Commons Sitting of 11 July 1911

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Chapel Whaley and District Gas Bill [Lords],
Winchester Corporation (Electric Supply) Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Star Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill (by Order),
As amended, considered:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
Saint Mary, Radcliffe, Rectory Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Merthyr Tydfil Corporation Water Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
North British Railway (Superannuation Fund, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration deferred till To-morrow.
Rhondda Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.

TELEGRAPH CONSTRUCTION BILL.
Petitions against (praying to be heard by counsel);—From Great North of Scotland Railway Company;—and, London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Company; referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
NATIONAL GALLERY AND ST. JAMES'S PARK BILL [Lords],
Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the National Gallery and St. James's Park Bill [Lords], with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) [BILLINGBOROUGH, BIRTHORPE] BILL.
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

ST. MARY, PRESTWICH, RECTORY BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 5).
Sir George Doughty reported from the Committee on Group 5 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have agreed to,—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Chasetown Gas Bill, without Amendment:—
Liverpool Overhead Railway Bill,
Dover Graving Dock Bill, with Amendments:—
Amendments to—
Municipal Elections Bill [Lords],
Oystermouth Urban District Council Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Banff, Gardenstown, and Port Gordon." [Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Brighton, Portsmouth, and Southend-on-Sea." [Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm, certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Alfreton Gas, Barnstaple Gas, Burn-ham Gas, and Launceston Gas." [Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Holyhead Gas, Llangefni Gas, Llanrwst
176
Gas, and Pwllheli Gas." [Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Accrington (Extension), Aldeburgh, Ash-ford, Blandford Forum, Budleigh Salter-ton, Carlisle (Extension), Chichester (Ex-tension), Cirencester, Leominster, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Extension)." [Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Macclesfield, Pateley Bridge, Portishead and District, Rhondda, Salisbury (Extension), Wimbledon (Extension), and Witney." [Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, The Electric Lighting (Scotland) Act, 1890, and The Electric Lighting (Scotland) Act, 1902, relating to Alloa (Extension), the County of Fife (certain Burghs and Parishes), and Grangemouth (Amendment)." [Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under The Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Dartford and District Tramways and Dewsbury Corporation Tramways." [Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Rhondda Urban District Council to construct additional waterworks, and to confer further powers upon the Council in regard to their water undertaking and the supply of electricity; and for other purposes." [Rhondda Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
Return presented relative thereto [Address 6th July; Mr. Churchill]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed.
FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS (SPECIAL EXCEPTION, LIMEWASHING, ETC.).
Copy presented of Order dated 1st July, 1911, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of Section 1 (4) of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, granting to Factories painted with a washable water paint as defined in the Order, a special exception that, subject to certain conditions, the provisions of Section 1 (3) with regard to Lime-washing shall not apply to them [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Arrest of Miss Malecka in Russia.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has received from the British Consul any particulars of his recent interview with Miss Malecka in the prison at Warsaw; whether lunder the regulations of the Russian Government the conversation at this interview had to be in German; and whether the Foreign Office have yet obtained from the Russian Government any particulars of the charge upon which Miss Malecka is imprisoned?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): The reply to the first question is in the affirmative. The Consul received permission to make the visit in his private capacity. In the course of the interview Miss Malecka gave the Consul certain information as to her birth and parentage. She also stated that the food given her was good, but that the quantity was small. Her friends had, however, supplemented the diet sufficiently, and that, with the remittances which the Consul had transmitted to her, was enough at present for her wants. She asked the Consul to reimburse her friends who had sent her food. She also made a few requests about her clothing and effects, the details of which are not reported. The charge is that of conspiring against the Russian Government; no further details are yet forthcoming so far as I am aware. It was stipulated that the conversation at the interview should be in German, but I am not certain from the Consul's Report whether this condition was imposed by the regulations of the Russian Government or by the local authorities.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Government have yet demanded, or asked for, particulars of the charge against this lady?
  Sir E. GREY: There is another question for Thursday. If the hon. Member will ask his question on Thursday I will answer the two.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman also explain whether the visit of the British Consul to this lady was or was not unofficial?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes, Sir, because the Russian Government has not yet admitted that she has ceased to be a Russian subject and under Russian law.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me, if no definite charges are soon forthcoming, the Foreign Office will be prepared to ask for the release of this lady?
  Sir E. GREY: The charge is a definite one—that of conspiracy against the Russian Government. What ought to be given are the particulars of the acts complained of in order that she may be in a position, when brought to trial, to answer those distinct charges. That is the point now raised.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is it a fact that her counsel is in ignorance of the particulars, and that she herself does not know the occasion she was said to have conspired against the Russian Government?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot answer that question definitely. As I said, if the hon. Member will put a question on Thursday I will then say actually what I have said to the Russian Government?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on whom the burden of proof as to nationality in regard to a person in possession of a British passport rests?
  Sir E. GREY: That is a matter between, the two Governments. I cannot say where the burden of proof actually rests. The position is this: So far as English law is concerned she is undoubtedly a British subject, but it is possible for a person to have a double nationality, and for a foreign Government to claim that a person, although a British subject according to English law, is none the less of the nationality of the country of her origin when she is in it.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs whether he had yet satisfied himself as to the status of Miss Malecka in Russian law; whether he was aware that the marriage between this lady's parents, which took place at St. Jude's Church, Southwark, in the year 1860, was a marriage between a Catholic and a Protestant performed in a Protestant church; whether such a marriage would be invalid under Russian law without special licence from the Russian authorities; and whether any such licence was obtained?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no reason to suppose that a marriage such as that described in the question would not be recognised as valid under Russian law. The assumption contained in the question would only apply, so far as I am aware, in the case of some one who was a member of the Orthodox Greek Church.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: Is the foreign Office doing all that it would do if the lady was recognised as a British subject?
  Sir E. GREY: We are doing all we can in the matter. But, of course, we could do much more, and be on much firmer ground, if it were quite clear that under Russian law she had ceased to be a Russian subject in Russia itself.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has the Russian Government furnished any evidence that she is the legal daughter of a Russian subject?
  Sir E. GREY: Under the Russian law, as I understand it, unless her father left Russia with permission from the Russian Government, she would in Russia be a Russian subject.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: If the legal daughter of the marriage?
  Sir E. GREY: I have answered that question as to legal marriage. It is a most complicated question. So far as I am aware, under Russian law the marriage would not be invalid unless one of the parties was a member of the Orthodox Church.
  Mr. MORRELL: Are we to understand that the Foreign Office have not yet satisfied themselves as to whether under Russian law this lady is a Russian subject or not? Can the right hon. Gentleman say when they are likely to satisfy themselves on that point?
  Sir E. GREY: If I could clear away the legal and technical complications I would willingly do so. I have done my best to cut away the thicket of legal complications. If the hon. Member had seen all the various points referred to he would realise how exceedingly difficult the matter is.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to secure that the conversation between the British Consul and this British subject shall be held in English and not in German?
  Sir E. GREY: That, of course, must depend to some extent as to whether the question of nationality in Russia is definitely settled.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is it denied that this lady went to Russia with a British passport?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes, Sir. As I have explained, she is in contemplation of English law a British subject, therefore a passport would be issued. That does not necessarily imply that she has ceased to be a Russian subject when actually in Russia.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date the English lady imprisoned at Warsaw was arrested, and on what date the British Consul at Warsaw was informed of her arrest?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): His Majesty's Consul at Warsaw reported that Miss Malecka had been arrested on 5th April. It is not clear from his despatch on what date he received notice of the fact, but he reported it on 12th April.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what length of time elapsed between the arrest and the message of the Consul?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir, I cannot.

  Burmah (Military Police).
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Lieutenant-Governor of Burmah has recently sanctioned the quartering of an increased force of military police in ten villages in the Sagaing district for a period of two years at a cost to the inhabitants of nearly 60,000

  181
  rupees; and, if so, whether he can state what offence has been committed by these villagers; and whether they have had an opportunity of answering the charge made against them before being punished?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Lieutenant-Governor of Burmah has sanctioned the quartering for two years of an additional force of military police on forty-seven villages in the Sagaing, Shwabo, and Lower Chindwin districts, which were shown to have been concerned in an attack made last November by 800 men on the village of Myinma. The leaders of the insurgents are being prosecuted. The procedure is regulated by the Indian Police Act, which empowers a local Government to take this action when any area has been found to be in a disturbed or dangerous state, or when the conduct of the inhabitants or any class or section of them renders it expedient to increae the number of police. The local Government has power to exempt from liability to bear the cost of any inhabitants of such area.
  Sir W. BYLES: Can I have access to the information as to what offence those people committed. Was sedition shown? Are not these people extremely poor, and do not these villages consist of very poor people and how can they pay 60,000 rupees?
  Mr. MONTAGU: When the hon. Member gets a copy of this question he will see I deal with these points. From this district 800 men attacked another village.
  Sir W. BYLES: Have they to bear the cost?
  Mr. MONTAGU: In accordance with practice, when a district has been disturbed and the inhabitants cannot keep the peace they have to bear the responsibility of their acts.

  Indian State Railway Contracts (Fair- Wages Clause).
  Captain MURRAYasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to give the House any further information regarding the allegation that Messrs. Guest, Keen, and Nettlefold are not paying fair wages to moulders employed on making sleepers for Indian State railways?
  Mr. MONTAGU: As I informed the junior Member for Merthyr on Monday week, no order for sleepers has been
  182
  placed by the Secretary of State for India with Messrs. Guest, Keen and Nettlefold; in fact no sleepers, iron or steel, have been supplied by this or any other firm for Indian State Railways for many years, if they ever were at all, as wooden sleepers are used. I may add that the junior Member for Merthyr acknowledged that his information was incorrect when he withdrew his question on the subject on Thursday last.
  Mr. DUNCAN: Would the same reply be given with regard to rails?
  Mr. MONTAGU: No; the same reply would not be given with regard to rails because we have rails on order. With regard to wages the Secretary of State has sent to the Director-General for a report.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: Then, I take it, we shall be able to raise the question with regard to rails. My question was about rails and not about sleepers?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Yes; I promised to give the House information as soon as the Director-General reported.
  Mr. CLYNES: Will it relate to labourers as well?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Yes; labourers only are employed at this work in the making of railways.

  Charge Against Police in India.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked what is the result of the appeal by the sub-inspector against the sentence imposed upon him in connection with the case of alleged police torture at Shahdara?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Chief Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the sub-inspector of the charge of torture brought against him. Medical evidence was given to show that the marks on the deceased's body were probably bed-sores.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does that apply to the other convicted person?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The person referred to in the question is the sub-inspector; but I think it does so apply. If the hon. Gentleman will put a question down I will answer it.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has been invited to put down a further question. We must get on with the questions;

  183
  it is already very late, and there are altogether seventy-one questions on the Paper. I call upon the next question in the name of Mr. Morrell.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I appeal to you, Sir—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I called upon the hon. Member for Burnley.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I wish to ask you, Sir—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not interrupt. If he has any further point to raise he must raise it at the end of Question time, and allow other Members to ask their questions first.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: On a point of Order—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must raise his Question of Order at the end of Question time.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: This is a question of life and death to Indian British subjects.
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether, in the case in which three policemen were tried at Birbhum for the torture of an Indian called Bhola, it was stated by the prosecution that the man was tied up to a tamarind tree and then submitted to such severe torture that when untied he was on the point of death; that he was afterwards strangled by the police, who asserted that he had committed suicide; whether he can state on what grounds the police were acquitted on the charge of murder; and whether he has received from the Government of India a full report of the case?
  Mr. MONTAGU: A full report has not yet been received, but the Secretary of State understands that the Sessions Judge found that the evidence adduced to support the charge of strangulation was insufficient and inconclusive. Disagreeing with the assessors who were in favour of acquittal on all counts, he convicted the police of voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will the full report be sent to the Government, and will it be published and laid upon the Table of the House?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I cannot promise to lay papers on the Table without consulting my Noble Friend, the Secretary of State.

  Coronation Medals for Troops.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether all troops who were on duty at the Coronation will receive the Coronation medal?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for War (Colonel Seely): Representatives of each unit which was present or sent a detachment to London for the Coronation will receive the medal. I am not yet in a position to state the exact allotment.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that this distribution of medals will apply to the troops in Dublin and Edinburgh?
  Colonel SEELY: That is another question which I could not answer without notice.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to secure that these officers and soldiers will get the medals?
  Colonel SEELY: Which officers?
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: In Dublin.
  Colonel SEELY: I will inquire about it. No doubt some medals will be distributed.

  Artillery Training (Acquisition of Land).
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Undersecretary whether his attention has been drawn to War Office Memorandum, No. 344, under which county associations are instructed to obtain land in the immediate vicinity of the headquarters of horse, field, and heavy Artillery for the purpose of teaching men laying drill and, further, a field of from ten to fifteen acres within reasonable distance of their headquarters either free of charge or at nominal rental; and whether he can indicate the method by which this result can be obtained?
  Colonel SEELY: It is expected that in many cases associations will be able to make use of their knowledge of local conditions. It has been found possible to obtain common land without expense in the past, and on frequent occasions private owners are good enough to provide facilities gratuitously, or at a nominal charge, but when it is necessary to hire on ordinary terms the question is to be referred to the War Office.

  Army Air Ships.
  Mr. SANDYSasked whether a new Army biplane has been designed and con-

  185
  structed under the direction of the superintendent of the aircraft factory; and, if so, whether it has been tested and proved satisfactory?
  Colonel SEELY: Certain experiments in aeroplane construction are being made at the aircraft factory for the Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, but it is not desirable to give any particulars at present.
  Mr. SANDYSasked the Undersecretary whether he would consider the desirability of giving some recognition in the "Gazette" and Army List to officers not belonging to the Air Battalion who have obtained pilots' certificates?
  Colonel SEELY: This and other points of a similar nature are at present engaging the attention of the Army Council, and I hope to be able to make an announcement of the general policy in regard to aviation early next week.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman do anything to stimulate the production of British engines for air ships?
  Colonel SEELY: When I reply on Tuesday week I shall indicate the direction in which we propose to proceed.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think this is a case in which the offer of prizes might be of some assistance.
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. SANDYSasked whether it is proposed to introduce a system of mileage pay for officers of the Air Battalion?
  Colonel SEELY: The question of the remuneration of officers of the Air Battalion is at present under consideration.

  7th Hussars.
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked the Under-Secretary whether it is to be understood that he will not permit the case of the 7th Hussars under any circumstances to be re-opened?
  Colonel SEELY: I can only refer the hon. and gallant Member to my answer of the 5th inst and to previous answers on the same subject.

  Territorial Force (Transport and Supply Columns).
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked whether the transport and supply columns of the Territorial Force are mounted troops; if they are not mounted troops, what steps are taken to enable them to perform their duties efficiently; and, if they are mounted troops, why are they debarred from training for eighteen days excepting as a special concession by the general officer commanding, Territorial Division, to which they belong?
  Colonel SEELY: The transport and supply columns of the Territorial Force are mounted troops, but it was decided after full consideration that the power under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act to train the mounted branch for eighteen days should for the present be confined to the Yeomanry.

  Veteran Reserve.
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked whether, having regard to the service that the Veteran Reserve should be able to render to the country in the event of war, as, for instance, in the garrisoning of fortified places, and the setting free of the Territorial Forces for mobile service, who would otherwise be locked up in those posts, he would consider the advisability of providing all members of the Veteran Reserve with the distinctive badges and other qualifications necessary to enable them to be recognised as combatants?
  Colonel SEELY: Paragraph 36 of the Regulations for the Veteran Reserve, issued with the Special Army Order of 21st May, 1910, provide for the supply of distinguishing badges in time of war, as required by the Hague Convention.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Has the right hon. Gentleman got the assurance of the various Powers that badges are sufficient?
  Colonel SEELY: The matter is rather important, and, as I was asked a question about it the other day I promised to tell the House. I have here the regulations respecting the laws and customs of war referred to in the Hague Convention. In order that Militia, Volunteers, and other troops fulfilling the conditions should be recognised as belligerents they should be:—
  "(1.) Commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
  "(2.) To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognisable at a distance;

  187
  "(3.) To carry arms openly; and
  "(4.) To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
  "In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the Army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination 'Army.'
  "The population of a territory which has not been occupied who, on the enemy's approach, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to organise themselves in accordance with Article I., shall be regarded as belligerent, if they respect the laws and customs of war."
  Mr. HUNT: May I ask if Germany agreed to that Convention?
  Colonel SEELY: Oh, yes. I understand it was agreed to by all the Powers at the Hague Convention.

  National Service.
  Mr. SANDYSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the question of national service is one of the matters open to discussion in the "Army Review," referred to in the introduction on page 4 of the July number?
  Colonel SEELY: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the ante-penultimate paragraph, together with the preceding three lines of the introduction to the "Army Review," to be found in the first number on page 5. The purposes of the "Review" and the limits of discussion are there clearly defined.
  Mr. SANDYS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware he is giving me a very general answer to a particular question? I asked him whether, in view of the discussion that has taken place recently on the subject of national service, he would consider the desirability of allowing one of these matters to come up for discussion.
  Colonel SEELY: It is hoped that the discussion of matters of military interest in the pages of this "Review" may not only be of educative value, but also conduce to the unity of doctrine and the intelligent application of the principles laid down by superior authority, which are essential to systematic training in peace and successful action in the field.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could state the approximate number of persons that are affected by limiting those who are eligible as voluntary contributors to those whose income does not exceed £160 per annum, and the estimated saving to the fund by this limitation?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): It has always been anticipated by my right hon. Friend that the number of persons with incomes above £160 who would take advantage of the privilege of voluntary insurance would be small. I do not think the assumptions explained in paragraph 17 of the Actuaries' report would be much affected by the change.

