill—of the difference between insurance and need, which is the basis of the whole thing, let us follow it out and be logical through the details as we go along.

6.29 p.m.

I should not have intervened again but for the fact that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) said that, if this were compensation for a child's remaining at school, he would change his mind and walk into the Lobby with us.

I did not say that.

There again is a typical attitude on the part of a National Labour Member. For what purpose would the hon. Member change his mind if not to walk into the Lobby with us? If he will look closely at the Amendment, he will find that it provides compensation for children who remain at school. It says that, if a child remains at school beyond the legal age, there shall be credited to such child the number of stamps provided in the first Schedule. I would ask the hon. Member to stick to his guns and his principles, and walk into the Lobby with us.

6.30 p.m.

It seems to me that my right hon. Friend is entirely right in resisting the Amendment, and I congratulate him, because he has discerned that this is the first torpedo at the whole structure of the Bill. The argument, which is a very attractive one, of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) really rests upon confusing relief with insurance. What the Minister has done in the provision that he has made in the Clause is really a stretching of the fund itself by bringing upon it people who have been kept at continuation schools, and the fact that hon. Members below the Gangway are now seeking to use that as an argument for including children, shows that they are trying to do the very thing that the Bill is seeking to undo—the confusion of relief and insurance.

6.32 p.m.

I am delighted to hear the great moral altitude of this Debate. We have heard a number of times about the infamy of allowing children to go straight from school to the Employment Exchange to get 2s. a week. I wonder if those who advance this argument have considered some of the things that we know about—how people go straight from school to do a cruise round the world, live on the fat of the land at other people's expense and come back to complete their education by slave-driving the people who make it possible for them to go on these cruises. We have been told about the terrible things that will happen to insurance. The people who are talking most about the inequalities of insurance are the people who have benefited by the insurances that the workers have paid for.

You are going to give a premium to the worst kind of employers by denying to these children the opportunity of benefiting by insurance. In factories in the Silvertown area men and women of 30 and 40 years of age are being discharged and young boys and girls are taken into their places at half the money that the men and women used to earn. If no provision is made in the matter of these children of 16 in the interval between leaving school and getting employment, they will be used still further to reduce the standard of living and the wages of the ordinary adult worker. All that we are asking for is that we shall be given, not all we want but just enough to ease the situation, and not make the child the enemy of its father, its brother or its sister, because that is the economic effect of the position now. If you are not prepared to make this concession, you are simply making the position worse, and wages will be docked all along the line by the competition between family and family.

Division No. 68.]	AYES.	[6.37 p.m.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar	Burghley, Lord
Alnsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles	Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Burnett, John George
Albery, Irvine James	Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Alexander, Sir William	Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.	Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)	Blindell, James	Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Boulton, W. W.	Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Carver, Major William H.
Apsley, Lord	Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Aske, Sir Robert William	Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Gazalet, Thelma (Islington. E.)
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe	Bracken, Brendan	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm., W.)
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.	Brass, Captain Sir William	Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Broadbent, Colonel John	Clarke, Frank
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Clayton, Sir Christopher
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Cobb, Sir Cyril
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Browne, Captain A. C.	Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

6.35 p.m.

I notice that Sub-section (3) says,

"who, after attaining the age at which under the law for the time being in force their parents cease to be under an obligation to cause them to receive efficient elementary instruction."

What is the position of those authorities which have adopted a school-leaving age of 15? The ratepayers in my county are already making provision for the education of boys and girls up to 15. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to accept that 12 months as being equivalent to 12 months' employment? I can quite understand where voluntary attendance at school may only account for a certain amount, but in the case of these educational authorities—they are very few—would it not be possible to make some sort of concession?

I think the point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to make should come either on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," or on the Schedule, because neither under this Amendment nor under the Clause as drafted is there any provision made for it, and the Amendment, if carried, would not alter the situation under the Bill.

The next Amendment on the Order Paper deals with the point.

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will make his remarks on the next Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'at,' in line 17, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 286; Noes, 67.

Conant, R. J. E.	Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)	Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Cook, Thomas A.	James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Ratcliffe, Arthur
Cooke, Douglas	Jamieson, Douglas	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Cooper, A. Duff	Jesson, Major Thomas E.	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Copeland, Ida	Joel, Dudley J. Barnato	Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Remer, John R.
Cranborne, Viscount	Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Craven-Ellis, William	Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)	Rickards, George William
Crooke, J. Smedley	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Ropner, Colonel L.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Knight, Holtord	Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Knox, Sir Alfred	Roan Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Crossley, A. C.	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Law, Sir Alfred	Runge, Norah Cecil
Culverwell, Cyril Tom	Leckie, J. A.	Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Leech, Dr. J. W.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.	Levy, Thomas	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)	Liddall, Walter S.	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)	Salt, Edward W.
Dawson, Sir Philip	Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Llewellin, Major John J.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Denville, Alfred	Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Savery, Samuel Servington
Dickie, John P.	Lyons, Abraham Montagu	Selley, Harry R.
Donner, P. W.	Mabane, William	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Drewe, Cedric	MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Duggan, Hubert John	McCorquodale, M. S.	Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)	Smithers, Waldron
Eales, John Frederick	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Somervell, Sir Donald
Eastwood, John Francis	McEwen, Captain J. H. F.	Soper, Richard
Eden, Robert Anthony	McKie, John Hamilton	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton	Southby, Commander Archibald . J.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Elmley, Viscount	Macmillan, Maurice Harold	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Macquisten, Frederick Alexander	Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	Maitland, Adam	Spens, William Patrick
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Everard, W. Lindsay	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Storey, Samuel
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Martin, Thomas B.	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Fox, Sir Gifford	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Fraser, Captain Ian	Meller, Sir Richard James	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Fremantle, Sir Francis	Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Gibson, Charles Granville	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Summersby, Charles H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Glossop, C. W. H.	Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)	Thompson, Sir Luke
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.	Moreing, Adrian C.	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Goff, Sir Park	Morgan, Robert H.	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Gower, Sir Robert	Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)	Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'ri'd, N.)	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas	Morrison, William Shephard	Train, John
Greene, William P. C.	Moss, Captain H. J.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.	Turton, Robert Hugh
Grimston, R. V.	Munro, Patrick	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Guy, J. C. Morrison	Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid	Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	North, Edward T.	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)	Nunn, William	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	O'Connor, Terence James	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Hammersley, Samuel S.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour
Hanbury, Cecil	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.	Wells, Sydney Richard
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Patrick, Colin M.	Weymouth, Viscount
Hartland, George A.	Peaks, Captain Osbert	Whyte, Jardine Bell
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)	Pearson, William G.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)	Peat, Charles U.	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.	Percy, Lord Eustace	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hepworth, Joseph	Perkins, Walter R. D.	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Peters, Dr. Sidney John	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)	Petherick, M.	Wise, Alfred R.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)	Withers, Sir John James
Hornby, Frank	Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada	Womersley, Walter James
Horobin, Ian M.	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Horsbrugh, Florence	Pownall, Sir Assheton
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	Procter, Major Henry Adam	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)	Pybus, Sir Percy John	Sir George Penny and Captain
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)	Austin Hudson.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Ramsbotham, Herwald

NOES.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke	Banfield, John William	Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Batey, Joseph	Cape, Thomas
Attlee, Clement Richard	Brlant, Frank	Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Cove, William G.	Jenkins, Sir William	Parkinson, John Allen
Cripps, Sir Stafford	John, William	Price, Gabriel
Dagger, George	Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Rea, Walter Russell
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Dobbie, William	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Edwards, Charles	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Derwen)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)	Kirkwood, David	Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)	Lawson, John James	Thorne, William James
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Leonard, William	Tinker, John Joseph
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)	Logan, David Gilbert	Wellhead, Richard C.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Lunn, William	White, Henry Graham
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	McEntee, Valentine L.	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	Mainwaring, William Henry	Wilmot, John
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot	Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Groves, Thomas E.	Mender, Geoffrey le M.	Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Grundy, Thomas W.	Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Maxton, James	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Harris, Sir Percy	Milner, Major James	Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Aneurin
Hicks, Ernest George	Owen, Major Goronwy	Bevan.
Janner, Barnett	Paling, Wilfred

6.48 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, to leave out from "age" to "have," in line 20, and to insert "of fourteen."

This Amendment, which stands in my name and that of the hon. and gallant Member for St. Helens (Captain Spencer), is decidedly a friendly Amendment, and simply provides that children in areas where the by-laws already make the school-leaving age 15 shall come within the ambit of the Bill. There is another section. As the Committee are probably aware, there are a number of children who have to attend special schools until the age of 16. As I read Sub-section (3) these two classes of children do not seem to be definitely included, but if my right hon. Friend the Minister can give us an assurance that these classes are covered, I shall be very glad to withdraw the Amendment.

6.49 p.m.

On this Amendment I want to add a few words to what I have already said on the same lines on behalf of the county which I represent where the school-leaving age has already been raised to 15. I suggest to His Majesty's Government that if some special provision is made in the case of education authorities which have already adopted the school-leaving age of 15 other education authorities may be persuaded to follow their example, and, without any legislation of any kind, we might get the school-leaving age raised throughout the country—a very desirable thing. It might indirectly be achieved if the right hon. Gentleman would give some kind of concession to boys and girls who are compelled under the by-laws to remain at school until they attain the age of 17.

6.50 p.m.

In answer to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Morgan) and the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Major Owen), I say definitely that it is the intention of the Government that, in what may be called the 15-year areas—there are five or six of them; the hon. Gentleman represents one, and there is another at Plymouth—credit for contributions should be given to such children attending such places. Since this Amendment was put down I have looked at the drafting of the Clause, and I think that it carries out the intention of the Government. I will certainly look at it again, with the assistance of the Parliamentary draftsmen, and if we should have any doubts at all that it does not carry out what I and the hon. Gentleman want it to carry out, I will see to it that words are moved in on the Report stage in order to make it absolutely clear. With regard to the question of special schools raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge, it is not the intention of the Government that such schools should be included under this provision. Without expressing any view beyond that which I have just expressed, namely, that it was not the intention of the Government to include them, I will nevertheless, look at this point along with the other point, and if I should come to the conclusion that it is right, desirable and proper that they should be included, then I will do so.

6.52 p.m.

I am very glad to hear the Minister's statement, which I am sure, will be greatly appreciated by those who are interested in this problem. I hope that he will really look at the problem of the special schools sympathetically. I do not wish to argue the case here, because I want time to be provided for a longer discussion on the Clause standing part. I can assure him that there are a good many people who view the position of these children with great anxiety, and he would meet the wishes of those interested in special schools if he could consider their case as sympathetically as he is to consider the other case. Both sets of pupils are under compulsion until a certain age, and, therefore, I hope that the Minister will consider the matter sympathetically and include them, if he possibly can, within the purvue of this scheme.

In view of the undertaking which has been given by the Minister of Labour, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.52 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, to leave out from "shall," to "apply," in line 27.

The Amendment deals with small points which really become very important in the long run. The Sub-section deals with regulations which have to be made for those who have to be credited with contributions but who remain at school. It provides that the regulations shall not come into effect as far as crediting contributions in respect of those who remain at school are concerned until 12 months after the Section has had effect. We want to know the reason for that. I should like to say a good many things upon this matter, but already we are nearly within half-an-hour of the falling of the guillotine, and if we go on much longer we shall not have an opportunity, which I am sure the Committee would agree that we should have, of discussing the principles on the Motion that the Clause stand part. I think that no one can say that anyone has so far spoken unnecessarily upon the Sub-section, and yet we already see the stupidity of passing a Guillotine Motion. The Minister ought to give us an explanation. I cannot understand these small, niggling points which will have a big effect upon the Clause in the long run.

6.54 p.m.

I think that I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Chester- le-Street (Mr. Lawson) the explanation in a very few words. If no such provision as the one to which he is taking objection existed in the Bill and the Bill came into operation on, say the 30th June, next, the result would be that children who left a secondary school at the end of July at the age of 16 would leave school with two years' contributions to their credit as a result of only four weeks' operation of the Bill. It would have been quite logical to have said that this particular part of the Clause should not come into operation until two years after the coming into operation of the Bill in order that everyone might start fair. That was, in our view, unnecessary, and we have adopted a compromise by saying that children who leave school in July, 1635, will have the advantage of this particular Section of the Act. In spite of the fact that they will not have been in school for two years but only for one year after the coming into force of the Bill, they will become entitled to the full credit of contributions. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.57 p.m.

While during the Debate we have been tinkering with two fences, a good many Members of the Committee have been bordering on the brink of a discussion of the principles of Clause 1. I did not intervene in two or three of the earlier debates because I thought that this was the right time in which to put our point of view. In agreement with an earlier speaker, we on this side of the Committee are in favour of closing the gap between the school-leaving age and the entry into insurance. We could go further. We would agree with the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance and say, that now that the Government are dealing with the problem of Unemployment Insurance, they ought to deal with the problem of National Health Insurance at the same time, and, in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, make the two schemes, as far as possible, coincident. We would also, I think, go further than the proposal which was made earlier in the evening. From our point of view we take an entirely different attitude from that of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) who raised what he called the moral issue, and the positive social wickedness of young people walking into Unemployment Insurance with only 10 stamps on their cards.

I did not say anything of the kind, I said walking into benefit without having worked in ordinary employment.

That makes the case of the hon. Gentleman worse. What about the social crime of keeping the children at school and then letting them roam the streets without any kind of public supervision or any kind of assistance? We would close the gap completely, and we think that the right way to do it is to credit every child in the schools with sufficient stamps, if the community cannot find him or her wage-earning employment, to enable that young person to obtain benefit as an unemployed person. It may be that this is confusing relief with insurance, but the Government's scheme confuses relief with insurance, and we regard it as a moral obligation, when a child is likely to have perhaps 50 years' insurable life, that we should spread out the benefit over the whole of that 50 years and enable the juvenile entrants into insurance to become immediately eligible for benefit if the labour market can find nothing for them to do.

But our main objection to Clause 1 is that we believe that this is the wrong way to tackle what we regard as a very serious problem. We have argued how bad Clause 1 is in detail, but we are against it on principle, because after the experience of the last two years it is more than ever clear that the right way to tackle this problem is to keep these young people whom it is now desired to insure out of the labour market altogether. As the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Labour himself admitted during the Debate on an earlier Amendment, not only is there a volume of juvenile unemployment to-day in our midst, but because of the operation of the birth-rate the number of young persons coming into industry in the next year or two will increase; and, even if there be an increase in the volume of employment generally, the chances are that the volume of juvenile unemployment will in- crease. There is now a very substantial amount of unemployment among juveniles. Unfortunately, all that we record with substantial accuracy are the insured juveniles between 16 and 18. According to the Report on the Work of the Local Committees for Juvenile Unemployment, however, in 1932, taking the whole volume of employed between 14 and 18, the average monthly number of unemployed boys and girls was 166,000. We are going to be faced with an increasing number of entrants into industry at the age of 14 in the next few years, and if the figures, which it is said have the authority of the Minister of Labour, are reliable, it would seem that the number of people available for employment between the ages of 14 and 18—which this year is about 1,750,000—will by 1937, four years from last year, be 2,300,000. That is a very substantial increase, and if the proportion of unemployment remains the same, the actual number of juveniles out of work will very substantially increase.

What is the situation to-day? A few months ago there was published the result of an inquiry into juvenile unemployment in the Lancashire cotton industry, carried out by people competent for the task. Last summer they discovered that, out of 21,000 young people who left school at the end of the summer term, 20 per cent. of the boys and 18 per cent. of the girls were still out of work three months after they had walked out of their schools at the summer holiday. In one particular area—not, I believe, the worst—where the unemployment in the summer months of 1932 amounted to 22 per cent. in the case of boys and 15 per cent. in the case of girls, no less than one-quarter of the boys leaving school for industry and nearly one-third of the girls leaving school for industry went into that particular employment, the cotton trade, and added to this very substantial volume of unemployment.

What will Clause 1 do for that problem? The problem of juvenile unemployment is a real one. What will Clause 1 do for these boys and girls, many of whom have had no footing whatever in wage-earning employment up to now? All they are offered is the prospect of training courses on the one hand and unemployment benefit when they reach the age of 16 on the other. Not only so, but, serious as unemployment is among juveniles, it happens to be even more serious among older people, and the explanation is one with which this Committee is perfectly familiar. Hon. Members know what is happening; they know that boys and girls of 14, 15 and 16 are driving out of their jobs youths of 16, 17 and 18. Hon. Members know that these young people from 16 to 18 are driving out of their jobs young men and women between 18 and 21. They know that by this gradual process of substitution the young people are now actually putting their elder brothers and sisters, and their parents, out on to the streets to look for work. That is a very serious situation.

