Suggested Division Into Two Parts.

HC Deb 05 July 1911 vol 27 cc1151-93

Order for Committee read.

Mr. BOOTH

I beg to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, one dealing with the subject of unemployment insurance and one dealing with sickness and invalidity insurance."

I wish to take the earliest opportunity of pointing out that the Instruction is not antagonistic to the second or unemployment portion of the scheme. The fact that this Instruction will be seconded from the Labour Benches will, I think, dispose of that interpretation. It will be further observed that in dividing it into two Bills I am asking that the Bill relating to unemployment should be dealt with in the first place. There can be no question in the mind of anybody who has studied this-Bill carefully that there are two totally distinct questions or groups of questions. It was found most difficult. I think hon. Members in every part of the House will agree, on the Second Reading to get a general discussion. One hon. Member would take one section of the Bill and the hon. Member who followed him would take another section, and that criticism with regard to the Second Reading I intend to apply to the Treasury Bench as well as-to the back Benches. That is a clear proof it would be to the convenience of the House, and I believe it would also make for the safety of the measure—at any rate it would make for clarity of discussion—if the Bill were divided into two. There are a large number of questions mentioned in Part 1. I will not enumerate except some of the leading points of controversy. I total them to about fifty. There is the question of the treatment of women, there is the question of the treatment of the doctors, there is the question of the treatment of the great organisations at present in existence, and there are many other problems of that kind which are not in Section 2.

The suggestion which I put before the Ministers in charge of the Bill in a friendly spirit is that the unemployment part should be put in a separate Bill and sent to a Grand Committee upstairs. It seems to me this is a question requiring the attention of experts, both on the employers' side and on the workmens' side, and I think a Grand Committee upstairs could deal with the unemployment section and with those peculiar problems relating to it. The question of unemployment has been before the country for many years. It has been pressed upon the attention of hon. Members of this House in various ways, and the probable solution of it may be present to many minds. The question of sickness and invalidity insurance is of more modern date. Controversy there is very keen. The various interests concerned are very nervous and restless, and the men concerned are in the same condition with regard to their future. It does seem to me, therefore, it would make for the progress of the Bill and for its successful perusal and close scrutiny in this House if it were divided into two distinct Bills. I would make an appeal to my Leaders that they should take this suggestion from one who has striven to make himself familiar with the opinion of the rank and file in this House. Most gloomy opinions are held throughout the House with regard to it being able to do full justice to this question in the present Session of Parliament, and in my opinion this is the only way—I speak with a certain amount of diffidence on that point as a young Parliamentary hand—that this Bill can be placed upon the Statute Book in this Session. I speak, of course, subject to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a much older Parliamentary hand than I am, may say, but it does seem to me that the way to get the best consideration of the measure in this House in order that it may become a workable Statute is that a Grand Committee should deal with the unemployment section of it upstairs, while we find our way through the sickness and invalidity insurance portion in this House. Up to the present the representations which have been made to us have been almost entirely confined to Part I. of the Bill. If you take the great friendly societies, they are chiefly concerned with Part I. of the Bill. If you speak of the various women's organisations, they chiefly refer to the first part of the Bill in their communications to hon. Members. If you take the great industrial insurance companies, with funds from £100,000,000 to £200,000,000, and a staff of 100,000, for whom it is my duty to speak in this House, they are chiefly concerned with Part I. of the Bill. I put it forward that, if it is wished to pass this as perfect as can be done in this Session, my suggestion is the way to do it.

My Instruction is framed in accord with the appeal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself in this House. I am not quite sure that it is in the same accord with his Birmingham speech, but I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appeal to all parts of the House to cooperate with him in order to get a good measure. It is in that spirit I move my Instruction. If we co-operate in building the structure we can give him most assistance in the way it was most freely invited, but, if the view as expressed at Birmingham is to prevail, that this is a complete structure now, and that in Committee our province is to inspect the building, then I am afraid my Instruction is not quite in accord with that. I should have thought that in the Committee stage we were not merely to inspect the building, but to take care that the permanent officials do not occupy all the best rooms, that the women are not put in the back attic, and that the doctors have not their surgery in the basement. I conceive that in the Committee stage we must do a little more than simply look at the plans. There is, no doubt, a most excellent balcony from which to address the crowd, but I am not quite clear the building as it stands now and as the architect designed it would quite carry out all the wishes of the designer. I was one of the first to criticise this Bill, and to criticise it frankly, if I may say so, with what small amount of modesty I possess. I said, both on the First and Second Reading, that difficulties would arise, and that great controversies would ensue. Some hon. Members thought I was making a rash and wild prophecy, but they take a different view now. If the House is to give that assistance which was invited we must divide the Bill in this way and co-operate rather in the spirit of the original appeal.

I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when he first invited the co-operation of the House there was something in his mind like that which was in the mind of King Solomon when he built the Temple. There was to be no scene of party strife—no metallic ring of tools—the building was, of course, to be in perfect symmetry; and everything was to be in perfect accord. If the co-operation of the House is to be upon party lines, we can best get that if the issue is clarified by the separation of the unemployment portion from the sickness and invalidity insurance portion. It will largely depend upon the answer I get from the Treasury Bench whether I press my Instruction to a Division. I recognise that the Instruction will be in the hands of the House. I have no wish to become an obstructionist or to peevishly annoy the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he is trying to carry out a great and good work, and I am not prepared to indulge in pin pricks or to become a little wasp buzzing round his neck. Therefore, in closing, I wish to say that in my opinion, for what it is worth, this is the best way to deal with the Bill before the House and to bring it to a successful issue. I should be very sorry indeed if, by bringing forward this Amendment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be led to think I am either antagonistic or obstructively inclined. I hope, indeed I am glad to think, the right hon. Gentleman recognises the fact that the Amendment is not brought forward from that standpoint at all, and I can only say I am thankful that we have a great statesman showing such a warm heart for the sick and suffering poor.

Mr. LANSBURY

In seconding the Instruction I wish the House to understand that I am speaking personally, and not as representing the party with which I am associated. The Instruction I wish to move is, I am told, out of order. I should have preferred if the Bill could have been divided into three parts in the manner suggested in my proposal, but not being able, by the ruling of the Chairman, to lay that before the House, I will second the Instruction to divide it into two parts only. When the Bill was introduced everyone was struck with the chorus of praise showered upon it, and everyone must now be struck with the fact that it is subjected to so much criticism. Speaking as a new Member of this House, it appears to me that a Bill of this size, dealing with vital issues affecting the lives of the poor people, is one which should have the fullest possible consideration, and I do not think the mere fact that certain vested interests have made their peace, if I may say so, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer is any reason why other views should not be adequately discussed. There is a higher interest than any other interest in the country, and that is the interest of the ordinary man and woman, and it is for that purpose I want the Bill divided. For instance, I think the Post Office contributors are dealt with most unfairly.

When the Bill is put forward as a National Insurance scheme, I would remind the House that the great bulk of women are left out and that the great mass of children are also ignored. Any Bill to be national and preventive in character ought to deal with children in their very earliest days, and it should provide safeguards against the semi-starvation and destitution from which so many women and children suffer at the present time. To my mind it is rather extraordinary that a Bill of this character should be called national and preventive. Every one of us must know perfectly well the great masses of the poor and destitute will practically be left outside its scope, and, although men and women will have deducted from their wretched earnings a certain amount every week while they are at work, there are other points in connection with the Health Bill which demand a great deal more consideration than appears likely to be given them. There are some of us who are violently opposed to the sort of tyranny which the medical profession can and does set up on occasion, and we view with a very great deal of alarm the handing over of vast masses of the people to their control. There is the question of the sanatoria. I feel at least we ought at this time of the day to consider seriously whether we should build huge sanatoria and employ expensive doctors to deal with disease when it has arisen. Ought we not rather to take steps for the prevention of the disease. Everyone knows that no experiment in the cure of consumption and tubercular disease generally is not the scientific method of dealing with the question of prevention.

Then also, in the health portion of this Bill there is another vested interest which arises, that of the insurance collectors, and many look upon its provisions in that regard with a very great deal of alarm. I think we ought to have time to consider their position and see whether, if we are going in for national insurance, we cannot make that portion of the Bill such that we can take over not merely insurance against sickness but also insurance against that other disease which comes to all of us, and endeavour to ensure the poor in a decent manner against that. I speak in the same spirit as the hon. Member for Pontefract. I do not want to detain the House at great length. There are many other points on the health side of the Bill but my main objection is that here again you are leaving out large masses of the very poorest part of the population and it is our duty surely to devise means of bringing them in. I fear we have not time to do that if the Government adhere to their present plan of dealing with this Bill.