    COMPULSOKY CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. HORNERasked (1) whether the right hon. Gentleman can state the numbers, separately, for England, Scotland and Ireland of the total number of men and of women estimated by the actuaries (White Paper, Cd. 5,681, page 20) as liable to compulsory contribution at the initiation of the scheme of national insurance, either as members of approved societies or as deposit contributors; (2) whether he can state the numbers, separately, for England, Scotland and Ireland of the total number of compulsory contributors, members of approved societies, which the actuaries estimated (White Paper, Cd. 5,681, page 21) as the probable increase hereafter of the various classes of contributors at the commencement of each fifth year; and (3) whether he can state the approximate total amount of contributions under Clause 3 of the National Insurance Bill estimated to come for the first year from insured persons in England, Scotland and Ireland, respectively; employers in England, Scotland and Ireland, respectively; and the approximate total contributions by the Treasury to England, Scotland and Ireland, respectively?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The actuaries' calculations were not worked out separately for the three kingdoms, and consequently to furnish the information asked for would involve a somewhat lengthy further analysis of their figures. My right hon. Friend is considering, however, whether it will be practicable to supply it to the House.

    IRISH SOCIETIES (RECENT RETURNS).
    Mr. EDGAR HORNEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can state the names and numbers from the most recent returns of societies at present existing in Ireland which are entitled to become approved societies under the National Insurance Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I fear it is impossible to say at this stage which societies will be entitled to become approved societies.

    TREATMENT OF TUBERCULOSIS.
    Mr. JAMES PARKERasked whether, in view of the power given to the Local Government Board to utilise any Poor Law institution for the purpose of the provision of sanatoria and other institutions for the treatment of tuberculosis or such other diseases, under Section 47 of the National Insurance Bill, clauses will be inserted in the Act to safeguard the interests of officers in such manner as was provided in Section 120 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and Section 28 of the City of London (Union of Parishes) Act, 1907?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No such power is given by Clause 47 which enables the Local Government Board to make grants for the provision of sanatoria where required.

    EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN (ACTUARIES' FIGURES.).
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked (1) whether the figures of the actuaries in the Memoranda on the Insurance Bill with regard to the employment of women, especially those who are spinsters, married women, and widows, respectively, were based upon a Report presented by his Department to the Treasury; if so, whether he will lay such Report upon the Table of the House; (2) whether the figures of the actuaries in the Memoranda on the National Insurance Bill with regard to the employment of women, especially with regard to spinsters, married women, and widows, respectively, were based upon a Report from his Department; and, if so, whether he will lay such Report upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The numbers of women employed or working on their own account were deduced, as explained in the actuaries' report, from an examination of the census returns for the three kingdoms.

  Land Valuation Department.
  Mr. PRETYMANasked if the right hon. Gentleman would state why the staff of the Land Valuation Department are employed in counting the trees in the hedgerows and plantations in the rural districts; and what will be the total cost to the nation of this operation?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The valuation is being made in accordance with the provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and its total cost was indicated by my
  190
  right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, on the 11th of August, 1909.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is anything in the evidence required which necessitates the counting of the trees in the hedgerows and plantations?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not aware that they are doing that. I see the assertion in the question, but no information has been conveyed to me that the statement is accurate.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether my information is accurate or not, and does he not think it would have been better to have made the inquiry when notice of the question was given four or five days ago? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the House will want to know whether this statement is accurate or not?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have not only no information, which leads me to believe that the information is accurate, but I cannot believe that the Treasury staff, who are so extremely well acquainted with valuations, would do anything so foolish as that stated in the question.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to direct his attention to the north part of Lincolnshire, in order that he may make inquiries in that district? If he does he will find that this operation is going on there.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certainly, and if I find that it is being done I shall acquaint the House with great pleasure.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: Is it not a fact that this has recently been done upon an estate in Dorsetshire upon which Death Duties have been paid?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There are many estates on which Death Duties have been paid in Dorsetshire, I am happy to say. If the hon. Member will inform me which particular estate he alludes to I will make inquiries.
  Sir R. BAKER: I shall be pleased to do so.

  Burgles v. The Attorney-General.
  Mr. PRETYMANasked whether, seeing, that the Crown have now accepted the judgment in the case of Burghes v. the Attorney-General, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to defray the plaintiff's costs in the action?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Notice of appeal has been, served in the case referred to, which has been, set down for hearing; and, consequently, pending the result of such appeal, my right hon. Friend is unable to give any undertaking as to the payment of costs.

  Land Valuation.
  Mr. PRETYMANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue contend that, in calculating the amount to be deducted from gross value to arrive at the total value of any land subject to tithe, the deductions should only be an amount equal to twenty-five years' purchase of the present value of the tithe, whereas owners contend that it should be twenty-five years' purchase of the commuted value of the tithe plus the costs of redemption; also that the Commissioners refuse to allow any deduction for Land Tax; that they refuse to make deductions for land appropriated to roads on the ground that the owner still retains the soil; that they contend that total value and assessable site value are the same in the case of agricultural land where there are no buildings or timber; that their method of acertaining the site value of agricultural land is the opposite of that they adopt in ascertaining the site value of urban land; that on all these points owners have offered to refer cases but cannot induce the Commissioners to move in the matter; that meantime the Commissioners are settling valuations and making claims on the basis of their own interpretation of the law, which they are imposing on private owners who cannot afford to employ professional advice; and whether, in view of the fact that it is of the greatest importance that in a national valuation of this sort all property should be valued on the same basis, he will at once issue instructions to bring these matters before the referees and, where necessary, before the courts; and whether he will undertake that no valuation upon which these or other debateable points arise shall be treated as final until the correct interpretation of the law has been decided by the referees or by the courts?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue have neither the wish nor the power to interfere with the action of any owner who may desire to submit any point of law, arising in connection with the valuation of his land, to the decision of a referee or other legal tribunal appointed under the provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910. My right hon.
  192
  Friend is not prepared to give any such undertaking as that indicated in the concluding paragraph of the question.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Department has every power of delaying these matters being brought before the referees by deferring their claims?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certainly, I suppose it is in the power of any Department to defer a claim which may be brought to the notice of the Department. From the observation I have been able to make of the working of the Revenue Department for nearly four years I do not think there has been any unnecessary delay.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Has this Act been in operation four years?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir; it has only been in operation two years, thanks to the action of another Chamber.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Arising out of his former answer and not the last, will the right hon. Gentleman have inquiry made, and if he finds the suggestion, which is made here in all earnestness, is borne out—namely, that there is great delay on the part of the Revenue Department in bringing these cases forward—will he see that the earliest possible opportunity is given for bringing these matters before the referees?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certainly.

  Port of Dundee (Customs and Excise Officers).
  Mr. WILKIEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that all the assistants at the port of Dundee are permanently and wholly employed on the duties of the grade above them; and, if so, will he make inquiries and state what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The suggestion in the question is not accurate. Five of the assistants have been perfoming, for a part of each day, more responsible duties than are ordinarily assigned to their grade, but the Board of Customs and Excise last month sanctioned the appointment of an additional examining officer for the express purpose of relieving the assistants of their responsibility, and he is already on duty.

  Official Parliamentary Report.
  Mr. KELLYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can state the cost of

  193
  reporting and publishing Parliamentary Debates; and how the present system compares with the former system in cost And efficiency?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: In the Session of 1908, the last of the old system, the actual cost of reporting the Debates in both Houses was £13,194. The length of the Session was 171 days. The average cost per diem was £77 3s. In the Session of 1909, the first year of the new system, the cost of producing the Parliamentary Debates was £14,279. The Session lasted 179 days, and the average cost per diem was £79 15s. In the case of the Commons, the Daily Reports are now issued on the morning after the Debate, and not as under the old system eight days afterwards, and the cost of the printing alone is by reason of this almost twice the amount which would have to be paid for the day work. The reporting staff has been augmented, and the individual salaries have been substantially increased and put upon an annual basis. Notwithstanding these outlays the improved service has on the whole been obtained for a similar expenditure. The increased facilities under the new system produced a largely increased demand from Members, which, under the old arrangement, would have been very costly to meet. There were supplied in 1909 134 additional sets of volumes, and 701 additional copies daily of the House of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT. If what is now received by the Members and for the public service had been purchased from the contractors on the terms of the old contract—not allowing anything extra for the production of the REPORT by next morning—the cost would have been £24,000, instead of £14,279.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. FFRENCHasked if the right hon. Gentleman could say why Patrick Delaney, old age pensioner, Misteren, Adamstown, South Wexford, having fulfilled the statutory conditions, did not receive his pension, until the 14th April, 1911, although he was entitled to receive it on the 3rd March, which was the first Friday following the meeting of the committee at which the pension was granted; and whether the sum of £l 10s., to which Patrick Delaney is entitled, will be forwarded to him?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The delay in the payment of this pension (which was caused by a clerical error) has already been
  194
  brought to my notice by the Board of Customs and Excise, and the Treasury has sanctioned an extra-statutory grant of £1 10s. in respect of the six Fridays, 3rd March to 7th April, both included.

  Sugar-Beet Industry.
  Mr. FFRENCHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Central Chamber of Agriculture made application to the Development Commissioners for a grant to establish the sugar-beet industry in Great Britain; whether the Commissioners have carefully considered the matter; and if they have yet arrived at any decision?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No application from the Central Chamber of Agriculture for a grant to establish the sugar-beet industry in England has reached the Commissioners at present, but the Commissioners have been considering the possibilities of beet sugar manufacture in England and have been in consultation with some of the Government Departments concerned in some preliminary questions of difficulty.

  Greenock labour Exchange.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the manager of the Greenock Labour Exchange has brought a number of boys from the West Highlands to the lower reaches of the Clyde; that they have been apprenticed to certain trades in the shipyards there; that there were already in the immediate vicinity of those yards any number of lads ready and willing to become apprentices in those yards; and whether the imported lads are under the control and jurisdiction of the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, whether any public money is being used for their upkeep and maintenance?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): As I have stated in reply to previous questions, lads from the West Highlands have recently been apprenticed to shipbuilding firms on the Clyde through the medium of the Greenock Labour Exchange. No steps, however, were taken to approach these lads until every effort had been made without success to find suitable apprentices in the neighbourhood of the yards. I am informed that none of the boys referred to are in any way under the control of the Congested Districts Board.

  Chesterfield Labour Dispute.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that a labour dispute has taken place at the Clay Cross Coal and Iron Works, Chesterfield, the company being contractors to the Post Office for the supply of telephone pipes; and that the company is not carrying out the Fair-Wages Clause for Post Office contracts of 10th March, 1909; and, if so, what action will he take in the matter?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): No complaint has been made to my right hon. Friend of any failure of this company to tarry out the Fair-Wages Clause of its contracts. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars, I will have enquiry made.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Thank you. I will. I have them in my hand.

  Telephone Transfer Bill.
  Mr. FFRENCHasked the Postmaster-General whether the Wexford County Council recently passed a resolution protesting against the employment of the military on any of the duties that can be performed by the staff of the National Telephone Company on the transfer of the property of that company to the State, and if he is prepared to give effect to the resolution?
  Captain NORTON: I fear I can only repeat what I said in answer to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Dublin, St. Stephen's Green, on the 25th of May last I am still not, in a position to make any statement on this matter.

  London County Council Education Committee.
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the President of the Board of Education whether a number of young certificated teachers, who are at present engaged on temporary supply duty by the London County Council education committee, are likely to be again unemployed through their places being taken by less experienced teachers about to leave the training colleges; whether the displaced teachers and many others who have been unemployed for months past will have increased difficulty in securing appointments in competition with several thousands of certificated teachers about to leave the training colleges; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I have no
  196
  information as to the ages of the teachers employed by the London County Council on temporary supply duty, nor have I any information, which would enable me to judge or the probabilities referred to in the question. On the facts at present before me I am afraid that I cannot usefully take any action.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: The age is not the difficulty. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the certificated teachers referred to are those who left the training colleges some little time ago, that they were taken on temporarily, and that now it is proposed to cease to employ them and to take on younger certificated teachers?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I have no means of knowing what are the intentions of the London County Council with reference to their supply of teachers.

  Durham County Council Education Committee.
  Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been directed to the reports of the last meeting of the Durham County Council education committee, in which the chairman on behalf of his-committee repudiated the paragraph in the E. Memorandum 21, relating to the inspectors employed by the county council education committee; whether he will state the authority on which the writer of the memorandum bases his statements respecting the Durham education committee, and especially that the education committee is beginning to wonder what use it can make of the three inspectors they appointed with undue haste; and what action he proposes to take to secure that an explanation and apology shall be tendered to the county council education committee and the inspectors to whom reference is made in the memorandum?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have seen the-newspaper reports of the meeting. I am not aware of the authority on which the-particular statements referred to in the question were based by the writer of the Memorandum, who is no longer in the Board's service. As the document was intended solely for confidential perusal and was made public without the knowledge and consent of the Board, I do not think that the Board is called upon to take the course suggested in the last paragraph of the question.

  Charity Funds (Investments).
  Mr. PRETYMANasked why the Board of Education have ceased to give consent to charity and other trustees under their control to invest funds in freehold ground rents, even when the ground rent is, as happened in one case, nearly five times secured and has been proposed by the trustees under competent professional advice?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board have not adopted any general practice to refuse consent to the investment of charity funds in freehold ground rents where such an investment is shown to be properly secured and to give an adequate return to the charity. I an; not aware what particular case the hon. Member may have in mind, but if he will give me particulars of any such case I will have the matter looked into.

  Bankruptcy Laws (Scotland).
  Mr. MORTONasked the Lord Advocate whether he has yet considered the report of the Departmental Committee on the working of the bankruptcy laws of Scotland; and whether any steps will be taken in the matter?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. It is hoped to introduce a Bill based on the recommendations of the Committee, but I am not yet in a position to say when the Bill will be introduced.

  Naval Manœuvres (Structural Defects in Vessels).
  Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the cause of the return for repairs of a number of torpedo destroyers lately manœuvring off the South-West Coast of Ireland; if they were not strong enough to be driven at full speed against a head sea; and if this class of torpedo-beat is considered to be fit for use in the North Sea?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): I have nothing to add to the reply given yesterday to a similar question by the hon. Member for North Down.
  Mr. FELL: May I point out that the last part of the question has not been answered. Is this class of torpedo assigned for use in the North Sea?
  Mr. McKENNA: The last part of the question was answered in the sense that
  198
  until I receive the Report it is impossible for me to say what is the matter with the torpedo-boat destroyers, or if anything is the matter with them. All I say is I must wait until I get the Report.
  Mr. FELL: Is this class of boat assigned for use in the North Sea?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, these destroyers are built especially for use in any sea.
  Mr. LEE: In view of the very serious character of this Report, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that as soon as he is in possession of the facts he will communicate them to the House?
  Mr. McKENNA: I would remind the hon. Gentleman the Report has not yet been received, but as soon as it is received, if a question is put down, I will of course answer it as fully as I can.
  Mr. LEE: If a question is put down a week hence?
  Mr. McKENNA: Well, if I had the report.

  Coronation Naval Review.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH- COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can see his way to grant some extra pay and extra leave to the crews of tugs who went to Portsmouth from other dockyards to assist at the Naval Review, more especially in view of the fact that these men were employed on some days for a period of eighteen hours?
  Mr. McKENNA: Extra pay has been, or is being, granted by the respective superintendents in accordance with the regulations. It is not usual to grant extra leave as well as extra pay in cases of this kind, and there is no intention to depart from the customary practice on the present occasion.

  Admiralty Draughtsmen.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH- COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in former years Admiralty draughtsmen used to receive £50 a year as an allowance for extra expenses while resident in London; that in 1902 this allowance was reduced to £40, and has recently been further reduced to £25; and whether he will take into consideration the fact of the extra expenses incurred and allow the draughtsmen while resident in London, as formerly, an allowance of £50 a year?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the

  199
  affirmative; the last part of the question is under the consideration of the Board.

  Devonport Dockyard (Discharges).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether during the last three weeks some seventy men have been discharged from the works department at Devonport Dockyard; and whether he will so arrange the Government contract work as to give more employment in the dockyards?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am aware of the discharges in question, which are unavoidable and due to work nearing completion. The reduction is being made at the longest intervals possible to minimise hardship to the men. The amount of work of this kind to be done in any particular locality and the proportion of it to be given out to contract is dependent on the requirements of the Service.

  New Royal Dock Works.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the number of workers, exclusive of boys, employed upon the new dock works on 29th June, 1911, and the number receiving 5d. per hour or loss upon that date?
  Mr. McKENNA: The number of workmen employed on the 29th June, exclusive of boys, was 1,800; the number receiving 5d. per hour was 975. No man received less than 5d.

