I beg to move, in page 22, line 10, to leave out Subsection (1).
I move this Amendment because I feel that, if this Clause be carried into effect in the terms of the Bill, it will mean some measure of injustice so far as a large number of dependants of ex-service men are concerned. I think that the last thing that the Committee would like to do would be to impose any hardship whatever on the dependants of those who fought in the Great War, or who have seen service with the forces of the Crown. Judged purely from the standpoint of numbers, the proposal to delete this Subsection is not without its importance. At the present moment I am told that there are something like 290,000 dependants' pensions being paid, and in addition there are thousands in the other sections of dependants at the present time. It is true that the whole of these would not come under the operation of the class included in this Bill, but a great proportion of them would. In proposing the deletion of this Sub-section, it seems to mo to be necessary to take into consideration the foundation of the dependants' pension paid in order to compensate a person for a loss of income of some kind or other. I understand that it is proposed to take dependants' pensions into account in considering the question of qualifications under the present Bill. When the dependants' pension became payable to those concerned it was based on the fact that there would be a certain loss of income from those who were called upon for service in the War or with the forces of the Crown. At present it cannot be done without interfering materially with the position that has been created out of the various War pensions Acts. Provision was made to see that there did come into the household some recompense for the loss which was incurred when the wage-earner, the husband, son. or brother, was called upon for service. The income of the family was depreciated to a very considerable extent. When the dependants' pensions were allowed they were to make good the deficiency thereby imposed.
In most of these cases we can assume that necessitous circumstances would exist: otherwise the provision would not have been made. I notice that in a portion of the sub-section the Bill proposes to exempt under certain conditions in necessitous cases. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not true to suggest that in the great majority of these dependants' cases it could be proved that there were existing necessitous circumstances? If that is proved, why is it proposed to make any provision of the kind which is intended, because if it is to be applied in the sense and spirit in which the Com- mittee would have it done, nearly every case would claim to have exemption under the provision of the Bill now. There is no need for this sub-section whatever, and the right hon. Gentleman should leave undisturbed a just provision made for the dependants of ex-Service men within the terms of the War Pensions Acts. Many are the reasons that could be given. I ask the right hon. gentleman how will the second part of the Clause affect those who are qualified for old age pensions? May I put a simple test question? Suppose that someone has been drawing a dependant's pension of 8s. per week. Does it mean that only 2s. can then be added to the allowance to make it 10s.? If that is so, this provision is destroying all the benefit which was given to the dependants of ex-Service men. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman may see his way, if not to withdraw this sub-section, at any rate to modify it in order that the dependants of ex-Service men may not be penalised.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman hardly expected that it would be possible for the Government to accept the Amendment, because it is clearly undesirable that, where provision has already been made for the dependants of service men at the expense of the State, you should duplicate that provision, again at the expense of the State. If it be true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that most of the cases concerned are cases where the service pension has been calculated with reference to the necessities of the pensioner, then certainly there is no hardship so far as they are concerned, because such cases are excluded from the provisions of this Sub-section. It is not, therefore, with those that we are concerned now, but those whose pensions have not been awarded to them in consideration of their needs but in consideration of the disability or the service rendered by the deceased husband.
In the case of the second part of the proviso, it is there stated that, although the general principle is that there shall not be double pensions, yet we do not want, as the right hon. Gentlemen said, in any way to penalise these people, and we do not, therefore, permit our Clause to act in such a way that any of these people would be worse off than they would be if they were able to get the benefits under this Bill. Therefore, if their present pensions are less than might be provided under this Bill, including the allowances to dependant children, then the difference will be made up to them. The whole finance of this has keen based on the assumption that this Clause will be passed. To alter it would probably involve us in considerable liability, for which there is no provision in the Bill, and, while I do not rest the case on that point, because I think the case stands upon its own merits, I do say in any case it would not be possible, on financial grounds, to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
Is it not true to say that in every case they are paying for the pension which we are now asking that they should receive in the same way that other people would receive it?