I should like also to say a few words on the question of unemployment. I think we ought to make our experiments on that subject on a better plan. We know perfectly well that by the time we get to the unemployed portion of this Bill—during the months of July and August—we shall be getting so tired, especially if we are to repeat the operation of this afternoon and suspend the 11 o'clock rule every night— that we shall not be in a condition to give adequate discussion to this portion of the Bill. What I want to emphasise is that the unemployed question has never in this country been tackled in a really scientific manner. If we are to have insurance against unemployment I think the lines along which this Bill has been laid are perhaps the best, but it would be much more important to turn the Bill round and deal with unemployment first, mainly, because we have absolutely no experience to guide us on this question. I would venture to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Germany can give him no help in this matter, because nowhere on the Continent, or anywhere else, have they attempted to insure against unemployment amongst unskilled labourers. For that reason I should like to see this House devote more of its time in this Session, or even in an autumn Session, to the question of unemployment.

I join with the whole House in welcoming any steps that may be taken for dealing thoroughly and effectively with destitution arising from unemployment and sickness. We are witnessing just now a very great upheaval amongst working men up and down the country, and it is mainly owing to the fact that the progressive legislation which this House has passed has left the working classes worse off than before. Working men and women up and down the country are awakening to a fact which they are not very likely to forget, that while they have been getting poorer the Income Tax payer has been getting richer. They will take their own measure for redressing that. I want to point out that this House has no right to impose a poll tax, amounting in some cases to 6½d. per head per week, on some of the very poorest men and women in the land, without any of them having a chance of saying whether they want it or not. It is of no use saying that this Bill was before the country at the last election. I have heard a great deal about the people giving a mandate. We have no mandate to redress social wrongs by inflicting a poll tax of this kind, and, therefore, I want to see the Bill turned right round, and I want the House to have ample time to deal with the unemployment portion as well as with the health portion.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton)

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government appreciate fully the tone and spirit in which the hon. Member for Pontefract has moved this Amendment. He told us he had an objection to some parts of the Bill, while other parts had his hearty support, and he therefore did not desire to indulge in any policy calculated to injure it. I am sure the House will fully appreciate the attitude he has taken up. With regard to my hon. Friend, the seconder of the Amendment, he went into the merits of certain portions of the Bill which are not yet before the House. We are not discussing the merits of the Bill at the present moment; the point is whether the proposal to divide the Bill into two parts shall be accepted by the Government. The suggestion of my hon. Friend is that in order to leave the House full opportunity to deal with Part I., Part II. should be sent to a Grand Committee. That is a suggestion which I do not think we ought to accept.

At the same time I will put this point to the House. There are a certain number of Clauses which are in the nature of contentious Clauses, and they can at any time be sent to a Grand Committee. The Government will not shut the door altogether against a proposal of that kind, as it might be advantageous to send certain portions of the Bill to a Grand Committee. But that is not the proposal before us now. The suggestion is that the whole of Part II. should be sent to a Grand Committee. I am not sure that if his proposal was accepted it would not be necessary to introduce it as a fresh Bill and send it to a Grand Committee. I do not think that would save much time to the House as a whole. It is essential, in our opinion, that the Bill should pass in the present Session. We gave our reasons for that on the Second Reading. The chief reason is that if you are going to deal with the question of unemployment at all, it is very essential to begin it if possible in time of prosperity, when unemployment is very low. Every year we can gain of good employment is an advantage in putting the scheme on a sound financial basis. My hon. Friend says his suggestion will lead to that result. I do not think it would lead to the two things which he desires, namely, that Part II. should go through and should receive adequate discussion and consideration at the hands of hon. Members. In the first place I do not think, in a Bill of this sort, in which to a large extent the two parts are interdependable, it would be at all expedient to divide it into two parts, and I do not see that actual time would be saved by sending it to a Grand Committee. On the contrary, I think the amount of time devoted to the Bill by the House as a whole would be much greater if it were sent to Grand Committee than if it remained in Committee of the Whole House.

But quite apart from the question of merits or principle I suggest that this is not a workable proposal. The Grand Committee sits from eleven o'clock or half-past eleven till three or four. Practically speaking Members on both sides who are interested in Part II. are also interested in Part I., and I do not think hon. Members will be prepared day after day to sit from eleven o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock or later at night, and if the Grand Committee does not sit on the same days as the House is to consider the matter in Committee it will only leave one day a week for its consideration. Another practical consideration is that I believe the Grand Committees are at present very full of work. But the real difficulty in the way of the proposal is that I believe Members on both sides of the House desire to have an opportunity of considering the various proposals put before them by the Government on Part II. as well as on Part I. After all, the Grand Committee consists not of 670 Members, but of seventy, and I cannot help thinking that a very large number of Members who are specially interested in the question would necessarily be excluded from being Members of the Grand Committee, and would therefore consider themselves under a very serious disadvantage if they had not a full opportunity of discussing Part II. Further, there is this objection, which is really fatal to the proposal. I suppose every Member of the House has had some experience of Grand Committees. I have had the advantage of the hon. Member's (Mr. Lansbury's) occasional support on the Copyright Bill. At all events, all Members who have attended meetings of Grand Committees know that they very often take a very different view from that which the House as a whole takes. Here you have two Bills which in general lines and on general principles are drawn in the same direction—compulsory contributions, contributions from employers, from the workmen, from the State, and so on. You have many details of machinery and other matters of that sort which are very similar, so that if the two Bills are to be passed and are to work they must be substantially on the same lines. They are interdependable in those respects.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Why?

Mr. BUXTON

That is at all events the view of the Government. I cannot help feeling that if you have one part of the Bill kept in the House and the other part referred to a Grand Committee the upshot of it might be that you would have the two Bills instead of being, as we desire, entirely on the same lines, on different lines and founded on different principles. At all events, the views which I have placed before the House are the views which the Government hold in reference to the proposal of my hon. Friend. We do not think it is a practicable proposal; we do not quite believe it is one which hon. Members interested in the matter would desire. The House has already decided to keep the whole Bill in the House, and, subject to what I have said with reference to the possibility of sending certain portions of the Bill to a Grand Committee, we must oppose the proposal. As regards the other point as to how far an opportunity will be given in this House for the discussion of Part II., my hon. Friend takes an unnecessarily pessimistic view of the likelihood of the proceedings with reference to this Bill. The House generally has agreed to the principle, and I believe it is generally desired as far as possible that the details to be discussed shall be details of moment and of interest. That being so, I doubt if the time given to the Bill will be-so excessive as some hon. Members think. At all events, with regard to Part II., that is shorter and simpler; it has been substan- tially before the country for two years in its general principles, and we have discussed the matter with all the interests affected. We know their views fully. We have met them already by the proposals an the Bill, and we are prepared to meet them in many respects by Amendments, and I doubt if Part II. need really occupy a very large portion of time. On these grounds I trust my hon. Friend, in the interests of Part II., as well as of Part I., will not press his Amendment.

Mr. BALFOUR

If I intervene it is because it seems to me that the proposal made by the two hon. Gentlemen opposite is one which really touches very closely the interests of the House of Commons as a legislative body. What are the Government now proposing to do? They are proposing to begin on 5th July the discussion of two measures which appear under one cover, which embody principles on which there may be broad general agreement but which notoriously have excited, wholly irrespective of party, a most unusual and almost unprecedented amount of difficulty and controversy in the country. The Government do not imagine, I expect, that when there is all this strong feeling in the country it should not find reflection in the House of Commons; in fact the House of Commons would not be doing its duty unless there was some reflection of this great external feeling. The Government themselves are conscious of the enormous task they are imposing on the House of Commons, considering the time of year, because they formally announced they were going to move closure by compartments, which would bring the whole of the proceedings of these two measures embodied in one Bill in twenty-five days. I suppose for Parliamentary reasons of great cogency they have abandoned that proposal. I only refer to it now because it is a practical proof that the Government are themselves conscious of the magnitude of the burden they are throwing upon this overworked House. The hon. Member (Mr. Lansbury), though not an old Member of the House, was absolutely right, and every old Member of the House will agree that after the prolonged labours which the House of Commons has gone through this year, last year, the preceding year, and the, year preceding that, and the whole succession of years in which we have been working for anything between nine and eleven months in the year, it is quite impossible to suppose that we shall be fit in the middle of August to deal with the details of a measure on which so much of the social welfare of the labouring classes in future is to depend. Would it not be wise of the Government in these circumstances somewhat to lighten the immense burden they are avowedly and plainly throwing upon us by confining their attention during the Session to one of the two proposals which they are asking us to deal with?