  Land Purchase (Ireland),
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the agent of the estate of the late Major Mahony, at Dooks, county Kerry, has now furnished the necessary maps and documents in connection with the negotiations for the sale of the property; and when the final decision will be come to and communicated to the tenants?
  Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): The Congested Districts Board have not yet been furnished with the maps and other documents in connection with the proposed sale of this estate.
  Mr. BOLANDasked what further steps, if any, have been taken to secure the consent of Mr. Myles O'Mahony for the sale of his estate in the parish of Tuogh, county Kerry; and whether, in the event of the landlord declining to enter into any negotiations, steps will be taken to put into operation the compulsory powers of the Congested Districts Board?
  Mr. GULLAND: The Congested Districts Board have recently received a memorial from the tenants on this estate asking them to use their compulsory powers for the purpose of acquiring the estate. The memorial will be submitted to the Board at their meeting on the 18th instant.
  Mr. DELANYasked whether the Estates Commissioners received copies of resolutions passed at a meeting of the tenants on the estate of Sir Algernon Coote, at Kyle, Queen's County, held on the 6th October, 1907, calling attention to the existence of uneconomic holdings on the estate, and directing their attention to certain estates which might be purchased for improvement of such holdings; whether the secretary to the tenant's organisation has, at the request of the Commissioners, furnished particulars of the names and addresses of the following landowners having estates in the district, namely, Miss White, Alexandria College, Dublin, the Reverend William Stone, Algoa, Foxrock, county Dublin, and Robert White, Woodview, Stillorgan, county Dublin; and whether those owners have been approached with a view to purchase; and, if so, how much land has been purchased and how many holdings on this estate have been enlarged?
  Mr. GULLAND: The reply to the first and second paragraphs of the question is in the affirmative. The Estates Commissioners have purchased 411 acres of un-tenanted land on the estate of Miss Henrietta White and others, and 490 acres of untenanted land on the estate of Robert Vicars White, Queen's county, and have allotted same. The Commissioners were in communication with Dean Stone's solicitor, but he has not instituted proceedings for the sale of his lands to the Commissioners under the Land Purchase Acts. Twenty tenants on the Coote estate have received allotments on the estate of Miss White.
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked whether the Congested Districts Board have yet made an offer for the purchase of the Clanricarde estate; and, if not, when may they be expected to do so?
  Mr. GULLAND: The Congested Districts Board have not yet made an offer for the purchase of this estate and they cannot at present say when they expect to do so. A complete survey and valuation of the estate has to be made and the work will occupy a considerable time.
  Mr. DUFFYasked whether any steps have been taken by the Congested Districts Board to acquire the estate of John C. Bagot, known as the Bagot estate, Ballyturin, Gort, and with what result?
  Mr. GULLAND: The Congested Districts Board communicated with Mr. John C. Bagot regarding the 3ale of his estate, but so far no definite reply has been received.
  Mr. DUFFYasked whether the tenants on the Bagot estate, Ballyturin, Gort, have repeatedly approached the landlord with a view to purchase; whether the estate is one consisting mainly of congested holdings, forty-three out of fifty-four holdings being uneconomic; whether the tenants requisitioned the Congested Districts Board to open negotiations with the landlord; and, seeing that he seems to be indisposed to sell, will the Congested Districts Board take steps to apply the compulsory power vested in them in respect to this estate?
  Mr. GULLAND: The Congested Districts Board have no information as to the circumstances of the Bagot estate referred to other than what has been furnished to them in a memorial received from the tenants. On receipt of the memorial the Board communicated with the owner regarding the sale of his estate through them, but so far no definite reply has been received. The question of applying the compulsory Clauses of the Land Act in this case has not been considered by the Board.
  Mr. DUFFYasked whether the tenants on the Bagot estate, Ballyturin, Gort, in the townlands of Derreen, Ballyturin, Knockourane, Lisbrine, Bunnaglass, and Doonally prepared affidavits, maps, etc., in connection with the purchase of their holdings so long ago as January, 1910, and had them served on the Congested Districts Board through their solicitors; and whether any steps have been taken to give effect to the petition of the tenants, and with what result result?
  Mr. GULLAND: The Congested Districts Board inform me that the tenants of the townlands of Derreen on the Bagot Estate, county Galway, furnished a map and verified schedule of areas and schedule of tenancies in February, 1910, but no maps have been lodged in respect of the other townlands referred to. The Board communicated with the owner regarding a sale of his property in May,
  202
  1910, and also in April last, but no definite reply has so far been received from him.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked whether the Estates Commissioners received applications for reinstatement from Patrick Davis, who, on 6th November, 1907, was evicted from his holding in Doughrock, parish of Drumkecran, county Fermanagh, on the estate of Major Irvine; and what decision the Commisioners have arrived at in the case?
  Mr. GULLAND: The Estates Commissioners received an application from Patrick Davis for reinstatement in a holding formerly occupied by him on the estate of Major Irvine. Davis does not come within the class of persons mentioned in Section 1 (2) (a) of the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907, and his ease cannot therefore be dealt with under that Act.

  British School at Constantinople.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the opinion of His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople as to an increased grant to the British school at that place has yet been received; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The matter is still under consideration with the Treasury.

  Barry Mercantile Marine Superintendent.
  Mr. BRACEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a complaint regarding the action of the superintendent of the mercantile marine at Barry in handing clearance forms to captains of vessels before the crews have signed on; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. TENNANT: I received a complaint of the nature described by my hon. Friend, but found, on inquiry of the superintendent of mercantile marine at Barry, that there was no foundation for the statement.

POINTS OF ORDER.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I wish to ask whether an hon. Member who desires to raise a point of Order is entitled to put

203
his point at the time it arises, or whether he can be refused leave to put it until a later period?
Mr. SPEAKER: It depends on how and when the question arises. If it should arise in the middle of Question time, it is obviously inconvenient to discuss a point of Order, and thus throw a number of Members over the hour at which questions have to be concluded. As a rule, it is more convenient to take points of Order when they arise, but during Question time it has been the habit to take them at the close of questions if there are many questions on the Paper.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Even if it is a point of Order, referring to the immediate question?
Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Then do you rule it cannot be done during questions.
Mr. SPEAKER: No, I do not say it cannot be done; it depends on how many questions there are, and what is the nature of the point of Order.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The point I wish to ask is whether there is any Standing Order whereby an hon. Member can be prevented asking a supplementary question, providing it is relevant and otherwise in order. I wanted to put a question concerning the alleged torturing to death of British subjects, and I wish to ask whether that was not of sufficient importance to justify more than one supplementary question?
Mr. SPEAKER: These really are questions which no man can answer generally. The reply in each case must depend on the particular circumstances. The gravity of a question is not necessarily a criterion of the number of supplementary questions that should be asked in regard to it. The obscureness of an answer is a possible reason for asking a supplementary question. I would remind the hon. Member that a few years ago very few supplementary questions were permitted at all, and unless Members are a little more cautious in exercising their privilege of asking supplementary questions, it may be necessary to revert to the old system and not permit any supplementary questions without notice.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: In view of that answer, may I ask you to reinstate
204
the question on which I had intended to raise this point of Order, so that I may put the supplementary question I wished to ask?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member did ask a supplementary question, and was invited to put it down, as the question which ho asked did not refer to the particular sub-inspector to whom the question on the Paper referred.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I did not intend to ask the same question again. I wish to ask another one.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member asked a question with regard to some other policeman who had been charged, and the Under-Secretary for India replied that if the hon. Member would put the question down, he would give him a reply.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I wish to ask another question. Will you allow me to do it now?
Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The question is, whether, according to the judgment of the court, it was found that the victim had not been tortured at all?
Mr. MONTAGU: The question arose from the fact that the hon. Member put to me a question some time ago about this particular case, and I gave the House the sentences which were imposed on this sub-inspector and others with regard to a particular torture charge in India. The sub-inspector appealed from the decision of the lower court, and was acquitted on appeal; and, as the House had been informed of the sentence he received in the lower court, I thought it was fair to the House to invite the hon. Member to put another question in order that it might be made known that this sub-inspector was acquitted of the charge of torture. That was why the hon. Member did me the kindness and the sub-inspector the duty of clearing his name by announcing his acquittal by the Court of Appeal. I have no other information to give the hon. Member except that which I have already given.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the hon. Gentleman be so kind as to place copies of both judgments in the Library of the House?
Mr. MONTAGU: As soon as I receive the judgments, and, according to practice, they will be laid.

BILL PRESENTED.
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Criminal Law Amendment Acts, 1880 and 1885," presented by o Mr. CROOKS; supported by Mr. John Wilson, Mr. Alden, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Edgar Jones, Mr. Murray Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Stephen Walsh, Mr. John Edwards, Mr. Arthur Henderson, and Mr. Morrell; to be read a second time upon Monday, 24th July, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LYTTELTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what will be the business for Thursday and Friday next?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): On Thursday the Board of Education Vote will be taken in Committee of Supply, and on Friday we propose to proceed with the Telephone Transfer Bill; afterwards, if time permit, with some smaller orders.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on the National Insurance Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 136.

Division No. 265.]

AYES.

[3.38 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Adamson, William

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Agnew, Sir George William

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Alden, Percy

Esslemont, George Birnie

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Falconer, James

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)

Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Leach, Charles

Armitage, Robert

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Lewis, John Herbert

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Ffrench, Peter

Lundon, Thomas

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Lyell, Charles Henry

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Furness, Stephen

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Barnes, George N.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

McGhee, Richard

Barton, William

Gill, Alfred Henry

Maclean, Donald

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Glanville, Harold James

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Bentham, George Jackson

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Macpherson, James Ian

Boland, John Pius

Goldstone, Frank

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Booth, Frederick Handel

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

M'Callum, John M.

Bowerman, Charles W.

Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Brace, William

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc, Spalding)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Manfield, Harry

Brocklehurst, William B.

Hackett, John

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Brunner, John F. L.

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Marks, Sir. George Croydon

Bryce, J. Annan

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hancock, John George

Martin, Joseph

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Meagher, Michael

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Harwood, George

Millar, James Duncan

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Haywood)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Chancellor, Henry George

Hayden, John Patrick

Morgan, George Hay

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Helme, Norval Watson

Morrell, Philip

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Clancy, John Joseph

Henry, Sir Charles

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Clynes, John R.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., South)

Neilson, Francis

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Higham, John Sharp

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hinds, John

Nolan, Joseph

Cotton, William Francis

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Norman, Sir Henry

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Holt, Richard Durning

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Crooks, William

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Crumley, Patrick

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Hudson, Walter

O'Doherty, Philip

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Ogden, Fred

Dawes, J. A.

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

De Forest, Baron

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Delany, William

Johnson, William

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Devlin, Joseph

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Doris, William

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Duffy, William J.

Joyce, Michael

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Kelly, Edward

Pointer, Joseph

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Kemp, Sir George

Pollard, Sir George H.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Walton, Sir Joseph

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Scanlan, Thomas

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Pringle, William M. R.

Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

Wardle, G. J.

Radford, G. H.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Waring, Walter

Rainy, A. Rolland

Shortt, Edward

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Reddy, Michael

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Webb, H.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Richards, Thomas

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Whitehouse, John Howard

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Wiles, Thomas

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Sutherland, John E.

Wilkie, Alexander

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Tennant, Harold John

Wilson, J. W. (Worcs., N.)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Winfrey, Richard

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Toulmin, Sir George

Rowlands, James

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

Rowntree, Arnold

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wadsworth, John

NOES.

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Forster, Henry William

Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

Anstruther-Gray. Major William

Foster, Philip Staveley

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Gardner, Ernest

Mount, William Archer

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Newdegate, F. A.

Astor, Waldorf

Goldsmith, Frank

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Baird, John Lawrence

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Grant, J. A.

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Balcarres, Lord

Greene, Walter Raymond

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Gretton, John

Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

Barnston, Harry

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Peto, Basil Edward

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bathurst, Hon Allen B. (Glouc., E.)

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Harris, Henry Percy

Rothschild, Lionel D.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Starkey, John Ralph

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Home, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Stewart, Gershom

Boyton, James

Hunt, Rowland

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Ingleby, Holcombe

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Bull, Sir William James

Jowett, Frederick William

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Joynson-Hicks, William

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Cassel, Felix

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Valentia, Viscount

Cave, George

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Larmor, Sir J.

White, Maj. G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Clay, Captain H. H Spender

Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Clyde, James Avon

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Wolmer, Viscount

Craik, Sir Henry

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Croft, Henry Page

Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

Worthington-Evans, L.

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Mackinder, Halford J.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Doughty, Sir George

MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Yerburgh, Robert

Faber, George D. (Clapham)

Malcolm, Ian

Younger, Sir George

Falle, Bertram Godfrey

Mallaby-Deely, Harry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Marquess of Tullibardine and Mr. Stanier.

Fell, Arthur

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Rates and rules for contributions by employed contributors and their employers.)
  (1) The contributions payable in respect of employed contributors shall be at the
  208
  rate specified in Part I. of the Second Schedule to this Act (hereinafter referred to as the employed rate), and shall comprise contributions by the contributors and contributions by their employers at the rates specified in that part of that Schedule, and shall be payable at weekly or other prescribed intervals.
  (2) The employer shall, in the first instance, pay both the contributions pay-

  209
  able by himself (in this Act referred to as the employer's contributions), and also on behalf of the employed contributor the contributions payable by such contributor, and shall be entitled to recover from the contributor by deduction from his wages or otherwise the amount of the contributions so paid by him on behalf of the contributor in accordance with the rules set out in the Third Schedule to this Act.
  (3) An employed contributor who is temporarily unemployed shall not, whilst so unemployed, be under any obligation to pay any contributions which if he were employed would be payable in respect of him, but nothing in this Section shall prevent such a contributor paying such contributions for the purpose of avoiding falling into arrear.
  (4) Contributions in respect of employed contributors shall cease to be payable on their attaining the age of seventy.
  (5) The employer of a person who though employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act is not insured under this Part of this Act by reason either—

  (a) that, not having previously been insured, he has become employed within the meaning of this Act after attaining the age of sixty-five; or

  (b) that he has obtained a certificate of exemption under this Act;

  shall be liable to pay the like contributions as would have been payable as employer's contributions if such person had been an employed contributor, and such contributions shall be carried to such account and dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: I beg to move in Sub-section (2), after the word "and" ["contributions payable by such contributor, and"] to insert the words "except where a minimum wage is paid in accordance with an award of a Trade Board made under the provisions of the Trade Boards Act, 1909."
  I desire to move the first of two Amendments appearing in my name, and I regret that by accident they have been printed twice over. I wish to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider favourably the Amendment, which is moved in the interest of a class of the very poorest of our workpeople. This is an Amendment which can gain very few votes because a very large number—indeed, the great majority of those affected by it, are women, who are known as workers in sweated industries. It is an Amendment
  210
  which involves necessarily no increase in, the charges upon the Exchequer. Therefore I think we have a special reason for asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-consider it favourably. There are only two reasons why the Amendment might be opposed. One is it may be said that it is putting an unfair charge upon the employer. The second reason may be that if the employer is not empowered to levy a contribution upon the employé in the case of one receiving the minimum wage the system ceases to be contributory. I wish to point out that immediately the employer pays a little more than the minimum wage, even though it is only 1d. more, it would be possible for the contribution to be exacted from the worker. It surely ought not to be impossible for the employer to pay at least 1d. more than the minimum wage.
  I do not think it can be possible to maintain that such a charge upon an industry would be one which would make that industry break down, and even if that were the case I am sure there are many in this House who would feel that it was better the industry should disappear altogether than that it should be conducted upon such a bad basis, which necessarily involved so much hardship on the very poorest class. Parliament has a direct responsibility with respect to these workers in the sweated industries. Two years ago an Act was passed, the Trade Boards Act, making it possible for them to get what was a bare minimum wage, but where such a wage is fixed by the Board it is just possible for the workers to live. In the Trade Boards Act it is clearly stated that the wage is to be entirely free from any deduction. Surely Parliament will not be the first to make a deduction from that minimum wage. The wage is fixed at the very minimum upon which it is possible to live. It may be urged by the Chancellor that we are making an exception to his scheme, and that it will cease to be contributory. But surely we are laying the basis for a contributory scheme if we allow this exception. The very moment the sweated' worker receives a penny a week more than the minimum wage it will be possible, under the Clause as amended, for that person to pay the contribution in the ordinary course. Therefore I feel that there ought to be no hesitation on the part of the Committee in agreeing to the Amendment. It may be said that 1d. or 2d. a week is so small a contribution that even the poorest can pay it. Those who say that can have

  211
  no knowledge of the actual daily life of these very poor workers. I personally have seen a poor widow working at the box-making industry, and any one who knows the struggle that it is to such a worker to get even a 1d. or 2d. additional will feel that if this Bill imposes a weekly fine of 2d. upon these workers it will do a great injustice. It would be better to reduce the benefit rather than impose such a contribution, if no other way can be found. But the way is perfectly clear. It is quite possible and practicable to impose this charge upon the employers until such time as the wage rises above the minimum. I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be willing to accept the Amendment.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I need hardly say that the case put by the hon. Member is one which commands the sympathy of every Member of the Committee. But we have to observe the necessities of the case. We have provided for this kind of worker by the graduated scale in the Bill. It is the first time anything of the kind has been introduced into any contributory scheme in any country. The hon. Member speaks about the deduction as a fine upon workers who are making a bare subsistence. But really it is for something for which they are paying now. In some cases they do not pay, because they resort to the parish; but long before they do that they make very great sacrifices for medical and other purposes. Think what they will get in return for their 1d. per week in the worst cases and 2d. per week in the better cases. They will get 10s. a week for thirteen weeks' sickness, 5s. a week disablement benefit, 30s. maternity allowance, medical attendance, and, what is invaluable to these poor people, sanatorium "benefits. A good deal of that is something for which they are paying now. My hon. Friend speaks as if it were a deduction made for the first time from their wages. On the contrary, it is a very considerable relief in respect of a payment which they are making now. That is what I want the Committee to realise. My hon. Friend suggests that we should put the charge on the employers. I have little sympathy with employers who pay 9s. or 10s. a week to the workers. But there are many of these
  industries working on a very narrow margin, and, although it is not for me to say that an extra 1d. or 2d. would wipe out that margin, we have already trenched upon it to the extent of 2d. My hon. Friend says, why not put on another 1d. or 2d.? There is no end to that argument. On the whole, I think, we have met the case very fairly. We have said that an additional burden shall be put on the employers in these cases. They have to bear not merely the 3d. which is imposed in the ordinary cases, but also half the burden of the worker. I hope the time will come when none of these sweated industries will exist upon these terms in this country at all. It is a deplorable thing that people who work hard for many hours a day should get only 9s., 10s., or 12s. a week. But I have another argument. If you take off the whole burden from the shoulders of these people, it ceases to be a contributory scheme. There is something in that. The contribution does distinguish the benefits from something which the people get from the charity either of the nation or of the parish, and makes it something in which they feel a distinct interest. They say, "It is true that I give only 1d. or 2d. per week; but it is something towards which I contribute myself," and they take a special interest in it. I know that the sacrifice involved in the 1d. or 2d. is much greater to these people than the sacrifice of 4d. to others, but it saves their self-respect. They feel that it is not something given to them as a matter of charity, but something arising from their own investment. That in itself is of great value. It is of even greater value in regard to these poorer people than when you get higher in the scale. It hurts their pride even more than that of the richer members of the same class when they are forced to depend upon charity, and they are prepared to make even greater sacrifices before disclosing their poverty. I think in a case of this kind it is really to their interest that the contribution should be made. I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will agree that the Government have gone as far as they can reasonably be expected to go by the graduated scale which is already in the Bill.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 28; Noes, 259.