If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the fact that there is to be a deduction from their pay, I quite sec the point. He argues that as these men are going to pay their contributions, they should have the same benefits as other people. May I say that these service men are undoubtedly exposed to special risks which are not the risks upon which the actuarial calculations were based in considering the flat rate contribution. But I would say this further, that by reason of the contributions they make under the Bill, these men would keep themselves in insurance, and, therefore, a man who had, say, spent a year in the Army and had come out of the Army, would be kept in insurance, by virtue of his contributions, for another year; so that if he were to die, his widow during the whole period would be entitled to a pension. Therefore, it is a very valuable benefit that they secure to themselves, and one which, I am informed, on the calculations of the actuaries, involves a very considerable amount more than the actual contributions.
I want to make this case perfectly clear, because there are undoubtedly many hundreds of thousands of people who come under the flat rate of 5s. who will be deprived of the benefit when qualifying age is reached for coming within the scope of the present Bill. How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to meet the circumstances of this particular kind of case?
There are many mothers of sons killed in the war at present receiving the flat rate pension of 5s. a week, and, by reason of the fact that their husbands are insured persons, would be entitled, if the husband died, to come under the provisions of this Bill. Are you to take into calculation the flat rate of 5s. the mother receives for the loss of her son?
Mr. T. THOMSON:
This is a, complicated Bill, and no doubt we have not all been able to follow its details as closely as we would like, but it is astonishing to me to find that the ordinary service pension is to be regarded as a set off in relation to the pensions conferred by the Bill. That seems to be taking an unfair advantage of a large number of people and to indicate that this so-called contributory scheme, is not to be run on proper contributory lines. If you make a bargain with an insurance company you get what you have paid for, irrespective of any other insurances you may have made, and I cannot see why the Government should stand on a different footing from the insurance company. The point made by the right hon. Gentleman is a vital one, and it will influence a great many people when they find that because they have been drawing service pensions, they are to be denied the benefits of this Bill.
I do not desire that the very important point made by my right hon. Friend should be obscured, because it is a very good test point, but may I generalise it and put this question. Am I not right in assuming that the provisions of this Bill lie upon the ex-service man in precisely the same way as they lie upon the ordinary civilian? He has to pay his contributions and his employer has to pay contributions on his behalf. That being so, am I right, further, in assuming that the meaning of what the Minister has just said is that although his contributions are fully paid he does not get the same benefit as the civilian? I think that puts the case in a nutshell.
A Sub-section of this kind is indefensible in logic. There is no ground for bringing into con- sideration some other source of finance which may be open to the pensioner. It is no business of the Minister if the pensioner inherits a fortune, though it may seem ridiculous to pay him 10s. per week in such circumstances. Similarly it is no business of the Minister if the contributor happens to have another pension, owing to circumstances quite extraneous to this Bill. The Minister might make this concession which seems only logical—that there should be a surrender value. If it is said that a person in receipt of a dependant's pension cannot draw a pension under this scheme, you owe it to that person to refund the contributions which you have been taking by false pretences during a number of years. I am sure it is irksome to the Minister to feel that he is being unduly generous to the relatives of those who have fallen in the Great War by making an additional contribution to that which is already made by the State, but these people are clearly, in equity if not in law, entitled to some surrender value for their contributions. The wording of this Sub-section requires explanation. It seems to confer an extraordinarily vague series of powers, and I doubt if any hon. Member reading it for the first time could understand it clearly. It gives powers to make regulations which could be very detrimental to the potential recipients of the bounties of this Bill, and I shall oppose it in every possible way.
May I ask the Committee to consider the Amendment in the impartial light in which Members on all sides of this House have continually emphasized that questions of ex-service men and dependants' pensions must be considered? Looking at it in that light, let us take the position of a man who was injured in the War, who died from his injuries since the War, and whose widow is receiving a pension, as compared with the position of the conscientious objector, who was not killed in the War, who went on working through the War, when he was not in prison, who, after the War, went on with his work, who was fortunately able to save a little money, and who, too, died and left a widow. You are penalising, in this Bill, the man who was killed in the War, for whom you profess to have admiration, in favour of the man who did not serve in that capacity. If that proposal were made from these Benches, hon. Members opposite would be the first to get up and declare that this was the most wicked and unfair injustice to men who had served their great and glorious Empire that could possibly be imagined. The whole forces of the Conservative party would be out to expose us as a set of unpatriotic humbugs.