The right hon. Gentleman said, "We really cannot support these measures, because they are interdependent." What on earth does he mean by saying they are interdependent? When pressed by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) to say what he meant, all he could say was that they went upon the same principle, that there was compulsion in both and general contributions in both. Are the Government going to lay down the principle that whenever, in the pursuit of liberty and equality, they introduce compulsion into a Bill, all these Bills are to be embodied under one cover? The right hon. Gentleman must himself perceive how utterly inconclusive was the reason he laid before us for treating these Bills as one measure. The Second Reading Debate was a Debate on Part I. of the Bill, with two incursions from the Treasury Bench into Part II., one by the Home Secretary and the other by the President of the Board of Trade, who was in charge of the second of these two measures. The whole attention and interest of the House was concentrated on the first, and it was practically impossible to ask the House really to consider upon one Debate on the Second Reading measures so widely differing in their character and their object, and the House never did. We have had no Second Reading Debate worthy of the name upon the second part of the Bill at all. They are prepared by different Ministers, worked out in different offices, and they carry out widely different objects. They were explained by two different Ministers, and were compressed technically into one Bill only at the last moment. We are asked when we are nearly approaching the end of a normal Session to begin the tremendous task of dealing contemporaneously with two great and separate measures. I would earnestly press upon the Government that that is not treating the House of Commons in the right way. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be the first to admit that, in view of the feeling aroused in certain sections, rightly or wrongly, by this measure, the treatment he has received at the hands of the House of Commons has been a kindly one. It has been genuinely sympathetic. Surely under these circumstances the least the Government can do is not to throw upon us the work of carrying on a discussion which we really cannot usefully carry on upon a Bill which embodies two measures. While I quite agree that it would be wholly absurd to send one measure upstairs to a Grand Committee, and to have that Grand Committee sitting de die in diem when we are discussing the Clauses of the other Bill downstairs, I would point out that that does not cut at the root of the Instruction moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite to divide the Bill into two. The Bill is improperly described in the terms of the Instruction. It is not a case of dividing a Bill into two. It is a case of calling two Bills one Bill. Two Bills they are, and two Bills they must remain, whatever be the technical procedure of the House.

All I ask is that the Government should adopt a business-like attitude and not ask this House to deal with the immensely complicated provisions of this immensely complicated subject with the knowledge that while they are working at one subject there is another subject wholly different waiting for their consideration, and that they will not require us, after we have laboured in no party spirit on the Clauses which are to be defended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to tackle the unexhausted Clauses which are to be defended by the President of the Board of Trade. That is an entirely novel procedure. At any rate, my memory does not carry me back to any measure prepared by different Departments and defended by different Ministers which has been called one Bill. I say that is either wholly unexampled or the examples must be extremely rare and unimportant. I would appeal to the Government in the interest of their own legislation and in the interest of this House as a legislative machine, to turn a somewhat kinder ear to the proposal made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. That proposal is in no sense inimical to the proposal they are themselves laying before the House of Commons and the country, but on the contrary it is calculated above all to give us that elbow room and that power of dealing adequately with matters in which the country is so profoundly interested. If the Government insist on the two tremendous proposals in the Bill being regarded as one proposal, I shall certainly support the hon. Gentleman opposite who moved the Instruction.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)

The right hon. Gentleman has very fairly and very temperately put before the House the view of the Opposition in regard to the proposed division of the Bill. I will say at once, that I accept the statement which he made that the reception accorded to the Bill by the Opposition in the House of Commons entitles them not merely to fair consideration, but to sympathetic and favourable consideration at the hands of the Government in any appeal they make, and therefore I approach the Question now before the House from the point of view that we are desirous to meet any suggestions that come from the Opposition with the view of facilitating the passing of this Bill as a measure in the most perfect form in which the House of Commons can possibly fashion it. With regard to the suggestion about dividing the Bill, I cannot quite accept the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman that the two parts are not interwoven. I say so not merely because, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Buxton), the principle of compulsion is embodied in both parts. Most of the Bills, not merely in our time, but while the right hon. Gentleman opposite was in office as well, embody that principle. But a Finance Bill is much more important than the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to admit. Supposing that one part of the Bill is sent to a Grand Committee upstairs, most of the Amendments to be moved with regard to the extension of the Bill and the readjustment of the finances affect the finances of the whole Bill. After all, the Government must take into account the money it has at its disposal in dealing with the whole of the proposals, and naturally we reckoned that before we assented to any part of the Bill. You could not have one part of the Bill dealt with by a Committee upstairs, and Amendments introduced which would require the Government to find an increased subsidy without having regard to the commitments on the other part of the Bill as well. The same thing applies to the contributions of the employers and the workmen. When the 2½d. was fixed as the limit for the workman and for the employer in the second part of the Bill we had to take into account the amount charged in respect of the first part of the Bill. Well, after all, the House of Commons can alter these figures if it chooses. The responsibility is entirely with the House of Commons, and we ought to be in a posi- tion to know what are the commitments of the employer and the workman, and also what are the commitments of the State on the first part of the Bill before we come to consider the second part of the Bill. It is obvious that you cannot consider the one apart from the other.

I am putting this not merely by way of reply to the right hon. Gentleman in the course of Debate, but rather for his consideration, because I still adhere to the position I took originally. The suggestion was made by my hon. Friend that I departed from that position in the course of the speech I made at Birmingham. I am not conscious that I did so, but if I did. I revert to the original statement which I made, and I am still of opinion that it is a Bill which ought to be fashioned by the whole of the House. The only exception I would make to that statement applies to Amendments which might make a difference in the commitments of the Exchequer. As to these, I say at once that I shall be inclined to be rigid and I shall make a very stiff fight, but still the responsibility of the House is there too. Subject to that limitation, I would really appeal to all sections of the House to support the Bill. Subject to that, I should not regard any change which the House would think lit to make in the Bill either as a defeat of the Government or as a defeat inflicted on myself. I have simply done the best I can with the aid I have got to put the best scheme I can before the House. The House is not bound to accept that. I never suggested that. If there are any suggestions from any part of the House which commend themselves to the House as a whole as better than the suggestions of the Government, by all means it is the duty of the House to carry those suggestions through. It is in that spirit I enter upon the Committee stage. I still adhere to every particular of the appeal I made on the First Reading, and I mean to stand by them right throughout. In that spirit I again appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether it is desirable at this stage to cut the Bill in twain, because you really cannot consider one part apart from the other. I ask whether it is desirable that we should proceed with the Bill in the way proposed by the Government or in the way suggested by the Instruction. I was under the impression that there was a rule in the Standing Orders which enables the House at any stage, if they thought fit, to send any part of a Bill upstairs. I understand that the Chair has been consulted on the matter, and that that view is correct. Standing Order 46, Sub-section (2), says:— Provided that the House may, on Motion made by the Member in charge of a Bill, commit the Bill to a Standing Committee in respect of some of its provisions, and to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of other provisions, and that if such a Motion is opposed, the Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks lit, a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes and from the Member who opposes the Motion, shall without further debate put the question thereon.

Lord HUGH CECIL made a remark which was inaudible.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

It appears from that Standing Order that it is in the power of the House at any stage to send a Bill upstairs. It is quite competent at any stage, if it is thought proper, to make a Motion of that kind, but I submit that for the time being we should proceed in the way proposed, and I say that if we do so we shall be able to pass a measure which will not be a Government Bill but a Bill of the Whole House. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that there had been a good deal of criticism of this Bill outside. That is perfectly true, but may I point out that a good deal of progress was made in the last two months in reconciling the various interests? The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) talked of those interests as if they were vested interests. I would point out that they are not merely the interests of doctors. There are the interests also of friendly societies and of trade unions. These represent some 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 people. Then there are the collecting societies, which represent something like 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 of workmen.

Mr. LANSBURY

What about the Post Office contributors?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am pointing out the great progress that has been made with respect to the criticisms which have been given in advance, and after all the criticism which has most body, as far as one can judge from what has appeared in the Press, is that of the doctors. The criticism of the doctors has had far more attention given to it in the Press than any other criticism which has been directed to the Bill. Substantially I think the hon. Member will find that they are reconciled to the proposal the Government has made. As to the collecting societies, their criticism has been reconciled. The criticism of the friendly societies has been met in the main; they wanted to be masters altogether. They made proposals which we could not possibly assent to. We are prepared to meet all the criticism directed to the Bill by municipalities. That narrows it down to one point. The hon. Gentleman says that the criticisms have not been met; I believe he is mistaken there. Up to the present I have had no criticism from him, the other Members have made suggestions.

Mr. LANSBURY

I have put down a number of Amendments which I suppose should be regarded as suggestions. It is quite unfair to say that I have made no criticism.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

If the hon. Gentleman says so, I accept his statement at once.