  Division No. 266.]

  AYES.

  [4.3 p.m.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jowett, P. W.

  Clynes, John R.

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Doughty, Sir George

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Wardle, George J.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Webb, H.

  Martin, J.

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Morrell, Philip

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Harvey and Mr. Sherwell.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Lundon, T.

  Alden, Percy

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Anderson, A. M.

  Falconer, J.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Armitage, Robert

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Ffrench, Peter

  McGhee, Richard

  Astor, Waldorf

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Maclean, Donald

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Forster, Henry William

  MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Furness, Stephen

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Callum, John M.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Barton, William

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Glanville, H. J

  Manfield, Harry

  Beale, W. P.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Meagher, Michael

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gretton, John

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Bentham, G. J.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Boland, John Pius

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hackett, John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Haddock, George B.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Mooney, John J.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Morgan, George Hay

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Morrison, Captain J. A.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hancock, John George

  Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Neilson, Francis

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Harwood, George

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cave, George

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nuttall, Harry

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Herbert, Col Sir Ivor

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Ogden, Fred

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hinds, John

  O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Crooks, William

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crumley, Patrick

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Johnson, W.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburh, Central)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Joyce, Michael

  Radford, George Heynes

  De Forest, Baron

  Kebty-Fletcher J. R.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Delany, William

  Kelly, Edward

  Reddy, M.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Kemp, Sir G.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Devlin, Joseph

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Richards, Thomas

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Doris, W.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Law, Rt. Hon A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Leach, Charles

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  214

  215

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wiles, Thomas

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Shortt, Edward

  Wadsworth, J.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Walters, John Tudor

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Stewart, Gershom

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Waring, Walter

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Sutherland, J. E.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Tennant, Harold John

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

  Mr. GOLDMANhad given notice of an Amendment to insert the following words at the end of Sub-section (2): "But in any week where an employed contributor is employed for not more than three days by the employer the amount of the contributions payable by that employer in respect of such contributor shall be one-half the rates specified in the Second Schedule to this Act."
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Goldman) was settled yesterday by the decision on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division (Mr. Rowland Hunt).
  Mr. GOLDMAN: My Amendment does not make any actuarial alteration in any shape or form, and is in every respect distinct from the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division. May I ask whether, under these circumstances, you will allow me to move the Amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division was to leave out the words "or other prescribed intervals," and to insert in Sub-section (1) the words "intervals except in the case of persons employed for less than five days consecutively, when the contribution of both employer and employed shall be paid daily." The Committee decided that in the negative. The hon. Member's Amendment raises practically the same question, and I do not think it can be moved, seeing that (he point has already been specifically dealt with.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (3). I desire to formally move the omission of this Subsection in order that I may ask an explanation. At present there are certain drafting difficulties of substance in regard to which we ought to have an explanation. I have no doubt the Chancellor
  216
  of the Exchequer will be able to clear up the meaning. In the first place, what is meant by "unemployed"? We asked the question yesterday, and, as the right hon. Gentleman was away, we were not able to get an answer. As to unemployment under Part II. of the Bill, there is a definition in the Interpretation. Clause and in the Schedules. I think we ought to know what is meant by unemployment for a very short time as in the case of occasional working. Would a man who is working just one day or two days a week be regarded as employed or not? I need not enlarge upon that, but I think the word does want definition. What about the temporary character of employment under certain circumstances? There are cases of men who are thrown out of work by an accident at works, by renewal of works, or, in the case of some descriptions of labourers, by a long frost. Their places are ready as soon as work can be resumed. Then the Sub-section runs, that a person "who is temporarily unemployed shall not, while so unemployed, be under any obligation to pay any contributions." If he goes, on being unemployed, a time must come when he is no longer "temporarily unemployed," whatever the limit may be. At some time or other he must be permanently unemployed. The Sub-section, would suggest a curious effect, namely, that a man temporarily unemployed should not be under any obligation to pay any contributions, but that if he is permanently unemployed he shall be under obligation to pay. Of course, that is not the intention, but this shows that the drafting is very difficult to follow here. The Subsection further says, "but nothing in this Section shall prevent such a contributor paying such contributions for the purpose of avoiding falling into arrear." These words suggest that there is some legal obligation enforceable by ordinary process of law. If a man falls into arrear, of course, he loses his rights under the Bill. I would point out that the words that he "shall not, whilst so unemployed, be under

  217
  any obligation to pay" are rather difficult to follow, and may easily create a false impression. By the last words of the Subsection it is suggested that he should, in order to avoid getting into default, pay the employer's 4d. and his own 3d. when out of work.
  The result is that he is asked to pay 7d. instead of 4d. just at the very time when he is least able to pay at all. Otherwise he gets into arrears. I know that there is a provision later on enabling him to get out of arrears, but he would be branded in the first instance as in arrears if he did not pay through that time he was out of work. If he wants to get back he has to pay interest which would be very difficult to calculate. That is the way I read the Sub-section of Clause 10 lower down. I do suggest that in cases where a man is unemployed—and I am considering a man not under Part II. at all, but only under Part I.—no question of arrears should arise until he is employed again, and then he ought to have notice that so much is standing against him, and he should have a considerable time to pay off. I would further suggest that in a case like that that they should not be hampered by these calculations of interest at 3 per cent. I really do not think it is worth the calculation. If my interpretation is right, which I think it is, it is hard on a man to have to make these almost double payments while he is unemployed. I would suggest that the question of arrears should stand over until he was employed again, and that he should be allowed a fair time to pay without the calculation of interest. In order to get these questions cleared up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I move this Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman has given a series of utterances. I am very glad to be able to assure him that not one of them is relevant to this Sub-section. It is a purely declaratory one. The question of arrears comes later on, but as this is purely declaratory, and really makes no difference, I agree that it should be omitted.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: If this is left out, is there any provision whatever for a temporarily unemployed contributor paying his contribution and preventing him from getting into arrears?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes. This will have nothing to do with it. That is all dealt with in Clause 10.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Why did you put it in?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it was quite unnecessary.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I do not want to press the point in drafting. Can the right hon. Gentleman say where there is any definition of unemployment in Part I?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This has actually nothing whatever to do with the Subsection.
  Question, "That the words of the Subsection stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (4) to add the words, "unless the contributor is not eligible for an old age pension, in which case such person shall have the opportunity of continuing the contributions under the same conditions as prior to his attaining the age of seventy."
  This Amendment is much desired by members of friendly societies such as the National Provident Friendly Societies, the Foresters, and the United Patriots. It applies to just those people who are most in need not to be disturbed, and to those who are disqualified from old age pensions.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The effect of this proposal would be to impose upon the fund an annual charge of between half a million and a million at the expense of the poorest members for the benefit of those who had got over £31 a year. I think that that is very undesirable. If it is done at all, and I have no doubt that eventually it may be contemplated, it must be as part of an Amendment of the Old Age Pensions Act extending pensions to the whole of those who have not yet got them. But there are so many more urgent needs which call now for attention that I think it would be a great mistake to adopt this proposal. Those who did not claim old age pensions must have at least £31 a year, otherwise they would have claimed the pensions. This money does not come out of the pockets of the State. It comes entirely out of the fund, and we would have to reduce the benefits for people who are much poorer in order to maintain the resources of the fund if this proposal were adopted.
  Mr. FORSTER: I think the right hon. Gentleman has not exhausted the category of the persons who would be affected by the Bill. It is by no means the case that

  219
  everybody whose income does not exceed the limit of £31 is eligible for an old age pension. There are regulations requiring residence in the United Kingdom for a period of years immediately preceding the date on which the would be pensioner reaches the pensionable age. I think that there are other provisions which disqualify various people. That is one consideration which I think should be borne in mind. Another is you have denied to the people who have arrived at this mature age the benefits for which a large number of them have insured. The right hon. Gentleman says that if this Amendment is carried it will confer benefit on this particular class of persons at the expense of persons who are less well off than themselves. I do not follow that argument. Surely if the right hon. Gentleman, is fair all these people are brought into the scheme on equal terms. The. right hon. Gentleman seems to admit that they are not. I suppose he is bearing in mind the cases pointed out last night where contributions are taken from the very young in order to confer them on the very old.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What I want to point out is that if this is to be given to the person who has got £20 a year, it ought also to be given to the old age pensioners. It ought to be given all round. That of course would be a matter of enormous expense and we should have to re-cast all the benefits. What the hon. Member proposes is that a benefit, which is not given to the old age pensioner, because he is one, should be given to the person who has got £31 a year. That would be a discrimination in favour of the well-to-do.
  Mr. FORSTER: There are other members of the community who certainly have less than £31 a year and who are prevented from drawing old age pensions, and I think it is that class of persons that this Amendment really wishes to include.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We are amending that now. There is an Old Age Pensions Bill amending that.
  Mr. FORSTER: I think that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman does not really cover the ground. I would be glad if he could tell us whether it is possible to consider the cases of these old persons who from no fault of their own are at present disqualified from receiving old age pensions. We might fairly restrict the category so that anybody in receipt of an income of £31 or upwards should be
  220
  omitted. I think that there is a considerable number of persons who are unfairly treated under the Bill as it stands, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman may be able to do something for them.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No one is insured for benefit after seventy, and the persons who receive old age pensions are not insured because the Government provide for them. If this Amendment were carried it would confer a benefit upon the better off which it does not give to those who are not well off. The proposition of the hon. Gentleman would completely upset the whole of the rates, and therefore I do trust he will see that it is quite impossible to adopt it as against poorer persons.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite realise the full force of what the right hon. Gentleman has said that people with £31 a year are not entitled to pension. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us who are the persons under the Old Age Pensions Act who are not well off to the extent which he has stated. He states that the Bill does not insure above seventy, the reason being that above seventy old age pensions are given, but if there are any who are not well off, and who are not eligible for the old age pension they ought to be considered.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot think of any class. Of course, it is very difficult to draw an Act of Parliament from which somebody will not be left out, but they are very small factors. I think there is some hardship with regard to British-born people who have married aliens, and cases of that kind. But those are cases which we are proposing to rectify in a Bill which is now before the House. It is really a matter for Amendment of the Old Age Pensions Act, and is quite apart from this Bill.
  Mr. CAVE: In connection with this Bill there are persons who are not having old age pensions, and yet are persons who ought to have medical or other treatment.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They get medical benefit under the Bill now.
  Mr. CAVE: The Old Age Pensions Act deals with people who have been British subjects for twenty years.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That also we are dealing with under the Bill before the House to amend the Old Age Pensions. Act.
  Mr. CAVE: There is the case of the undeserving person, not merely the criminal, but the man who does not work. He is not eligible for pension. And there is the case of lunatics who do not get old age pensions, yet they, as in other cases, might be very badly in need of aid. I do not want, of course, to press the Amendment in its present form, because I quite agree that if a man has over £31 a year he is not a fit person for benefit under this Bill. But there are classes of persons who, I think, ought to be considered specially, and I hope the matter will receive the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. It would be rather hard that a man who has insured right up to the age of seventy in a friendly society should, the moment he is seventy, drop out of benefit altogether, with the possibility that he may not get a pension at all. I think the matter does deserve a little more consideration.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: There is the case of old people who have suffered short terms of imprisonment for very venial offences, and who are excluded from old age pensions at present. When the Old Age Pensions Bill went to another place the kind and wise people there put in an Amendment to the effect that imprisonment up to one month would not disqualify. When the Bill came back here that Amendment was resisted by the Government not on the ground that they did not approve of it, but because it involved some of those privileges of which so much has been made. People who go to gaol for short terms for small offences certainly ought not to be excluded.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Of course, if there are any cases which are not covered which ought to be covered, I will consider the point, but this Amendment I could not possibly accept.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider the case of those members of existing friendly societies to whom I referred? It is quite true they may be provided for under Clause 55 (c), but on the other hand they may not. If those cases are taken into account I am prepared to withdraw this Amendment on the understanding that the figures the right hon. Gentleman gave us are correct, and that it would cause an additional charge of a million, which would have to be paid out of other people's benefits. It seems a little odd to me that so large a cost should be created
  222
  by this Amendment, confined as it is to people who are employed at the age of seventy.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, in Subsection (5), paragraph (b), after the word "obtained" I that he has obtained a certificate"], to insert the words, "and still holds."
  I merely wish to move the Amendment formally. It provides that the person shall still hold the certificate of exemption.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The additional words seem to be unnecessary.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: But there may be cases in which a person so exempted would not lose the qualification for exemption. A man may be exempted if he is dependent on another. After a time the support which made him dependent at the time he got the certificate of exemption might fail, and he might go to an employer who did not require exemption.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: There may be cases in which the words are necessary, and I accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (5), to leave out the words, "such account and dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed," and to insert instead thereof the words, "the credit of the account of such person to be opened at the post office-nearest to the place of abode. The sums so credited shall be applied so far as they will extend or so far as may be required in providing medical benefit for such person, and any balance shall be paid to such person on attaining the age of seventy, and in the event of the death of such person under the age of seventy shall be paid. to his widow, or, her failing, to his next of kin."
  This refers to those persons for whom, the employer continues to pay, although they are not insured persons, and although. no contribution is deducted from the workman's wage. The employer has to continue to pay in respect of the person employed over sixty-five, also of the person with an income of £20 or over who obtains, a certificate of exemption under Clause 2, and, further, in respect of persons who are dependent upon another, under Clause 2.

  223
  As the Bill is drawn the employer's contribution of 3d. or more a week goes apparently to a general fund.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the discussion of this Amendment will not embarrass the discussion of Clause 32 dealing with deposit contributors, where, it appears to me, this suggestion ought rightly to be made.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Clause under discussion refers to contributions only.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This has nothing to do with the Post Office contributors, and the persons who are exempted under the Clause for whom the employers are to contribute can in no conceivable way be attached to the Clause dealing with deposit contributors.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the Amendment would interfere with the proper discussion of Clause 32.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If it did interfere with Clause 32 dealing with deposit contributors I certainly should not willingly move it. Under the Bill as drawn the employer's contribution is to go to the general fund, to be dealt with in such a manner as may be prescribed. There is no indication anywhere of what is going to happen to the money. These amounts are contributed by employers, and it seems to me that if it is right to exact a contribution from the employer, then the contribution ought to go to the benefit of the person employed; it ought not to go to the general and unknown benefit. I have suggested in the form of my Amendment that it should be be paid into a post office near the place of abode of the employed person and should be applied so far as might be necessary, in providing medical benefit, and any balance should be paid to the person on attaining the age of seventy, or, if he die, should go to his next of kin. I am not particularly wedded to the form of the application of the money provided it is applied in some form for the benefit of the employed person. I have suggested giving him medical benefit so far as the contribution will extend as probably the best way, but I should not mind if the Chancellor of the Exchequer made some other suggestion to apply the money in some other way, if the persons employed are benefited. It is important for those over sixty-five, because under
  224
  the Bill they get out of membership of the society, or rather cannot become members of approved societies. These persons will be worse off under the Bill, and there is a contribution which could be applied to their benefit and ought to be so applied.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE (who was very indistinctly heard): In tills case you are only dealing with a certain class of persons; aged persons over 65, and I. have already indicated the intention of the Government in that respect. There are two or three other classes who are not quite in the same category. First of all there is the alien on board ship. We have prescribed in the Bill that the shipowner shall be charged in respect of the service of the alien and that there should be no advantage given to the shipowner when the employer is not a British subject. A good number of those serve on British ships and never come here again. By the Amendment we should be under an obligation to trace them and pay the money, and they could come over and claim the money. Another case is that of a person who is exempted on the ground that he is in receipt of an income of £26 per year. In the first case it would be very much to the advantage of the British mercantile marine if the money were paid to the sailors' fund as a whole. The hon. Gentle man makes that impossible by this Amendment. In case of a person who claims exemption in respect of an assured income of over £26, I submit that there again the contribution should be paid to the general fund, because this is a provision to insure persons who are in need. I suggest that the Government should have a certain discretion in these matters, and that to the old persons and one or two categories of that kind the money should go direct to the benefit of those persons. I am not sure that these words would do: "For the benefit of persons in respect of whom such contributions have been made.'' That would allow us in the case of aged sailors to pay the money to the general credit say of the sailors' fund.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Is there to be a sailors' fund?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General is very doubtful whether the words would be acceptable. At any rate, as long as we have a clear understanding as to what is meant perhaps I would not insert any words, and words could be inserted on the Report Stage, so long as there is general