What is being done under Clause 1 to deal with this problem? Nothing, and our alternative proposal to Clause 1 is that we should boldly face the necessity, on educational as well as on economic grounds, of raising the school-leaving age. I should be prepared, if it were in order, to argue the question from the purely educational point of view and to say that from the point of view of economic efficiency it would be the wise thing now to raise the school-leaving age. But I am looking at this purely from the point of view of unemployment as we have it to-day. Remember that not only have we this large number of boys and girls leaving school now, this year, but because of the effect of the rise in the birth-rate immediately after the War we are going to have more leaving school in the next few years. I understand that if we were this year to raise the school-leaving age to 15, well over 400,000 boys and girls would be removed from the labour market in 1935. I am not going to pretend that that would mean 400,000 more jobs for their fathers and mothers, but I am going to argue that the effect of their withdrawal from industry, in so far as their labour is essential to the industry, would mean the reabsorption into wage-earning employment of large numbers of people who are to-day a very heavy drain on the fund.

Let us assume, if you like, that the withdrawal from industry of 400,000 or more young people only means the reestablishment in industry of 200,000 people above the age of 18. I reckon on figures—and this would be honest book-keeping, not like the book-keeping about which we have heard in the Debates on Clause 1 earlier in the afternoon—that there would be a substantial gain to the fund. It is much cheaper to keep young people out of industry and maintain them than to pay unemployment insurance benefit to even half the number of adult males or adult females that may be absorbed into industry.

What is the extra cost of the education rate, local and Imperial?

If it were quite in order to argue the matter at length, I should be prepared to give the figures and show that, even with reasonable maintenance rates for the additional year at school, it would certainly be a national gain, a gain to the community as a whole, to get rid of juvenile labour between 14 and 15, because of the diminution of unemployment benefit paid on the highest scale to people of higher ages. Even if it were not so, even if there were a net loss to the Exchequer in carrying out this plan, my friends and I on this side of the House would still regard it as the right way of dealing with the problem. We regard it as essential during this period of mechanisation, when the actual demand for labour is diminishing, to concentrate our labour power within the most effective periods of life, and therefore to raise the school-leaving age would be a definite part of our programme. I should hope that Members of the Committee would have some regard for these considerations. I do not suppose that the Vote will show it, but we shall put this as a test question on Clause 1; we shall go into the Lobby against Clause 1. Is this ramshackle, shoddy, dishonest piece of finance, this pretending to bring unemployment insurance down to the age of 14, the way to deal with the national problem; or is the proper way to deal with this problem to take immature people out of industry in order to provide greater opportunities for more mature workers? That is the issue which we place before the Committee in the discussion on the Motion that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. We may be beaten, but experience will prove that we are right. An increasing number of employers know that we are right; all education authorities know that we are right, and, whether it be on broad social grounds or on the more narrow economic grounds, we believe that we have a claim to the support of the, Committee for the deletion of this Clause.

7.15 p.m.

I do not, in view of the near approach of the Closure, wish to occupy the attention of the Committee for more than a few moments, but I wish to say that we on these benches propose to support this Clause, not because we are enamoured of the proposals of the Government but because we think it is of great importance that something should be done in this matter, even if it is only a second best way. It is quite clear that the Government proposals, which can be described in the smallest number of words as a mixture of casual education with casual employment, are not the best way of dealing with this matter.

Our point of view on these benches is very largely that which was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood): namely, that this matter should be dealt with constructively and from an educational point of view. The argument which he mentioned with regard to the influence of the withdrawal of juvenile labour on the people in the higher age ranges is one of great importance, and he answered many of the questions which have been put. But we regard the matter of juvenile unemployment as a national scandal, and we regard as particularly scandalous that No-child's-land between 14 and 16 in which, when children leave school and enter it, unless they commit a breach of the law of the land or became seized with a notifiable disease, they pass out of the control and ken of all those influences and agencies which are available for them when they become 16 and over. That is the important point in this problem; it is a matter of social importance and national significance that after all these years that gap should be closed and the children brought within the scope and under the control of all those agencies which have been built up over a long period for their benefit. It is for that reason and that reason only that we support this Clause.

We believe that, in the long run, owing to the rapid development of machinery in a machine age, we shall be driven to plan our work on a proper basis, concentrating the new leisure upon those who are of an age to benefit from it. We believe that that could be best done by raising the school-leaving age. That question has been raised in this Parliament by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), who introduced a Bill dealing with the matter from another aspect, and it was also dealt with by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, South-West (Sir P. Harris) who also introduced a Bill which went to a Division. Those are the lines on which the matter should be dealt with. We regard the closing of the gap between the ages of 14 and 16 as a matter of great importance, certainly far more important than the matter of the twopence that has occupied so much attention to-day.

7.16 p.m.

I am anxious to give the Committee an opportunity to get on with another Clause. If I have understood rightly the argument of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), he objects to this Clause on two grounds, first, on the ground that the child is to be compelled to pay contributions from the age of 14 and is only to draw benefit on reaching the age of 16 and, secondly, that he would have preferred to raise the school-leaving age. As regards the first ground, I can quite understand and sympathise with his point of view because the party opposite take a diametrically opposite view of insurance and of the whole of this scheme from ourselves. We believe in the principle of insurance and we are trying to establish this as an insurance scheme. There is nothing inherently incompatible with an insurance scheme in suggesting that a person should pay in a certain number of premiums in order to build up in good times a claim on which he can draw in bad times. We have precedents to that effect in the case of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions Act, and in the case of health insurance, where a person has to pay 104 contributions before he becomes entitled to receive benefit. We think that it is a salutary practice to extend that principle to the unemployment insurance system.

The right hon. Gentleman's second point was that he did not like our system of dealing with the problem of juvenile unemployment. He prefers his own idea of raising the school-leaving age. If by any chance he obtained a majority in the Division and this Clause were deleted, even supposing that it were possible to bring in a Bill for raising the school-leaving age, it would take a very considerable time before it could come into operation. This would be for reasons I need not enter into; it would be out of order to do so. This is a much more important point—it would only deal with a tithe of the problem. It would not close the gap. There would still be a gap between the ages of 15 and 16. There would be no measure for dealing with unemployment between the ages of 15 and 16, 16 and 17, and 17 and 18. The raising of the school-leaving age would, according to the right hon. Gentleman, have some appreciable effect in reducing unemployment among adults, but I am certain that the optimistic estimates that many people have made of the probable result of raising the school-leaving age are very wide of the mark. In other words, in its net effect the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would be far less valuable than our proposal for dealing with the immediate problem with which we have to deal in the next few years, the probable increasing numbers of unemployed juveniles between the ages of 14 and 18. The raising of the school-leaving age, while dealing with those between the ages of 14 and 15, would leave untouched the problem of those between the ages of 15 and 18. It is because we are concerned with the whole age range between 14 and 18 that I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

7.20 p.m.

The Liberal party are adopting an inconsistent attitude. When we discussed this principle during the regime of the first Labour Government the Liberal party were very anxious to defeat a proposal by the Labour Government to insure the children. To-night the Liberal party have gone back on that.

No.

Yes. They are supporting this proposal of the Government on the plea that half a loaf is better than none. As I understand the position of the Liberal party, they say that this proposal will not interfere with the raising of the school-leaving age. If the Liberal party live for any time they will see that this proposal will interfere with the raising of the school-leaving age. It is avowedly, as expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, the Government's alternative to the raising of the school age.

Never.

My right hon. Friend and myself have gone out of our way to point out on numerous occasions that there is absolutely nothing in this Bill which in any way hinders the raising of the school-leaving age. We have gone out of our way to adopt what is in some ways a rather cumbrous form of words in order to avoid the mention of the age of 14. There is nothing in the Bill that hinders in any way the raising of the school-leaving age.

That was not the point I mentioned. The point I mentioned was that the Government, through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, has stated that this is the Government's answer to the request for raising the school age.

Will the hon. Member quote any phrase that I used to bear out his statement?

I am perfectly certain the hon. Member said it. I am not blaming him. He was asked a question what the Government proposed to do in view of the increasing number of children coming out of the schools in three or four years time. He gave the figures. I think he said that 430,000 more children between the ages of 14 and 18 would be in industry at the end of that time than there are at the present time. He was asked what about raising the school-leaving age, and I do not think the hon. Member will dispute that he said that the Government's policy in relation to those children is to be found in this Unemployment Bill. That cannot be disputed. It was announced quite definitely that here we have the Government providing a solution of the problem. This is their solution. The solution is that they are going to insure children and they are going to have junior instruction centres. In the wording of the Clause the Government have taken a leaf from the Labour Government's book. They say that the insurance of the children should coincide with the school- leaving age, that they should be insured when they leave school, but there is no provision for raising the school-leaving age to 15, as there was in the Labour Government's Bill. The present proposal is insurance at the age of 14.

My Liberal friends must bear in mind that once the Minister of Labour has got hold of these children it will be infinitely more difficult for the Board of Education to get them. The system of junior instruction centres will have been established, and 100,000 children will go into those centres. If this does not mean anything, if it is a mere sop and a silly palliative, what is the use of spending all this money? The Minister has boasted that there will be an expenditure of over £1,000,000. I say definitely that the next line of advance will not be the raising of the school-leaving age but to secure actual benefit for the insurance premiums that are paid. The children are to go to the junior instruction centres. I am not going to deride those centres, but I say that it is absolutely impossible to plan any educational scheme inside of the junior instruction centre. A boy or a girl may be in the centre, out of work, for a month and may then find work and they will be outside the centre again. During the past week-end I have visited two junior instruction centres. One was in a condemned school, dirty, filthy, where no one would desire their children to go for the amenities there. Another centre, some miles away, was a condemned isolation hospital.

My Liberal friends are supposed to have some historic connection with the development of the education system and I would ask them to look at the problem and tell me where the real educational advantages are to be found in this Clause. There are none. One of my fundamental criticisms of this approach to the problem is that it is an approach from the point of view of

Division No. 69.]	AYES.	[7.30 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke	Balniel, Lord	Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Brass, Captain Sir William
Agnew, Lleut.-Com. P. G.	Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Briant, Frank
Albery, Irving James	Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar	Broadbent, Colonel John
Alexander, Sir William	Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)	Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.	Browne, Captain A. C.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Blaker, Sir Reginald	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Apsley, Lord	Blindell, James	Burghley, Lord
Aske, Sir Robert William	Bossom, A. C.	Burnett, John George
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe	Boulton, W. W.	Butler, Richard Austen
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Bracken, Brendan	Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

unemployment. The child goes from school into work and then passes from work into unemployment again. You cannot tackle this problem successfully from the point of view of unemployment. The school system has to be made into an organised, planned system that will make its contribution to the new technique that is desired in industry. What is happening under this Bill is that you throw the children out of the schools into unemployment and then you say: "We will try to save the morale of these children; we will try to save them from the worst effects of unemployment.' The Government are trying to do that by a system of junior instruction centres which cannot, by their very nature, make a very constructive contribution to the needs of the children or of the society in which we live.

I am amazed that the Liberal party should announce, through a spokesman who is usually put up to express progressive views, that they assent to a reactionary proposal of this kind. It has been shown conclusively to-night that you are exploiting the children, that the children are going to pay more into the Unemployment Fund than they are going to get out of it and that the State is shirking its obligation. The Government have looked at the problem and have said: "This is a gigantic problem. The position of hundreds of thousands of these children is going to be terrible." There is no doubt about that——

It being half-past Seven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 19 th December, 1933, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 319; Noes, 47.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Carver, Major William H.	Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Hepworth, Joseph	Patrick, Colin M.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Peaks, Captain Osbert
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Holdsworth, Herbert	Pearson, William G.
Chamberialn, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)	Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)	Penny, Sir George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Percy, Lord Eustace
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)	Hornby, Frank	Perkins, Walter R. D.
Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Horobin, Ian M.	Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Clarke, Frank	Horsbrugh, Florence	Petherick, M.
Clarry, Reginald George	Howard, Tom Forrest	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Conant, R. J. E.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Pownall, Sir Assheton
Cook, Thomas A.	Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)	Procter, Major Henry Adam
Cooke, Douglas	Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Pybus, Sir Percy John
Cooper, A. Duff	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Radford, E. A.
Copeland, Ida	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Cranborne, Viscount	Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)	Ramsbotham, Herwald
Craven-Ellis, William	James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.	Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Crooke, J. Smedley	Jamleson, Douglas	Ratcliffe, Arthur
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Jesson, Major Thomas E.	Rea, Walter Russell
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Joel, Dudley J. Barnato	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Crossley, A. C.	Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)	Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)	Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Curry, A. C.	Jones, Lewis (Swansea. West)	Remer, John R.
Dalkelth, Earl of	Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Rickards, George William
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Ysovil)	Knight, Holford	Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Dawson, Sir Phillp	Knox, Sir Alfred	Ropner, Colonel L.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Denville, Alfred	Law, Sir Alfred	Ross, Ronald D.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Leckie, J. A.	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Dickle, John P.	Leech, Dr. J. W.	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Donner, P. W.	Levy, Thomas	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Drewe, Cedric	Liddall, Walter S.	Runge, Norah Cecil
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm' rnock)	Russell, Albert (Kirkcaidy)
Duggan, Hubert John	Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Lieweilln, Major John J.	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffeld, B'tslde)
Eales, John Frederick	Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Eastwood, John Francis	Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)	Salmon, Sir Isidore
Eden, Robert Anthony	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Salt, Edward W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Lyons, Abraham Montagu	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey	Mabane, William	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Elmley, Viscount	MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)	Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	MacAndrew. Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Savery, Samuel Servington
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	McCorquodale, M. S.	Selley, Harry R.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Macdonald. Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	McEwen, Captain J. H. F.	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)	McKie, John Hamilton	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)	Macmillan. Maurice Harold	Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Everard, W. Lindsay	Macquisten, Frederick Alexander	Smithers, Waldron
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Maitland, Adam	Somervell, Sir Donald
Fox, Sir Gifford	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Fraser, Captain Ian	Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot	Soper, Richard
Fremantle, Sir Francls	Mender, Geoffrey le M.	Sotheran-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Ganzonl, Sir John	Manninaham-Buller. Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Gibson, Charles Granville	Margesson. Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman	Marsden. Commander Arthur	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Martin, Thomas B.	Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Glossop, C. W. H.	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Spens, William Patrick
Giuckstein, Louis Halle	Meller. Sir Richard James	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Glyn, Major Sir Raiph G. C.	Mills. Major J. D. (New Forest)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Goff, Sir Park	Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Gower, Sir Robert	Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Storey, Samuel
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas	Mitcheson. G. G.	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Greene, William P. C.	Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro', W.)	Moreing, Adrian C.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Grimston, R. V.	Morris. Owen Temple (Cardiff. E.)	Summersby, Charles H.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Morrison, William Shephard	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Guy, J. C. Morrison	Moss. Captain H. J.	Thompson, Sir Luke
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Muirhead, Lleut.-Colonel A. J.	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)	Munro, Patrick	Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Nail-Cain. Hon. Ronald	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Hammersiey, Samuel S.	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Train, John
Hanbury, Cecil	Nicholson, Godfrey (Merpeth)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid	Turton, Robert Hugh
Harris, Sir Percy	North, Edward T.	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Hartland, George A.	Nunn, William	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)	O'Connor, Terence James	Ward, Irene Mary Bewlck (Wallsend)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)	O'Donovan, Dr. William James	Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.	Whyte, Jardine Bell	Withers, Sir John James
Waterhouse, Captain Charles	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Watt, Captain George Steven H.	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-	Willoughby do Eresby, Lord	Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Wells, Sydney Richard	Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Weymouth, Viscount	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
White, Henry Graham	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George	Sir Frederick Thomson and Mr.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.	Wise, Alfred R.	Womersley.

NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Milner, Major James
Attlee, Clement Richard	Grithffis, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Owen, Major Goronwy
Banfield, John William	Grundy, Thomas W.	Paling, Wilfred
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. Altred
Buchanan, George	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)	Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Cape, Thomas	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Thorne, William James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Kirkwood, David	Tinker, John Joseph
Cove, William G.	Lawson, John James	Wallhead, Richard C.
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Loonard, William	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Daggar, George	Logan, David Gilbert	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Davles, David L. (Pontypridd)	Lunn, William	Wilmot, John
Dobble, William	McEntee. Valentine L.
Edwards, Charles	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Mainwaring, William Henry	Mr. John and Mr. Groves.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	Maxton, James

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half past Seven of the clock at this day's sitting.