Mr. LANSBURY

They are on the Paper.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Certain Members have come to me with suggestions, and I think they will find that they have been accommodated. That really meets most of the criticisms on the Bill. That narrows down the issue, and I should think that the whole of the financial provisions, together with the points that remain, can be got through in a month's discussion. The financial issue is one which I think it is quite possible for the House to decide in one or two nights' Debate. The point I want to put finally before the right hon. Gentleman is that we have endeavoured to meet all these criticisms, and that they are in a fair way of being accommodated. I would not for the moment suggest that the latter provisions of the Bill should now be sent to another Committee, because that can be done at any time. I would urge upon him not to press that view.

Mr. BALFOUR

The right hon. Gentleman is rather going on the presumption that I wanted one part of the Bill sent to a Grand Committee. I do not think that would be practicable now. It might be practicable afterwards.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I understood that the Leader of the Opposition desired to support the whole of the proposition. I am very much obliged for that interruption. It disposes entirely of what I was saying in answer to him, but, at any rate, I think it is premature to consider that point. I do hope it will be possible to carry through both sections of the Bill this Session, and may I suggest one reason, which is a very important reason from the point of view of the trade and the business of the country. You cannot this year put a burden of 3d. upon an industry or upon the men engaged in it, and say to them that at a future moment you contemplate putting on 2½d. or any other figure which the House of Commons will decide. It is far better for the trade of the country to know definitely what they have got to meet, and I still think it is very much better that you should do this at a moment when trade is improving, and when trade is booming, and when it is very desirable that funds should be accumulated in time for the depression which, after all, is inevitable in the course of trade in this country. From that point of view I think it is far better that both sections should go through this year.

Lord HUGH CECIL

I only want to say a word or two on the point of view of procedure. The proposal the hon. Member makes is that this Bill should be divided, and it is suggested that it would be open to the House, when the House has passed the first Bill, or when it has passed through Committee, to pass on to the next Bill. I think we should be aware of the precise division that is to take place. One effect might be that the second part of the Bill would go upstairs, while the first part would be in Committee of the whole House. It appears it is equally open to the House to discharge the second stage of the Committee of a Bill and send it upstairs at any point. As a matter of procedure, I did not think that was so—convenient as it appears—but if it can be done under the Standing Orders it can only be done on the Motion of the Minister of the Crown who is in charge of the Bill. It is not very likely to happen in this case, because it is contrary to the general principle upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is dealing with the Bill. Secondly, I am not quite sure how far Members of the House would be able to take part in a Committee upstairs, as well as doing their work in this House, if you interrupt the Committee when you get Part I. The Instruction is a well-recognised process, and its object is that the Bill should be divided into two parts. Of course, if you merely cut the Bill into two with a pair of scissors you would deal with all the parts up to a certain part in one way and after a certain point in another way. I should have thought it was better on the right hon. Gentleman's own principle to accept this Motion now. It commits him to nothing but to the principle of dividing the Bill, and will cost nothing in. the way of Parliamentary time, excepting two Debates on the Third Reading instead of one. If you divide the Bill I think there was great force in the point made by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) when he said that if you go straight through with it and try to press all those things through, whatever may be the circumstances, the second part will not be discussed at all perhaps. After Members have been engaged for three weeks in hot weather discussing the earlier stage of the Bill they will be jaded and tired, and they will not give much attention to the later stages.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

If the second part is sent upstairs what is the object of the Motion?

Lord HUGH CECIL

My point is that you do not commit yourselves by accepting it. If you are going to get the whole Bill through this Session, I should send the second part upstairs, but not at a time when this Bill is before a Committee of the whole House, but at a time when the House is doing other business which it is clearing away for the Prorogation. I quite agree that to discuss one part of the Bill upstairs in Committee in the morning, and to discuss the rest of the Bill in the House in the afternoon would be quite impossible, and would throw an intolerable burden upon Members.

I suggest that you could avoid this by sending the other part of the Bill upstairs at a time when you are dealing with other matters in this House before the Prorogation. I should have thought that that was what the Motion meant. I think the First Lord suggested another procedure, which was to discharge the Committee on the Bill and send the remainder to a new Committee; that was the procedure that I meant when I spoke of cutting the Bill In two with a pair of scissors. I listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's very conciliatory observations with great pleasure, and most of all I was glad to hear him say that he proposes to defend the Exchequer. I welcome that declaration very much indeed, and I earnestly hope he will be very firm, and that he will not allow too great raids upon the Exchequer from whatever part of the House they are attempted. The right hon. Gentleman, except where armaments are concerned and the invader threatens us, is rather, in general, an expensive custodian of national expenditure. However, he is a reformed character. Far from me be it to cast up to him his early sins. Let us lead him to the penitents' form, and let us hope he will not be tempted to fall again by the numerous persons who want to attack his economic virtue, and who surround him like those who tempted St. Antony. I am very interested to hear that he means to allow the House of Commons a much freer hand than is usual; that is an interesting and quite a new thing, and I will be interested to see how the right hon. Gentleman, with his great dexterity, is able to manage the House of Commons in these unusual circumstances.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The right hon. Gentleman has explained to us what the President of the Board of Trade failed to make clear as to the Government view of the dependence of the second part of the Bill upon the first. No doubt the Government have only a certain amount of money to spend, and they cannot afford to have one part of their scheme financially settled without any regard to the finances of the other. That, no doubt, is true, but it is true of every Bill which involves a charge upon the Exchequer, and if that is a good reason for confining the whole of the Bill within the limits of one cover then we might confine any Bill which provided for a public charge within the limit of one cover. We shall have nearly a month to spend upon the Insurance Bill, but it must be remembered after all that we are dealing with millions in each part of the Bill, and when a Bill is of that character the objections which the Chancellor of the Exchequer raises to a division of the Bill do not hold good. Is that a reason for treating the two Bills as one?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Yes.

Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN

The House, of course, must settle one part before it proceeds to deal with the oilier, and when the second part comes on it will be limited in its beneficent action by the liabilities already undertaken in the earlier discussions. It is a perfectly reasonable point, that you must take one Bill after the other, and that if you greatly exceed the present Estimate on the first part, you will not have enough money to pay for what you propose to do on the second part. You must take one Bill after the other, and that is the only force there is in the Chancellor's observation that the finances of the two Bills depend one upon another. I quite agree it will be difficult, and indeed impossible, for the Government to shovel off the financial responsibility which lies upon them by sending either part of this Bill to a Grand Committee. They have the power of pressing Bills through which they can exert in this House, and they may relax that, but they cannot devolve upon anybody the guardianship of the public purse which they hold, and allow anyone to take up the duty of deciding that more money should be spent in a fit of virtue or benevolent intention.

Still we might deal with one part of the Bill, which I think is a distinct subject by itself, and have ample time to carry out this Instruction and to adopt the further procedure contemplated by the hon. Member. The objections which have been urged are no part of the Motion he has made, and are quite distinct from it, and the discussion we are now engaged in deals only with the proposal to have this Bill divided into two Bills, which are really two Bills included in one cover. I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider what he is asking the House and the Committee to do. He is placing upon it quite an unusual burden: I do not say it by way of criticism and still less by way of complaint, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking upon himself a much less burden and responsibility than is commonly taken by Ministers who introduce Bills when he does not take the full responsibility and he puts a share upon others. This share will fall upon individual Members of the Committee and individual Members of Parliament. He has announced that on all parts of the Bill, except his guardianship of finance, ho is prepared to submit his views to the House and to abide by the wishes of the House without any exercise of any of the usual forms of Government pressure by which a Government majority carry their own particular view. I do not quite understand what was the exact meaning and worth of the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman, when he said that Members on that side of the House might vote against him on any question which was not a financial question, and that he would not consider a defeat on the Bill as a defeat of the Government. Does not that mean that he will not exercise the pressure which the Government habitually exercise on their own side of the House?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I think if the right hon. Gentleman will reflect, for a moment, he. will see that there is this difference. There are certain Bills in which the Amendment, even of the Clauses, is vital, and where a defeat would be likely to be fatal to the Bill itself; but I do not consider that the Insurance Bill is a Bill of that character. Still, I would regard a very considerable alteration as, of course, fatal to the Government scheme. There have been Bills under consideration lately where any alteration would have been fatal; but I do not regard this Bill as a Bill of that kind.

Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN

I think I understand the hon. Gentleman's position, at any rate, for the purposes of the proposal. I think he will see, though I do not limit him to his expressed reservations, that he is putting upon Members of this House a much greater individual responsibility than they ordinarily enjoy. When members of a party are confronted on what is comparatively a matter of detail with a statement from the Government that the Government would regard a defeat on that subject as fatal to themselves or, even with the ordinary pressure that is brought to bear by a Government with its usual majority, they, in view of the larger issues involved, having pledged their faith to the party, vote for it and justify themselves to their constituents on that ground for the vote which they have given. But when the Chancellor invites the co-operation of every Member of the House to make this Bill in some sense the work of the whole House, and not the work of the Government slightly modified by the House, that is an entirely new responsibility put upon it. Much greater attention is required from the Members on the Back Benches. They must have much greater latitude in discussion than they usually have, and if the Chancellor's hopes are to be realised a very great deal of time must be devoted to the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed a belief that so much progress has been made outside the House that our discussions here will be singularly short.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

No, considerably shortened.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Very well, considerably shortened. As an illustration of what he meant, he actually said that the great question whether women are having fair and proper treatment under this Bill would be disposed of by the Committee in. a day. It is an amazing statement.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

No, I confined the question, which was whether Post Office contributors should be dealt with on insurance principles or Post Office principles, and I said that that could be disposed of in a night or two.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I thought what the right hon. Gentleman said was not in a night or two but in a day. I still think that in his answer to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, who specifically raised another question of the Post Office contributors and also this question, that before the right hon. Gentleman came to deal with the question of the Post Office contributors he said we should be able to dispose of the great question whether women were fairly treated under this Bill in a day. However, I only meant to say that I thought he was much too sanguine, and to observe further that though a great deal of progress may have been made outside none of us know what that progress is, and not one of us has any means of knowing what are the decisions at which the Government have arrived. Here they are actually asking us to proceed by unusual means, by the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule on this very first day of the Committee stage, and they actually contemplated a guillotine resolution, before they have put on the Paper a single one of the Amendments not only which they have promised since the Second Heading, but which they announced on the Second Reading. Take the question of women's treatment. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of the Second Reading Debate said it was the plan of the Government that women's contributions should be allotted to women, and men's contributions to men. They were to be kept entirely distinct. He was asked where it was to be found in the Bill, and in an off-hand manner he said it was not in the Bill. That is the plan of the Government. It is not in the Bill.

We are entitled to have the plan of the Bill before the Government presses on discussion with such extreme haste, and we are entitled to say at the very earliest opportunity that we ought to have had before to-day the Amendments as to which the Government are already agreed. The right hon. Gentleman has done his best and very properly, to conciliate, without injuring the Bill, all the various parties who are discontented. It is the task of a Minister, and no one is more adapted for it than he. But what is the result? That you separate in an obvious way different and sometimes conflicting interests. Different promises are made, sometimes, I think, conflicting promises. At any rate, hopes which cannot be reconciled are held out, and somebody later on will find themselves disappointed. When the right hon. Gentleman says that his previous conferences have cleared away half our difficulty that demands a great deal of consideration; but I have not observed from my correspondence that they are much cleared away to the ordinary member at present. We do not know what it is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to do. If he carries out all the statements which he has made his Bill will have to be profoundly recast. If he means to put the friendly societies into the position he announced they would occupy at Birmingham he has got enormously to increase the liability of the State. Instead of giving us the detailed proposal by which he hopes to stand he treats us to a great deal of vague declaration which raise hopes often, I think, doomed to be disappointed, and he does not help Members of this House in the work which they have to do. I would press on the right hon. Gentleman, before he proceeds further, to put on the Table the main Amendments of the Government. I do not say the other Amendments which will have to be brought forward no doubt as the Bill goes along, but the main Amendments which the Government has already decided, and which have been promised to meetings of individuals orally.

Surely the House of Commons is entitled to have this upon the Notice Paper before it proceeds to discuss the Bill. Until we have it, I do not think we shall be able to say with confidence how much our Debates may have been shortened by the discussions which have taken place outside. I think it is quite possible, when the actual proposals of the Chancellor are put upon the Paper they may give rise to fresh difficulties of which we in this House shall have to take notice. But what I am really concerned about is that the Bill, on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer invites the whole House to join with him in making it the Bill of the whole House and not the Bill of the Government, shall be a credit to the whole House; and it cannot be that unless we have ample time. My right hon. Friend has already pointed out that on the introduction of the Bill Part II. was not explained at all, and on the Second Reading Debate the only speeches which dealt with Part II. were interjected into the midst of the discussion on Part I. by the two Members who have been or are at the Board of Trade, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who dealt with Part I., was not in the position, within the limits of his speech, or within the limits of the capacity of a Minister, to deal properly with what is really another distinct and heavy Bill. If we divide the Bill into two, I do not care which part the Government chooses to take first. I am quite ready to discuss Part II. in front of Part I., or to discuss Part I. in front of Part II., but I do Urge that whichever we take first we shall have a free hand to give to it as much time as the subject is found to require, and that we shall make a good job of that before we begin on a second, and that we shall not put ourselves into a difficult position by trying to do more than the House can do at this time of the year and turning out two bad Bills instead of one good Bill.

One great difference is this. If you separate the two Bills, when you conic to the end of the Committee stage, if you have any doubt about the capacity of the House to deal fairly with both subjects, you can proceed with the Report stage of the one portion of the Bill and make it a perfect work, instead of being forced to go through, and weary the House with, a second and a new subject before they have finished the first part, and so render hon. Members so tired at a very late season of the year that when the Report work has to be done—and Report work on Bills like these must be very heavy—they are so fatigued, and time is so late, that it is impossible for the House to do properly the necessary heavy work. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned two reasons against delaying Part. II. of the Bill. As I have said, I do not mind whether you takes Part II. first or Part I. first. That is for the Government or the House to decide, but I think that only one of the reasons which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave has any weight at all. He, following the President of the Board of Trade, said quite truly, that if you are to start on employment insurance it is of the highest importance that you should start at the most favourable time and accumulate a reserve before times are bad and the drain comes. As times are comparatively favourable, he thought that that was a good argument for proceeding with that part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there was another argument, namely, the effect produced upon the trade and industry by holding a certain liability over them. He only showed that his Bill is Part I. and not Part II., and that he really has not in his mind this unemployment part. That deals only with a very limited part of the trade of the country. It deals with it experimentally, with the avowed intention on the part of the Government that at a later time it can be extended to other trades. Therefore, all the uncertainty which the right hon. Gentleman says will be so dangerous is created by the avowed and expressed intention of the Government at the present time.

Let me say that, as far as trade and industry are concerned, I think that the argument is all the other way. You are going to put a very heavy burden on trade and industry by this insurance. Further, I think that the burden will obviously be sensibly aggravated, where unemployed insurance falls also by the provisions of that part of the Bill. To have both these burdens suddenly placed upon the trade of this country at a time when the margin of profit is not great, when competition, even with either of these burdens, is very severe, seems to mo to deal a dangerous blow at trade; and if you regard the interests of the trade alone it is much better to proceed more gradually and allow the burdens to be assimilated and distributed more slowly than would be done by passing both these measures together. The main point is, I say, that for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to invite the co-operation of the House in this way and to refuse them the necessary time is, indeed, to make a mockery of the matter, and for my part I do not believe that it is possible for the House to deal adequately with both these great subjects within any tolerable limits of the Session. It may be said that the House will sit long beyond tolerable limits. I say that we may have to do that, but that it will not make good work. Everybody knows that in these circumstances this House is not at its best, that the work it turns out is much less likely to bo revised properly, and is much more dependent on the absolute fiat of the Government; and that that kind of work is singularly out of place at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, confronted with the enormous difficulty of devising anything like a perfect scheme, invites the help of all of us to improve his Bill and render it more effective.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I cannot reply to the hon. Gentleman except by leave of the House, but perhaps I may be allowed to answer him in regard to the questions he put. With regard to the Amendments of which the Government have given notice, they had to be discussed in the form of drafts with the various interests concerned, and they will be ready to be put upon the Table of the House at the beginning of next week. Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that these Amendments refer to Clause 8 and onwards, and I do not see any reasonable prospect of our coming to Clause 8 before the next few days.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Cannot the question as to women be raised on Clause 1?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

No, I think not, though of course that question might be raised as to whether or not women are to be in the scheme at all. The Amendments which we propose must necessarily come later than Clause 1 in the Bill; therefore if they are produced at the beginning of next week they will be in ample time for the discussion.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I think the question of women is directly raised on Clause 1, and unless we know what the Government propose to do about them, this House will be committed to the inclusion of women in the Bill without knowing in the least what that involves. I myself intend, if the Government Amendments are not on the Paper, to move to amend Clause 1 in order that women may be treated separately, and not included in the general scope of the Bill.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I do not know whether it will be in order to discuss that on Clause 1. The proposals of the Government with regard to women go throughout the Bill, and I should have thought that, strictly, it would be out of order to take such a discussion on Clause 1, except by consent of the House. The right hon. Gentleman in proposing the exclusion of women on Clause 1, in order that there should be laid before the House the Government Amendments to Clauses 8 and 13. For myself, I think that would be out of order, except with the consent of the House. The right hon. Gentleman wants the actual Amendments for consideration, but that is not possible at present, and I can only say with regard to them that they will be ready by the beginning of next week.