  225
  agreement as to what the Committee really desires; I do not think the hon. Gentleman who moved differs substantially from me about the other categories. I think he would agree with me that it is desirable in those cases to pay the money to the general fund, and that it should not be handed over to the individual in respect of whom the money is earned, and that is why it is far better there should be a certain amount of discretion. For my part I think it is far better to adhere to the words proposed. You might safeguard that by saying that the rules should be submitted to Parliament.
  Mr. G. J. SANDYS: Are we to understand that there is to be a sailors' fund particularly devoted to sailors?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No. I believe there are sailors' societies and I suggest there should be power to give the benefit to a fund of that character.
  Mr. BOOTH: Would that include the Sailors' and Firemen's Union?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If it is an approved society.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: It would not be unless it paid benefits.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If it confers benefits, of course.
  Mr. FORSTER: I think the course suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer meets the particular point that my hon. Friend had in view in moving the Amendment. He was anxious to secure that the money paid in respect of those old people should really be devoted to them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer states that he is going to see that that is done, and therefore it is satisfactory. The Chancellor pointed out that there were certain classes of individuals who might be held to come within the scope of this Amendment. My hon. Friend is not so much concerned with those. His main object is to protect the interests of the old people.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: With that I agree.
  Mr. FORSTER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am sure, will admit that it is reasonable we should have those Amendments on the Paper as soon as we can. We ask that they should be put on the Paper at the earliest possible moment, so that we may really see what he has in mind and what his method really is.
  Mr. CAVE: We should understand what the proposal is. This Amendment is to a Sub-section dealing with two classes of people. The first is that of persons who are employed after sixty-five years. As to those, I understand we are sooner or later to have proposals from the Government ear-marking contributions in respect of those persons from their benefit. That is what my hon. Friend suggests. The Chancellor said something about aliens, but surely aliens are not under this Subsection at all. They are wholly outside this question, and I do not see how the case of aliens bears on this Amendment in any way. There is a second class of persons exempt by receiving certificates under Clause 2. Take those persons who have become exempt because they are dependent on other people, and suppose such persons, having been exempt, cease to be dependent on anybody else and earn their own living, are not they to have the benefit of contributions paid in respect of their work.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. CAVE: The right hon. Gentleman did not mention them. I do not understand the final suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman about ear-marking the money for the benefit of a class. I think it would be very difficult to do that. I suggest that the better course is to ear-mark these contributions for the benefit of individuals in respect of whom they are made. I do not think this is a fund in which to make profit out of the labour of individuals.
  Mr. HOLT: I should like to say a word in regard to the question of alien sailors. I agree in exacting the same contribution in respect of aliens as in respect of British sailors, but I do hope my right hon. Friend will not consider that he has in any way pledged himself as to the disposal of that money. I cannot for the life of me see why the British sailor has any greater claim to share in that money than any other employed Britisher. I really would ask the Chancellor very seriously, because the whole subject is a very difficult one, to clearly understand that no pledge has been given in regard to the disposal of the money raised for alien or non-British sailors under this Bill, and that we are free to deal with it as we think right in the future.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We would not be free to deal with it if this Amendment

  227
  were adopted. There are a good many similar cases of the kind, and each class should be considered very carefully. There are some aliens who practically live in this country, and there are others who never appear in this country at all. You cannot in those cases undertake to dispose of this benefit to them.
  Mr. CASSEL: Is it not the fact that aliens do not come in under this Sub-section, and that they must be Post Office contributors? They cannot be members of an approved society, so that the case does not arise on the Amendment under consideration. They come in under Clause 35.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I propose to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. The Chancellor has, as I understand, intimated that as regards people over sixty-five.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: And the category of dependents.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: And the category of dependents, to bring the employer's contribution to their direct benefit. As regards aliens I did not think, personally, that they were in the Bill. I never assumed that the alien was within this Clause. I should never have suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should find out which was the nearest post office to an alien sailor. I should like to withdraw the Amendment if I may.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Rates and Rules for Contributions by Voluntary Contributors.)
  (1) The contributions payable by voluntary contributors shall be at the rate appropriate to their age at the date of their entry into insurance ascertained in accordance with a table to be prepared by the Insurance Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as the voluntary rate) and shall be paid by the voluntary contributors at weekly or other prescribed intervals:—
  Provided that—

  (a) In the case of a person who comes into insurance within six months after the commencement of this Act, the voluntary rate shall, if he is below the age of forty-five at the date of coming
  228
  into insurance, be the same as the employed rate, and if he is above that age, be such rate, ascertained according to a table to be prepared by the Insurance Commissioners, as, having regard to his age at that date, will be sufficient to cover seven-ninths, or in the case of a woman three-fourths, of the benefits conferred by this part of the Act:

  (b) Where a person, having been an employed contributor for five years or upwards, becomes a voluntary contributor the rate of contribution payable by him shall continue to be the employed rate.

  (2) Contributions by voluntary contributors shall cease to be payable on their attaining the age of seventy.
  Mr. WORTHI NGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "person" ["(a) In the case of a person"], to insert the words "whose total income does not exceed one-hundred pounds or."
  This is in connection with the rates and rules for contributions by voluntary contributors. Under the Bill it is provided that. in the case of a person coming in after the commencement of the Act the voluntary rate, if he is below forty-five, shall be the same as the employed rate. I am really moving the Amendment in order to obtain an explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what this Clause means. Apparently the cost to ensure seven-ninths of the benefits at sixteen is something like 5d. a week. The employed rate, however, is 7d. for a man. I want to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer by this Clause means that a volunteer coming in under the age of forty-five is to pay a rate considerably higher than that which might be prescribed if he were over forty-five. It apparently intends to give the voluntary man some benefit if he comes in under forty-five; in fact, to let him in on a reduced contribution. I want to know whether that is so in fact financially. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, of course, has not published the tables which are to be prepared by the Insurance Commission in accordance with Sub-section (1), and until they are published it is quite impossible to say whether any benefits have been given to the volunteer or whether he is being compelled to pay a higher rate than he would have been paying if he had come in without that exception, which appears to be intended to be in his favour.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This will add enormously to the burden. Up to forty-five a voluntary contributor is allowed to come in at the same rate as if he were sixteen years of age. If a voluntary contributor chooses to come in at any date, say twelve months afterwards, he has to come in at a rate appropriate to his age, otherwise it will completely dislocate the arrangements.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: What I want to protect, if I can, is that small class of men—porters or some casual trade—who are not in employment but are very small employers earning not more than those who are in employment. Those who are in employment get in at the voluntary rate. Those who are not in employment may be getting in at a very much higher rate. I wish to know if that is the case.
  The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member seeking to raise this question on the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bathurst)?
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN: It does not seem to me to be relevant, but I would suggest that there is nothing to prevent it being raised if he moves to omit the paragraph, and it would be much more in order to do that.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On a point of Order. What the hon. Gentleman wants to raise has already been disposed of in Clause 1—the question whether porters and persons of that class should come in.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I submit that that is not really so. They can come in under certain conditions as volunteers. What I want is to allow them in at favourable rates. I will fall in with the suggestion of the Chairman and move to omit paragraph (a). The Committee has to remember that coming in as a volunteer means that the volunteer has to pay the full 7d., and not only the portion which, if he were employed, would be deducted from his wages. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give some assurance as to the relative amount of rates of contribution between the volunteers and the employed rate. Is this a concession in favour of the volunteer or is it not?
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I desire to support the Amendment in order to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Ex-
  230
  chequer to the injustice to which the hon. Member has already called attention. There is a very large class of persons who belong to what may be called the working classes and yet have no employers. These include such persons as small holders, charwomen, jobbing gardeners, boatmen, fishermen, luggage carriers, costermongers and others, forming together a very large number of persons who are in fact members of the labouring class but who, if they came into the National Insurance scheme at all, would have to come in as voluntary contributors. It will be very unfair in the case of such persons if they have to pay the full amount which might be demanded of them as voluntary contributors. The House does not know at present what is the total amount which will be fixed as the voluntary contributors' contribution, and, not knowing that, what I ask, and what I believe the hon. Member asks is that such persons, who are in fact working men, shall not have to pay more than the sum total of the workmen's premium plus that which would be paid by their employer if they had one. It seems to me a most reasonable suggestion to make, especially in view of the fact that we are bringing by Statute a very large number of small holders into existence. Unfortunately they are at present not to any large extent farm labourers, but we all hope and believe that in the future that class will be largely recruited from those who are now working on the farm. If that is so, those persons are not going to make out of their very little industry more than from £60 to £100 a year. Therefore if you choose to put an income limit at all upon it—personally I should be satisfied with a limit of £100—I desire to see these small persons, who are not either employers of labour or those employed by a master, brought under the scheme on the most favourable terms that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can offer them.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member (Mr. Worthington-Evans) wanted to know whether this would be a boon to the voluntary contributor. It is an enormous boon. What this means is that the voluntary contributor might come in up to the age of forty-five as if he were sixteen. Ho pays more than twice as much at the ago of forty-five as at the age of sixteen. To allow a man of forty or forty-five to come in as if he were sixteen is a very considerable boon, but it also involves a very heavy burden on the Insurance Fund, and the more you get of that class the

  231
  longer you postpone the date when you get the additional benefits for the younger members. I hardly care to think what this Amendment would involve. It will involve allowing everyone over forty-five within the limits mentioned here to come in to get their benefits as if they were sixteen years of age. You would have to add I do not know how many millions to the fund, and it would postpone the benefits for the working industrial population of the country indefinitely. I should like to have had some estimate at any rate as to what the Amendment will involve. It only appeared on the Paper two days ago and I have had no time to get an estimate. I am told by the actuaries that they are appalled at the prospect which would be created by the Amendment. There are very few data on which you can go. That is the difficulty of fixing an income limit of £100. With a £160 limit know know exactly where you are. Here is another point. There is no check. It would involve an investigation into the income of every person. With a £160 limit there is always an official check but there is no official check with a £100 limit. I do not believe you could administratively work it. If you did you would very considerably add to the deficiency of the fund and you would postpone the increased benefits for the advantage of the great bulk of the industrial population of the country. I do put it that it is desirable, in view of the very great boon conferred upon the voluntary classes here under this Bill, that the hon. Gentleman responsible for this Amendment will not press it.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he does not admit that, at any rate, however it may be remedied, there is an injustice in this Clause of the Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot conceive that there will be an injustice. As a matter of fact, as the Clause stands, it is a very very considerable boon, as all may see. As a class those concerned are receiving a very gigantic boon. I do not think the hon. Member can consider really what an enormous boon it is that is conferred upon this class here. Those who are already in friendly societies will get a credit for their accounts which will enable them to reduce their contributions and to increase their benefits.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The object of the Amendment was to ascertain
  232
  from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give us any information on the tables which are going to be issued as to the voluntary compared with the employed contributor. He has given us that information, and I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "a table to be prepared by the Insurance Commissioners, as, having regard to his age at that date, will be sufficient to cover seven-ninths, or in the case of a woman three-fourths, of the benefits conferred by this Part of the Act," and to insert instead thereof the words, "the table in the. … Schedule to this Act."
  The Amendment I propose deals with that Section which provides that a person who is under the age of forty-five at the commencement of this Act shall come in under the employed rate. If over forty-five years of age he shall come in on the table hereinafter to be provided by the Insurance Commissioners. I see that this table is not included in the Bill at the present moment. I do not know whether it is being prepared or whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will prepare the. table after the Bill has been passed. But I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that there is a qualifying period of only six months in. which a man over forty-five shall be entitled to come in on special terms. I do say that this six months is a very critical period for the Insurance Commissioners.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman proposes that we should carry an Amendment here to insert a table in a schedule of the Bill. There is no table there. What are we discussing? We are discussing a table which is in a blank schedule! It does not appear even in the form of the Amendment of the Bill. I do not see how we can possibly proceed.
  The CHAIRMAN: I allowed the hon. Member to move so as to hear what he-has to say about his Amendment. His. Amendment says: "A table in a blank Schedule of this Act." The usual rule is that unless the table is prepared we cannot move an Amendment in this form, inasmuch as it is incomplete.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: It is quite impossible for me to prepare such a table. It rests with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should have thought that a table would

  233
  have been prepared showing us the circumstances under which voluntary contributors shall be entitled to become contributors under the scheme.
  The CHAIRMAN: If it is impossible for the hon. Member to give us that, I am afraid it is impossible for the hon. Member to deal with his Amendment.
  Mr. PICKERSGILL: The hon. Member's Motion is in the form of leaving out certain words. Is he in order in moving that Motion?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's Motion is to leave out certain words in order to insert other words which are not in order. The two must be taken together. The remaining Amendments to this Clause are either consequential Amendments to Amendments not carried, or are Amendments in the wrong place. Does the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Mr. Sandys) wish to move his Amendment? He is in order.
  Mr. SANDYS: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1), after the words "Provided that," to insert:—
  (a) In the case of a man of the Territorial Force there shall be deducted from the rate, so long as he continues to serve in the Territorial Force, a sum equal to 10 per cent. of the contribution which would otherwise be payable by him.
  I think that this Amendment can be supported both on the ground of justice and on the ground of expediency. I do not know which will appeal most strongly to the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill. I think it will be a tribute, some sort of acknowledgment of what the Members of the Territorial Force are doing for the benefit of the country. I think it would only be justice and a bare act of recognition that some special terms should be made so far as this Bill is concerned to the members of the Territorial Force. I am aware that so far as this Clause is concerned we are only dealing with voluntary contributors. I think it would be well at this early stage that some reduction of this character should be inserted in the Bill, even although it only-deals—
  The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member's Amendment apply to members of the Territorial Force who come under Clause 36? If so, it ought to come there.
  Mr. SANDYS: No, it does not.
  The CHAIRMAN: If it is dealing with members of the Territorial Force when they are civilians when they are not called out for training on service in the Territorial Force, then his Amendment is in order here.
  Mr. SANDYS: That is the point I was trying to make. So far as I am aware, so far as the period when the Territorials are in training is concerned, they are dealt with under Clause 36—about which I think there is a considerable amount of doubt, because we know they are to be exempted on the ground—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If this issue is to be decided, I think it ought to be decided once for all. May I call attention to the fact that this Clause deals with the rates and rules of contribution by voluntary contributors. The members of the Territorial Force will probably be insured persons. They would not be voluntary contributors. If they are brought in here the thing must be confined to persons who are in the Territorial Force. I submit this Amendment is out of order unless this Amendment is confined to those who are not to come within Clause 1 of the Bill. Therefore the Amendment in form is quite out of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] I still submit that this is not the proper place to confine the Amendment partly to those in the Territorial Force who are voluntary contributors. It would not apply to the majority of the Territorial Force at all. I submit, therefore, if it is to be in order at all and we are to discuss the matter with reference to Territorial Force it ought to come under Clause 36 where we are dealing with special provisions in regard to the naval and military servants of the Crown.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I understand you to rule, Mr. Emmott, that the Amendment standing in my name and that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Wellington Division, on Clause 4, would be better in order on the schedule. I think that is what you ruled. That raises this point generally for both Clauses.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a different point altogether. I said that we could not mix up rates in the Schedule and also the two leaves enclosed in the Clause, and we must have the rates all in one or all in the other. That was my point against the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

  235
  That point has nothing to do with the point of Order put to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As I read Clause 36— I shall be glad to have the assistance of the Attorney-General in relation to this matter—that Clause is confined to members of His Majesty's Forces, to members of the Army and Navy or Territorial Force when serving. If it only applies to members of the Territorial Force when they are serving, then I do not think that this Amendment can be moved on Clause 36. I do not want to extend the bounds of Clause 36 unnecessarily. I think that would be inconvenient. If I am correct in that then the Amendment is not out of order on that ground at this point. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has raised another question. He says that most members of the Territorial Force when in civilian employment are employed within the meaning of this Act, and therefore do not come under Clause 5. The question is whether the Amendment, as I told the hon. Member, is confined to the members of the Force who are voluntary contributors. I really think it is. At any rate, it is wished to confine it to the voluntary contributor. I think it is in order.
  Mr. SANDYS: As you say, Mr. Emmott, this is to take in strictly voluntary contributors, members of the Territorial Force not engaged at the time in military training. It would only be a fair acknowledgment to the members of the Territorial Force to make this concession in their favour. After all, it is not merely a question of the actual time that the man is out training. The Territorial Force has to take part in drills which go on through the year. The member is under the obligation at the same time of embodiment in the time of national danger. I certainly think some recognition of this sort is highly desirable and is simple justice to the members of the Force. From the point of view of expediency I also think that it is very necessary, and those who have examined the question of the Territorial Army of the present time I think will agree with me, that something should be done in order to encourage recruiting. I think a reduction in the rate of contribution so far as the voluntary contributor is concerned would have a considerable stimulus in inducing recruits to join the Territorial Force. I am not over-stating the case in saying that there are great difficulties in
  236
  recruiting at the present time. The Secretary of State for War said in this House on March 14th:—
  "The greatest difficulty has been recruiting. It has been a bad year for recruiting. I cannot say it is going on satisfactorily or as quickly as I should like."
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. May I ask whether Members of the Committee will be allowed to go into the question of recruiting for the Territorial Force?
  The CHAIRMAN: Certainly not.
  Mr. SANDYS: My object was to show that some stimulus was necessary to induce men to join the Territorial Force. I do not think that could be more satisfactorily achieved than by a reduction of the voluntary rate of contribution of insurance. It has been admitted that this question of recruiting is a very vital one for the future of the Force. The difficulties which have been felt during the past few years with regard to getting men to join I do not think are likely to be lessened during the next few years. In fact we know it is highly possible that a large number of those who have joined at the particular time when stimulus was given by various methods, are not likely to re-engage when their time is up. Under these circumstances I think that by reducing the amount of the contribution of voluntary insurers we should be showing to the young men of the country that we appreciate their services in the Territorial Force, and we should be encouraging them to join. I therefore beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think it unfortunate that this Amendment should be raised, because it is confined, as I understand it, and necessarily must be, to voluntary contributors. It does not apply at all to employed contributors who also are members of the Territorial Force. It is of very limited application at present. The whole object of the Amendment really is not relevant whatever to the consideration of the Insurance Fund. What the hon. Gentleman's argument is is to say that so far as for purposes of stimulating recruiting in the Territorial Force the Amendment will do good.
  It may be very desirable and very necessary to provide some stimulus to people to join the Territorial Force, but that really is not the question we are discussing. I do not know whether the hon. Member has considered the matter as to whether the 10 per cent. is to be deducted from the whole of the contributions. I understand from his Amendment that it