This Clause is not introduced by us, but by the friends of the ex-service men, who profess, more than any other party, to have a duty towards these men; and that is quite right. You sent them out to fight; we did not, and it is your duty, at least as much as it is ours, to look after them when they come home. Yet you deliberately propose to penalise the dependants of the men who served you, at a very cheap rate, in favour of people who were wise enough to stay at home in comfortable jobs. [An HON. MEMBER: "Wise enough?"] Lucky enough, if the adjective offends you but you are making it wise enough. If we brought up this proposal, there would not be this dim and ghastly silence which is hanging over all the patriotic friends of the Empire in this Committee at the present moment. There is very little anxiety on the part of hon. Members opposite to stand up for the men whom they admire against the cracks of their party whip, and the least they can do, when we are endeavouring to do our bit for the men we stand for as well as they, if perhaps the discipline of the quarter-deck would be too severe to allow them to speak, is to lend their silent support in the division Lobby to sec that justice is done to those men whom most of the hon. Members opposite distinguished themselves very greatly on the recruiting platform in the war in trying to get to go and serve.
I am sure the Committee will realise that we are not likely to be moved by the taunts directed at us from the Benches opposite But I am sorry the hon. Member who spoke last had the opportunity before me, because I rise to support this Amendment. I am not aware bow much money is involved in the concession which has been asked, but I am sure that a large body of opinion on this side of the House and in the country feels that the Bill, as it stands, is in fact penalising those who took part in the Great War. Unless the financial conditions are such as to make the thing entirely imposible, I would urge the Minister to see if in some measure he cannot meet the case which is undoubtedly very strong indeed, that the pentions granted under this Bill should not be set off against those that have been won by service for the country. As it stands, there is no reasonable doubt that many of these people will, in fact, be paying, not for something they are going to get themselves, but for something that some other person will get and that they will be deprived of. I trust the Minister will anyhow tell us what is the financial commitment involved in some concession of the nature specified in the Amendment. Unless the cost is so great that it is entirely impossible to meet it. I would urge very strongly and I think hon. Members on this side of the House equally with hon. Members opposite would urge that some concession should be made.
The actual cost of the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend—and I have had the figures taken out by an actuary—I am sorry to say will be, from £4,000,000 to £5,000,000 a year to start off with. In reply to another hon. Member, I find that it is not correct to say that the men coming under this Clause are penalised. What happens is this: That they are already in receipt of certain benefits, or are entitled to them, from the State by virtue of their service. It is not necessary to duplicate the payments. What we have to be very careful to guard against is that we are not asking them to pay for something more than the benefits that they can claim under the scheme.
The Minister told us when the Bill was introduced that there was to be no means limit in it. Here we have a means limit imposed, which implies the worst form of discrimination that this House could impose. If a widow is left with an income of £5 or £10 from property or some other source, the pension is paid; but if a widow is left with 5s. because her boy has lost his life in the country's service, she will not be given the full pension which her husband has earned by payment of the contributions. I think this and the following Clause, are the most disgraceful of all the Clauses in the Bill. It is a disgrace to this House. I hope that hon. Members on the other side, as well as on this side, will vote solidly against the Government, so that we may get this Clause out of the Bill.
I do not desire to enter into a long argument upon this case or the Amendment, because the case has been very clearly put. I want merely in a very few words to deny as emphatically as I can the allegation that the proposal which the Minister has made is either disgraceful or mean, or not put forward with the best possible intentions. It must be plain that there is a difficulty, and that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to cut his coat according to his cloth. The suggestion that he is doing something from some bad motive, or that this House is doing something disgraceful, is, in my view, not worthy of this House. But I want to ask the Minister whether the action which has been taken is entirely logical, and whether he cannot possibly deal with the matter in some other way. I do not want to suggest that the Ministry of Pensions should take away the pensions it has granted, but at least that would be more logical than denying pensions for which contributions have been paid. If in fact these pensions are given because of necessity, then I suggest the Ministry of Pensions should consider, after the pension earned by the contributor has been paid, whether or not there is still necessity. If there is, the Ministry of Pensions should continue its pension, and if there is not it might consider that it was in the interests of the taxpayer— whom, we must never forget, it must serve—to take away or diminish that pension. It seems to me illogical to take away or diminish or try to square payment by making a deduction from that for which contributions have been paid; the deduction should come from the other end, if there is to be one at all.