Lord HUGH CECIL

May I ask whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) to Clause 1, line 8—

Mr. SPEAKER

The Noble Lord cannot. discuss the Amendments. At present the House is discussing whether or not the Bill should be divided.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

One other point which the right hon. Gentleman raised was in reference to the finance of the scheme, and he suggested that it was a question of abrogation of responsibility. We shall certainly accept responsibility for our own scheme. I do not regard this Bill in the same way as I do the Veto Bill, and any alteration in the Clause would not necessarily be fatal to the whole scheme as far as we are concerned. Many of the Amendments to be placed on the Paper are in accordance with suggestions put before us in the course of the last few weeks.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

Whilst I have been listening to the Debate I have tried to gather what particular arguments have any bearing whatever on the question before the House. Whether the Bill is to be divided or not is a matter which is hardly to be settled, I think, in what time remains to us to consider the Bill. We could drop Part II. of the Bill if necessary, and as soon as we see what is going to happen. We do not know how long a time is going to be taken up in discussing the question whether or not women are to be included in the Bill, and we must, surely go on clause by clause making what amendments we desire, besides making the most of our time and not wasting time in vague generalities about matters which might have been raised on the Second Reading of the Bill. I am not simply going to vote against this Instruction because I want to support my right hon. Friend, and if the guillotine had been proposed I would have voted against him in the Division Lobby. If it can be shown that the two sections of the Bill are quite separate, or, at any rate, have very little bearing upon each other, then I think there might be a good case made out for the separation. But whoever knows the operation of these two problems, sickness and unemployment in every-day life, knows perfectly well that they are interlaced together at every point. It may well be found convenient to drop the second part, as I have said, but it is a matter of convenience and not a matter of principle. There is not the least doubt that if we cart get these two parts, which compose the whole of the Bill, through the House within a reasonable time, it will be far better to get them both than to get them through separately. But I am not going to help to get them through together if it means that either section is going to be inadequately dealt with, or that the work which we put into either is going to be bad work. I do not know about that; I am a sceptic about it, a little bit of an agnostic. I must wait and see. It all depends on what we are going to do now, and how we are going to do it. This discussion is altogether premature, particularly for those who want to get on with the Bill and see what happens.

If hon. Members look at Part I. of the Bill they will find, as I think at any rate, that one of the most important provisions of Part I. is that where an insured person is unemployed, and is coming under benefits given him by Part II. That is a very important point. If Part II. is going to be dropped that particular advantage in Part I. must also have to be dropped. Obviously no Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is as reckless as the Noble Lord opposite seems to suggest, or whether he is as careful as the Noble Lord would be, if he were himself Chancellor of the Exchequer, would give an unemployed person certain benefits in Part I. unless they were defined, and defined pretty rigidly and pretty reasonably, and I, for one, would help anyone in that direction, so that Part I. might be applied definitely without laying the Chancellor of the Exchequer open to the charge of extravagance or unnecessary waste. Therefore I am going to vote against the Instruction, not because I want slipshod work done, but because I would like to see what work can be done within the time at our disposal. We have a good many substantial Amendments, and if I find that Part I. is not going to be adequately discussed, I am not going to help the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out bad work. But until that time comes, the Government should have facilities to go ahead with the Bill.

Mr. LAURENCE HARDY

With reference to the provisions of the Bill, I should like to point out one practical consideration which has a bearing upon Parliamentary procedure. If this division of the Bill is not carried out, what is our position with reference to one very important part of the Bill. Closely connected with the first part of the Bill is the first Schedule, which really contains the gist of the measure. If we proceed with the two parts together, if we first consider the insurance part, and then go on to the question of unemployment, we would have to return to the Schedule in regard to Part I., and then go to the schedule in regard to unemployment, which would be a very difficult course to pursue in the interests of proper discussion. You cannot unless you divide the Bill and discuss one part at a time be sure that the Schedules follow the Clauses, and, therefore, it does seem to me that the business-like way of considering this measure is to accept the separation, and say that each part shall be considered with the Schedules affecting it; otherwise considerable difficulties will arise. The Government have failed to show us any real and close connection between the two parts. Although the last speaker endeavoured to show that in the first part of the Bill there was a provision dependent upon the second part, yet I do think it would be far more business-like if we dealt with each part and its Schedules separately. It is with all due deference that I put this point before the Government, and I hope they will give it consideration.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

The hon. Member for Leicester, as I gather, is going to vote against this Instruction, but it certainly seems to me that his arguments were in favour of it. because the Instruction to divide the Bill into two enables us to take Part II. of the Bill. The hon. Member for Leicester knows perfectly well that Part II. is supported universally throughout the country. The hon. Member for Leicester seemed to think that Part II. might be dropped if it took too long to discuss Part I. I think everybody here would far sooner see Part II. on the Statute Book than Part I., and therefore one ought not to be tempted to vote against the Instruction in order to facilitate the dropping of Part II. of the Bill. The hon. Member showed clearly that one provision of Part I. was clearly dependent on the passing of Part. II. The question of whether a man is to be allowed to suspend his contributions during unemployment depends altogether on whether a man is unemployed. That is another argument in favour of passing Part II. first, and putting it on the Statute Book—a result which really depends on our being allowed to divide the Bill into two parts. I think the matter is of infinite importance. I can see no possible hope of passing the whole of this Bill into law this Session, or if it is passed into law it will be, at any rate, without adequate discussion, especially if the two parts are to be taken together. If that is the ease surely we are justified in doing all we can right here and now to see that the Part we do like shall be taken first. We have seen during the last month in the country a vast group of feeling against Part I. of the Bill, while we have seen nothing against Part II. of the Bill, or very little. All this makes it surely in the interest of the House and the Government that they should take first that part of the Bill which is wanted by the people and which is understood by the people themselves as being in their own interest.

I am one of those to whom the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) referred and my chief Amendments to Part I. are to secure additional contributions from the Exchequer with a view to making the taxation created by this Bill a little less unequal and invidious in character. At present eleven millions is going to be raised on wages, and I and a good many others do not like that way of raising taxes. We prefer to see it raised by ordinary taxation rather than by deduction from wages. A good deal of the criticism on Part I. must inevitably consist in the desire to give additional benefit for the contributions, and to levy those contributions in a more equitable sense. I quite appreciate the attitude of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in doing all they can to prevent any raids upon the Exchequer, but really they need not be very nervous about it. The Government have put a financial Resolution on the Paper, and that, I understand, is to be taken. As soon as that is passed half the Amendments at least on the Paper will become out of order, and all this nervousness about raids on the Exchequer ceases automatically with the passage of that Resolution. I notice that some hon. Members opposite have put down Amendments to exempt the agricultural labourer from the Bill. Even that Amendment, I imagine, will be ruled out of order as soon as we pass the financial Clause, because it is well known that the agricultural labourer is less liable to sickness or does not go sick so often as the town worker, and therefore the exemption of the agricultural labourer from the Bill would increase the actuarial risk among the average people, and would make the actuarial basis of the whole Bill unsound. Thus even that Amendment will be ruled out of order as soon as we pass the Resolution.

Mr. SPEAKER

That point can be raised on the Amendment. We are not discussing the matter now.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

I was endeavouring to explain to the Noble Lord and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is a question that need not unduly delay the Committee over Part I. of the Bill, and that this Amendment will be ruled out as soon as the financial Resolution is passed.

Mr. SPEAKER

I am very doubtful about that, and that is why I suggested to the hon. Member that he should wait until the Chairman of Ways and Means rules the point.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

I will pass from that point. I do urge upon the Government that the rushing through of Part I. of this Bill is not a matter of great importance at the present time. Part II. is far more popular and far more wanted than Part I., and it will be to the advantage of the House that we should be allowed to deal with these Bills as separate Bills, either one upstairs and one in the House, or one this year and one next year, in order to give them adequate discussion and consideration and in order to put good Acts on the Statute Book. We have secured today one great piece of assistance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has told us that wherever it is not a question of finance going to the root of the Bill, and wherever it is an ordinary Amendment, he would not put on the pressure of the Whips to force Members to vote in the Government Lobbies. This is an Amendment now brought forward by a Member of the Liberal party and seconded by a Member of the Labour party, and supported very largely by Members on this side of the House. I do hope that we shall not have the Government Whips put on in this case, and that we shall be able to vote on this Amendment as freely as though it were an Amendment moved by an influential Member on this side, or by a Member of the Opposition. This is a case that does not go to the root of the Bill, but merely divides it into two parts. You can still pass both this year, and you can send one upstairs. It does not go to the root of the insurance question. I do hope we shall not have any pressure put upon us, or put upon the people who are amenable to the party Whip, to vote in the Government Lobby on this Amendment.