Clause 2—(Power To Enlarge Or Restrict Excepted Employment)

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 3—(Right To, And Duration Of, Benefit)

I desire to put a point of Order to you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, before we take the discussion on Clause 3. We have had a discussion on Clause 1, but there has been no discussion at all on Clause 2. I am not allowed to move to report Progress, and, therefore, I desire to ask the Government, through you, whether, seeing as the guillotine arrangements have broken down and that there has been no waste of time, it is not possible to reconsider the existing arrangements? It seems to me that on this important Clause all the available time will be taken and that we shall not be able to discuss other important Clauses and, therefore, I should like to ask whether some protection cannot be given to hon. Members who desire to discuss these questions.

I, as well as other Members of the Committee, am bound by the Order of the House, which lays it down that certain Clauses are to be passed by a certain hour. It is not for the Committee to vary an Order of the House, and I suggest to hon. Members that as we are working to a timetable they should make their speeches as short as possible in order to give as many hon. Members as possible an opportunity of speaking.

In order not to waste time we did not go to a Division on Clause 2, a most important Clause, and the Government must see that important Clauses are going to be passed without any discussion at all as a result of the Guillotine. I think they should reconsider their time-table.

7.42 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, at the beginning, to insert:

"After the rate of weekly benefit in respect of each dependent child shall have been raised to not less than three shillings."

I am moving this Amendment in the absence of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and in view of what has been said I shall be very brief. Most people who have been in touch with the condition of people who are out of work to-day would say that the greatest need of the moment is the need for raising the amount payable for children. I do not think there is any question about that; and what we are seeking to do by the Amendment is to make it a condition precedent to an extension of insurance benefits, which is one of the great features, and a deservedly good feature, of the Bill. When all is done under the ratio rule by which this Clause is to deal with extending the period during which benefits will be payable, it is highly desirable that contributions should nearly balance benefits. Up to the moment there has been no agitation that benefits should be increased in this manner. But I think that every single person, every social worker who has dealt with this problem, would say that there is a very grave need, in view of the prolonged period of unemployment, for making the first call on any money available the raising of the scale for dependent children.

That is really all the case in view of the short time that we have for discussing the Amendment. I do not know how much it will cost. That, I know, will be thrown up against me by the Minister. But I am certain that this proposal will not cost anything like the money that is available now, because at Question Time the right hon. Gentleman said that to restore all the benefits—this is what I understood, for it is always rather difficult to take down the figures at Question Time—to restore all the cuts which were made in unemployment benefit would involve an expenditure of something like £4,500,000. Hon. Members will see from the financial memorandum attached to the Bill that the provision for the additional benefit under this Clause, it is estimated, will add £8,350,000 to the amount of benefit paid in a year. That is somewhere about twice as much as the restoration of the total cuts. I take it that an extension from 2s. to 3s. would not be anything in the same sphere of millions as that, though that is only one's deduction and one has no figures to quote. I think it is certain, however, that the cost would be nothing like the cost that this Clause will anyhow involve. Therefore, it could quite well be made the first condition precedent, because the money is presumably available under the general scheme of the Bill.

To say that such a move would be a popular move is merely to say the obvious. But it stands to reason that popularity is not being courted by the Bill. The object is to try to make the best insurance scheme possible without inflicting any hardships that can be avoided on any section of the community. Where it is patently obvious that there are hardships in regard to the children, it is our duty as a Committee to deal with them first. I hope that the Government's answer will not be, "Well, the Bill is devised upon a certain financial structure, and an Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee is to be set up under Clause 17 to deal with surpluses, if there are any, and deficiencies, if there are such, and because we are to set up that Committee we ought not to tie their hands ahead of time." I want my proposal to be a condition precedent to anything that the Statutory Committee may be empowered to do. You may tell an architect that you want a house built and leave him to settle the kind of house, but you will surely take the precaution of telling him in which particular field you want him to build. I am prepared to leave the Statutory Committee to deal with surpluses and deficiencies as they arise, but I do not want it to do either before this particular proviso is carried into execution.

It may be asked, why 3s. and not more? It is merely because 3s. is the figure which, so far as I know, is always quoted in all the documents which the Opposition put forward when dealing with this problem. Therefore, presumably, it is what they consider right or not unreasonable to do in the extension of benefits for children. I hope that neither the Minister nor anyone else who criticises the suggestion will do so on the ground that sometimes appears in more irresponsible organs of the public Press, and that is that if anything is ever done to increase the children's benefit it is going to bring about an enormous increase in the population of this country. That argument has often been quoted. The Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) will recognise it.

It never came from a woman.

I did not say that it did; I said it came from some of the more irresponsible organs of the Press. I hope that that argument will never be used in this connection, because it is a perfectly wicked one to bring up. I shall be interested to hear any argument of the Minister against the Amendment. On the face of it, there might be something to be said for a slight alteration. If it was found that there was not enough money to raise the benefits for all the children to 3s., a case could be argued that the first two or three children should have the 3s. and the next children the 2s. I have been told—of course it is a matter of which I have no personal knowledge—that in the case of very large families it is slightly easier to get on than when there are only one or two children. If the money is insufficient to do what we suggest, it might, be possible to find a compromise in that way, but guessing from the figures that we have—it is all that we can do—my hon. Friend and I think that the money is there, and, if it is there, we suggest that this should be made a condition precedent to the extension of any kind of benefits in any direction.

7.53 p.m.

I can well understand the hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) bringing forward an Amendment of this kind, because we are just resuming after a holiday of about five weeks, and no doubt the hon. and gallant Member has been in his constituency and has seen a good deal of the poverty resulting from the prevalent unemployment.

The Amendment was put on the Paper before the House adjourned.

I give the hon. and gallant Member credit for foresight. I remember him in this House since 1922, and I would be the last person in the world to say that he was short of tact and shrewdness. There must be many Members more or less conscience-stricken at the apathy shown by the Government regarding the restoration of the cuts in benefit imposed on the unemployed in 1931. I can well understand that hon. Members would like to see a slight increase in the children's benefit, because they know what is taking place up and down the country. We on the Opposition side welcome a discussion on this Amendment, because we hope that it may be possible to extract from the Minister of Labour some statement of the Government's intention with regard to the restoration of the 1931 cuts. I am one of those who believe that the Government have no intention whatever of restoring the cuts. I may be wrong; I hope I am. But during the past three of four months there have been repeated questions put to the Minister, and not the slightest attempt has been made to answer them. We want to know from him what are the Government's intentions. Do they intend to restore the cuts, or do they not? I have read with a good deal of interest the woolly speeches made by the Prime Minister recently——

On a point of Order. This Amendment deals with the rate of benefit for children and does not deal with the restoration of the unemployment benefit cuts, and as the rate of benefit for children has never been more than 2s., even in the most munificent period of the Labour Government, is it in order for the hon. Member to discuss the restoration of the cuts?

Is it not competent for an hon. Member to suggest that if there is a tendency to accept Amendments of this kind, it is to be presumed that it is not the intention of the Government to restore the cuts which were made in 1931?

Is it not relevant, when discussing the amount of benefit that is to go to the children to discuss the amount that is to go to the parents?

Further to the point of Order. The exact point of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Macmillan) was that my hon. Friend was dealing with the question of the Prime Minister's speech. Surely it is not out of order to deal with that at any time

I was myself under the impression that at one time the rate was 3s. for the eldest child, with lower rates for the second child and other children. I may be wrong. Perhaps we had better leave the question of cuts alone.

I could go into the whole history of Unemployment Insurance, but I agree that that would be out of order. I remember that when Miss Bondfield was Minister of Labour hon. Members who were then in Opposition voted for 5s. a week for the children, knowing that there was no possible chance of it being carried. I can understand the anxiety of the hon. Member for Stock- ton (Mr. Macmillan) that we should not discuss what the Prime Minister has been saying recently. As a matter of fact if the hon. Member knows what the Prime Minister means he knows more than I do, and that is the opinion generally held in the country. I was making the point that we want to know from the Minister of Labour what are the Government's intentions. On the Second Reading of the Bill we were told repeatedly that when it reached the Committee stage we should be able to ask the Minister definite questions and get definite answers.

I support the Amendment because even 1s. a week additional benefit for the children would be welcomed in the homes of the unemployed. When we have Ministers talking about people living on calories of about 3,000, and of 5s. 2¼d. a week being sufficient to maintain a man, with due respect to the rules of the House I can only reply that the man who says that is talking through his hat. I suggest to the Minister that if he cannot accept the Amendment he should give the country an assurance as to what the Government intend to do with regard to restoring the cuts in unemployment benefit. Whether we get that assurance or not, I tell the Mover of this Amendment that if the Minister will not accept it and it goes to a division, we on this side will support it.

7.59 p.m.

I wish to support the Amendment. During the Second Reading Debate we were told that there would be a sum, amounting to £8,500,000, which was to be a surplus to this fund, and this particular Clause allocates the spending of that £8,500,000. It is to be spent, I understand, by giving back a certain extra amount of benefit to the people who have paid the most premiums. What is suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) is that before that money is given back to the people who have paid the greatest number of premiums, the children should receive 3s. a week instead of 2s. a week. In the Second Reading Debate I pointed out that in Burnley, which is close to my division, the amount given for the first child was 5s., for the second child 4s. and for the third child 3s. 6d.; that in Preston the amount was 3s., and that in Warrington 3s., 4s. and 5s. were the amounts allowed. I also quoted a statement of the British Medical Association giving some figures showing the amount estimated to be required for the proper nourishment of children of different ages. The amount for children under six years was 3s. 5d.; that for children over eight and under 10 years was 4s. 2d., and for children over 12 and under 14 it was 5s. 4d.

In view of these facts, I would press upon my right hon. Friend to consider this Amendment very seriously. I feel that all the people who are to benefit under Clause 3 would be very glad to delay the coming into operation of those benefits in order to allow the children to have the extra benefit which is here proposed. I feel that if we can induce the Minister to allow the children to have 3s. under Part I of the Bill it will give an indication to the Unemployment Assistance Board which is to be set up under Part II that we consider that 2s. is not enough and that 3s. will be laid down as the amount in relation to transitional benefit under Part II of the Bill. I ask the Minister in all sincerity to remember the deep distress which prevails in Lancashire, and I urge him to consider the acceptance of this Amendment.

8.5 p.m.

I only wish to make a brief intervention because we have other important matters to discuss on this Clause. We treat this Amendment as seriously as the hon. and gallant Member has suggested it ought to be treated, but we on this side want to be quite sure that we are not giving the Government some cheap substitute for the restoration of the cuts. How far we can discuss a matter of that kind on the Amendment is very doubtful. When the Money Resolution was passed it practically set aside what is called the surplus, for interest upon the fund and for the matter of the 52 weeks instead of 26 weeks. I think in order to shorten the discussion upon this Amendment and enable us to get down to the fundamental parts of the Clause, the Minister might reply to this point and tell us at once what the Government propose to do about it.

8.6 p.m.

I wish to express my gratitude to the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) for introducing this matter. The Minister must be aware that the Amendment does no more than express the general feeling throughout the country and in the House of Commons. For years everybody has been in favour of a larger benefit in respect of children but it is unfortunate that those who have expressed the desire to increase the childrens allowance have always been, at the moment, on benches other than the Government bench. I feel that this rate has only lasted as sudh a low insurance rate, because of the sacrifices which the working-class mother always makes for her children in times of distress. Without that, it would have been palpable to the most casual observer that the children were ill-nurtured and underfed. This is an opportunity, When the Government is passing a Measure which looks as if it had all the characteristics of permanency to deal with that matter and the Government ought to accept the Amendment as a precautionary measure. I should associate myself with what has been said already on another point. Although we welcome such an Amendment and would support it if it went to a Division, we would not regard it as in any way equivalent to the restoration of the cuts. But we assume that to be a matter which does not arise on this Amendment and which is not capable of appropriate and effective discussion at this stage.

8.8 p.m.

I also put in a plea for this Amendment. We all, I think, realise the impossibility of keeping a child on 2s. a week and, as has been pointed out, the attempt to do so means that the benefit available for the rest of the family is cut down. I wish to ask the Minister whether in the event of his refusal to accept the Amendment the matter will remain open so that the 3s. can be put in under Part II of the Bill? In my area the 2s. is regularly supplemented up to the figure of 3s. 6d. out of public assistance funds. In future, it will not be possible to supplement Part I benefit out of public assistance funds but it will be possible to supplement Part I benefit out of Part II. Is the Minister going to keep the matter open, so that the practice which has done a great deal in my area to make the present system acceptable can be continued in some form? Will he make certain that room is left for supplementing Part I out of Part II, until such time as the Part I scale is brought up to 3s? That would avoid all technical questions as to whether or not the fund can bear 3s. at present. I understand that the Department of Health in Scotland have never questioned the propriety of the public assistance bodies making the 2s. up to 3s. 6d. It has been recognised that, where local feeling so required, such a supplement ought to be given and I should view with dismay any change which resulted in it being impossible in future by one means or another to supplement the 2s. at least to 3s. If the Minister is unable at present to promise an increase under Part I of the Bill we ask him to leave the door open for making Part II provide for such a supplement.

8.11 p.m.

During the Second Reading Debate I suggested that the 2s. should be raised to 3s. and I should like therefore to refer briefly to one point which arises on this Amendment. I rather disagree with the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. J. Reid). I believe that under the Bill, Part I can be supplemented by Part II but apart from that and regardless of the question of cuts I should like to see the 3s. figure stand as a good figure on its own merits. It is probably a bad principle in many cases to supplement Part I by Part II. Personally I would sooner see Part II supplemented by the public assistance committee. That however is another question and I would say at this point that expert opinion outside the House of Commons has long been convinced that the method here proposed would be the best method of making the benefit under unemployment insurance of a higher standard. It is wrong to talk about need because insurance has nothing to do with need, and it is insurance with Which we are dealing. Therefore to fix the 3s. which I think is an arbitrary figure is probably the best method. It was suggested in the "Times" over a year ago and I think figures were given showing that it would not involve the enormous expenditure which some people thought it would involve. I have forgotten the actual figures and I have not got them here because I thought this matter would arise on Clause 10 but I would support the proposal on its own merits, regardless of questions of supplementation or of cuts, as setting out a figure which ought to have been there several years ago, as a part of insurance benefit.

8.14 p.m.

I find myself, as I think the majority of the Committee are, in sympathy and agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend who has moved this Amendment. I gather that his purpose is that before any additional period is added to the 26 weeks, the benefit in respect of children should be raised to 8s. per week. I only rise to ask whether the words here proposed will in fact achieve the object of my hon. and gallant Friend. It seems to me that in the place in which he proposes to insert these words, having regard to the fact that he uses the words "after the rate of weekly benefit shall have been raised," the effect of the Amendment will be to prevent any benefit at all being paid under this Measure until something has been done which results in raising the dependents allowance. I suggest that the appropriate place for the Amendment is in line 30. The Clause would then provide that an insured contributor should receive benefit, subject to fulfilling the statutory conditions, in respect of 156 days and after the children's allowance has been raised to 3s. should then be entitled, under the statutory provisions, in respect of additional days.

8.15 p.m.

An appeal has been made to me, the sincerity of which I do not doubt for one second, by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. J. Reid), to accept this Amendment. I do not dispute the fact that there is perhaps a general opinion that these children's allowances should be raised. I am, therefore, bound to give, perhaps in some detail, the reasons, which appeal to me as overwhelming, why I cannot accept this Amendment. In doing so, I must ask the Committee to remember the history of these children's allowances. I was in the House at the time, and I think that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), and other hon. Members opposite were also in the House when this question was first raised. It was first raised in the Coalition Government, when the then Minister of Labour, Dr. Macnamara, brought in a Bill, entitled the Unemployed Workers' Dependants Bill, in 1921, and then for the first time he gave an allowance to children of 1s., and he gave a wife's allowance of 5s. Further—it is not very material or important—there was actually in that Bill a provision that, in all, the two sums of 5s. and 1s. should not exceed 9s., which meant, of course, that the 1s. applied to four children and could in no case go beyond that. That supplement of 1s. was increased by Mr. Shaw, who was then Minister of Labour, in 1924 to 2s., and the wife's benefit of 5s. remained the same.

At that figure of 2s. it has remained from that day to this, but, on the other hand, the benefit to the wife has varied from time to time. For instance, it was increased to 7s. by the Conservative Government in 1928, it was increased to 9s. by the Labour Government in 1930, and that 9s. was affected, like other benefits, in 1931, but the children's allowance remained unchanged during the whole of that period from 1924 onwards. All the arguments which have been addressed to the Committee to-day, and all the reasons, with which we are very familiar, have been present with exactly the same force from 1924 to the present time, and indeed they are reasons which applied with additional force, because the cost of living, taking the usual 100 as the ratio for 1914, was in November, 1921, 203, and in 1930, when the Labour party was in power, the cost of living was 161, while to-day it is 142. The point that I make with regard to that is that these arguments have all existed during the whole of that time. Every Government—the Coalition Government, the first Labour Government, next the Conservative Government, then the Labour Government, and then the National Government—have all of them, in spite of these reasons, allowed this sum to remain the same.