I only want to press the Minister on the point which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. Roberts) in regard to the flat rate pension. I take it the Minister is aware that there are two kinds of pensions awarded to parents. There is the need pension, which is a kind of compassionate pension, given because the parent is in necessitous circumstances, and there is the flat rate pension, which is fixed and is given irrespective of need, and is understood to be the equivalent of what a parent might have expected for his or her lifetime had the son survived the Great War. That is clearly the income which the State believes would always have been received by that parent, and that being the case, it does seem to me—I do not want to use any harsh words, or to seem to be abusive—to be quite unreasonable and unjust to that parent that that particular income should be taken into account in deciding whether or not the woman should have the full widow's pension or old age pension. I suggest to the Minister that on that one given point at least he ought, in view of the circumstances, to make some provision whereby the flat rate pension will not be taken into account at all as income.
I think, if the Minister had put this point before the consideration of his own party before he placed this Clause in the Bill, he would have been told it ought not to be included, and I am certain that if the Members of the party had the power of the Whips taken from them in voting on this point the Clause as it stands would be defeated, and there would be a demand that some better method be found for the apportionment of the pension. What is it the Minister is endeavouring to do here? In his reply to the late Minister of Pensions he has admitted that a pension which has been given by the State to a woman for the loss of her son is going to be taken into consideration when computing whether she is to receive 10s. old age pension to which the contributions of her husband entitle her. That has been described as mean. I consider it is the worst possible treatment that could be extended to these widows, to tell them that because they already have a pension of, say, 5s. or 6s. a week from the State that they are not to receive the old age pension of 10s., but are to receive the difference between 5s. or 6s. and the 10s. pension. That is to say, that this Government are actually telling those women that it is believed by the Government that they can live upon 10s. per week. I should like to see the ladies associated with hon. Members opposite trying to live on 10s. per week, and I should like to know of any other section of the community which is being treated in that way. These are the mothers of the soldiers who fought for this country in order to defend your mothers and wives and property and now you are proposing to treat the mothers of those soldiers in this fashion. The Minister of Health says that this Amendment would cost between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000, but of course that would be a diminishing amount. If this is to be the cost of giving these women the full 10s., does that include the pension to which they are already entitled? The Committee is entitled to have an answer to that question. Are we going to let a matter of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 stand in the way? It did not stand in the way when you wanted boys for the Army. Then, money was no object, but now, when it comes to giving these women what they are entitled to, you say "No." You say to these women: "Because you have already got 5s. per week for the loss of your boy, we are only going to give you 5s. and steal the other 5s. to which you are entitled from you." [HON. MEMBERS: "No, No"!] What is it but theft, if you take away from them something to which they are entitled? If you take 5s. out of the pocket of a woman that is theft, and if you take away 5s. to which she is entitled, that is also theft. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say that on the Report Stage he will be prepared to insert an Amendment that will safeguard the rights of these women, and give them the full pension to which they are entitled.
I hope the Minister will give careful attention to some of these Amendments. What we feel is that where the dependant of a pensioner is in receipt of a pension it is because he has earned it, and upon that ground as well as upon a sense of fairness and equity, I ask the Minister to accede to the Amendment in some form or other so that those who are entitled to a pension shall receive it. The right hon. Gentleman said that about £4,000,000 per annum would be the amount required in respect of this concession. It is difficult to understand that because under Clause 11 the total amount to be contributed by the State is £4,000,000 per year. I do not know whether we can have some further explanation, but seeing that whatever concession is made in this case will be a diminishing factor, I think the right hon. Gentleman should grant this concession. I am ready to support anything which will help the ex-service man in this respect.