Mr. HICKS BEACH

I think it is quite clear that both on the other side of the House and on this side there is really a very general feeling that it will be quite impossible to pass this Bill into law provided we end our discussions at a reasonable hour of the day. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), I think, evidently felt that during the course of his speech. His objection was why could not this be brought in when we had gone on with the discussion of Part I.? To my mind the whole object of dividing the Bill now is to make it quite clear that we can get through one part of the Bill straight away. I do not mind whether we begin with insurance or employment, but I do feel that it will be much more in the interests of good work if we could get through one of those parts first, that is to say, get through the Committee stage and Report stage and Third Reading of the insurance part, and then go on, if there is time, to the Committee stage and Report stage and Third Reading of the unemployment part. I do feel that it will be better not to spend weeks and nights over the insurance part, then go on to the unemployment part, and come back again to the insurance part. I was very glad to hear both the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer repudiating the suggestion that one part of this Bill should be sent upstairs. They have very rightly recognised that it would be really unfair, especially to those who are interested in both parts, to ask them to attend a Committee upstairs sitting from eleven o'clock to four, and then ask them to come down at four o'clock and go on to another part of the Bill until probably the same hour the next morning. They agreed that that is quite impossible, but at the same time they ask Members to go and sit on other Committees from eleven o'clock to four o'clock, and then, when they come down here, suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule. I think that is extremely unfair, not only as to big Bills like this, but as to other Bills, which ought to receive very careful and very serious consideration upstairs.

I was very much surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggest that though he will not send one part of the Bill upstairs, yet the Government are contemplating when we get through a few Clauses of the Bill to frame a Resolution that will send up particular Clauses out of both parts of the Bill to the Committee upstairs. Surely they must recognise that it is unfair to ask Members to sit on a Committee upstairs and discuss certain Clauses of the Bill, and then come down and discuss the whole of the rest of the Bill down here. That is equally unfair to them, and it is equally impossible, from the Government point of view, to reconcile the two parts of the Bill together in that way. The Government may be defeated upstairs on Amendments which may vitally affect other parts of the Bill, yet with their regular majority down here they may be carrying the Bill through on original lines. I cannot see what possible advantage can accrue from sending certain Clauses of this Bill to a Committee upstairs. I do sincerely hope that we have-heard the last of that suggestion, and I do wish that even at this hour the Government will alter their view and consent to divide this Bill into two parts. The only reason they really give for pressing on with the unemployment parts this year is that it happens to be the beginning of a fairly good time of trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us earlier in the Session that we were in for a good boom in trade. I am sorry to find that the opinion of the Chancellor has altered, for if not why would it not be possible to put off to next year, or the latter part of this year, the consideration of the unemployment part of the Bill. Though the Government say that a good many conflicting interests are reconciled, surely they must not forget that there are several other points which are not mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which at present are stirring up very considerable feeling throughout the country. I may refer to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), namely, the position of the agricultural community. People who live in the rural districts may not have such active brains as gentlemen who live-in the towns, and it has taken them sometime to realise that really they are going to pay for the benefits of the town people under this Bill, though they are paying the same premium and receiving the same benefits.

Mr. SPEAKER

That is anticipating the discussion, and has nothing to do with this Motion.

Mr. HICKS BEACH

I only wanted to point out that there are matters like that which were not mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and which will deserve and require very full and adequate discussion. That was one of my reasons for again urging the Government to divide this Bill into two parts. I cannot help thinking that hon. Members would much prefer that really adequate consideration should be given to the various points of one part of the Bill rather than that the Bill should be hurried through the House without any discussion.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. PRINGLE

I listened with great interest to all the speeches made in reply to the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), and I regret I have found no adequate answer from the Front Bench to the arguments he put forward. The refusal of the Government to divide the Bill into two parts has been justified on two grounds. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that nearly every point of the important interests involved has been met by deputations, and in the second place the President of the Board of Trade said that the second part of the Bill is of such overwhelming importance that it must be proceeded with this year. In regard to the first contention, that made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I feel that it is not convincing. He has, indeed, met a great many deputations, representing nearly all the vested interests concerned under the provisions of the first part of the Bill, but I doubt if his statement that he has met all their points really represents the situation. I fear he has not met the demands of the doctors, for only this morning I have received a letter asking me to meet a deputation from them. That surely does not represent that their case has been met. That, however, is not the most important point. It is easy for organised interests to go and meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to put their case before him. There are others who are not organised, and whose case cannot be presented in that way, and who can only have their views put forward on the floor of this House. It is on behalf of some of these that I desire to make this appeal to the Government to divide the Bill. I may give, as an example, the farm servants of Scotland, who are in a very peculiar and distinct position. There was indeed a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday on behalf of these men, but it was a farmers deputation, concerned only with the interests of the farmers, and not with the interests of the agricultural labourers. The Scottish agricultural labourers are absolutely unorganised, and have no means of putting their case before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Their only chance of doing so is through their representatives in this House. It is extremely strange that a Government who owe so much to the agricultural labourers of Scotland should have introduced a Bill which ignores and neglects their interests altogether. The Prime Minister would not be here if it were not for the agricultural labourers of East Fife. I question whether the Patronage Secretary would be here, and I do not know how many other Members of the Government might be looking in other parts of the kingdom for seats, were it not for the agricultural labourers of Scotland. In this Bill they are absolutely ignored. They do not need to make any insurance whatever, because, as a term of their employment, they obtain full wages during six weeks.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not entitled to deal with that question now. When we reach the Amendments the Committee will doubtless be very glad to listen to him.

Mr. PRINGLE

I do not intend to go any further into the merits of the case, but surely I am at liberty to argue that the fact that the interests of these men have been ignored is a reason for dividing the Bill into two parts, and for the further contention that, having ignored such an important interest, we should deal with the second part of the Bill before the first part.

Mr. SPEAKER

There is no proposal to deal with the second part first. That is not contained in the Motion before the House.

Mr. PRINGLE

I understood that the question whether one part should not be sent upstairs had been argued by preceding speakers, and I thought I was in order in making an alternative suggestion. But I support the Instruction without any reference to any particular procedure. The argument of the President of the Board of Trade as to the overwhelming importance and the extreme urgency of the unemployment part is the strongest argument for dividing the Bill. We are in a period of good trade in relation to those very particular industries which are most liable to fluctuation. Surely this part of the Bill should be taken separately from the other, and an opportunity be given to accumulate a reserve for dealing with the period of unemployment when it arises. I speak with special interest on this matter, be- cause I represent a part of the country where these fluctuations are very severe indeed. In no part of the country are the fluctuations of trade more severely felt than in the West of Scotland, which is so largely dependent on the great shipping industry. Another more general consideration which seems to me of almost equal importance is that the health provisions of the Bill affect the daily life of every man, woman and child in the country. Only a very small minority of them have any appreciation of how these provisions will affect them. Surely it is important that these two parts, so different in character and in urgency, should be dealt with separately? For these reasons I have been driven to the conclusion that I must support the Instruction moved by my hon. Friend.

Mr. PETO

I am strongly in favour of dividing the Bill into two parts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in stating that that course would be very undesirable, said that it was necessary to go ahead with the unemployment part in order that the employers, who would be asked for a contribution of 3d. per week, should know exactly where they stand. It seems to mo that there is extremely little, if anything at all, in that argument, because the unemployment part of the Bill refers to one or two selected trades only. Therefore the employers in all the other trades in the country, after we have passed Part II., will still be waiting to know whether they will have to make a further contribution of 2½d. or any other sum that may be decided upon. There is no reason why the Bill

should not be divided, so that the House might address itself to the comparatively simple, though long and arduous, problem of Part I.

Mr. BOOTH

May I ask, on a point of Order, whether the intimation which ha3 been given empowers the Minister in charge of the Bill to send certain Clauses to a Grand Committee upstairs at any time?

Mr. SPEAKER

The position stands thus. The Standing Order provides that the Member in charge of a Bill may, immediately the Bill has been read a second time, ask the House to keep part of the Bill here and to send a part upstairs. My own impression is that that must be done immediately after the Second Reading. But it is always open to the Government, as they have control of the time of the House, to put down a Motion to send part of a Bill upstairs. They are not precluded by the existence of the Standing Orders from so doing. But the hon. Member will observe that an unofficial Member is precluded from doing that, because he has no time at his disposal.