Why was it that the last Conservative Government and the last Labour Govern- went allowed the sum to remain at 2s.? They must have had very good reasons, because all these arguments which we have heard to-day and all these appeals with which we are so familiar were just as present when the Labour Government were in power as they are to-day, and, as I say, they applied with even greater force because of the cost of living. Let me give what I conceive to be the reason. It is that every Government has regarded as the appropriate unit of variation, not this grant-in-aid to the children—because that is what it is—but the benefit given to the parent. The benefit given to the parent has, of course, been varied from time to time, but this grant-in-aid has remained static, because each Government in turn has felt, as I say, that the proper method of dealing with the total amount was by varying the benefit rate and not this grant-in-aid. The present Amendment, supported as it is, I fully agree, by very powerful arguments, asks me for the first time to vary this grant and to increase it. I was asked for figures in connection with the Amendment. This Amendment, if adopted, would cost nearly £2,000,000, but I do not base myself on that. I only mention the fact in order to show that the amount involved is very considerable, but that is not the ground on which I base my refusal, my reluctant refusal, to accept the Amendment.

Having made that brief historical review of what has happened under every party during the last dozen years, let me state the present position. The majority of the House have accepted the view that this insurance fund should be solvent and self-supporting. That was the view, we know, of the last Labour Government, because in their terms of reference to the Royal Commission they made it a term of reference that it should be the duty of the Royal Commission to devise a scheme under which the fund would be self-supporting. I make no debating point about that—hon. Members opposite have a perfect right to change their minds on this or on any other point—I am merely pointing out that up to quite recently that was the view of every party in the House. I stated in my Second Reading speech that in spite of what is, I think, a manifest improvement in trade, as shown by the fall in the expenditure—and I took full account of the normal annual increase—I did not think I should be justified, so soon after I made that estimate, which I then called a very conservative estimate, in revising it.

The Bill provides, in Part I, that we should set up a committee whose function it is to give advice after considering all possible alternatives, and the Bill also provides—I do not know whether hon. Members have observed it—that this committee shall come into existence as soon as this Bill becomes law. That provision was put in so that no time would be lost in enabling them to get to work in considering just such problems as we are considering to-night. It has been constantly urged in all parts of the House and in the country that the question of cuts should be reconsidered as soon as possible. I agree that that should be done, but the recommendations which the Statutory Committee make must be determined by the state of the fund, and I am most anxious that their full consideration of the situation should not be prejudiced at this moment by my adding this obligation of something like £2,000,000. I want that committee to have an absolutely free hand to make their report and give their advice. It is certainly within the province of the Committee to consider the proposal that has been made this evening and to make any recommendations they like both in regard to the grants-in-aid of the children and in regard to the cuts, and they will consider whether the state of the fund warrants it.

I do hope, having regard to what I have said, that hon. Members will not ask me to take a course of action at this time in these circumstances which would be novel and contrary to the course of action which has been taken by every Government during the last 10 years. I make that plea because I want the Statutory Committee to feel that they have an absolutely free hand to deal with this matter, both in regard to the fund and in regard to the allowances, just as they feel that the state of the fund warrants. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) said in effect that it would not be unpopular or misunderstood if we took some part of the £8,300,000 which is being utilised in order to take a very large number of people off the means test. He said that we should take some of that and utilise it in defraying the cost which would be involved if the Amend- ment were accepted. Quite frankly, I cannot break faith with those on the means test who have had their expectations aroused——

I do not want my right hon. Friend to misinterpret me. I said I thought that the people who would receive this benefit would be willing to allow this other obligation to come in front of them.

That comes to the same thing. If it comes in front of those on the means test, there is so much less money to be devoted towards the extension of the 26 weeks. I think that it would be a grave breach of faith after what we have said and the expectations we have aroused and the hopes we have excited with regard to the means test if we said that we cannot extend the 26 weeks because we have placed another obligation in front of those on the means test. I do not think that that would be treating those people fairly, and I am not prepared to do it. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk asked me whether the question remains open. Of course, it remains open. In Part II there is no figure at all, and the regulations will come before this House for approval.

As I understand it, the regulations will come before the House in such a shape that we shall not be entitled to propose an Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman will undertake that the regulations will come before the House in such a shape that I or some other Member will be entitled to propose as an Amendment to the scales under Part II the substitution or insertion of 3s., I will withdraw my opposition to this Section.

The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot give an undertaking of that kind. There is no figure named in Part II. This matter will be considered by the board, and all the arguments which have been stressed with such force by hon. Members in all parts of the House will be before the board when the regulations are framed.

Of course, the Minister has power to alter anything that the board may recommend. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that he will insert the figure of 3s. in the means test scale, or give some undertaking on those lines?

How can the hon. Gentleman expect me at this stage to give an undertaking as to what I shall do under Part II. He is in any case premature, and any question of that kind would be very much better raised two months hence. I hope I have made the position clear, namely, that at this time I should, first of all, not be acting in accordance with precedent; and, in the second place, that, while I am fully alive to the force of the case that has been put before me, I claim that in the past this grant-in-aid has remanded static, and, while it will be open to the Committee to make any recommendations they like, I do not think it would be fair to the Fund or to the Committee or to the insured persons themselves if this Amendment were accepted.

8.33 p.m.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be a very good guide to the Statutory Committee if this Committee showed a large vote in favour of the Amendment? I do not say that they should defeat the Government; I do not go so far as that, but it would give an indication of what the House and the country feel when the Statutory Committee adjudicate on the question?

8.34 p.m.

In my experience in the House I have seen supporters of the Government in the difficult position of desiring to go into the Lobby against the Government and yet not wanting to defeat the Government, but I have never heard it so ingenuously expressed as by the Noble Lady. She wants all the reputation of virtue without paying any of the price for it.

I am not nervous of my reputation for virtue.

I refrained from speaking before the Minister because I wanted to give the Minister's own supporters an opportunity of addressing their arguments to him. Now that the Minister has replied I would like to show what real bunkum it is to which we have been listening. The Minister must permit me to point out what, in fact, his statement means. I grant that he speaks in as conciliatory a manner as any other man in this House, and far more so than most; if the Minister of Health had taken a leaf out of his book, probably he would not have created such a nasty feeling in the country. What the Minister has said to his supporters is "I realise the force of your arguments, indeed, I am inclined to be powerfully moved by them, and probably when the Statutory Committee get to work they will take those factors into consideration after they have provided for the £5,000,000 a year." Really, you must permit us to point out what hypocrisy that is. You cannot stand up and claim to have any regard for the children or for the arguments which have been addressed to you——

The hon. Member had better address the Chair.

I am addressing myself to the fact that it will be almost impossible for the statutory committee to take this matter into consideration, because the Minister, in the proposals we are now discussing, has deprived the committee of the money which they have at their disposal, and has imposed upon them a statutory obligation to meet other outgoings before they face up to the prospect of increasing dependants' allowances. That is perfectly in order.

Apparently, the hon. Member did not gather why I interrupted him. I said that he had better address his remarks to the Chair, because I thought it was particularly dangerous that he should be addressing the Minister as "you" in the strain in which he was then speaking.

I apologise, Sir Dennis. I prefer the more direct mode of expression, but I will conform to the rules of the House. I was suggesting that it is obvious that the Minister, in his reply, did not speak with his customary candour. Again, the Minister said, in effect, that he has so little confidence in the revival of trade now supposed to be taking place that he regards it as undesirable to vary the rate of benefit, because the rate might have to be lowered again in the immediate future. That is what the Minister meant by his statement just now that it would be undesirable to alter the rate of benefit because it is too soon as yet to make decisions of that kind. It is a pleasing thing to raise children's allowances by 1s. a week, but if they were raised now and the fund did not balance they might have to be reduced in the immediate future, and the result would be politically unpopular. The Government will not expose themselves to unpopularity by varying the rate. The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Colonel Crookshank) was perfectly correct; it is much the more popular thing and the more just thing to alter the rate of benefit than the period of benefit, but it is much the most dangerous thing to do if we are imposing upon the fund the obligation of making itself actuarially solvent, because if the rate of benefit is varied it might have to be varied downwards as well as upwards. At any rate the Minister of Labour, who, with the special knowledge at his disposal has not very much confidence in the revival of trade, thinks it would be undesirable to vary it at this stage.

He went on to explain that the reason he is unable to accept this Amendment is that it would upset the whole financial structure of his Bill, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to find no new money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to take the money from the Unemployment Insurance Fund; to save money by extending the insurance period. A second reason why he could not raise the rate of benefit is that if he did so he would not have any transitional benefit applicants taken off his shoulders. In that situation he relieves himself of £6,750,000 by extending the period of benefit and transferring the charge from the Budget to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The third reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot agree to an Amendment of this description is found in the argument raised by the hon. Member sitting behind me that if we raise the rate of benefit we make it more difficult to keep down unemployment assistance to the level at which it must be kept if the Chancellor is to save money. Therefore, there are three reasons why the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to save the Budget and to save the taxpayer, must keep the rate of unemployment benefit down. The Minister knows that as well as I do, and it is a further vindication of the argument we advanced on the Second Read- ing which the Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to shelve by sharp practice in debate. In point of fact the Government are giving an indication to the Statutory Committee of how they are to handle future surpluses.

No, I really cannot allow that to pass. No indication one way or the other is given to the Statutory Committee. They will have an absolutely free hand to deal with this matter, with "cuts" and with every other point.

The statutory committee will find themselves in the same difficulty as the right hon. Gentleman is in at the moment. They will, first, have to find this £5,000,000; in the next place they will have to discuss what they are to do with any surpluses at their disposal. They are going to be very careful, as the Minister has been. They are going to accumulate large surpluses before they alter the rate. I ask the Members of this Committee, in all seriousness, whether they think the gentlemen sitting on the statutory committee, not being able to see the course of trade for anything more than a year ahead—most business men cannot see it for more than a week ahead—are going to increase the rate of benefit if they know that in perhaps a few months' time or in a year's time they may have to reduce the rate of benefit again, and expose themselves to all the shocks of public criticism? The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour have, between them, provided the statutory committee with a most elastic way of disposing of any surplus—a way capable of actuarial calculation, a way capable of variation with the least difficulty and the least acrimony. If they have a surplus at their disposal they can extend the period of benefit and relieve the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If they have a deficit accumulating they can contract the period of benefit. Those are the indications which the Minister has made to the statutory committee. Those are the facts of the case, and I shall be surprised if we see any substantial alteration in the rate of benefit. The Minister made so many highly controversial statements in his reply that we could not allow them to go unchallenged.

In the next place, let me say that the hon. Members who proposed the increase in the rate of benefit to children seemed to ignore the fact that a child is a part of a family. They voted for the reduction in unemployment insurance benefit, which falls as heavily on the child as it does on the parents.

No.

The Noble Lady says "No." If you take the money of the mother and father, and if you admit that 2s. is inadequate for the child, you take away from the mother and father what they would expend on the child.

Exactly.

It is utter nonsense for hon. Members to try to snatch a little sentimental victory by putting up arguments of that kind. In his history, the Minister left out the point that although the Labour Government resisted an Amendment to increase the children's allowances, they increased the wife's allowance. The Government to which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible and of which he is a Member took that allowance off, and thereby took away some of the subsistence from the children. An hon. Member used the argument that his public assistance authority was supplementing insurance benefit by the Poor Law, and he let it be assumed that in future unemployment assistance is to supplement insurance benefit. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) said that we are discussing insurance matters and not needs matters. If this 3s. is not fixed on the assumption that it is the amount necessary to support a child, will he support the contention that, on the basis of the needs, we must give more than 3s. to every child? Will the hon. Member do that? Of course, he will not. He will not accept the logic of his position, which is that if one deals with the needs test he must meet the needs, and if 3s. is not adequate to meet the needs of the children it must be supplemented. The Chancellor of the Exchequer saves £10,000,000 a year by not supplementing that sum, and the very purpose of the Bill is to give less under Part II than under Part I. The hon. Member must be brought to see the irrelevancies and inconsistencies, and he must face up to the inconsistencies of his own position.

I have never said that Part II is lower than Part I. Part II is based upon need. I never said such a thing.

I never accused the hon. Member of saying it. What I said was that if he accepts the logic of the position which he puts before the Committee, that the amount given to the children shall be based upon the children's needs, and if 2s., or even 3s., is less than they require, then they must receive more, even under Part II of the Bill. Two years' experience shows that they will receive less, and in only an insignificant number of cases will unemployment assistance be used to supplement insurance benefit. The argument that has been advanced over and over again is that men who have had long periods of employment ought to be more favourably treated than men who have had longer periods of unemployment, and the less favourable treatment that is given to these is to transfer them to the needs test. Transference to the needs test is transference to a lower standard of life.

That is the position. Most of the people in my constituency who are unemployed would not receive a cent, because more than 70 per cent., 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of those who are out of work are not receiving transitional payments, and would have no advantage at all from the Amendment which has been rejected. I urge hon. Members to realise when considering these matters that the Minister cannot receive Amendments of this description without altering the whole financial structure of the Bill, and that if they move such Amendments in the future they ought to do so with that knowledge in the forefront of their minds.

8.50 p.m.

I am sorry that this Debate has taken place upon this Amendment, because it is not the proper way in which to approach the question of the children's allowance. By his answer the Minister has raised what was a minor Amendment to a very high level of importance. We can take the Minister's answer as being the one that he would give at a later stage to any proposal for a variation of benefit. His answer impressed very strongly upon my mind the force of the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and other speakers, that we are to stop discussing the unemployment benefit and the treatment of the 2,000,000 people, now that the care of them is to be taken over by the Statutory Committee. That was the tenor of the Minister's answer, and he is more than scrupulous about saying anything in this Committee that will indicate, either to the Statutory Committee or to the public outside, that he will in any way attempt to influence or to prejudice in advance the decisions of that committee. His answer makes it all the more important, if in the future we are to have no say as to how unemployed people are to be treated, that before we finally give away our rights we shall make ourselves heard very definitely.

The Minister excused himself for continuing the 2s. payments in this legislation by giving a history of children's allowances in previous Parliaments. He justified them on the fact that the amount has remained stationary for a considerable number of years. I cannot remember any Minister trying to defend 2s. as an adequate amount to keep a child. I had not heard any Minister at any stage advance the justification which the Minister has presented to-day. The justification that I have heard in the past has always been that there was an assumption of other resources; that unemployment was not a long-term matter because the assumption was that the man was going to get back into employment; that payments under unemployment insurance were not supposed to meet all his needs, but were an assistance to tide over the gaps between one period of remunerative employment and another. Those arguments cease to have potency with every year of extended unemployment. The assumption of other resources on the part of the unemployed man is a less sound assumption to-day than it was three or four years ago, and the assumption of only a short gap of unemployment to be bridged is a less sound assumption than it was in the past.

We have now got to the stage when, if we are genuinely honest, we have to face up to the fact that what is going to be allowed for maintaining a child is what we vote here, and, if we do not give an adequate amount, then the youngster is going to be inadequately attended. Do not let us soothe our consciences in any way by assuming that, when we vote a parent 2s. to keep a child, there will be 2s. coming from some other place, and 3s. from somewhere else, so that as a whole it will make up an adequate amount. If we vote 2s. in this Bill, then it is a 2s. standard that is going to be the standard of maintenance for the children, and that is an impossible sum of money—quite impossible. The House does not like personal allusions, but, if I were asked to-night to face the task of maintaining my one child on 2s., I should consider that I was being faced with a cruel, a brutal and an inhuman proposal, and I am sure that that is the feeling of every Member in the House. We have no right to face it in any other way than this: "Would you take in hand to maintain your child, do the right thing by it in every respect, feed it, clothe it, house it, educate it, give it the fun that every child is entitled to get—would you take in hand to do these things on 2s.?" The answer would be a unanimous negative. And the giving of that youngster the chance to grow up big and strong and hearty, full of the joy of life, and the fitness to grapple with life, is an infinitely bigger political consideration than the getting of the figures of the Unemployment Insurance Fund to balance.

