HC Deb 16 July 1908 vol 192 cc1216-9

As amended, considered.

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE, Bristol, E.) moved to insert words in Clause 9 for the purpose of meeting certain criticisms which were offered when the Bill was in Committee.

Amendment proposed— In Clause 9, line 14, after the word "improperly," to insert the words "and costs."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

MR. FORSTER (Kent, Sevenoaks)

asked whether the effect of the Amendment was to bring the Bill into conformity with the existing law.

MR. HOBHOUSE

Yes, that is so.

MR. GRETTON (Rutland)

asked whether the meaning of the Government was "to repay, with costs, any sum of money applied improperly," and suggested that the words, as inserted in the Government Amendment, were not clear, and required explanation; they ought to have been inserted after the word "repay."

MR. HOBHOUSE

replied that there might be some ambiguity as to the meaning of the clause without that word. He thought the Amendments proposed by the Government would clear up any doubt which might otherwise exist.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HOBHOUSE moved to delete all the words after the word "liable" to the end of the clause and to insert other words providing that certain liabilities should be deemed a civil debt recover-able under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts. He hoped the alteration would be satisfactory to the House.

MR. CARLILE

said that it was essential that the members of friendly societies should realise that their funds were safe. He was quite sure that the hon. Gentleman desired that that should be the case and that he did not wish to weaken the hold of friendly societies on their funds. He asked whether these words would not rather weaken the hold of friendly societies over the persons who had the administration of their funds, by simply dealing with them as if they owed a civil debt. The onus of proving fraud would lie on the friendly societies, whereas hitherto, as he understood, if any trustee or officer misappropriated or misapplied the funds of a friendly society he had to prove himself innocent.

SIR W. ROBSON

said that the hon. Gentleman was mistaken in his view of the law. The words now under discussion added very useful powers to those already possessed by friendly societies and did not in any way weaken or detract from their existing powers. A friendly society was able to go to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction and secure certain advantageous orders accompanied with a fine, but in order to do so under Section 87, subsection (3) of the principle Act, fraud had to be proved.

MR. CARLILE

But suppose the man had disappeared?

SIR W. ROBSON

said that in that case he thought there could not be much difficulty in proving fraud. But it frequently happened that in a charge under Section 87, subsection (3) of the Act of 1887, the friendly society was unable to prove fraud. If these words were inserted the friendly society would be entitled to ask the magistrate to make an order to pay the money as if for a debt and that would enable the society to regain possession of their funds.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

asked why these Amendments should be proposed by the Government when hon. Members had not had the opportunity of considering them, and had simply to acquiesce in the explanation given by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He suggested to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that the most expeditious manner of carrying this measure through would be to defer it for further consideration on the Report stage to-morrow. If the Amendments had any value they could be discussed on their merits. The practice of bringing forward Amendments without notice was only another illustration of the way in which business was conducted from the Treasury Bench.

MR. HOBHOUSE

said that these words were introduced at the express wish of the friendly societies.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said, if that were so, why were they not introduced before?

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HOBHOUSE moved to omit Clause 13. When this clause was brought up by the hon. Member opposite without his having had time to value its effect, he said he could only accept it conditionally, and that if on examination it was found to be an undesirable addition to the Bill he would delete it on the Report stage. The reason he moved its omission now was that the clause would give a premium on unnecessary legal procedure. It would undoubtedly have that effect.

MR. FORSTER

said he wished to enter a mild protest against that method of amending such a Bill at that hour. Everybody would agree that if Amendments of this importance were necessary, they should appear on the Paper in order that those who took an interest in the subject matter of the Bill might know what to expect. He was in complete ignorance as to what Amendments the hon. Gentleman intended to propose to other parts of the Bill. He did not intend, however, to stand in the way in its immediate passage. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would put the Amendments on the Paper so that they might see where they stood.

*MR. CLAUDE HAY

asked whether this Amendment had been put forward by the Government at the instance of the friendly societies, and if so, why the right hon. Gentleman did not say so, He also would like to know if it was not on that ground why the hon. Gentleman proposed these Amendments. If they were put forward at the instance of friendly societies he wished to know at the instance of which friendly society or societies they were proposed.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.