I am a little puzzled as to this Clause and the Amendment. I certainly do not impute anything at all unworthy or mean to the Minister, but all through the Debates on this Bill we have constantly had put before us that this is an Insurance Bill, and that the Minister has been obliged to harden his heart on many occasions because he could not actuarially fit suggestions into an insurance scheme. It is from that point of view that I see the strength of the arguments for this Amendment. The Bill says that there are certain persons who are now entitled to pensions calculated with reference to the necessities of the pensioner. Who are these people? They are persons who did not contribute money for their pensions, but contributed a limb, or broken health, or a crippled life. That is a contribution for which the benefit is a pension to the degree of their necessities. What is their position to-day? As soon as this Bill is passed, these men will be asked to contribute something. Are they to get nothing for that something? If we never had this Bill, they would have their pensions in full, as the due reward for the services they rendered. This Bill says, "Thou shalt pay weekly a certain sum." Are they to get nothing for that? The Clause says that the Minister may make regulations with a view to excluding these persons from that to which they would have been entitled had this Bill never been passed. Why should he have such a power? On what ground of insurance principle or of equity ought persons to be deprived of the benefit that flows from a contribution actuarially fixed, because in fact at the time they are receiving a pension as the result of other contributions—of a limb or of health—that they have made? To my mind it is a perfectly indefensible Clause, and I certainly shall support the Amendment. I do not at all appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says when he states that it will cost £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 to do this. If it did cost £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, it should be done, but it cannot cost anything like that. I do not know how the calculation was made. Whether he adds the war and the civil service pensions together or not I do not know, but it certainly was the duty of the actuary, when this Bill was being framed, to see that the contributions paid were the basis upon which the benefit should be given. These men have paid the contributions, and they are entitled to the benefits none the less because at the same time they are drawing pensions for far greater, far more permanent, and far more affecting contributions which they have made in the service of the country.
I should like to ask the Minister what exactly is the meaning of this Clause. In the first place, an expression is used in it which has never been used before in connection with pensions legislation, namely, "service dependants' pension," which the average person will not understand. As far as I can make out from the explanatory part of the Bill it means either any of the three classes of dependants' pensions or a widow's pension. If that be the case, I can quite understand that there might be some ground for saying that the class of dependants' pensions known as need pensions might be regulated in so far as this extra benefit is concerned, but it should be so that this pension, which is a contributory pension, is not touched. If anything is to be touched the Need Pension should be reduced. But although that argument might hold good, I do not see that it has anything to do with the widows' pensions, or with the fiat rate dependants pension or the dependants pension paid on the ground of the amount contributed by the son to the parents before he was killed, and if as I follow it by thin extraordinary abstruse Clause, it is going to be the case that the widow will not be entitled to a pension, and that the dependant drawing a flat rate pension of 5s. will lose her pension, and that the dependants who are drawing pensions because their son contributed to their support before he was killed, will also lose their pension. I am certainly not going to support the Clause and I shall vote for the Amendment.
Certain speeches which were made making the better appear the worse nearly per- suaded me to support the Government, but the Debate has progressed since that period and it seems to me there is a very strong case indeed for asking the Government to reconsider this Clause. I very much hope the Minister will be able to say he is prepared to reconsider the question, and to redraft the Clause. I agree entirely with the remarks of the last speaker, that there can be no justification for putting a man in a worse position, because he is an ex-service man drawing benefit in respect of that, than he otherwise would be in. I hope very much that the Minister will reconsider the position.
I should like to emphasise the remarks which have been made by Members of all parties. I agree that the ex-serviceman's question should not be at all a party political question. I have on different occasions, perhaps not altogether successfully, voiced the problems of ex-service men. I welcomed the news with regard to Old Age Pensions, that income was no longer to be taken into consideration. As one who has sat on an Old Age Pensions Committee, and has known the searching inquiries made by the officials of the Customs and Excise, I naturally welcome the fact that that was going to be done away with. Now, in another way, we understand that income is going to be taken into consideration. After all, surely it was truly and well earned. Can you repay in any way the loss those people have sustained as the result of the War? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, when introducing his Budget, that the decreasing expenditure on pensions year by year would be made up in this Bill, as a memorial to those who laid down their lives for their King and their Country. Surely you ore chipping a few of the edges off that memorial when you encroach upon the pensions of the widows and the mothers. On the question of ex-service men's problems and pensions generally, I am perhaps rather inclined to be "agin" any Government, whichever it may be, but I do not think I have ever been unjust, whichever Minister it may be who has occupied that position. I am rather inclined to think that this is the thin end of the wedge in trying to reduce the pensions which were so ably earned in the sacrifices of the War. I appeal to the Minister to see whether he cannot give serious consideration to the Amendment and to wipe out the Clause that stands in the Bill at the present moment.