I do not know what the hon. and gallant Member who proposed this Amendment is going to do about it. While I have been in Parliament, hon. Members on the Government side of the House have always found excuses, and may I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) that I felt that in his speech to-night he was trying to find excuses for himself for doing something which in his own heart and conscience he knows to be wrong. I have no doubt that the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), who has absented himself while the Committee has been seriously discussing his Amendment, will not in the end carry it to a Division, but, so far as I am concerned, I am not going to ask any statutory committee to shoulder my responsibility. I am taking my responsibilities in my own hands, and, in the case of every Amendment moved in this Committee and accepted by the Chair which proposes to increase the allowances to the unemployed man, his wife, or his dependants, I vote for that Amendment.

8.59 p.m.

I could not but admire the Parliamentary skill of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour when he came to reply to this Amendment. It was clear in the course of the discussion, at any rate in its earlier stages, that there was a very large body of opinion which supported the Amendment. It is true that, since the Minister spoke, Members of the Opposition, with the. I think, somewhat common lack of good Parliamentary tactics, have done their best to insult all Members on the Government side who might have liked to support the Amendment. I must say that I thought my right hon. Friend showed all those gifts which have so rightly and for so long endeared him to the House. He began on a very low note. He gave an account of the history of this particular form of benefit, and he showed that it was in no way connected with the original idea of insurance, but bad been introduced and raised from the paltry sum of 1s. to 2s., and that it was, as it were, a kind of fixed, permanent principle that dependants' benefit as regards children should be at the rate of 2s. In the course of this argument he put forward some propositions which I could not believe he really put forward very seriously. He said that this proposal was contrary to precedent, but that argument could be used against every reform, and complete consistency would be a bar to any kind of progress. I would remind my right hon. Friend that, as a great Prime Minister once said, it is the privilege of great men not only to follow precedents but to create them, and I should like him on this occasion not to appeal so learnedly, and even pedantically, to the history of this sum, but to consider more seriously the arguments which were put forward in support of the Amendment.

Surely, the real question that we are now discussing is a very clear one. We are not by this Amendment making any additional charge on the Exchequer. Of course, if the Amendment did that, it would not be called by the Chair. There is no question of this £2,000,000 coming out of the Exchequer; it does not come from the taxpayer. We are sitting here, as I understand it, in Committee on this Bill, to do the best we can as trustees for the beneficiaries, and to lay down the kind of direction in which we want the fund accumulated from the resources which it has at its command to be spent; and, surely, what this Amendment does is to say that, in distributing the fund as it accumulates, this increased benefit to children shall be a prior charge before further benefits are given such as those described in Clause 3 under the ratio rule. We say that this shall be a prior charge, as it were a lien on the fund to the extent of £2,000,000, and that would be the immediate effect of the Amendment if it were carried. Surely, therefore, it is our duty to consider whether we prefer to lay that down or, as the Minister suggests, perhaps to leave it to the Committee to consider in due course whether that kind of benefit might be given. I am not very much impressed by my right hon. Friend's argument that, if we were to carry this Amendment, we should be unduly tying the hands of the Committee. In Clause 3 we are tying the hands of the Committee to the tune of £8,000,000; and, if this Amendment introduces a novel benefit, so does Clause 3. The Minister's argument against the Amendment was that it was novel. The whole of Clause 3 is novel. He says it is without precedent that benefit should be given to children. So is this unprecedented. If really the logic of his argument were followed, it would surely be said that you are just as much tying the hands of the Committee by Clause 3 as by this particular and specific proposal.

I find myself in agreement with what has been said in many quarters of the House, and particularly my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass). I believe that at no time has public opinion been happy about this sum of 2s., and that the raising of it to 3s. will be acceptable in every part of the House and in every part of the country. It is obviously true that, if it were accepted, it would pro tanto delay some other benefit which would be given to some other class of beneficiary, but, like my hon. and gallant Friend, I believe that those classes of beneficiaries would prefer this slight reduction of their benefit in order to establish once and for all the principle of raising this amount. Both the rival schools of medical authorities who have been discussing these matters have put it considerably higher than 3s. I cannot help thinking that the Committee would be wise to adopt this Amendment. I do not altogether think the Minister did himself justice in saying that we should in some way or other be betraying hopes which have been held out to those under the means test. There are other sources—he knows that there is the source of £5,000,000 a year to be used in repayment of debt—to carry out both the desired objects. I shall certainly vote if the Amendment is pressed to a Division, and I hope all my hon. Friends will do so. We think public opinion will approve that this prior charge should be admitted upon the sums which will ultimately be available for division among the different classes of beneficiaries under the scheme.

9.30 p.m.

This Amendment proposes that the Committee should say, with regard to the money available, what are the first things which should be done first. After all, that is a matter which it is eminently for the Committee to decide. An attempt having been made in that direction, we are told in effect by the Minister that is an improper and, indeed, an impossible thing to do. The Minister himself has not hesitated to put additional burdens upon the fund. We must not interfere with that at all. That is to be sacrosanct. If we make an alteration in one direction, we are going to disappoint the expectations of those on the means test. If we make an alteration in another direction, we shall disappoint the expectations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are likely to disappoint someone whatever we do. But the Minister may give these indications, and afterwards it is handed over to another body, the Statutory Committee, who are also allowed to make their suggestions as to what are the first things which should come first, but the people on the back benches are not to make any suggestions at all or, if they do, they have done something apparently in very poor taste, and, although the suggestion comes in the most friendly way from Conservative supporters of the Government, we are put off with a statement which means that we can only look forward to any suggestions of the kind that we make on other parts of the Bill receiving the same answer.

What sort of Council of State are we becoming if our consideration of a Bill of this kind is to be along these lines? This is a matter on which back bench Members have, perhaps, a greater right to speak than they have on Measures of another kind. So many of us are in close contact with the people who are suffering and are seeing the immediate results of this legislation that, however wise the Front Bench may be, they can afford to take a hint from the back benches on a matter like this, just as they can from the Statutory Committee. It is very unfortunate that we should have been greeted with a blank refusal in these terms. The eloquent appeal that was made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) aroused echoes in every part of the House. The conscience of the House in all parts has been aroused on this matter of the children's allowances, and I hope the Committee is not going to be satisfied with the suave and intriguing suggestion of the Minister that everything will come out all right in the long run if we only leave it to his beautiful committee. We are responsible, and we cannot afford to abdicate our responsibility in favour of anyone. I hope that the Amendment will be pressed to a Division and that there will be a sufficient vote on it to show to the country and to the Ministerial benches the way the public conscience is feeling in the matter.

9.12 p.m.

I should like to make an appeal to the Minister. The strength and depth of the feeling in the House on the subject is obvious. If the Amendment is pressed to a Division, I shall be bound to vote in favour of it. I would suggest an argument which I do not think has been put before, or rather the contrary side of an argument which has been put, I think, erroneously. If there is one thing certain about the working of the Bill, it is that under Part II a higher children's allowance will be fixed. One hon. Member opposite said the experience of the means test in the past has been that it was always low, but he was only thinking of transitional payment, which is not the analogy of Part II. He was not thinking of the work of all the public assistance authorities throughout the country, and it is not true that their allowances in respect of children have been fixed below the allowances payable under the insurance scheme. It is inevitable that, if Part II works properly, a higher allowance should be fixed for the children by the Assistance Board.

That in itself, I agree, is no argument. It is perfectly proper to say, being an insurance scheme, that we will pay benefit to an insured person without any consideration at all of his family commitments. He has made a contract, and he gets something in exchange. He is the insured person. He gets the benefit. But, as the Minister pointed out, the Government left that position some 12 years ago. We began to give the children allowances, and we are now in that position, and every Government that the Minister quoted has been in that position, and it is no uncommon thing for a Government which is in that illogical position, or a succession of Governments which find themselves in the same illogical position, to do nothing about it. That is all that Governments do when they come to an illogical conclusion. They have done nothing about it, and find themselves in this impossible position, that they have got outside what might be regarded as the direct insurance principle, and have fixed a family allowance at a figure which, by the confession of every public assistance committee in the country, is wholly inadequate. That is the illogical position in which previous and weak Governments have been content to remain, but that is no reason why this National Government with a doctor's mandate should be involved interminably in the same illogical position in which previous Labour Governments have been involved.

The time has come definitely now—and it is the first thing, taking precedence over additional days of benefit, and over the restoration of the cuts, and it takes, in my view, precedence over everything else—when, as far as possible, and making various allowances which we all recognise should be made, those family allowances should either be put upon a logical basis, or should be abolished altogether and the insured person himself recognised as the only beneficiary of a flat rate of benefit. Of those two alternatives there can be no doubt as to what we must choose. Statesmen with a due regard to public opinion and to facts cannot put the clock wholly back. We must put the family allowance on a basis on which it will appear primafacie reasonable to public opinion and to the insured people themselves. That is the position in which we find ourselves. I really appeal to the Minister—and I cannot be accused of not having been thus far a supporter of this Government—to recognise the real strength of feeling in this House, not merely the emotional appeal which the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) put before us—we can all make emotional appeals—but the real argumentative case for this Amendment, and, realising that fact, I hope that the Minister will be prepared to make a concession.

9.19 p.m.

I should not have intervened for a moment in this Debate were is not for the fact that I am fully convinced that the Government have an opportunity of doing something which is really noble, and making provision for the children who belong to the unemployed who have contributed to the fund. We have heard an Amendment moved by an hon. Member of the Government who thoroughly agrees that the children's allowance ought to be raised. If it is not raised, there will be a stigma on the National Government because they are stating to-night that the standard in respect of the child life of the nation is fixed at a sum of two shillings a week. The Noble Lord mentioned that relief has not been based on the standard rate of pay to unemployed. Speaking of my knowledge of the Poor Law, the standard of unemployment benefit is certainly in the minds of members of the public assistance committees in regard to the relief which they are granting. In many cases a genuinely unemployed man who has been paying into the fund is not able to get any public assistance at all. We are reminded to-night that the advocacy of an increase for the children is of very little consequence. It may be very nice for the Noble Lord to make a statement and then, perhaps, go into the Lobby to vote against the Government, but I am not concerned whether I vote for or against the National Government. I am concerned with the people who live in my particular neighbourhood who are being badly fed, housed and clothed. No Member of this Committee can say that two shillings a week is an adequate allowance for the child of any man or woman in our poverty-stricken districts.

It would be a wise policy on the part of the National Government to give greater spending power to the people in our congested areas, and adequate allowances in respect of the children, which, in turn must prove of benefit to the nation. They are crippling the nation; they are underfeeding the children. In regard to malnutrition, the members of the public are placing an indictment upon the National Government because they are not doing their duty by making proper provision. I am vehement in my expressions in this Committee because of the condition of the people in the neighbourhood in which I live, and in the city where I go about among the people. I come here, not to speak as a supporter of the National Government, but to voice the opinions which I have voiced in the street in regard to the obligations of the Government concerning the child life of the nation. Is there anyone in any part of this House who dare face a respectable audience in any hall in this country and say that two shillings a week for a child is sufficient? It is an insult to the intelligence of every Member of Parliament to be told by the Minister of Labour that that is all the National Government can do.

What about the Labour Government?

We shall see what you can do when this matter goes to a vote. I am not fumbling with this question. I know what it means. I know, because I have had to administer relief in the City of Liverpool. I can see the vision before me now. I should like to know what the Noble Lady knows of the conditions of the poor. I lived among them for 15 years. I call on hon. Members not only to move pious Amendments but to go into the Lobby and vote against the Government who have had so much power placed in their hands. The people outside will clamour if better assistance is not given. They will make you hear, they will make you listen, and it is because I fear the voice outside that I want hon. Members of this Committee not to be struck dumb, as they are, but to go into the Lobby and vote against the Government and against their proposal that the standard of life of the child shall be 2s. a week. The nation that saved £15,000,000 on the unemployed and £10,000,000 on transitional benefit will not be put off with noisy Debate on the question of one shilling for the child when the medical fraternity have declared that the child life of the nation is in danger.

The Government must be an impossible crew if they are unable to realise the finger on the wall—or the handwriting on the wall, whichever it may be. I am pointing out to them the child's finger on the wall, the handwriting on the wall. I have stated in this House before—and I have no wish to be too personal—that you do not want Macaulay's Essays inside this House; you want rapid speech; you want to know the facts of the case as they are. I know them, and it is because I know them that I am speaking here. I will defy any hon. Member of the Committee to say that the facts which I am stating are untrue. The Government are not doing their duty after two years on those benches. They are not doing their duty with the power that they have. This is a pious resolution, and I want it to be carried into execution. I am prepared to support the Amendment.

9.28 p.m.

I have never heard a more inaccurate speech than that of the hon. Member who has just spoken. No one said that 2s. was adequate to support a child. That is not the question before the Committee. We have listened to most constructive and loyal speeches from Members of the Government, and if the Opposition had any psychology at all they would have said "Divide" after the speech of the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). No wonder the Opposition are in the wilderness. If the public outside the House could see the Opposition, they would never get into power again as long as they lived. I beg the Government to remember that they have a most loyal and docile public. I have never seen the House really eoused except twice, and both times it was about children. Once was when we tried to get the regulation of the hours of children in blind-alley occupations, and the House went into the Lobby and voted 86 strong against the Government. I am certain that many hon. Members to-night are going to vote for this Amendment. It is not because we went to put the Government in a difficult position, but because we want to help the Government by showing that some of their supporters are perfectly willing to break the precedent. I beg the Government, for the sake of all of us, to accept the Amendment. They know it is not going to ruin the insurance principle; if it were, then all of us would be against it. They know perfectly well that it would help the Statutory Committee that is to be set up; it would show them the strength of the feeling of this Committee as far as young people are concerned. I beg of them, for the sake of their loyal followers, many of whom admire them enormously up to a point, but do not admire them enough to let them make a blunder of the first magnitude, to accept the Amendment. If they do not, we shall have to go into the Lobby against them.

9.30 p.m.

The chief point I have to make is that the position put by the Minister shows the weakness of the Committee. It means that whatever point is put forward by the House in Committee, this Bill cannot be altered by one iota. In the speech he made, a very excellent speech from his point of view, he told us that certain plans are laid down upon which the finances of the Government are based, and that he does not want to interfere with them at all; that they must be left to the Statutory Committee. The effect is that whatever hon. Members say here, we are to have no voice at all. On that point the Committee ought to express itself quite determinedly, and to say what it thinks. When we went into Committee I expected that some points would be accepted. To-night I wrote a letter to a constituent of mine saying that we were in the Committee stage, and that I did not expect much alteration, but that I did expect that one thing would be accepted—that the Government would take the hon. Member's Amendment and give the 3s. Earlier in the Debate, when the Noble Lady was criticising us, I said to her that I believed the Government would accept this Amendment. I felt that they would do so, but the Minister has told us to-night that he does not intend to accept it, and, judging from what has happened to-night, no change is to take place in this Bill as far as finance is concerned. The Committee should feel that now is the opportunity for Members on all sides to determine what they, and not the Government, shall do with the Bill.

9.33 p.m.

This Debate has been a revelation, because those who heard the Debate on the Money Resolution and that on the Second Reading knew very well that we practically agreed at that time that the first thing this Bill did was to arrange that the debt should be paid back on an average of £5,500,000 annual interest for something like 40 years. The Schedule says nothing whatever about anything but making the fund solvent. It hardly mentions restoration, increase of benefits or anything else; it does nothing but make arrangements for paying back debt. The hon. Members who spoke to-night were

Division No. 70.]	AYES.	[9.36 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke	Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)	Maxton, James
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)	Milner, Major James
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Moss, Captain H. J.
Albery, Irving James	Gillett, Sir George Masterman	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)	Glossop, C. W. H.	Owen, Major Goronwy
Aske, Sir Robert William	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	Paling, Wilfred
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Parkinson, John Allen
Attlee, Clement Richard	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	Pearson, William G.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Percy, Lord Eustace
Banfieid, John William	Groves, Thomas E.	Plckering, Ernest H.
Betsy, Joseph	Grundy, Thomas W.	Price, Gabriel
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Rathbone, Eleanor
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)	Harris, Sir Percy	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Blaker, Sir Reginald	Hartland, George A.	Rickards, George William
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Hicks, Ernest George	Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Bralthwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Holdsworth, Herbert	Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Brass, Captain Sir William	Jenkins, Sir William	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Briant, Frank	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)	Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Buchanan, George	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Soper, Richard
Cape, Thomas	Kerr, Lleut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)	Kirkwood, David	Thorne, William James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Knight, Hollord	Tinker, John Joseph
Cooke, Douglas	Lawson, John James	Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Cove, William G.	Leckie, J. A.	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Leonard, William	Wallhead, Richard C.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Curry, A. C.	Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick	White, Henry Graham
Daggar, George	Logan, David Gilbert	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)	Lunn, William	Williams, Dr. John H. (Lienelly)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	McCorquodale, M. S.	Wilmot, John
Dickle, John P.	McEntee, Valentine L.	Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Dobble, William	Maclean, Neli (Glasgow, Govan)
Edwards, Charles	Macmillan, Maurice Harold	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey	Mainwaring, William Henry	Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Martin, Thomas B.