  237
  is confined to voluntary contributors, but I should have thought he would have claimed that everybody would be entitled to the deduction in the Territorial Force, and that if this Amendment was moved at all it ought to have been moved with regard to employed as well as voluntary contributors.
  Mr. SANDYS: It was my intention to move that later on.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That only shows what we were saying just now, that this Amendment should properly be raised in regard to Clause 36. The hon. Member said that he wished to raise the point with regard to employed contributors on Clause 36, and I appreciate what he says because it is directly under Clause 36, or under the Schedule, that this matter could be raised. I should have thought it the proper place to raise it would be later on, when we could have discussed the whole question. The hon. Member's Amendment is at present confined to voluntary contributors, but I suggest we ought not to deal with the matter of this kind piecemeal, and if this large question is to be raised, it ought to be raised so as to be dealt with as a whole. Here we can only discuss what would happen with regard to voluntary contributors. When we come to the question of employed contributors, which is, of course, a very much larger question, you may find that by deducting this 10 per cent. you would be taking out of the pockets of those who are not members of the force money or credit which they ought to get, and postponing the benefits they are to receive at the end of fifteen and a-half years, and that you are disturbing the whole balance of the insurance problem now before the House.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I desire to ask your ruling, Mr. Emmott, on a point of Order. You ruled that this matter cannot be raised on Clause 36, except in regard to the time in which the Territorial soldier is called up for permanent duty during the year.
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes, so far as I can see, if it is desirable to raise the whole point both as regards the employed and the voluntary contributors, I think it should be done on a new Clause. I am prepared to consider whether it could be done on Clause 36, but I think it should be done on a new Clause.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I should like to point out in reference to what the Attorney-General said about this point being
  238
  raised now, with regard to voluntary contributors, that if it was not raised now, it could not be raised at all. You cannot pass this part of the Bill and move Amendments to it later on. As regards Clause 36 it only deals with deduction from pay. Of course, it is quite clear Clause 36 only applies to someone in actual service, and therefore if I may put it not as a matter of order but of substance, the point raised now in the present Amendment could not be possibly raised on Clause 36. I think that must be the view of the learned Attorney-General, because when you appealed to him, Mr. Emmott, in giving your ruling, he did not suggest you were wrong. It is quite clear Section 36 deals only with deduction and pay, and therefore the point raised in the present Amendment could not be raised there at all. If you pass this Clause without inserting a proviso of this kind in favour of the members of the Territorial Force, then it appears to me as regards the point raised by this particular Amendment, it would be out of order at a subsequent stage where the question to be raised would be in regard to compulsory insurance in the case of employed persons. That is a different point. I quite agree if you want to put the members of the Territorial Force in a proper position you must first give them exemption as regards voluntary contributors, and afterwards by putting in some privilege as regards compulsory contributors. I admit I am not going into the question of recruiting, but I think that the members of the Territorial Force, having regard to the public duties they perform, are entitled to special consideration on a matter of this sort, and I only hope the hon. Member will press his Amendment, and if he divides upon it I will support, as I believe that a question raised here could not be raised at a subsequent stage.
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I might say one word more upon the matter of Order. I am perfectly confident that this matter could be dealt with in a new Clause or the Schedule—one or the other—otherwise I should have allowed the Amendment to Clause 4.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: As I have an Amendment practically to the same effect on the Paper, I desire to say a few words upon this Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposed this Amendment not upon its merits, but because it did no go far enough, and because it only covered part instead of the whole

  239
  question. Of course we are quite ready to raise the longer part with regard to employed contributors at the proper time, but surely we are not precluded from discussing this question at the first point where it appears to be in order. I am not going to deal with the question whether it is the right thing from the point of view of recruiting, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that had nothing to do with the question of insurance. Is that so certain? Is it not a very great benefit to the insurance fund that you should bring within the scope of that fund lives that would be absolutely selected lives, and the very best lives and most profitable. No possibly selected lives could be found better than those young men who join the Territorial Army. Not only are they strong and healthy when they join, but their health and physical condition becomes vastly improved by the training they receive, and the more you induce them to come in, the more you will benefit from the absolutely insurance point of view the funds which you are now establishing.
  We were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has taken his example from Germany. I need hardly say if he is going to copy Germany, it would be very difficult to separate the question of men who render some service to their country by acquiring military training from any scheme of insurance established in Germany. I cannot conceive any German statesman who would wish to separate the two considerations, and if we are entirely to follow the example of Germany, I think we surely might find there a pretty strong argument for forcing this claim which we put forward at the very first point where it is in order. Of course the question might be raised at a later stage upon a certain Clause, but it would be foolish to omit this opportunity of raising it when it is distinctly in order and open to discussion.
  Sir C. HENRY: I heartily support this Amendment. I tried on a previous Clause to get the whole of the Territorial Force included for preferential treatment. There is no doubt about it that recruiting for the Territorial Force at present is very unsatisfactory, and I think it is a case for preferential treatment, whether for the employed contributor or the voluntary contributor, and I believe such treatment would give a stimulus to recruiting. There is another reason. I consider that those who offer themselves voluntarily to the
  240
  service of their country in the Territorial Force should receive some recognition. I agree with what has fallen from the previous speaker—that there will not be any great charge upon any approved society. All the members of the Territorial Force would be members of societies whether approved or not. The demand made upon the benefits of the funds of the approved societies will be very small, while the men are in the Territorial Force, as they will be the best lives the approved societies will have among their members.
  I do not think it would be in order to dwell upon the whole scheme of the Territorial Force, but I would like to say this— that if the voluntary contributors and the employed contributors were taken together in the Territorial Force you would only have about 260,000 men, and if the whole of them got preferential treatment it would not amount to more than £100,000. I consider that £100,000 would be well spent. The scheme which the present Government has fostered under the Territorial Force, and the enthusiasm which it aroused will not continue at the same pitch if something is not done by which the Force will get some recognition. I do not consider that the Government will in any way hurt their measure by accepting this Amendment and also the other Amendments which I have laid down on the Paper. On the countrary it will do good to the scheme, and certainly no one should more readily support this Amendment than the Secretary of State for War. I hope the Amendment will receive very careful consideration from the Government, and that they will give the other branches of the subject careful consideration later on. I suggest that if this Amendment be withdrawn now, the whole of the Territorial Force should be included at a later stage.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: May I put that position clearly, so that there may be no misunderstanding in the minds of the Committee. What I suggested, and the Chairman ruled, was that this matter could properly be discussed at a later stage on a new Clause or on the Schedule when the whole question could be raised. I suggested to the Committee that it was very unsatisfactory to deal with a problem of this kind piecemeal when the whole question, both of voluntary insurance and employed contributors, could be brought up for discussion. I suggested it would be better to leave the matter open and that we could deal with it later on.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The Committee would be very foolish if they followed the advice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and for this reason. We have an Amendment before us which deals only with the contributors on a voluntary basis, but if the principle is accepted that voluntary contributors should be exempt it follows that when we come to that part dealing with this question necessarily the same treatment must be meted out to them. Therefore it is quite possible to discuss the whole thing and practically the principle upon this Amendment. Supposing we take the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman. May I point out that the Chairman has given a ruling that this question cannot be discussed on Clause 36, and that it must be discussed either on a new Clause or on the Schedule. Therefore if we put it off for an indefinite time our chance of coming to a determination upon this subject will be very uncertain. Only a few days ago we were told that this Bill was going to be guillotined, and what guarantee have we that the guillotine will not be brought on before we reach the Schedules. Those who attach any importance to this Amendment should take the opportunity which the gods have given them and divide upon it now.
  Mr. PARKER: I rise to oppose this Amendment on two grounds. In the first place I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen who stand for compulsory service should endeavour to introduce it by a proposal of this kind. They are asking us to believe that the average man who enters the Territorial Force will go into that force more readily if he gets a benefit by way of an allowance equivalent to about 1d. per week. That is how it will work out financially. The benefit you propose to give them is 10 per cent. When you have given this benefit you reduce the amount which they can receive and which all the other voluntary contributors can receive under this scheme because their contribution has been reduced. It is suggested that the total value is something like £100,000.
  Sir C. HENRY: That is upon another basis altogether.
  Mr. PARKER: Whatever the number may be under the head of voluntary contributors they are certainly not the 260,000 of which the hon. Member spoke, but a much less number. If it is the desire of this House to include recruiting in the Territorial Force they should go about it
  242
  in an entirely different way, and not endeavour to tack it on to an Insurance Bill of this kind.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: On the merits of the question there are good grounds for this Amendment, and if we wanted any further evidence in its favour we could find it in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The Attorney-General tried to ride off on a debating answer. He-was not, however, quite frank with regard to Clause 36, because he alleged that an opportunity would be given for the discussion on the whole question upon that Clause. Now we know that that cannot be so in view of what has been pointed out by the Chairman.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is not what I said. The hon. Member appealed to me about Clause 36, and I did not dispute his view. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment said it would probably come under that Clause, and I said if he was right it ought to be moved on that Clause. I suggested that we should discuss it on the Schedule, and the Chairman pointed out that it should either be raised on the Schedule or upon a new Clause.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: If the Attorney-General objects, of course, I do not wish to press that point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not wish to make any point of that, and I apologise most freely if what I have said has been in any way taken amiss. I want to point out that these things do not matter because on report, or at another time, consequential Amendments may be carried which will bring in all the compulsory contributors under the scheme if the principle be accepted now. It is not such a small thing as some hon. Members seem to imagine. In the Yeomanry there are 26,000 men, and at least 50 per cent. of them come under this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I speak with some knowledge of this matter, and I say that about 50 per cent. would come under this Amendment. In regard to the rest they might come in, and I wish to point out that it is putting it on much too low ground to represent it as a bonus on recruiting. That is not the ground I take. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said ¾d. a week is not sufficient to induce them to come in as recruits, but may I point out that that is more than the three days of the pay which the State gives them when they are out training.

  243
  I do not attach much importance to that, but I think the recognition by the State, apart from the money value, counts for something. The real thing I want to say is that those who enlist in the Territorial Force do their best to make their lives better for the benefit of the State. All that happens under Clause 36 is to allow for fifteen days, and mostly for the eight days, during which they are called out for permanent training; but there is not a Territorial regiment or battalion worthy of the name that does not exact from those serving at least forty other days of good physical work which improves the condition of the men and makes them better lives for insurance purposes. Therefore there is good ground for insurance reasons for extending these special terms to these men. I think the two advantages combined constitute a very fair case for this Amendment. An opportunity to do this now presents itself to the Committee, and I do not think, at any rate, it ought to be decided on technical grounds. If the principle is accepted now it can easily be introduced into the whole system, and if the percentage is thought to be too low it can be raised when the Amendment is carried in another form. In any case, I submit it is in the interests of the State, because you are improving and putting a premium on improved lives. You are also encouraging the men indirectly to make their physical condition better, and that is in the interests of the country. No sneer at the Territorial system can meet the case, because in every battalion physical drill is part of the routine, and there is no denying that that is a benefit. I hope for these reasons the hon. Member will persevere in his Amendment, and if he does he will do so with the knowledge that there is no difficulty so far as the forms of the House go in making this a complete and logical arrangement by introducing later on those who are compulsory contributors.
  Mr. H. T. CAWLEY: As a member of the Territorial Force I wish to oppose this Amendment. I admit that the Force requires more money, but this is the wrong way of getting it. By this method you are not applying the money in the best way possible. The proper time to vote money for the Territorial Force is when the vote for that Force is under discussion. In that way you would be applying your money in the best possible way. The main
  244
  reason suggested for this proposal is that it is going to come not out of the general fund for the State but out of the Insurance fund. Therefore, hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment are endeavouring to be patriotic and generous to the Territorial Force at the expense of other people. This fund out of which it is proposed to assist the Territorial Force, is money which belongs to the insured, and they are not by any means the best off people in the world.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Attorney-General, have both made a great point on the fact that this only applies to voluntary contributors. My point is that the voluntary contributor is the very man who ought to be assisted as far as possible in this Insurance scheme. Very often the voluntary contributor in the Territorial Force has to give up his own time when he goes out training, and he is not in the same position as the employed contributors who would be getting full pay probably from their own employers whilst training. The man in the Territorials who is a voluntary contributor is giving his own time and he has no employer to pay his wages when he is with the Force. I think that is the class of man we ought to endeavour to give an advantage to, and 10 per cent. is a very small advantage indeed. Take the number of voluntary contributors at 50,000, and that is the outside number. The proportion who are voluntary contributors in the Territorial Force will not amount to more than £75,000 a year. I think this Amendment might be accepted without any question by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it would only be doing the fair thing to those who are patriotic enough to join the Territorial Force.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS:I think the hon. Member opposite has not quite appreciated the object of this Amendment. Its. object is not for the purpose of making grants to the Territorial Force—this would not be the right time to make such a grant—nor is it a mere question of giving this ¾d. out of the pockets of some other poor insurers. Really in this Amendment you will find the acceptance of the position that a flat rate is not fair all round. This Amendment provides that a slight benefit should be given not to a Territorial soldier per se, but to a class of people who are picked lives, and by

  245
  charging them the same as the infirm life you really are doing an injustice to the picked life. You are not really taking the |d. away from the other poor people. The whole hardship, and there are hardships in this Bill, is upon this question of the flat rate, stretching from the age of sixteen to forty-five, and from the really picked life down to the man who is very far from being a picked life. Here you have an opportunity which has not occurred before of doing a slight act of justice to the Territorial soldiers who are picked lives. I need not labour the point. It is admitted on all bands. When he joins he is a picked life, and in his position as a territorial soldier it is contrived that he shall continue to remain a picked life.
  An HON. MEMBER: Are not the members of friendly societies picked lives?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am prepared to say, as one who has had some experience in insurance, that the ordinary rank and file of the friendly societies are not anything like the picked lives of the ordinary rank and file of the Territorial Force.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: It might equally be claimed that teetotalers are picked lives.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am delighted to hear that teetotalers are picked lives The hon. Member knows I have been one for some time. I am really trying to speak seriously on this question, and by voting for this Amendment we shall be voting in favour of doing an act of justice where it can be done. I freely admit you cannot do this act of justice in the case of every man who is a picked life as against the man who has not nearly so choice a life, but, when you get a large class like this admitted to be picked lives, you have the opportunity of doing an act of justice without in any way doing injustice to any other members of the insured body, and I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division.
  Colonel HICKMAN: I hope the Committee will treat this as a non-party question and as one absolutely of principle. I hope the hon. Gentleman who brought the Amendment forward will press it to a Division so that we can have an opportunity of expressing our opinion, and so that later on when the opportunity occurs for the further extension of this principle we shall have something laid down in its
  246
  favour. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) that this is. only a question of picked lives.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I certainly did not mean to say, and I do not think I did say, it was only a question of picked lives. I left the Territorial side of the question to be dealt with by those who are more closely acquainted with the Territorial Force than I am.
  Colonel HICKMAN: I quite accept that, and I quite agree with what the hon. Member has said about picked lives. I should like to carry it a little further and say the State should recognise that something is due to the men who do their duty by the State in contradistinction to other people who do not go out of their way to do their duty by the State. I am painfully aware that at the present time the War Office are in very great straits to fill the Territorial Army, and I think if in a measure of this sort we could do something to help them out of their difficulty it would be a very great advantage. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are pleased to laugh, but I assure them that, although one might speak in this House in favour of universal service, yet at the same time every one who has the interest of his country at heart, must also wish if possible to bring this Territorial system to a success so that we shall have some sort of Army in time of need. It is the duty of us all to try and help the War Office to fill the Territorial Army and to make it a success. I think, therefore, if we can establish the principle, that the man who serves in the Territorial Army should have a premium above his ordinary brethren we shall do some good. I myself should like to go further and give some benefit to the employers who go out of their way to employ members of the Territorial Force in contradistinction to the employers who do not encourage them, because employers who have men in the Territorial Force very often give them leave from work and pay them at the same time, and employers who do not encourage them have a distinct advantage. Under these circumstances, I hope the hon. Gentleman will press his Amendment to a Division.
  Sir C. HENRY: I shall support this Amendment if it goes to a Division. Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House seem to think the allowance is not enough. They object to the allowance of ¾d. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] The Amendment

  247
  which I wish to press and which is ruled out of order would give preferential treatment to members of the Territorial Force to the extent of 2d. per week. I hope, when the time comes, to be able to move, that Amendment on the Schedule. It is well to remember that every man before he can join the Territorial Force has to
  undergo medical examination, and the scheme would, therefore, suffer no disadvantage by allowing these men to come in on a preferential basis.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 252.