I would like the Committee to consider really what we are arguing upon in this Clause. We are all a little apt, in the very natural and laudable sympathy we have with the ex-service men and their dependants, to lose sight of other considerations which ought to be taken into account. I would remind the Committee once more that it would cost £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 a year at the outset. We have not the means to provide that. I am going to suggest to hon. Members that really the proper and logical outcome of the considerations which they have put before us would have been an alteration in Clause 16; that is to say, those people should have been left out of this Bill altogether. That was the original frame and scheme of the Bill. It was not intended to bring service men into the Bill. It was a Bill for civilians and for the conditions of civilians; but it was put forward by the service authorities that they desired to have the service men brought into the Bill, and for that reason Clause 16 was put in providing that reduction should be made from their Pay.
I know, but under the Bill these dependants would be entitled to pensions by virtue of their insurance. Supposing that you have a man who has been in the Army and has been in insurable employment and paying his contributions, when he comes out of the Army he may fall out of insurance, unless he enters an insurable employment. But by reason of the fact that he has kept up his contributions, 4½d. a week, he is considered to have been in insurable employment while he has been in the Army. If he dies, his widow and family would be entitled to the full benefits of the Bill. A. man who enters the insurance at the age of 25 would have to pay 1s. 4½d., according to the actuarial arrangement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reply to the Amendment!"] It is really worth the while of the service men to pay the contributions which are-provided by Clause 16, because the benefits which they stand to gain are indeed worth far more to them than the contri- butions they would have to pay. I ask the Committee to support us in resisting the Amendment.
There is one short point. As I understand the position at the present moment, a woman who is in receipt of 5s. a week in respect of the loss of her son in the War and qualified for the old age pension at 70, supposing she is within the means limit—I understand there is no deduction made in respect of the 5s. she receives for the loss of her son. Under the proposed scheme you are going to introduce a different manner of treatment. Are you going to alter the system under which a person draws an old age pension, and 5s. in respect of her son, or is she to be allowed to draw both pensions?
I hope that, even now, the right hon. Gentleman will attempt to reconsider this question, because there is a very large unanimity in the Committee on this point. His last intervention did not deal with the difficulty. Double pensions ought to be avoided. It was the pride of the Minister, and quite rightly, that he was doing a good deal to abolish the means test qualification. The question we are dealing with now falls under that head. If one assumes that the man in respect of whom dependants' pensions are being paid had lived, these people would still have been receiving that assistance. That would not have been called into account by the right hon. Gentleman. That pension would still have been received, but because through the misfortune of war these men have died, the position or their dependants is worse, because they are to be deprived of the amount that they would have received from the dead soldier.
It is not really a question of double pension, but a question of the abolition of the means limit, and I cannot think that the House of Commons, if the Minister would give his approval, would for one moment stand in the way of finding the necessary £4,000,000 or £5,000,000. I am convinced that there is not one hon. Member who would not be willing to agree to an extra penny on the Income Tax for that purpose. If the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the question he will meet the desires of a very large number of people in all quarters of the House. It has been suggested that this question should be raised above the level of party politics. We all agree that there is an opportunity now for a national act on the part of all political parties, to see that nothing in this Bill shall in any way worsen the position of people who have suffered by the War. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman with all the earnestness I can command to give us what we are asking for, an undertaking that on the Report stage he will try to deal with this matter in accordance with the wishes of the whole Committee.
I would ask the Minister, if he cannot accept the Amendment as it stands—I suppose that the figure which he has given makes it impossible that the Amendment as it stands could be accepted—to give us an undertaking that between now and the Report stage he will consider some form of concession involving less money, and particularly that the case of dependent children and the case of the disabled ex-service man should be, considered.
Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see any way of separating service pensions from dependants' pensions. The arguments put before the Committee as to the dependants' pensions, which is really a, question of the means limit and nothing else, are unanswerable. Therefore I do hope that the Minister will not put those of us who are his supporters in the unfortunate position of having either to vote against the Government on this Amendment or else vote against what we regard as the whole principle of the Bill. When we consider this particular sub-section we see that its very wording involves ambiguity. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to postpone the sub-section, and reconsider the matter and bring it up again on the Report stage.
|Division No. 281.]||AYES.||[12.6 a.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Fermoy, Lord|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Fielden, E. B.|
|Albery, Irving James||Chamborlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Lady wood)||Fleming, D. P.|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Chapman, Sir S.||Ford. P. J.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Chilcott, Sir Warden||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Christie. J. A.||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Clarry, Reginald George||Galbraith, J. F. W.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Ganzoni, Sir John|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Gates, Percy|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-||Cope, Major William||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Bethell, A.||Couper, J. B.||Goff, Sir Park|
|Bird. E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Courthope, Lieut.-Cot. George L.||Grace, John|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)||Greene, W. P. Crawford|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Gretton, Colonel John|
|Bowater, sir T. Vansittart||Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry||Grotrlan, H. Brent|
|Brass, Captain W.||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Dalkeith, Earl of||Gunston, Captain D. W.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Davidson, J. (Hertl'd, Hemel Hempst'd)||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)||Halt, vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)|
|Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)||Dawson, Sir Philip||Harland, A.|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Harrison, G. J. C.|
|Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan||Doyle, Sir N. Grattan||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Burman, J. B.||Drewe, C.||Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.|
|Cassels, J. D.||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard|
|Holt Captain H. P.||Morden, Colonel Walter Grant||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|Homan, C. W. J.||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Murchison, C. K.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U.M.(Hackney, N.)||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Spender Clay, Colonel H.|
|Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)||Nuttall, Ellis||Stanley. Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Hume, Sir G. H.||Oakley, T.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Storry Deans, R.|
|Jacob, A. E.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Jephcott, A. R.||Penny, Frederick George||Strickland, Sir Gerald|
|Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)|
|King Captain Henry Douglas||Perring, William George||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Little Dr. E. Graham||Preston, William||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Raine, W.||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Looker, Herbert William||Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk, Peel||Wells, S. R.|
|Lougher, L.||Rawson, Alfred Cooper||Wheler, Major Granville C. H.|
|Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Lumley, L. R.||Remer, J. R.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|MacAndrew, Charles Glen||Rentoul, G. S.||Wilson, Sir C. H (Leeds Central)|
|McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Rice, Sir Frederick||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|McLean Major A.||Ropner, Major L.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Mac Robert, Alexander M.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Rye, F. G.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Makins, Brigadler-General E.||Salmon, Major I.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Margesson, Captain D.||Sanderson, Sir Frank||Wragg, Herbert|
|Meyer, Sir Frank||Sandon, Lord|
|Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Savery, S. S.||Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wills. Westb'y)||Harry Barnston.|
|Moore, Sir Newton J.||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife West)||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Ritson, J.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Robert, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Harney, E. A.||Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Robinson W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Hastings, Sir Patrick||Rose, Frank H.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hayday, Arthur||Saklatvala, Shapurji|
|Barnes, A.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Barr, J.||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)||Scurr, John|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hirst, G. H.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton. W.)||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)|
|Broad. F. A.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Bromley, J.||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Snell, Harry|
|Buchanan, G.||John, William (Rhonda, West)||Snowden, Rt. Hon, Philip|
|Charleton, H. C.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Clowes, S.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Philips||Kelly, W. T.||Taylor, R. A.|
|Compton, Joseph||Kennedy, T.||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Kirkwood, D.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Lawson, John James||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lee, F.||Thurtle, E.|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J.H.||Lindley, F. W.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lunn, William||Viant, S. P.|
|Day, Colonel Harry||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Duncan, C.||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Dunnico, H.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Westwood, J.|
|England, Colonel A.||March, S.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Maxton, James||Whiteley, W.|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Wiggins. William Martin|
|Fenby, T. D.||Morris, R. H.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Finburgh, S.||Naylor, T. E.||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Forrest, W.||Oliver, George Harold||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Owen, Major G.||Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Gillett, George M.||Paling, W.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Gosling, Harry||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Greenall, T.||Peto, Basil E. (Devon Barnstaple)||Windsor, Walter|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Pielou, D. P.||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Greenwood, William (Stockport)||Ponsonby, Arthur|
|Grenfell, D. B. (Glamorgan)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Groves, T.||Potts, John S.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Price, Major C. W. M.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Rees, Sir Beddoe||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Warne.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil||Riley, Ben|
Amendments made: In page 23, line 14, at the end, insert the words
Provided that the right to a pension under thi6 Act shall not affect any right to, or to the continuance of, a pension payable under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1024, as applied to blind persons by The Blind Persons Act, 1920.