NOES.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Broadbent, Colonel John	Craven-Ellis, William
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Crooke, J. Smedley
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Apsley, Lord	Burnett, John George	Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe	Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)	Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)	Dalkeith, Earl of
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Carver, Major William H.	Davles, Maj.Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Bainiel, Lord	Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Dawson. Sir Philip
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Denman, Hon. R. D.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Denville, Alfred
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Clarry, Reginald George	Drewe, Cedric
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.	Conant, R. J. E.	Edmondson, Major A. J.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Cook, Thomas A.	Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Cooper, A. Duff	Elmley, Viscount
Boyce, H. Leslie	Copeland, Ida	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

bound to know that from the earlier Debates in this House. Those who spoke on these benches knew that, however well-meaning those hon. Members who moved or have supported this Amendment may be, they are very late in the day in taking the line which they have taken. I can only hope that they are loyal enough, strong enough and courageous enough to go into the Lobby and support this Amendment, as we shall certainly give them the opportunity to do.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 200.

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Levy, Thomas	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	Liddall, Walter S.	Salmon, Sir Isidore
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)	Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest	Salt, Edward W.
Everard, W. Lindsay	Liewellin, Major John J.	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)	Selley, Harry R.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H
Fox, Sir Gifford	Lyons, Abraham Montagu	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Fremantle, Sir Francis	MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Ganzonl, Sir John	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Gluckstein, Louis Halle	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.	McEwen, Captain J. H. F.	Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)
Gower, Sir Robert	McKie, John Hamilton	Somervell, Sir Donald
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Graves, Marjorie	Macquisten, Frederick Alexander	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Greene, William P. C.	Makins, Brigedier-General Ernest	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Spens, William Patrick
Grimston, R. V.	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fyide)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Guneton, Captain D. W.	Meller, Sir Richard James	Storey, Samuel
Guy, J. C. Morrison	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'ti'd & Chisw'k)	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Hanbury, Cecil	Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Hanley, Dennis A.	Moreing, Adrian C.	Thompson, Sir Luke
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)	Morrison, William Shepherd	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.	Munro, Patrick	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Hepworth, Joseph	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Turton, Robert Hugh
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Hornby, Frank	North, Edward T.	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Horobin, Ian M.	Nunn, William	Wardle w-Milne, Sir John S.
Horsbrugh, Florence	Peat, Charles U.	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	Penny, Sir George	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Perkins, Walter R. D.	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Procter, Major Henry Adam	Wells, Sydney Richard
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Radford, E. A.	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.	Whyte, Jardine Bell
James. Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Jamleson, Douglas	Ramsbotham, Herwaid	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.	Ramsden, Sir Eugene	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato	Ratcliffe, Arthur	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Reid, William Allan (Derby)	Wise, Alfred R.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)	Ramer, John R.	Womersley, Waiter James
Kerr, Hamilton W.	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U	Wragg, Herbert
Knox, Sir Alfred	Ropner, Colonel L.	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Leech, Dr. J. W.	Ross, Ronald D.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Lees-Jones, John	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)	Mr. Blindell and Commander
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A.	Southby.

9.45 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, to leave out from "aggregate," to the end of line 29, page 4, and to insert "three hundred and twelve days."

I hope the good example set by hon. Members opposite on the last Amendment will be followed on this proposal, and that they will again register their votes against the Government and in favour of the Amendment. The purpose of the proposal is clear. It is to establish 312 days in the year for benefit as against 156 days. In other words, it is to ensure benefit for the insured worker for 12 months instead of six. Indeed, it re-enacts a provision which obtains in the 1927 Act, passed by a Conservative Government, which made statutory benefit possible for a period of 12 months. Extraordinary as it may appear unemployed are human beings and they have needs for 12 months in the year. That elementary fact does not appear to be grasped by some hon. Members. They have needs every day for food, clothing and shelter. How are they going to purchase these necessaries? There may be some with meagre means at their disposal by which they can supplement their unemployment benefit, but there are millions who have no other income at all. They cannot sleep, they cannot fast, for six months; they have to live and, therefore, we on these benches are asking that the proposal in the 1927 Act should be reinstated and that they should receive 12 months' benefit in the year.

Officialdom might say that these people have not to be entertained for six months of the year, that no benefit is to be paid. It means that they will have to meet the cost of the necessaries of life, according to the proposal of the Bill, during a period of six months when they are not to be entitled to benefit. The Bill, as it stands, is divorced from actualities. We on these benches have tried to make clear the position of the unemployed worker, and there are in the Labour party a greater proportion who have had experience of unemployment and who are familiar with the handicaps associated with unemployment, than in any party in the House. We have tried to impress upon hon. Members the seriousness of the position of these men. Disguise it as you will, the fact remains that the workers can only live by selling their labour. The only opportunity they have for obtaining a livelihood is to get work. They cannot, employ themselves; they have to seek an employer. Employment means life, unemployment means a living death, as medical officers of health have testified and as facts in abundance have shown.

What alternatives are there for these workers who are without any means at all, apart from what they get in unemployment benefit during the other six months of the year? What are they to do for those six months? This is the greatest place for examining proposals of this character. What steps are we as the representatives of the people proposing to take to deal with the unemployed who will not be entitled to benefit for six months of the year? How are they to live? Are they to live by robbery, by begging, by tricks, by crime? If they are turned out of benefit they must turn to other resources. Are they to live illegally? How are the girls to live? Are they to live by thieving, by immorality? These are questions, harsh and brutal questions but live questions, on which the Government must accept some responsibility. No employer will employ them, and no public works are to be proceeded with. What are these people to do? They cannot sleep for half the year; and at the back of all this there is the inalienable right to live. [An HON. MEMBER: "Part II."] I am speaking about unemployment and unemployment benefit, and not the iniquitous means test that has come into an examination of the right to benefit and the right to live. However much we may try to dodge the situation the issue is insistent because it is based upon an inalienable right to live, and it will burst through all attempts to burke it.

The people have a right to employment, the right to a means of livelihood, or the community must, maintain them if it denies them an opportunity to earn their livelihood. I do not suppose that I shall receive very great encouragement from the Minister after his last speech, but none the less I ask the Committee to vote for the Amendment. These unemployed men are Britishers, the same stock, the same blood as ourselves. Do the Government want to turn them into the street to become motor bandits or footpads or something of that kind? These men are not responsible for the social system under which they live but are the victims of it. They would prefer employment and they beg for employment, but it is denied them. If we do not treat them in a proper way, if we turn them loose on the streets without hope, I believe it will cost the nation more for safety, for police protection and for medical services.

The amount of benefit paid now, if paid for the whole of the year, is not sufficient to maintain a man in health. This Committee ought not to be told that human beings, compelled to drift into the undesirable condition I have indicated, must become physical and moral wrecks. There are limits to what fathers and mothers can stand. There are limits to the plaintive cries of their families. It may be said, either that we are catering for them in an efficient way or that the resources of the country are not equal to meeting the demand of the Amendment. But there are limits to the physical endurance of the people. It is a marvel to me that they have endured so much so long. We all know the splendid courage, the stoicism of our people, but when I visit the houses of the unemployed, when I hear of their privations, when I hear the statements of medical officers in mining villages, in textile towns and in the shipyard areas, when I hear of the mental anguish of decent Britishers who desire a free life but find privations heaped upon them year after year, I marvel at their endurance.

If we do not give them unemployment benefit, we shall have to give them help in another direction. Maintenance is maintenance, call it by whatever name you like. In order to be kept alive these people must have food, clothing and shelter. They must get relief if they can- not get benefit. To give less than maintenance is to punish the innocent. If the unemployed were guilty of any crime I could understand the infliction of punishment on them. The handicap of their lives is that they are innocently unemployed. An unemployed man cannot get an employer unless there is an employer willing to employ him, and an employer cannot employ him unless he has work that can be done at a profitable figure. The Trade Unions Congress, in giving evidence before the Royal Commission, stated:

"Unemployment is a national and international problem resulting from the industrial system under which we live. The workers are not the authors of the system but the victims of it, and unless the community so organises its resources as to provide work for every willing worker, the unemployed, as the reserves of industry, are entitled to maintenance."

The Blanesburgh Committee reported that they were not able to recommend anything less than what had previously been provided. This problem will arise again and again until Parliament decides to grapple with it earnestly, until Parliament says that the victims of the social system shall be dealt with as honourable citizens. Unless the Government and the community can organise the resources and the industries of the country so as to give these men employment, millions of our fellow citizens will be denied the shelter and protection that we ought to give them. We on the Labour benches can, at the suitable time, put forward proposals for the reorganisation of society, but I should be ruled out of order if I dealt with that subject now. The Government have a responsibility to bridge the gap between the inability of private enterprise to provide employment and the great unemployed army who are seeking work and cannot obtain it.

If private enterprise cannot provide employment for 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 of our people it is the duty of the Government to provide employment for those people in public works, or, failing that, to treat them as reserves of labour and give them adequate maintenance. The question, I think, has only to be stated for hon. Members to appreciate the moral obligation involved. Under the 1927 Act benefit was available for the whole 12 months and in the interim period there was an opportunity for qualification by the 30 weeks' contribution provision and for those who became disentitled there was uncovenanted benefit. We are going back instead of going forward. The Minister said it was competent for anyone to change his point of view when fresh facts appeared, and I thank him for that statement. Are the Government not able to take a changed view of this matter in view of the fresh facts which have been revealed? The difference between now and 1927 is that the problem of unemployment has been intensified.

The real position as regards unemployment is that the problem is more severe than we thought it was at that period, and it has become static. Therefore, the need for this Amendment is urgent and real and the Committee would be well advised to agree to it. In view of the fresh facts which have arisen and in view of the opinions that could be advanced here the Government ought to change their attitude and give to these Britishers a statutory right to benefit, instead of turning them into avenues of crime. We ought to recognise the great principle which is involved here. I know that other Members wish to join in this discussion, and we hope to get opinions from other quarters of the Committee in support of our view, and I therefore do not propose to detain the Committee longer. I would only say that the House of Commons will never be able to exclude this subject from discussion, the problem having become so deeply rooted in our economic life. Our people have reached a stage at which they are no longer prepared to endure the prospect of suffering indefinitely. They will insist upon their public representatives discussing this matter and pressing for adequate measures to deal with the situation. I trust, therefore, that the Government will see their way to incorporate this Amendment in the Bill.

10.10 p.m.

The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) said that the House of Commons was the greatest place in the world for examining proposals—not that he entirely fulfilled that description in his own speech—and there was one proposition made by him, of which I think we ought to have some further explanation. He described the terrible dangers to the community which would arise if this Amendment were not carried. Among the fears which he expressed was that there would be a need for more police protection for the community if this proposal were not accepted. The Committee are entitled to know, is that a threat to the House of Commons and the country, or is it merely the expression of a fear by the hon. Member that he will not be able to control his supporters? Has he joined the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) in a threat to the community? We all know how the Labour party conference undertook to consider the proposals of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, which I am not going into now, but we ought to know, is the hon. Member for East Woolwich to be a new ally of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol if this particular Amendment is not carried?

The point which I was making was that if the unemployed had no means of subsistence for six months in the year they might be driven on to the streets. I asked what means these people had of obtaining a livelihood, I asked were they to do it by begging or by thieving, or by becoming footpads and bandits? I submitted that if they were unable to obtain the necessaries of life, the community would have to pay for it in another way; that if the community did not pay unemployment benefit, they would have to pay in other ways for the demoralisation, physical and moral, which mould take place among the unemployed. I submitted that one of the agencies through which it was possible that such expense would arise, would be the necessity for having additional police protection. I did not ally myself with anybody or with any other statement outside but only sought to show the moral consequences of not recognising our moral responsibility to the unemployed.

I am sure the Committee is grateful to the hon. Member for his explanation and that most hon. Members will draw from it two conclusions. First, that he has thrown over his leader and second that, by implication, we are threatened by hon. Members with lawlessness if this Amendment is not carried. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then why talk to the Committee about police protection?

I thought the hon. and gallant Member had accepted my hon. Friend's explanation.

If you talk about police protection you must mean, by implication, that it will become necessary, if the proposal which you are supporting is not carried. But having heard the hon. Member's threats let us examine his proposal. He said that there was no provision for the unemployed for six months of the year. He seems to forget that this is an insurance Bill dealing with insurance principles and that any surplus in the fund, which is contributed by three parties, goes entirely to the benefit of one of those parties, namely the drawers of benefit. I do not think he can complain that those who subscribe to the fund are going to be badly treated. Then Part II of the Bill covers the need for the other six months of the year. The hon. Member brushed aside Part II merely saying that he and his friends would not touch the iniquitous means test. It is about time that this question of the means test was faced by Members of the party who are largely responsible for it. The trouble is that hon. Members above the Gangway always like to do something and then to be able to run away from it. What is wrong with the means test?

It appears to me that the means test will arise under Part II.

I at once bow to your Ruling. This Amendment is not necessary, because there is a Part II of this Bill which we shall be discussing later, and which contains provisions which the trade unions themselves have in their own particular funds and which every Income Tax payer when he gives money has to pass, and I see no reason why those who receive money should not have to do likewise. I think this Amendment is thoroughly hypocritical. If hon. Members above the Gangway were responsible for the formation of a Government and for the preparation of an Unemployment Insurance Bill, they would have, in deference to the wishes of their own Members who have fine industrial records, to produce an Insurance Bill and not one which endeavours to catch votes, but which will fail dismally of its objective, because the electors have seen through these promises made for the sake of catching votes.

10.16 p.m.

It might be for the convenience of the Committee, as we still have a number of Amendments to deal with, if I indicated very briefly the reasons why the Government cannot accept the Amendment, which I am sure will not surprise the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks). The minimum number of days in a year in respect of which a man can draw benefit under the Bill, 156, is at present the maximum: it is exactly twice the minimum recommended by the Royal Commission. They recommended a

Division No. 71.]	AYES.	[10.16 p.m.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Crossley, A. C.	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Hornby, Frank
Albery, Irving James	Culverwell, Cyril Tom	Horobin, Ian M.
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)	Curry, A. C.	Horsbrugh, Florence
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.	Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Apsley, Lord	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Aske, Sir Robert William	Dawson, Sir Philip	Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Denville, Alfred	Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.	Dickle, John P.	James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Drewe, Cedric	Jamleson, Douglas
Balniel, Lord	Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Elliston, Captain George Sampson	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.	Elmley, Viscount	Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Kerr, Hamilton W.
Blaker, Sir Reginald	Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	Knight, Holford
Blindell, James	Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)	Knox, Sir Alfred
Boulton, W. W.	Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)	Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)	Leckie, J. A.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Everard, W. Lindsay	Leech, Dr. J. W.
Boyce, H. Leslie	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Lees-Jones, John
Bracken, Brendan	Fleming, Edward Lascelles	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)	Fox, Sir Gifford	Levy, Thomas
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Fraser, Captain Ian	Liddall, Walter S.
Brass, Captain Sir William	Fremantle, Sir Francis	Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Briant, Frank	Ganzonl, Sir John	Llewellin, Major John J.
Broadbent, Colonel John	Gillett, Sir George Masterman	Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Browne, Captain A. C.	Glossop, C. W. H.	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Burghley, Lord	Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.	Mabane, William
Burnett, John George	Gower, Sir Robert	MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)	Graves, Marjorie	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)	Greene, William P. C.	McCorquodale, M. S.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Carver, Major William H.	Grimston. R. V.	McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.	McKie, John Hamilton
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Guy, J. C. Morrison	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Clarry, Reginald George	Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Colman, N. C. D.	Hammersley, Samuel S.	Marsden, Commander Arthur
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Hanbury, Cecil	Martin, Thomas B.
Conant, R. J. E.	Hanley, Dennis A.	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Cook, Thomas A.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Meller, Sir Richard James
Cooke, Douglas	Harris, Sir Percy	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Cooper, A. Duff	Hartland, George A.	Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Copeland, Ida	Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)	Mitcheson, G. G.
Cranborne, Viscount	Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)	Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Craven-Ellis, William	Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)	Moreing, Adrian C.
Crooke, J. Smedley	Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.	Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Hepworth, Joseph	Morrison, William Shepherd
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Holdsworth, Herbert	Moss, Captain H. J.

minimum of 78 days, but we are giving double that, and we are therefore being very generous. The Amendment of the hon. Member would cost about £14,000,000; it would only affect about 2½ per cent. of the persons concerned, and it would involve an increased contribution of something like 7d. a week. For these reasons, it is impossible for the Government to accept it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 36, page 3, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 46.