Mr. BOOTH

In view of your ruling, and of the undertaking of the Government that they will consider my suggestion, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. SPEAKER

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Motion be withdrawn? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 254.

Division No. 255.]	AYES.	[6.10 p.m.
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.	Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith	Doughty, Sir George
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)	Duke, Henry Edward
Aitken, Sir William Max	Boyton, James	Eyres-Monsell, B. M.
Amery, L. C. M. S.	Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell	Falle, Bertram Godfray
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Bridgeman, W. Clive	Fisher, William Hayes
Anstruther-Gray, Major William	Butcher, J. G.	Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Forster, Henry William
Ashley, Wilfrid W.	Castlereagh, Viscount	Foster, Philip Staveley
Baird, J. L.	Cator, John	Gardner, Ernest
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)	Cautley, Henry Strother	Gastrell, Major W. H.
Baldwin, Stanley	Cave, George	Goldman, C. S.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Chamberlin, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Goulding, E. A.
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Grant, J. A.
Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)	Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)
Barnston, H.	Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Clyde, J. Avon	Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)
Bathurst, Hon A. B. (Glouc, E.)	Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)	Courthope, G. Loyd	Hamersley, A. St. George
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks-	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)
Beckett, Hon. William Gervase	Craik, Sir Henry	Hardy, Laurence
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Cripps, Sir C. A.	Harris, Henry Percy
Beresford, Lord C.	Dairymple, Viscount	Helmsley, Viscount
Bigland, Alfred	Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)	Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)
Bird, A.	Dixon, Charles Harvey	Hickman, Col. Thomas E.
Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)	M'Micking, Major Gilbert	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Hills, John Waller (Durham)	Magnus, Sir Philip	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Hill-Wood, Samuel	Martin, Joseph	Spear, Sir John Ward
Hoare, S. J. G.	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Hohler, G. F.	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Starkcy, John Ralph
Hope, Harry (Bute)	Moore, William	Stewart, Gershom
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)	Swift, Rigby
Home, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)	Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Houston, Robert Paterson	Mount, William Arthur	Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)
Hume-Williams, William Ellis	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Tryon, Captain George Clement
Hunt, Rowland	Newdegate, F. A.	Walker, Col. William Hall
Jessel, Captain H. M.	Newman, John R. P.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Jowett, Frederick William	Newton, Harry Kottingham	Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)
Joynson-Hicks, William	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)	Weigall, Captain A. G.
Kerry, Earl of	Nield, Herbert	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Kimber, Sir Henry	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)	White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Parkes, Ebenezer	Williams, Col. R. (Corset, W.)
Knight, Captain E. A.	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Lane-Fox, G. R.	Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R.)
Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)	Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile Erid)	Perkins, Walter Frank	Wolmer, Viscount
Lewisham, Viscount	Peto, Basil Edward	Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Pole-Carew, Sir R.	Worthington-Evans, L.
Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Pollock, Ernest Murray	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.	Yate, Colonel C. E.
Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Rawson, Col. Richard H.	Yerburgh, Robert
Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesail)	Younger, Sir George
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)	Rothschild, Lionel de	TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Lansbury and Mr. Wedgwood
MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh	Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry
Acland, Francis Dyke	Crooks, William	Hayden, John Patrick
Adamson, William	Crumley, Patrick	Helme, Norval Watson
Addison, Dr. C.	Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)
Agnew, Sir George William	Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	Henry, Sir Charles
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Davies, E. William (Elfion)	Herbert, Sir Ivor
Alden, Percy	Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)	Higham, John Sharp
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Dawes, J. A.	Hodge, John
Anderson, A. M.	Delany, William	Holt, Richard Durning
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Devlin, Joseph	Hughes, S. L.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)	Hunter, W. (Govan)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Dickinson, W. H.	Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Doris, W.	Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)	Duffy, William J.	Johnson, W.
Barnes, George N.	Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)	Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)
Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)	Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	Jones, Lelf Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N)	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Barton, William	Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Jones, W. S. Glyn-(Stepney)
Beale, W. P.	Ellbank, Rt. Hon. Master of	Joyce, Michael
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Elverston, Sir Harold	Keating, M.
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Kellaway, Frederick George
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)	Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wextord, N.)	Keily, Edward
Bentham, George Jackson	Essex, Richard Walter	King, J. (Somerset, N.)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Falconer, J.	Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)
Black, Arthur W.	Fenwick, Charles	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)
Boland, John Plus	Ferens, T. R.	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)
Bowerman, C. W.	Ffrench, Peter	Leach, Charles
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)	Field, William	Levy, Sir Maurice
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Lewis, John Herbert
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Fitzgibbon, John	Logan, John William
Burke, E. Havlland-	Gelder, Sir William Alfred	Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Low, Sir F. (Norwich)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Gibson, Sir James P.	Lundon, T.
Buxton, Noel, (Norfolk, N.)	Gill, A. H.	Lyell, Charles Henry
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)	Glanville, H. J.	Lynch, A. A.
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Cameron, Robert	Goldstone, Frank	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	Maclean, Donald
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	Greig, Colonel J. W.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Chancellor, Henry G.	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Macpherson, James Ian
Chapple, Dr. W. A.	Hackett, J.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Clancy, John Joseph	Hall, Frederick (Normanton)	M'Callum, John M.
Clough, William	Hancock, J. G.	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Manfield, Harry
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Hardie, J. Keir	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Harmsworth, R. L.	Marshall, Arthur Harold
Cory, Sir Clifford John	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Cowan, W. H.	Harwood, George	Meagher, Michael
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Menzies, Sir Walter	Power, Patrick Joseph	Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Millar, James Duncan	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Summers, James Woolley
Molteno, Percy Alport	Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)	Sutherland, J. E.
Mond, Sir Alfred M.	Primrose, Hon. Nell James	Sutton, John E.
Mooney, J. J.	Rattan, Peter Wilson	Taylor John W. (Durham)
Morgan, George Hay	Raphael, Sir Herbert H.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Morrell, Philip	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)	Tennant, Harold John
Munro, R.	Reddy, Michael	Thomas, J. H. (Derby)
Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.	Redmond, William (Clare, E.)	Toulmin, Sir George
Needham, Christopher T.	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Nolan, Joseph	Roberts, George H. (Norwich)	Wadsworth, J.
Norman, Sir Henry	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)	Walters, John Tudor
Norton, Capt. Cecil W.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	Walton, Sir Joseph
Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Robinson, Sidney	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Nuttall, Harry	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Wardle, George J.
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Roche, Augustine (Louth)	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Roche, John (Galway, E.)	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
O'Doherty, Philip	Rowntree, Arnold	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
O'Dowd, John	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Webb, H.
O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
O'Shee, James John	Scanlan, Thomas	Wiles, Thomas
O'Sullivan, Timothy	Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Palmer, Godfrey Mark	Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)	Sheehy, David	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)	Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)	Winfrey, Richard
Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)	Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Pointer, Joseph	Spicer, Sir Albert	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Pollard, Sir George H.	Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Strachey, Sir Edward

Mr. SPEAKER

The next Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow Mr. MacCallum Scott) proposes to give powers "to insert provisions for the extension of medical and sanatorium benefits to married women whose husbands are insured under the Bill." If a charge would be created by this Instruction it would not be permissible. If it does not create a charge, the object can be carried out by Amendment to the Bill. The next proposal, in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) is also out of order. The next Instruction, standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) proposes that the Bill should "be divided into two parts, one relating to the insurance of men and the other relating to the insurance of women, and that the Committee should have power to proceed first with the insurance of women." I do not know whether that means two Bills. If it means two parts, it cannot be done by Instruction. If it means two Bills, the division is an unnatural one. The Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Dorset (Sir Randolf Baker), "that it be an Instruction to the Committee to divide the portion of the Bill relating to invalidity into two parts, one dealing with all persons employed in agricultural or horticultural occupations, and the other with all persons engaged with other trades," can be done by Amendment. The same applies to the Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rye Division of Sussex (Mr. Courthope).

With regard to the Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. Horner) that the Committee be empowered "to divide the Bill into two Bills, one dealing with Great Britain and the one dealing with Ireland," the Bill does not naturally fall into that division. The hon. Member proposes to omit Ireland from the Bill altogether. He can do so by moving to omit Clause 59, and inserting a new Clause to say that the Bill shall not apply to Ireland. That can be done in Committee, and does not require any Instruction. The next Instruction, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Wells Division of Somerset (Mr. Sandys) "that the Committee should have power to order an inquiry by Royal Commission into the subject of State Insurance against invalidity and unemployment before the Third Reading of the Bill," is quite beyond a Committee of the Whole House. The last Instruction, standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen University (Sir Henry Craik), "that it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to postpone the provisions for medical benefits so that they may be made the subject of a separate Bill," can be done by amendment. There being no other Instructions, I propose to leave the Chair.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]