  Division No. 267.]

  AYES.

  [6.10 p.m.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

  Goldman, C. S.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goulding, E. A.

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gretton, John

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Haddock, George B.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Barnston, H.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Butcher, John George

  Hills, John Waller

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Cave, George

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (Liverp'l, Walton)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Stanier, Beville

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stewart, Gershom

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Kemp, Sir George

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Clyde, James Avon

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

  Valentia, Viscount

  Croft, H. P.

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Waring, Walter

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Falle, Bertram Godfrey

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Fell, Arthur

  Macmaster, Donald

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Younger, Sir George

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Sandys and Major Archer-Shee.

  Forster, Henry William

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Boland, John Pius

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Adamson, William

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Clynes, John R.

  Addison, Dr. C

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Brace, William

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Cotton, William Francis

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Armitage, Robert

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Crooks, William

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Crumley, Patrick

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Barton, William

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Delany, William

  Beale, William Phipson

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Carr-Gamm, H. W.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Doris, William

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Duffy, William J.

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Richards, Thomas

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Essex, Richard Walter.

  Lundon, T.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Furness, Stephen

  McGhee, Richard

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Maclean, Donald

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Gibson, Sir James puckering

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Rowlands, James

  Gill, A. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Glanville, H. J.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Manfield, Harry

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Seely, Col., Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Sheehy, David

  Hackett, John

  Meagher, Michael

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Shortt, Edward

  Hancock, John George

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Harmsworth, R. (Leicester)

  Mooney, John J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Harvey, W. E (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Morrell, Philip

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Harwood, George

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Neilson, Francis

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Hayward, Evan

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., South)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Dowd, John

  Wadsworth, J.

  Hinds, John

  Ogden, Fred

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Grady, James

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Hodge, John

  O'Malley, William

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Webb, H.

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Johnson, W.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wiles, Thomas

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H

  Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N)

  Keating, Matthew

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Kelly, Edward

  Radford, G. H.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Reddy, Michael

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

  Mr. CAVE: Before the Bill goes through it is extremely important we should see the tables which are referred to in this Clause, as we cannot tell whether the contributor will get a benefit proportionate to his contribution.! Neither can we tell how far the finances of the scheme are adequate for the purpose. There are two tables referred to in this Clause. One is a table fixing the voluntary rate, and the other is a table affecting persons who come into insurance
  250
  within six months from the commencement, of the operation of the Act. That is a different table altogether. I have no doubt that both tables are in course of preparation, but I should like to know if we cannot have them before the House parts with the Bill: before, in fact, we are asked to deal with the Schedules.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Every endeavour will be made to get the tables out as soon as possible, but I would point out to the hon.

  251
  and learned Gentleman that they will only affect people who come into insurance six months after the Bill is in operation.
  Mr. CAVE: That observation applies only to the second table. My particular point affects the first table
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That affects people over forty-five years of age, and there will be an interval of time in which, even if we are not able to get the insurance table out before the Bill is read a third time, the persons affected will have a period in which to choose whether or not they will adopt the scheme. It is very difficult to say if the actuaries will be able to get the table out while Parliament is sitting, but, at any rate, there will be adequate time for voluntary insurers to consider whether or not they will come under the scheme.
  Mr. BOOTH: I would like to ask for some pronouncement from the Attorney-General as to the policy to be pursued in this matter. The tables are to be prepared for the Insurance Commissioners; if they lie for a period on the Table of the House that will ensure that anyone concerned shall have time to make representations either to the Insurance Commissioners or to this House if it is desired to vary the decision. In response to an Amendment of mine, words were inserted in Clause 1 to the effect that the whole regulations would be "under a Special order made in the manner provided." I want to know whether that same policy will apply to these tables. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Kingston that the House ought to see the tables as early as possible. My point is that whenever they are prepared, and whenever there is any alteration at all in them they should be laid on the Table of the House. I do not think that that is an unreasonable request. It does not impose any delay, and it would give an opportunity to hon. Members and their Constituents to see the decision in time to question Ministers or to make representations to the Insurance Commissioners as to any alterations that may be deemed to be necessary.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: My hon. Friend, the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), has said quite rightly that an Amendment was made in the Bill dealing with the regulations. With regard to the tables which have to be prepared if we are able to produce them during the time the House is sitting, and while the Bill is still under
  252
  discussion, they will be produced, and there will consequently be an opportunity for raising any question upon them. But it is impossible to know, in view of the actual work thrown on the actuaries at the present time, if these tables can be ready at any given date. Supposing that the Bill passes and that this House is no longer sitting, what is to happen with regard to the tables? They must come into force at the time stated. But there will be six months in which persons interested will be able to decide and make up their minds whether the rates are sufficiently tempting. What is prescribed by the Bill is that the tables are to be prepared in order to show whether, having regard to the age of the insurer, the contribution will be sufficient to cover seven-ninths of the benefits conferred by this Act. It is a question of actuarial calculation which I have no doubt my hon. Friend will appreciate. It cannot vary very much. It is not as if we were prescribing whatever rate we liked; it is only a question of arriving at the result of figures actuarially based upon data prescribed by this House in the Clauses of the Bill. Therefore there is no need to lay the tables on the Table of the House.
  Mr. FORSTER: The matter is not quite so simple as the Attorney-General would lead us to believe. The actuaries have to frame their tables in order to cover the risks created by the Bill, and I do not believe any actuary can say actuarily what is the proper provision to be made. I do not believe any of us can say from experience what is the proper provision, and, in my opinion, any table framed by actuaries dealing with the benefits proposed under this Bill will be largely in the nature of an experiment. Experience alone can show whether or not the figures are fully justified. I therefore desire to enter this caveat. I think it will be a great mistake to allow ourselves to lose sight of the fact that the whole Bill is a great experiment, and we are by no means certain of our ground in approaching the question of the liabilities which it involves. The Attorney-General told us, with reference to the tables being laid on the Table of the House, that it was desirable that it should be done, provided it were feasible, and provided, too, that the House is sitting. I think it is essential that the tables should be laid. No doubt they will be incorporated in one or other of the various sets of regulations which the insurance companies will be called upon to frame. We have already had an under-

  253
  taking from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the regulations shall be laid on the Table of the House.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If they come within the regulations the tables will, of course, be laid.
  Mr. FORSTER: The Attorney-General said that the tables would be laid provided the House is sitting. At any rate the regulations have to be laid.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It does not follow that the tables will be published in the regulations. They may be published separately, and, as I have already stated, if they can be laid during the time the House is sitting there will be an opportunity of considering them.
  Mr. FORSTER: We do not want to have the tables taken out of the regulation to which they belong and published separately merely to avoid the necessity of laying them on the Table of the House. If it is absolutely impossible to produce them before, the end of the Session we can say no more, but, within the limits of what is feasible, we do hope that the Government will lay the tables as well as the regulations.
  Mr. NEWTON: I hope the Government will agree to lay the tables as soon as possible. We are proposing to enable voluntary contributors to come in at certain rates. At present those rates are undetermined. It may be that they will turn out to be impossible and totally unacceptable to the contributor. No doubt the Committee desires to encourage the voluntary contributors, and it is not well that we should place ourselves in a rather foolish position, which we should do, if we say that they are to come in at rates which this House will have no control over. I think the utmost efforts should be used to see that the tables are produced before the Bill finally passes from the control of the House.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Surely the Government must have made use of exactly the same tables in order to frame their own scheme with reference to those who are subject to compulsion. They have to make provision for the sufficiency of what will be payable by those who come in later, as compared with those who come in at the early stages. They would have a calculation that would be sufficient for this purpose as well, and I
  254
  assume that in getting that information they have got tables which will show what the persons who have not gone in are to pay when they come in. I may be expressing it rather obscurely, but my point is that the information we are asking for must be in the possession of the Government, because without it they could not have framed that portion of their own scheme which applies compulsion.
  Mr. W. F. ROCH: May I ask whether you gave a ruling to the Amendments in the names of the Member for Crowe (Mr. W. S. B. M'Laren) and myself, allowing certain women to come in as voluntary contributors was out of order?
  The CHAIRMAN: I said that it was in the wrong place. There is a special Subsection to Clause 34 dealing with that very point.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I should like to add my request to the Government that they should lay this actuarial table on the Table of the House. It is a new experiment, and I am quite certain that this is a matter which requires to be considered as a whole by the House. We do not want to hand ourselves over, bound hand and foot, to these experts and permanent officials. It is not merely a matter of knowing the best way to do it. We should remember the tradition of this House, and we should retain the control of the contributions levied upon these voluntary contributors. I have no doubt that the House when it gets the tables, will not alter a figure, but still we should reserve the right to do so, and it would be a bad precedent to let that right go. There does not seem to be any great difficulty, for they have to lay the regulations, and they might as well lay the tables at the same time. I hope they will reconsider it.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Change from Voluntary Rate to Employed Rate, and vice versa).
  (1) Where an insured person has become a member of an approved society as a voluntary contributor, the rate of contributions payable in respect of him shall, notwithstanding that he becomes employed within the meaning of this part of this Act, remain the voluntary rate, unless at any time after becoming so employed he gives notice in the prescribed manner of his wish to be transferred to the employed rate.
  (2)Where he gives such notice the rate payable in respect of him shall be the employed rate, but in such case the rate of sickness benefit payable in respect of him shall be such reduced rate as would have been payable had he not previously been insured, subject to such allowance as may according to tables prepared by the Insurance Commissioners represent the value at that time of the contributions previously paid by him.
  (3) Where he does not give such notice, and until he does so, the contributions payable by his employer in respect of him during any period of employment within the meaning of this Part of this Act shall be the same as if he had been transferred to the employed rate, and the contributions so paid by the employer shall be treated as in part satisfaction of the contributions at the voluntary rate payable by the contributor, and if the contributor fails to pay the balance he shall be deemed to be in arrear to that extent.
  (4) Where an employed contributor within five years from his entry into insurance ceases to be employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act and becomes a voluntary contributor, he shall be deemed to be in arrear, as from the date when he became a voluntary contributor, to the amount of the difference between the aggregate contributions paid in respect of him as an employed contributor and the aggregate of the contributions which would have been payable by him had he originally become a voluntary contributor, and the difference between any reserve value which is credited to the approved society of which he is a member in respect of him and the reserve value (if any) which would have been credited to that society in respect of him had he originally become a voluntary contributor shall be cancelled.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-Section (2) to leave out the words, "but in such case the rate of sickness benefit payable in respect to him shall be such reduced rate as would have been payable had he not previously been insured, subject to such allowance as may, according to tables prepared by the Insurance Commissioners, represent the value at that time of the contributions previously paid by him."
  The object of this Amendment is to provide that where a voluntary contributor transfers and becomes an employed insured person, he shall continue to receive the same benefits as he would have done
  256
  had he originally joined the insurance scheme. The Bill provides that in the case of his changing over from the voluntary to the compulsory rate, although the contributions shall remain the same, his benefits shall be reduced, as if the man insured had not been previously insured. Let me give an illustration. Suppose at the age of twenty a voluntary contributor has to pay at the rate of 8d.,and at the age of twenty-five he transfers and becomes an employed assured person. The rate at the age of twenty-five is 9d., and the Bill then says that in respect of that period he shall continue to pay the same contribution of 8d. but shall only receive the reduced benefit that accrues to 9d. Therefore he is receiving only eight-ninths of the benefit. I contend that is unfair. Nobody is injured under my proposal, neither the approved societies nor the Insurance Fund, nor the State, and the only effect of this proposal is that it goes on the basis that the voluntary contributor has paid his full assurance, otherwise it would have been paid by the employer, whereas now when he becomes an employed insured person his employer will pay his insurance. The proposal simply is that in this transfer from the voluntary to the employed rate the person transferring shall receive the full benefit to which he would have been entitled had he joined originally.
  Mr. McKENNA: I quite appreciate the object which the hon. Member desires, but I cannot agree that the effect would not be injurious to the benefit fund. As the Bill stands, the case would be as follows: A person who is a voluntary contributor, so long as he is such a contributor, builds up a reserve fund in his favour. He then becomes an employed contributor, and he will pay the employed rate. He will be entitled to the benefits of an employed contributor, subject to the conditions of this Sub-clause. That is to say he will only get such benefits as would be proportionate to the amount of reserve which he has built up. Now the hon. Member proposes to give him. the full benefit of an employed contributor, no matter what the amount of reserve might be at the time he became an employed contributor. The effect would be to reduce the total of the benefit fund. Any change which the hon. Member proposes of this kind is only a shifting of the benefits, and inasmuch as it does not increase the total of the benefit fund and gives an additional benefit to one section, it must take away a corresponding amount of benefit from the rest

  257
  of the contributors. The particular class whose position the hon. Member proposes to include is the class who have been voluntary contributors and who subsequently become employed contributors. I think there is no possible reason why such a class of person should be better off or should be put in an advantageous position as compared with the ordinary employed contributor. I do not know whether I have made it clear. Necessarily it is an extremely complicated arrangement in a Clause like this which has to provide for the transfer of people from one class of contributors to another class of contributors, but I think I can assure the hon. Member that the Clause as it is drawn gives to the person who has transferred the full benefit of any previous contribution which he may have made, but it does not give him additional benefits, which could only be obtained by withdrawing something from the total of the benefit fund. I regret very much the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I thought at first that my hon. Friend was wrong, and that the First Lord of the Admiralty was right; but there is a point which I think the right hon. Gentleman did not quite notice. Under the Bill every volunteer who comes in within six months of the passing of the Act is given the privilege of paying the employed rate. There ought to be an addition to this Clause enabling the volunteer under forty-five who comes in after this six months.
  Mr. McKENNA: He comes in as an employed contributor.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think not, but at the employed rate. If you look at Clause 5 you will see that the contribution of the voluntary contributor who comes in within six months after the commencement of the Act is to be the voluntary rate the same as the employed rate. That volunteer comes in six months after the passing of this Act, and he is a man perhaps twenty years old. It is the employed rate of 7d., and it gives him ten years' time to pay that 7d. Then, under stress of circumstances, he loses what little money or business he had and becomes an employed person, and changes into the employed ranks, and he will have to pay the employed rate, which is 7d., unless there is some provision put in one of these Clauses, I do not quite think this Amendment will do it, but it might be done in some other Clause.
  Mr. McKENNA: I quite see the point which the hon. Gentleman raises. I think the words cover it. If he will look at the first Sub-section of Clause 5, he will see that on becoming a member a voluntary contributor shall pay the voluntary rate, and shall remain at the voluntary rate. We are asking this person to pay the voluntary rate, but if I am wrong in that construction I will see to it.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not want to cavil, but if the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 6, Sub-section (1), he will see the words that ho shall remain at the voluntary rate unless at any time after becoming so employed he gives notice, in the prescribed manner, of his wish to be transferred to the employed rate." I think he pays the employed rate all the time. He is one of the people who will come in to help the Government, and he will come in at the employed rate during the period of six months, but he is penalised under the Clause as it now stands. Therefore, I venture to suggest that it might be right to have some Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: I quite see the point, and I will call the attention of the draftsman to it. There is no intention to penalise him or anybody else who comes in at the employed rate, and I think the voluntary contributor who comes in at the employed rate ought not to be penalised. That shall be seen to.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Assuming that the right hon. Gentleman is right, and I am not sure that he is, as to the meaning of the Amendment, and that it would shift the benefits from one class to another, I do not think my hon. Friend wanted to do that at all. All he wanted was that the same benefits should be procured to a man, although he has changed from the voluntary to the compulsory rate. I presume the Government do not object to giving him the same rate of benefit so long as the fund is not injured. I think it would be possible to have sufficient reserves, and that the Government might treat the matter as they have treated those who were in arrear. In that case they have given them time to make up the arrears. There is a provision elsewhere relating to a similar change that a man may make up his payment by a capital sum, and that if he is in arrears he may pay up and have the full benefit. The policy of this House must be to secure a fair benefit, and we have decided that 10s,. is. not too great a benefit Under this