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.	Ropner, Colonel L.	Sutcliffe, Harold
Munro, Patrick	Rosbotham, Sir Thomas	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Ross, Ronald D.	Thompson, Sir Luke
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
North, Edward T.	Runge, Norah Cecil	Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Nunn, William	Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
O'Donovan, Dr. William James	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)	Turton, Robert Hugh
Patrick, Colin M.	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Pearson, William G.	Salmon, Sir Isidore	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Peat, Charles U.	Salt, Edward W.	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Penny, Sir George	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Percy, Lord Eustace	Selley, Harry R.	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Perkins, Walter R. D.	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.	Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Pete, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Pickering, Ernest H.	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Procter, Major Henry Adam	Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour
Pybus, Sir Percy John	Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)	Wells, Sydney Richard
Radford, E. A.	Somervell, Sir Donald	Weymouth, Viscount
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)	White, Henry Graham
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)	Soper, Richard	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Ramsbotham, Herwald	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.	Whyte, Jardine Bell
Ramsden, Sir Eugene	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Ratcliffe, Arthur	Spencer, Captain Richard A.	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Rathbone, Eleanor	Spans, William Patrick	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)	Storey, Samuel	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Reid, William Allan (Derby)	Stourton, Hon. John J.	Wise, Alfred R.
Remer, John R.	Strickland, Captain W. F.	Womersley, Walter James
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.	Wragg, Herbert
Rickards, George William	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)	Summersby, Charles H.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
		Lord Erskine and Dr. Morris-Jones.

NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	Maxton, James
Attlee, Clement Richard	Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Milner, Major James
Banfield, John William	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Paling, Wilfred
Batey, Joseph	Grundy, Thomas W.	Parkinson, John Allen
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Price, Gabriel
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Hicks, Ernest George	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Buchanan, George	Jenkins, Sir William	Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Cape, Thomas	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Thorne, William James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Tinker, John Joseph
Cove, William G.	Kirkwood, David	Wallhead. Richard C.
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Lawson, John James	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Daggar, George	Leonard, William	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Logan, David Gilbert	Wilmot, John
Dobbie, William	Lunn, William
Edwards, Charles	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Mainwaring, William Henry	Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

10.27 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 37, to leave out paragraph (a).

The paragraph which we are proposing should be omitted ought to be read in conjunction with the other parts of the Clause. The first part of the Clause says that the first statutory condition can be removed, that is to say, that more than 156 days' benefit can be paid in any benefit year. Then it goes on to lay down other conditions and this paragraph (a) says that a claimant must have been in insurance for five years. This Amendment is moved in order to take away that bar, because we contend that when a man has fulfilled the statutory condition relating to the 30 stamps he ought to be entitled to the whole period of 12 months benefit.

10.28 p.m.

The provisions which have been inserted affect only the early entrants into insurance. The overwhelming mass of insured persons will not be affected by the first part of the proviso when the Bill comes into operation, because they will have been in insurance for more than five years. It seems only right to us that a child who happens to have a period of employment in the first two years of insurance life should not be entitled to these benefits—that it would be better that he should attain the age of 19 before he is qualified for them. He will not lose anything, but, on the contrary, he will gain, because he is more likely to want this benefit in the later years than in the earlier years. As to the abolition of the five years' gap, it is clear that we must have a statutory limit somewhere. Otherwise, the Ministry of Labour would be compelled to keep the record of every insured man practically for ever, because after a man had ceased to be in insurance—suppose he drops out of insurance at the age even of 35—we should have to keep his record for an unlimited period in case at some future time he might come back. We therefore think that the two periods ought to coincide, and for that reason I am afraid that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

10.31 p.m.

I must confess that I am unable to follow the argument of the hon. Gentleman. He says he will have to keep the record for an unlimited time, but to have benefit an insured person must have 30 stamps a year. That is the first statutory condition. If a man goes out of insurance and then comes back, he would not have 30 stamps in two years and there would be no need to keep his record. Automatically he is disqualified from benefit as he would not have satisfied the first statutory condition, and before he could get benefit he would need to satisfy that condition. As this matter is applied to children, it is most unfair. Hitherto one of the benefits in respect of children was that the five-year provision would apply until the insured person became 19 years of age. I interjected that it was a very moot point as to whether he would become entitled to benefit only subsequent to his 19th year and not at 19, and that nobody could be in benefit at the age of 19 but only subsequently. I cannot understand why the contributions of a person whom you have taken into insurance cannot be treated as those of anybody else.

It is argued that it is bad business for a young person to get insurance money from the age of 16, and one hon. Member introduced the moral issue. The Minister said that there would be something wrong about putting a person straight from school on to the Employment Exchange, but that position does not arise here. The person is paid for five years until reaching the age of 19, and if there is any virtue in this Clause I cannot understand why that virtue should not be given to the boy who has paid from 14 as well as to any other section of contributors. The Minister's answer to-day does not alter the position very much. I trust that those who have put forward this Amendment will divide upon it, because the position is an iniquitous one. The Government are bringing these persons in and subjecting them to terrible conditions. That position will be debated to-morrow. The Government are refusing to apply the ordinary five-year provision to them as it is applied to any other section of employed persons.

The least that the Minister could have done, in bringing these young people in, would have been to treat them equitably with any other section of the insured population. That, however, he is not doing. During these discussions we have continually heard the phrase, "This is an Insurance Bill." I confess that I have never agreed with unemployment insurance. I agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) that you cannot run unemployment on insurance principles; human considerations and other considerations come in which sweep insurance principles away. But, even if there were an insurance principle, it seems to me that young persons are not being treated on anything like a basis of an insurance right when their first five years is not counted like any other five years, and I trust that those who have put down this Amendment will vote against the Government.

10.46 p.m.

There is one point that I do not quite understand. Supposing that someone comes in at the age of 20, and begins his insurance life at the age of 20, has he to run five years before he is qualified? I should like that point cleared up, because this is really rather a complicated piece of legislation. There is another point that I should like made certain. I think that the position of the ex-soldier or sailor is quite safe, but some others would like to know that his position is absolutely secure, and that he just goes on as at present, but naturally with a rather better benefit under the Bill.

10.37 p.m.

I might perhaps remind the Committee that this Amendment is concerned with additional benefit and not with ordinary benefit. A man, even if he has fallen out of insurance for five years, will still be entitled, as soon as he gets his 30 stamps, to 156 days' ordinary benefit in the year. It will only be in the case of the additional benefit that he will have to pay for five years. As regards the point made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), about unfairness in the case of children, I do not think that on reconsideration he will really believe that it is unfair. The child is paying 2d., and those contributions which he pays at 2d. will remain to his credit, and he will be able to draw on them at the age of 19, when he will obviously be getting a much higher rate of benefit than he would be at 16. At 19 he will be paying contributions at the rate of 9d., and drawing a corresponding rate of benefit. It is obviously unfair that for a contribution of 2d. he should get benefit equivalent to that for which he is asked to pay 9d. He is really being given for 4d. that for which he would otherwise have to pay 9d., and, therefore, far from treating him badly, we are treating him generously. With regard to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) the position of ex-regular soldiers, sailors and airmen will come up on a later Clause, and I think he will find that it will be fully safeguarded.

There was the further point as to the man who comes in at 20.

The man who comes in at 20 will be entitled to draw benefit as soon as he has 30 stamps, if he falls out

Division No. 72.]	AYES.	[10.41 p.m.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Brass, Captain Sir William	Craven-Ellis, William
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Briant, Frank	Crooke, J. Smedley
Albery, Irving James	Broadbent, Colonel John	Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Browne, Captain A. C.	Crossley, A. C.
Apsley, Lord	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Asks, Sir Robert William	Burghley, Lord	Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Burnett, John George	Curry, A. C.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.	Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)	Dawson, Sir Philip
Balniel, Lord	Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm	Denville, Alfred
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Dickie, John P.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Carver, Major William H.	Drewe, Cedric
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Duggan, Hubert John
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.	Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Edmondson, Major A. J.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Blaker, Sir Reginald	Clarry, Reginald George	Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Blindell, James	Colman, N. C. D.	Elmley, Viscount
Boulton, W. W.	Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Conant, R. J. E.	Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Cook, Thomas A.	Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Boyce, H. Leslie	Cooke, Douglas	Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Bracken, Brendan	Cooper, A. Duff	Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)	Copeland, Ida	Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Cranborne, Viscount	Everard, W. Lindsay

of work, for the minimum period of 156 days, but he will not be able to draw additional benefit until he has attained the age of 25.

The boy who comes out of the school or university at 19, after he has got 30 stamps, gets his six months' benefit, but the other person who has entered at 14, and paid for 4½ years longer, will only get a very small addition to his six months' benefit.

I must point out to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that, whether this Amendment be carried or not, there is no suggestion to delete paragraph (ii) on page 4, which really covers the point that he raises. Whether this Amendment be carried or not, that paragraph will still remain in the Bill.

The Minister says we are treating the person entering at 14 generously. I say that, compared with the person who enters at 19, he is being treated meanly.

No, because a boy who enters industry at 19 will be able to draw only 156 days in each year until he attains the age of 24. A boy who enters at 14 is five years better off than a man who comes in at 19.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'five' in line 39, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 47.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Fox, Sir Gifford	Lyons, Abraham Montagu	Runge, Norah Cecil
Fraser, Captain Ian	Mabane, William	Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Fremantle, Sir Francis	MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Ganzonl, Sir John	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman	McCorquodale, M. S.	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Salmon, Sir Isidore
Glossop, C. W. H.	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Salt, Edward W.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle	McEwen, Captain J. H. F.	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.	McKie, John Hamilton	Selley, Harry R.
Gower, Sir Robert	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Graves, Marjorie	Macmillan, Maurice Harold	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Greene, William P. C.	Macquisten, Frederick Alexander	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest	Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot	Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Grimston, R. V.	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Somervell, Sir Donald
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Soper, Richard
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Martin, Thomas B.	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Guy, J. C. Morrison	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Meller, Sir Richard James	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Spens, William Patrick
Hammersley, Samuel S.	Milne, Charles	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Hanbury, Cecil	Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Hanley, Dennis A.	Mitcheson, G. G	Storey, Samuel
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Moore, LL-Col, Thomas C. R. (Ayr)	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Hartland, George A.	Moreing, Adrian C.	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)	Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)	Morrison, William Shepherd	Summersby, Charles H.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.	Moss, Captain H. J.	Sutcliffe, Harold
Hepworth, Joseph	Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Munro, Patrick	Thompson, Sir Luke
Holdsworth, Herbert	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Thorp, Linton Theodore
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid	Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Hornby, Frank	North, Edward T.	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Horobin, Ian M.	Nunn, William	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Horsbrugh, Florence	O'Connor, Terence James	Turton, Robert Hugh
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	O'Donovan, Dr. William James	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)	Patrick, Colin M.	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Pearson, William G.	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Peat, Charles U.	Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)	Penny, Sir George	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Perkins, Walter R. D.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Jamleson, Douglas	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.	Pickering, Ernest H.	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)	Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada	Wells, Sydney Richard
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Pybus, Sir Percy John	Weymouth, Viscount
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Radford, E. A.	White, Henry Graham
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)	Whyte, Jardine Bell
Kerr, Hamilton W.	Ramsbotham, Herwald	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Knight, Holford	Ramsden, Sir Eugene	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Knox, Sir Alfred	Ratcliffe, Arthur	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Rathbone, Eleanor	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Law, Sir Alfred	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Leckie, J. A.	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)	Wise, Alfred R.
Leech, Dr. J. W.	Reid, William Allan (Derby)	Womersley, Walter James
Lees-Jones, John	Remer, John R.	Wragg, Herbert
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Levy, Thomas	Rickards, George William
Liddall, Walter S.	Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)	Ropner, Colonel L.	Sir Frederick Thomson and Lord
Llewellin, Major John J.	Rosbotham, Sir Thomas	Erskine.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)	Ross, Ronald D.

NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Edwards, Charles	Logan, David Gilbert
Attlee, Clement Richard	Graham, D. M. (Lunark, Hamilton)	Lunn, William
Banfield, John William	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	McEntee, Valentine L.
Batey, Joseph	Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Mainwaring, William Henry
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Grundy, Thomas W.	Maxton, James
Buchanan, George	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Milner, Major James
Cape, Thomas	Hicks, Ernest George	Owen, Major Goronwy
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Jenkins, Sir William	Paling, Wilfred
Cove, William G.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Parkinson, John Allen
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Price, Gabriel
Daggar, George	Kirkwood, David	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Lawson, John James	Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Dobble, William	Leonard, William	Thorne, William James

Tinker, John Joseph	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Wallhead, Richard C.	Wilmot, John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Williams, David (Swansea, East)		Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

10.50 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, to leave out "five," and to insert "two."

The Committee will agree that one of the principles upon which there is most difference between hon. Members on this side of the Committee and supporters of the Government is with regard to the separation of the unemployed into two classes. While we should have liked to see no separation and the whole of the people who are out of work treated alike so far as duration of benefit goes, the Government have seen fit to introduce this Sub-section, which gives additional days' benefit in certain circumstances. While we were discussing the last Amendment, the point was raised by one of my hon. Friends behind me as to the position of a man who entered insurance at 20 years of age. Both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that this Clause is perfectly clear: no additional days can be paid to a man who falls out of work unless he has been in insurance for at least five years before being out of work. I wish we had more time to discuss this matter, because I fail to see where the magic of the five years comes in. It is true that the majority of the Royal Commission made some reference to the fact that this figure of five years gives a rough-and-ready ratio for everyday use. I can foresee, from the point of view of hardship, a number of cases that are likely to arise and that are going to be very hard indeed. Suppose, for example, that you have a person entering insurance at 18 years of age who falls out of work at 22. The most that individual can get is 156 days. No additional days will be paid, because he has not been in insurance for five years before falling out of work.

I think that there are likely to be a number of cases of hardship. One could have understood this question of ratio if the Government had based it on a kind of pro rata principle; if, for example, you take the case of a man who had been in work for five years before falling out and had paid the full 260 stamps, he should be entitled to 52 weeks as a maximum, then you scale that down in proportion, taking the man who has been in insurance four, three, two years and so on, and regulating it in that way. It would have been fairer, and would have had the effect of bringing under Part 1 thousands of people who are now going to be treated under Part 11. I can well understand the Government having difficulty in deciding what period should be taken. We think that five years is too long a period and that a fair compromise would be two years. If the Amendment were accepted by the Government certain consequential Amendments would follow. As it is now five minutes to eleven and the Guillotine is to fall at eleven o'clock, I will conclude in order to give the Minister of Labour or the Parliamentary Secretary time to reply, but I must utter a protest in regard to what is going to happen under the Guillotine. The first day's discussion shows clearly that 14 days is a totally inadequate period for dealing with an important Measure of this kind, and I enter my protest against the Guillotine being put into operation.

10.56 p.m.

Before the Minister replies, may I ask for guidance from the Chair? We are now giving Clause 3, and Clauses 4 and 5 are supposed to pass under the Guillotine. Clause 5 deals with a subject that affects hundreds of thousands of men in this country, where holidays are concerned, and that is certainly going to be one of the subjects which will cause great embarrassment to the Government. I would ask the Chair, or the Government, if some arrangement cannot be made whereby we can have these matters discussed. In spite of the fact that the Guillotine has been passed, we cannot allow great subjects like these to pass, and an important Clause affecting the lives of masses of the people, actually reversing an umpire's decision, which has been working for years, without serious protest. What have the Government to say about this matter? Is there to be no opportunity of discussion?

10.58 p.m.

In regard to the last point raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), it is clear that I can make no other reply than this, that I agree there are subjects which will be passed under the Guillotine which ought to be discussed. I hope that the fullest opportunity will be taken on the Report stage to bring up questions, such as the customary holidays, to which reference has been made. As far as I can I will see that on the Report stage we deal as reasonably as possible with the outstanding points not touched in Committee.

Has any number of days been allocated for the Report stage?