|Division No. 282.]||AYES.||[12.17 a.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Finburgh, S.||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Fleming, D. P.||Oakley, T.|
|Albery, Irving James||Ford, P. J.||O'Connor, T. J, (Bedford, Luton)|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Forestler-Walker, L.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Penny, Frederick George|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.||Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Perrlng, William George|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Goff, Sir Park||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Grace, John||Pleiou, D. P.|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Preston, William|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-||Greenwood, William (Stockport)||Raine, W.|
|Bethell, A.||Grotrian, H. Brent||Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Rawson, Alfred Cooper|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)|
|Blundell, F. N.||Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)||Remer, J. R.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Rentoul, G. S.|
|Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart||Harland, A.||Rice, Sir Frederick|
|Brass, Captain W.||Harrison, G. J. C.||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Hartington, Marquess of||Ropner, Major L.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Rye, F. G.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Sandon, Lord|
|Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan||Holt. Capt. H. P.||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Burman, J. B.||Homan, C. W. J.||Savery, S. S.|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Hope. Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Shaw, Capt. w. W. (Wills, Westb'y)|
|Campbell, E. T.||Howard, Captain Hon. Donald||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hudson. Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)||Skelton, A. N.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)||Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine C.)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Jacob, A. E.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Jephcott, A. R.||Spender Clay, Colonel H.|
|Chilcott, Sir Warden||Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Christie, J. A.||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Loder, J. de V.||Storry Deans, R.|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Looker, Herbert William||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Cope, Major William||Lougher, L.||Strickland, Sir Gerald|
|Couper, J. B.||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.||Lumley. L. R.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)||MacAndrew, Charles Glen||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert||McLean, Major A.||Wells, S. R.|
|Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry||Macmillan, Captain H.||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Mac Robert, Alexander M.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Margesson, Captain D.||Winby, Colonel L. P.|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Merriman, F. B.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Doyle, Sir N. Grattan||Meyer, Sir Frank||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Drewe, C.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Womersley, W, J.|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut. Col. J. T. C.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Morden, Col. W. Grant|
|Fermoy, Lord||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Fielden, E. B.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir|
|Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Harry Barnston.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Barr, J.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Barnes, A.||Batey, Joseph|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Hirst, G. H.||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)|
|Broad, F. A.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Rose, Frank H.|
|Buchanan, G.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Saklatvala, Shapurji|
|Charleton, H. C.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Clowes, S.||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Compton, Joseph||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Dalton, Hugh||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Taylor, R. A.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Kelly, W. T.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton. E.)|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Kennedy, T.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Dunnico, H.||Kirkwood, D.||Thurtle, E.|
|England, Colonel A.||Lawson, John James||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Lee, F.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Fenby, T. D.||Lindley, F. W.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Forrest, W.||Lunn, William||Westwood, J.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||MacLaren, Andrew||Whiteley, W.|
|Gosling, Harry||Maclean, Nail (Glasgow, Govan)||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Greenall, T.||Maxton, James||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Morris, R. H.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Groves, T.||Naylor, T. E.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Oliver, George Harold||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Guest, J. (York, Hermsworth)||Owen, Major G.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Paling, W.||Windsor, Walter|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Potts, John S.|
|Hardle, George D.||Rees, Sir Beddoe||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Harney, E. A.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Riley, Ben||Warne.|
|Hayday, Arthur||Ritson, J.|
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.