Yes. The effect of the second Amendment will be that

Division No. 73.]	AYES.	[11.0 p.m.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds,W.)	Cooke, Douglas	Grimston, R. V.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Cooper, A. Duff	Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Albery, Irving James	Copeland, Ida	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Cranborne, Viscount	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Appiln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Craven-Ellis, William	Guy, J. C. Morrison
Apsley, Lord	Crooke, J. Smedley	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H
Aske, Sir Robert William	Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Hammersley, Samuel S.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Crossley, A. C.	Hanbury, Cecil
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.	Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Hanley, Dennis A.
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Culverwell, Cyril Tom	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Balniel, Lord	Curry, A. C.	Hartland, George A.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Dalkelth, Earl of	Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)	Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Davies, Maj. Geo.F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Bateman, A. L.	Dawson, Sir Philip	Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)	Denville, Alfred	Hepworth, Joseph
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.	Dickle, John P.	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)	Donner, P. W.	Holdsworth, Herbert
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Drewe, Cedric	Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Blaker, Sir Reginald	Dugvale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Bllndeil, James	Duggan, Hubert John	Hornhy, Frank
Boulton, W. W.	Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Horobin, Ian M.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Eastwood, John Francis	Horsbrugh, Florence
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Boyce, H. Leslie	Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Bracken, Brendan	Elliston, Captain George Sampson	Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)	Elmley, Viscount	Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Brass, Captain Sir William	Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Briant, Frank	Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.
Broadbent, Colonel John	Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	Jamieson, Douglas
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)	Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Browne, Captain A. C.	Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)	Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)	Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Burghley, Lord	Everard, W. Lindsay	Jonas, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Burnett, John George	Fleming, Edward Lascelles	Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Fox, Sir Gifford	Kerr, Lieut.-Cot. Charies (Montrose)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmiy)	Fraser, Captain Ian	Kerr, Hamllton W.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm	Fremantle, Sir Francis	Knight, Holford
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Ganzonl, Sir John	Knox, Sir Alfred
Carver, Major William H.	Gillett, Sir George Masterman	Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Law, Sir Alfred
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Glossop, C. W. H.	Leckie, J. A.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)	Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Leech, Dr. J. W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.	Lees-Jones, John
Charlton, Alan Ernest Leoiric	Goff, Sir Park	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Clarry, Reginald George	Gower, Sir Robert	Levy, Thomas
Colman, N. C. D.	Graves, Marjorie	Liddail, Walter S.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Greene, William P. C.	Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Klim'rnock)
Conant, R. J. E.	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Llewellin, Major John J.
Cook, Thomas A.	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

if a man pays no contribution for two years he will have to requalify by paying contributions for two years, whereas under the Bill a man has not to requalify unless he has been out of employment five years.

We propose the first Amendment, not the second.

With regard to the first Amendment, we think that five years is a reasonable qualifying period and hon. Members think it ought to be two years. Five years was recommended by the Royal Commission.

Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 47.

Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)	Petherick, M.	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)	Spens, William Patrick
Lyons, Abraham Montagu	Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fyide)
Mabane, William	Procter, Major Henry Adam	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)	Pybus, Sir Percy John	Storey, Samuel
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Radford, E. A.	Stourton, Hon. John J.
McCorquodale, M. S.	Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.	Strickland, Captain W. F.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Ramsbotham, Herwald	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.	Ramsden, Sir Eugene	Summersby, Charles H.
McKie, John Hamilton	Ratcliffe, Arthur	Sutcliffe, Harold
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Rathbone, Eleanor	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)	Thompson, Sir Luke
Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander	Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Maitland, Adam	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)	Thorp, Linton Theodore
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest	Reid, William Allan (Derby)	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot	Remer, John R.	Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Rickards, George William	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Marsden, Commander Arthur	Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)	Turton, Robert Hugh
Martin, Thomas B.	Ropner, Colonel L.	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Rosbotham, Sir Thomas	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Meller, Sir Richard James	Ross, Ronald D.	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Milne, Charles	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.	Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)	Runge, Norah Cecil	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Mitcheson, G. G.	Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Moreing, Adrian C.	Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l)	Wells, Sydney Richard
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Salmon, Sir Isidore	Weymouth, Viscount
Morrison, William Shepherd	Salt, Edward W.	White, Henry Graham
Moss, Captain H. J.	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.	Selley, Harry R.	Whyte, Jardine Bell
Munro, Patrick	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)	Wills, Wlltrid D.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
North, Edward T.	Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Nunn, William	Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)	Wise, Alfred R.
O'Connor, Terence James	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)	Womersley, Waiter James
O'Donovan, Dr. William James	Somervell, Sir Donald	Wragg, Herbert
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)
Patrick, Colin M.	Soper, Richard
Pearson, William G.	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Peat, Charles U.	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.	Sir George Penny and Lord Erskine.
Perkins, Waiter R. D.	Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Milner, Major James
Attlee, Clement Richard	Groves, Thomas E.	Owen, Major Goronwy
Banfield, John William	Grundy, Thomas W.	Paling, Wilfred
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)	Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Cape, Thomas	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Thorne, William James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Kirkwood, David	Tinker, John Joseph
Cove, William G.	Lawson, John James	Wellhead, Richard C.
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Leonard, William	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Dagger, George	Logan, David Gilbert	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Lunn, William	Wilmot, John
Dobble, William	McEntee, Valentine L.
Edwards, Charles	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	Mainwaring, William Henry	Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Maxton, James

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th December, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Eleven of the Clock at this day's sitting.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 43.

Division No. 74.]	AYES.	[11.10 p.m.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Apsley, Lord	Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Albery, Irving James	Aske, Sir Robert William	Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Balniel, Lord

Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.	Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Goff, Sir Park	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Gower, Sir Robert	Morrison, William Shephard
Bateman, A. L.	Graves, Marjorie	Moss, Captain H. J.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Greene, William P. C.	Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Munro, Patrick
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Blaker, Sir Reginald	Grimston, R. V.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Blindell, James	Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.	Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Boulton, W. W.	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Nunn, William
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Gunston, Captain D. W.	O'Connor, Terence James
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Guy, J. C. Morrison	O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Boyce, H. Leslie	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Bracken, Brendan	Hammersley, Samuel S.	Patrick, Colin M.
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)	Hanbury, Cecil	Pearson, William G.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Hanley, Dennis A.	Peat, Charles U.
Brass, Captain Sir William	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Perkins, Walter R. D.
Briant, Frank	Hartland, George A.	Petherick, M.
Broadbent, Colonel John	Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)	Pickering, Ernest H.
Browne, Captain A. C.	Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)	Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T	Heligers, Captain F. F. A.	Procter, Major Henry Adam
Burghley, Lord	Hepworth, Joseph	Pybus, Sir Percy John
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Radford, E. A.
Burnett, John George	Hoiduworth, Herbert	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmiy)	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Ramsbotham, Herwald
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm	Hornby, Frank	Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Horobin, Ian M.	Ratcliffe, Arthur
Carver, Major William H.	Horsbrugh, Florence	Rathbone, Eleanor
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Howitt, Dr. Allred B.	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Clarry, Reginald George	Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)	Rickards, George William
Colman, N. C. D.	James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Jamieson, Douglas	Ropner, Colonel L.
Conant, R. J. E.	Jesson, Major Thomas E.	Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Cook, Thomas A.	Joel, Dudley J. Barnato	Ross, Ronald D.
Cooke, Douglas	Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Cooper, A. Duff	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Copeland, Ida	Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)	Runge, Norah Cecil
Cranborne, Viscount	Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)	Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Craven-Ellis, William	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Crooke, J. Smedley	Knox, Sir Alfred	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Law, Sir Alfred	Salmon, Sir Isidore
Crossley, A. C.	Leckie, J. A.	Salt, Edward W.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Leech, Dr. J. W.	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Culverwell, Cyril Tom	Lees-Jones, John	Seiley, Harry R.
Curry, A. C.	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Dalkeith, Earl of	Levy, Thomas	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)	Llddall, Walter S.	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Dawson, Sir Philip	Llewellin, Major John J.	Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Denville, Alfred	Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)	Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Dickle, John P.	Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)	Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)
Donner, P. W.	Lyons, Abraham Montagu	Somerveil, Sir Donald
Drewe, Cedric	Mabane, William	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Duggan, Hubert John	MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)	Soper, Richard
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Eastwood, John Francis	McCorquodale, M. S.	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Edmondson, Major A. J.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Ellieton, Captain George Sampson	McEwen, Captain J. H. F.	Spens, William Patrick
Elmley, Viscount	McKie, John Hamilton	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Macmillan, Maurice Harold	Storey, Samuel
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	Macquisten, Frederick Alexander	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Maitland, Adam	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)	Malialleu, Edward Lancelot	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Summersby, Charles H.
Everard, W. Lindsay	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Sutcilffe, Harold
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles	Martin, Thomas B.	Thompson, Sir Luke
Fox, Sir Gifford	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Fraser, Captain Ian	Meller, Sir Richard James	Thorp, Linton Theodore
Fremantle, Sir Francis	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Ganzonl, Sir John	Milne, Charles	Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman	Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Mitcheson, G. G.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Glossop, C. W. H.	Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)	Turton, Robert Hugh
Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Moreing, Adrian C.	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)	Weymouth, Viscount	Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)	White, Henry Graham	Wise, Alfred R.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.	Womersley, Waiter James
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.	Whyte, Jardine Bell	Wragg, Herbert
Waterhouse, Captain Charles	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-	Wills, Wilfrid D.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Wells, Sydney Richard	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)	Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colonel
		Sir A. Lambert Ward.

NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Mainwaring, william Henry
Attlee, Clement Richard	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pon'ybool)	Maxton, James
Banfield, John William	Grundy, Thomas W.	Milner, Major James
Batey, Joseph	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)	Owen, Major Goronwy
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Hicks, Ernest George	Paling, Wilfred
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Jenkins, Sir William	Parkinson, John Allen
Buchanan, George	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cape, Thomas	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Kirkwood, David	Thorne, William James
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Lawson, John James	Tinker, John Joseph
Dagger, George	Leonard, William	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Dobbie, William	Logan, David Gilbert	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Edwards, Charles	Lunn, William	Wilmot, John
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	McEntee, Valentine L.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
		Mr. John and Mr. Groves

Clause 4—(Definition Of Benefit Year)

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 75.]	AYES.	[11.20 p.m.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Clarry, Reginald George	Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Colman, N. C. D.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Albery, Irving James	Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Glossop, C. W. H.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Conant, R. J. E.	Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Apsley, Lord	Cook, Thomas A.	Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Cooke, Douglas	Goff, Sir Park
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Cooper, A. Duff	Gower, Sir Robert
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.	Copeland, Ida	Graves, Marjorie
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Cranborne, Viscount	Greene, William P. C.
Balniel, Lord	Craven-Ellis, William	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Crooke, J. Smedley	Grimston, R. V.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Bateman, A. L.	Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsn'th,C.)	Culverwell, Cyril Tom	Guy, J. C. Morrison
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.	Daikelth, Earl of	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)	Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)	Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Biaker, Sir Reginald	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Hanbury, Cecil
Blindell, James	Dawson, Sir Philip	Hanley, Dennis A.
Bouiton, W. W.	Denville, Alfred	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Dickle, John P.	Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Donner, P. W.	Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Boyce, H. Leslie	Drewe, Cedric	Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Bracken, Brendan	Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)	Duggan, Hubert John	Hepworth, Joseph
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Brass, Captain Sir William	Eastwood, John Francis	Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Broadbent, Colonel John	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Staiybridge)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey	Hornby, Frank
Browne, Captain A. C.	Elliston, Captain George Sampson	Horobin, Ian M.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Eimley, Viscount	Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Burghley, Lord	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Burnett, John George	Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmiy)	Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm	Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)	James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Everard, W. Lindsay	Jamieson, Douglas
Carver, Major William H.	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Fleming, Edward Lascelles	Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (p'rtem'th, S.)	Fox. Sir Gifford	Johnston, J. W. (Ciackmannan)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Fraser, Captain Ian	Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Fremantle, Sir Francis	Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Ganzonl, Sir John	Knox, Sir Alfred

Clause 5—(Amendments As To Meaning Of Unemployment)

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 54.

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Nunn, William	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Law, Sir Alfred	O'Connor, Terence James	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J
Leckie, J. A.	O'Donovan, Dr. William James	Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Leech, Dr. J. W.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Lees-Jones, John	Patrick, Colin M.	Spens, William Patrick
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Pearson, William G.	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Levy, Thomas	Peat, Charles U.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Liddall, Walter S.	Perkins, Waiter R. D.	Storey, Samuel
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)	Petherick, M.	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Liewellin, Major John J.	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)	Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)	Procter, Major Henry Adam	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Pybus, Sir Percy John	Summersby, Charles H.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu	Radford, E. A.	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Mabane, William	Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.	Thompson, Sir Luke
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Ramsbotham, Herwald	Thorp, Linton Theodore
McCorquodale, M. S.	Ratcliffe, Arthur	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Rathbone, Eleanor	Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
McKie, John Ilamliton	Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)	Turton, Robert Hugh
Macmillan, Maurice Harold	Reid, William Allan (Deroy)	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (wallsend)
Maitland, Adam	Rickards, George William	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Making, Brigadier-General Ernest	Ropner, Colonel L.	Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Rosbotham, Sir Thomas	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Ross, Ronald D.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Marsden, Commander Arthur	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Martin, Thomas B.	Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A.	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Runge, Norah Cecil	Wells, Sydney Richard
Meiler, Sir Richard James	Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)	Weymouth, Viscount
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Milne, Charles	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)	Whyte, Jardine Bell
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Mitcheson, G. G.	Salmon, Sir Isidore	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)	Sait, Edward W.	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Moreing, Adrian C.	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff. E.)	Selley, Harry R.	Windsor-Cave, Lieut.-Colonel George
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.	Wise, Alfred R.
Morrison, William Shepherd	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)	Womersley, Waiter James
Moss, Captain H. J	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Wragg, Herbert
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.	Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)
Munro, Patrick	Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Smith, A. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Somervell, Sir Donald	Sir George Penny and Lieut.-
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)	Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.
North, Edward T.	Soper, Richard

NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot
Aske, Sir Robert William	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Maxton, James
Attlee, Clement Richard	Groves, Thomas E.	Milner, Major James
Banfield, John William	Grundy, Thomas W.	Owen, Major Goronwy
Batey, Joseph	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Paling, Wilfred
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Hicks, Ernest George	Parkinson, John Allen
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Holdsworth, Herbert	Pickering, Ernest H.
Buchanan, George	Jenkins, Sir William	Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Cape, Thomas	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Thorne, William James
Curry, A. C.	Kirkwood, David	Tinker, John Joseph
Daggar, George	Lawson, John James	White, Henry Graham
Dobbie, William	Leonard, William	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Edwards, Charles	Logan, David Gilbert	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)	Lunn, William	Wilmot John
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)	McEntee, Valentine L.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Mainwaring, William Henry	Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-six Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

Volume 285: debated on Monday 29 January 1934

House Of Commons

Private Business

Private Bills Lords

Private Bill Petitions Lords (Special Report)

Ministry Of Health Provisional Order (Belper) Bill

Ministry Of Health Provisional Order (North Buckinghamshire Joint Hospital District) Bill

Mr Speaker's Warrant For New Writ

Oral Answers To Questions

India (Forest Service)

Disarmament

German Refugees

League Of Nations

China And Japan

Naval And Military Pensions And Grants

Agriculture

London Quarantine Station

Meat And Bacon (Prices)

Livestock Industry

Milk Marketing Scheme

Irish Turkeys (Imports)

Horses (Export)

Post Office (Telephone Service)

Business Of Courts Committee

Housing

Slum Clearance

Non-Subsidised Houses

Irish Free State

Scotland (Poor Relief)

Trade And Commerce

Japanese Competition

Shipping Industry (Subsidised Competition)

Import Duties

Russia (Trade Negotiations)

France: British Goods, Quotas

Education

Teachers (Employment)

Children Leaving School (Wales)

Workmen's Compensation

Betting (Legislation)

World Economic Conference

United States (British Debt)

Air Power

British Broadcasting Corporation

House Of Commons (Procedure)

Coal Industry

Reorganisation

Supplies (Foreign Purchase)

National Finance

Customs Duties

Unemployment Benefit

Tax Collection

Monetary Policy

Germany (British Creditors)

Transport

Road Accidents (Government Action)

Railway Bridge, Queen's Road, Milfs Platting

Royal Commission On Licensing (Legislation)

Unemployment (Statistics)

Russia (Lena Goldfields, Limited)

Metropolitan Special Constabulary (Motor Insurance)

Business Of The House

New Member Sworn

Ballot For Notices Of Motions

Imperial Defence

Trade With Russia

Road Accidents

Empire Population (Redistribution)

Slum Clearance

Retiring Pensions

Ex-Service Men

Foreign Trade

Orders Of The Day

Unemployment Bill

Clause 1—(Age For Entry Into Insurance And Rate Of Contributions In Respect Of Persons Under Sixteen)

Clause 2—(Power To Enlarge Or Restrict Excepted Employment)

Clause 3—(Right To, And Duration Of, Benefit)

Clause 4—(Definition Of Benefit Year)

Clause 5—(Amendments As To Meaning Of Unemployment)