  259
  provision that benefit will be reduced from 10s. to Vs. We have decided that the lower sum is not sufficient, and that a man ought to start at 10s., but the Government are trying to protect the fund, but in this case why should they not give the person who would otherwise be handicapped the option of at least making up by a capital payment the reserve which is necessary.
  Mr. McKENNA: I will see to that point. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move to omit Sub-section (4).
  This Amendment is the converse of the one we have just dealt with. Here is a case where a compulsorily insured person after a number of years becomes voluntarily insured. I propose that the whole Sub-section should be deleted because you are penalising that party unfairly. What the Clause suggests is this. In the case of a person who has been a compulsory employé, losing his qualification and becoming a voluntary employé, he should be charged with arrears amounting to the difference between the contribution, as a voluntary contributor from the date that he joined and the contributions from the time that he joined as an employed insured. This difference is to be reckoned as arrears and the arrears constitute a reduction in the benefits he will receive. Let me give an illustration. Supposing an employed contributor becomes a voluntary contributor. He joins at the age of thirty as an employed contributor and at that time the contribution is 9d., of which he has to pay 6d. and the employer pays 3d. He then transfers and becomes a voluntary contributor at the age, say, of thirty-five. The contribution would be 10d. He would then be regarded as in arrear of a penny, the difference between 9d. and 10d., for a period of five years, the difference between thirty and thirty-five. One penny in arrears for five years is equivalent to arrears of twenty-six weeks and arrears of twenty-six weeks spread over five years means an arrear of five weeks a year, and any contributor who is in arrears for five weeks in a year has his benefit reduced from 10s. to 9s. a week. I think that is an unfair proposal because the State has compelled that man to join the scheme and when, through no fault of his own, he finally becomes a voluntary employed he should not be penalised. Under these circumstances the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to meet the Amendment and delete the Sub-section.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member will see in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Clause 5 that—
  "Where a person, having been an employed contributor for five years or upwards, becomes a voluntary contributor the rate of contribution payable by him shall continue to be the employed rate."
  When the Committee passed that Subsection it was obvious that they intended to make a distinction between employed contributors who became voluntary contributors in less than five years and those who became employed contributors after being voluntary contributors for five years. Clause 5 has already dealt with the case of the man who was an employed contributor for a longer period than five years: he is to get all the benefits of an employed contributor. The effect of the Amendment is that the man who is a voluntary contributor for a period of less than five years should be dealt with in the same way as a man who has been a voluntary contributor for five years. We have already settled this point, and is it reasonable, when we have already determined that the distinction shall be made, to propose that there shall be no distinction? Where a man has not been a voluntary contributor for five years it is proposed that he shall build up his own fortunes. A man who is a voluntary contributor is primâ facie better off than his neighbours. It does not absolutely follow but, generally speaking, he has means of his own and he is not in sickness immediately dependent on his own exertions. I suggest that the hon. Member should withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. CAVE: The right hon. Gentleman takes the somewhat technical point that we have agreed to make this distinction. All we propose is that a man who has paid in all his contributions while employed shall not, because he ceases to be employed, be deemed to be in arrears. The man is not in arrears in any proper sense of the word. He has paid every-thing he ought to pay. Surely there is a better and much simpler way of dealing especially with this kind of transfer, and that is to let the man who comes into the voluntary part of the scheme under these circumstances join that fund as a voluntary contributor at that date at the rate then appropriate to his age. But of course give him credit for what he has paid as an employed contributor, that is treat him as if he were then joining for

  261
  the first time the voluntary fund and that of course will fix his rate of contribution. But give him the benefit of the reserve which he has built up during the previous years.
  Mr. McKENNA: That is exactly what is done.
  Mr. CAVE: I disagree. What is done is to make him a debtor at once to the fund—to put him at once in arrears.
  Mr. McKENNA: Being in arrears is not the same as being a debtor. Being in arrears means that you give a man an opportunity by paying up the arrear of getting the full benefit. Being in arrear does not deprive him necessarily of benefit but only gives him benefit upon a reduced scale.
  Mr. CAVE: I assume the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying he can pay up, but I am not sure that he can.
  Mr. WORTH1NGTON-EVANS: He cannot.
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, he can.
  Mr. CAVE: There is a special provision in Clause 10 that he can pay up to two years, and not beyond. Of course, this might exceed the two years. No doubt that will be set right, and there will be power given if it is not there already for a man to pay up arrears, but that will not meet the point I was making. I want to give the man an option. Instead of being in arrears and so entitled to reduced benefits, or possibly to no benefit at all, because there might be suspension after (certain weeks, give him the option of coming in as a man who is paying his way at the then voluntary rate—a very simple process, and one which has been adopted and recommended by the friendly societies. It could easily be done by Amendment to this Clause. If you do that you do not make him in arrear, but entitle him at once to his full benefit. You are treating him fairly instead of putting him in a difficult position.
  Mr. CASSEL: What will be the position of a man who is an employed contributor and then becomes unemployed, say, for six months, and wishes to go on making his contribution? He could only do so as a voluntary contributor.
  Mr. McKENNA: That is Clause 10.
  Mr. CASSEL: But under the Bill as it stands his case would come under this Subsection.
  Mr. McKENNA: No, under Clause 10.
  Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that if it does not come under Clause 10 he will amend Clause 10 so as to meet the case. The right hon. Gentleman does not intend the Sub-section to apply to the case of a man who was an employed contributor and becomes unemployed, say for four or five months, so as to go on with this contribution until the time comes when he becomes employed again. As the Sub-section stands a man in that position comes within this Clause, and it seems to me very hard that he should not be allowed to continue at the employed rate. He hopes to become employed again. When he does he obviously ought to be on the employed rate. Why should he be subject to the disability which this Clause places him under?
  Mr. McKENNA: If he ceases to be employed that does not mean that he becomes unemployed in the sense in which the hon. and learned Gentleman uses the words. This deals only with the case of the transfer from the category of employed to voluntary contributor. The point the hon. and learned Gentleman is raising will arise on Clause 10.
  Mr. CASSEL: As soon as he ceases to be employed he does become a merely voluntary contributor; he is nothing but a voluntary contributor. There is no compulsion upon him, and I am only calling attention to what I think the Government themselves would recognise as being a case in which he should not be put on a different rate. That is to say, he ceases to be employed, he necessarily becomes a voluntary contributor, and he certainly ought to be able to go on under the same rate.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: A point with regard to this Sub-section has been put to me by the working men in my Constituency. Supposing a mail has been employed and wants to leave his employment and take a small shop. At the moment when he wants to make a new start, and perhaps wants a little cash, he will be subjected to a very heavy fine. A man in failing health, who has been advised by his doctor to leave some heavy work, and sees his way to get a livelihood, either as a small shopkeeper, or in some independent way, will have to pay a heavy

  263
  fine besides increasing his weekly payment. With regard to the point put by the hon. and learned Gentleman this turns on the question which has come up once or twice, what is unemployment? Is. a person who is out of work for three or six months an employed person or not for the purposes of this Act?
  Mr. CASSEL: May I make clear the point I was putting? It seems to me that Clause 10 does not apply to the case I was putting. Clause 10 deals with the case of arrears. The case I am dealing with is a person who has become temporarily unemployed, but does not wish to be in arrears, but wishes to continue to make his contribution. I do not think Clause 10 deals with that. I think the case comes within this Sub-section.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. McKENNA: A person who is an employed contributor remains an employed contributor, whether employed or unemployed. He can only transfer himself to the category of voluntary contributor by giving notice. The mere fact that he is out of employment does not make him a voluntary contributor. Under Clause 10 and the 5th Schedule, he does not alter his character by the mere fact that he is unemployed. That is the difference.
  Mr. NEWTON: If a man who starts as an employed contributor becomes unemployed and desires to pay his own 4d. and the employer's 3d., will he remain an employed contributor?
  Mr. McKENNA: Certainly, he will remain an employed contributor, although he pays the 7d.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If he goes on paying his own 4d. and the employer's 3d., which is the employed contributor's rate, surely he must become a voluntary contributor.
  Mr. McKENNA: The case put to me was that of a man out of employment—a person who is ordinarily employed. Being out of employment, he will remain an employed contributor. [An HON. MEMBER: "HOW long?"] Well, that is a matter that will arise on Clause 10, and I do not wish to discuss it now. On Clause 10 the whole matter will come up again.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the question comes up on Clause 5, Sub-section (1). If a man, say, at the age of twenty,
  264
  enters as an employed contributor, and at the age of thirty becomes a voluntary contributor, will he in future have to pay as a voluntary contributor, beginning at the age of thirty, or will he have the privilege of paying the contribution of a man beginning at twenty?
  Mr. McKENNA: A man who has been an employed contributor for ten years will then become a voluntary contributor at thirty, but he will go on paying the employed contributor's rate. Of course, he will not only have to pay his own contribution, but also the contribution which would have been paid by his employer if he had still been employed. There will still have to be paid the two contributions amounting to 7d.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: At what rate would he have to pay?
  Mr. McKENNA: The rate he would have to pay would be according to the amount that stands at his credit. He will get credit for everything he has paid, but no more. If he begins as an employed contributor and afterwards becomes a voluntary contributor, he will not be credited with more than he has paid.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Supposing an employed contributor who begins at twenty becomes a voluntary contributor at twenty-four, will he at twenty-four get the benefit of the employed contributor's rate?
  Mr. McKENNA: The case has been put of a man who begins at twenty. He immediately begins to build up his reserve. At the age of twenty-four he becomes a voluntary contributor. He has then a reserve at his credit, and he gets credit for that.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the Sub-section is obscure, and the discussion which has taken place does not enable me to say with confidence that I understand it even now. It is extremely difficult to put clearly to the House without careful thought beforehand the exact points we want to raise. The point that puzzles me is this. We are dealing with the man who has been employed and who in less than five years becomes a voluntary contributor. The Clause contemplates that when he is transferred or transfers himself from the one class to the other, he may have to make good something which he has not made good already in order to entitle him to the full benefit.

  265
  In the first place in the case of the compulsory contributor you begin by a process which was claimed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as renewing youth. I think that anybody who reads the Bill will say that the renewal is very imperfect, but we may take that as a general statement of the case. You treat all the contributors as if they were young men. That you do by the aid of the debt you create, and which you are to gradually wipe out. If they join young, then the payments made on their behalf are calculated so as to provide against liabilities incurred on their behalf at any age at which you may strike the balance between the two. If he becomes a voluntary contributor, how can he be deemed to be in arrear? How can the reserve in his name not provide him with full benefits? I quite understand that henceforth his contribution has got to be different, but what I do not understand is how there should be any difference in regard to the reserve credited to him already, and which has been considered adequate in the opinion of the Government actuaries to give him as an employed contributor, if he remains so, the full benefits of the Bill. Why should that disappear when he comes into the voluntary class? The failure to have an employer to contribute for him raises the contribution henceforward which he must pay, but it does not decrease the reserve which he has already accumulated. There is some difficulty, at any rate, in this matter, and I hope I have shown to the Government what it is that is puzzling me at this stage.
  Mr. MACMASTER: I understand this Clause contemplates the case of an employed contributor who in five years is transferred and becomes a voluntary contributor. After that he will be regarded as a voluntary contributor. A certain amount has been heaped up to his credit during the period he remained an employed contributor. It seems to me that the latter part of the Clause contemplates that he may be in arrears with that reserve, and that what he has heaped up to his credit shall. when he becomes a voluntary contributor, be cancelled. It seems to me that the object of the Clause as it stands is this: When a man changes his status from an employed contributor to a voluntary contributor, then it shall not be assumed that his reserve shall go to his credit, and that such sum shall be deemed to be cancelled.
  Mr. McKENNA: I agree that the Subsection is somewhat complicated in form. Where a man has been an employed contributor for less than five years and then becomes a voluntary contributor, he will be treated for the purpose of calculating what his contribution or his benefit shall be, as if he had been a voluntary contributor from the start, so that if you take the case of a man who entered as an employed contributor and pays 7d. a week, then at the end of a couple of years by reason of the acquisition of private means becomes a voluntary contributor, he will have to pay up the difference between the 7d. a week which he has been paying in the past and the amount he would have to pay had he been a voluntary contributor in the past. The amount might vary according to his age. Suppose that a man at a certain age, which I shall call X, started under this scheme, and that if he came in under the ordinary insurance tables he might have to pay 9d. a week for the benefits which the Bill offers at his age. If such a man would have to pay 9d. as a voluntary contributor, and as a matter of fact has only paid 7d. a week for two or three years, he would have to make good the amount he has saved by paying for these years at the lower rate. If he does not make that good he will be treated as in arrears to that amount. He need not pay up the arrears, but if he does not he will only get the reduced payments, which are set out in the Fifth Schedule of the Bill.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: What has become of the money he has built up under the compulsory scheme?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am assuming that he and his employer have paid 7d. a week. If he came in at the age of X and became, four years later, a voluntary contributor, he will receive the benefit payable to X. He will get the credit of the reserve built up in four years.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Surely you have to give him some credit for what he has paid during the compulsory period?
  Mr. McKENNA: He will get credit for the reserve which he has built up while paying 7d. a week. And he gets the whole credit of the reserve. When he is a voluntary contributor he requires a reserve credit of 9d. It is a most complicated and technical arrangement, but it is the corollary of what we have already passed in Clause 5. After that explanation I think it must be clear that it is a reasonable condition.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite certain even now that I understand what is meant. If you took a man who became insured at the earliest possible age as a compulsory employed contributor, and came under this Section, and in less than five years he became a voluntary contributor, the reserve you would have then as an employed contributor would be exactly the same reserve which he would have built up if he had been a voluntary contributor from the beginning.
  Mr. McKENNA: There will be nothing to deduct.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then the case we have to deal with is the case of people who at the passing of the Act are above the minimum age, and who therefore have not built up the reserve which is suitable to their age. But that is exactly the class which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told the country on platform after platform that he is going to provide for.
  Mr. McKENNA: No; this only deals with the case of men who are transferred from the employed class to the voluntary class. These are not the volunteers.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has interrupted me too soon, because he himself does not quite appreciate the point. We may eliminate everybody, as I understand, who comes into the scheme at sixteen, because in his case there would be no difference of reserve value whether he comes in as a voluntary or an employed contributor. But take the case of a man who at the passing of the Act had already passed the age, and therefore has not got accumulated by his contributions directly made the reserve which is required to pay him full benefit. Surely when the Chancellor says he renews the youth of the nation what ho means is that he is coming to the assistance of those employed contributors. Now take the man who comes in at X age, which is over sixteen. At the age of X plus four he leaves the employed class and he is to forfeit that benefit. That is what the First Lord of the Admiralty has just explained to us. If he does not forfeit that benefit there is no need for this Sub-section, because it carries with it a reserve which is exactly equal to what would have been his reserve if he had been a voluntary contributor. If the Sub-section is required, it is on the ground that when a man is in a position to be a voluntary
  268
  contributor he does not require or deserve the same amount of State help as when he is in employment.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in his assumption. This is the case of the voluntary contributor over forty-five who would not be entitled to the reserve at all. It is really to protect a case of this kind.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Where is there anything about the age of forty-five? We are discussing Sub-section (4) of Clause 6, and I do not see any words anywhere in the Clause to limit that to people over the age of forty-five.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is to prevent a person from becoming a sort of employed person and being treated as an employed person for a few weeks may be, or for a short period in order to work himself into the position of an employed person. Whether these words carry out that intention is another matter, but that is their object. Unless we had a provision of this kind he might engage himself for a few weeks, he might be treated as an employed person, and get the reserve credit, whereas if he only comes in as a voluntary person paying the rate appropriate to his age he would get rid of his deficit which otherwise would be put against his name.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If the object is as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then the draftsman has chosen the most inappropriate words possible to carry out the object. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) indicated words which would carry out the avowed object of the Government under this Clause. Those words have been suggested at the National Conference of Friendly Societies. They suggest that when an employed contributor, within five years of his entry into the insurance, ceases to be employed within the meaning of this part of the Act, and becomes a voluntary contributor, he shall pay the required contribution for those under forty-five years of age, and if above that age he shall pay a contribution in accordance with the age he will be when he becomes a voluntary contributor, on the same scale as provided for in Section (5) (a).
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Wipe out the assumption that he is a person who is employed. The amount appropriate at any age is sixteen, unless you treat it as arrear. That does not come in.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There will be a credit to this man which has accrued due during the time he was an employed contributor. He ought to have the benefit of that. If you will read the last part of the Clause you will see that there is something cancelled which belonged to him. There has been no explanation of that, or if there has been I do not know whether the Committee has followed it. I certainly do not know what has been cancelled. There is something gone which apparently belonged to the employed contributor, and which he loses when he becomes a voluntary contributor. What is that? The suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston seems to me to meet the case. The power to the voluntary contributor, or rather the late employed contributor who now becomes a voluntary contributor, to pay up any arrears so as to put him out of arrear should be extended. The power to pay up arrears is limited to two years, the current year and the preceding year, and, as has already been pointed out, this question of arrears may spread over three or four years. I cannot see when it is a man ceases to be employed within the meaning of this part of the Act. Are there only two things which cause him to cease to be employed, one death and the other transfer to a voluntary society? Is there any other way in which a man can cease to be employed within the meaning of this Act? This is a matter of importance. Take the case of a clerk who has been an employed clerk. He might conceivably be out of employment for two, three, or six months. Does he thereby cease to be employed, or are there any other ways in which an insured person ceases to be employed except by death or transfer to a voluntary society?
  Mr. CAVE: There is one point that has been pressing on a good many of us. I quite understand the difficulty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to meet. He wants to meet the case of men who join the employed class for a short time only and then transfer to another class. I do not think that that is likely to be done to any extent in order to evade payment. There are two ways of dealing with the case. The Bill proposes to treat him as voluntary from the beginning. The effect of that is, of course, to make him in arrear with his contributions; so he is in the position of either having to pay up something or take reduced benefits or have his benefits suspended altogether. A man
  270
  who has made proper contributions for three or four years ought not to be put in the position of taking benefits too small in case of sickness or otherwise or having to pay a sum which he might not be able to find. That is why I do not like that way of dealing with the matter. The other way suggested was to treat him as having joined as a voluntary contributor from the date at which in fact he does join as a voluntary contributor, so that if there be any device at all the device fails. Let him come in then at the rate appropriate to the date. Let him join then for the first time as a voluntary contributor. He ought to have credit for the reserve which has been built up for him, so that the voluntary contributions ought to be reduced to that extent according to their actuarial value. It seems to me right, at any rate, to give him the option. I think in many cases it would be exercised.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If anybody suggests that there is a better way of carrying out the object aimed at, of course, we shall certainly consider it very carefully, but there is no difference in the object we have got in view, and I would suggest that the words stand at the present moment. It would be very much better to leave out the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. We do not want the contributor to get the credit of the reserve. He gets the credit during the time he is there, but he comes in at the appropriate age. I think it will be found that the Clause is really very much better, but if there are any other suggestions I shall be very glad to consider them.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There is a point which I wish the Government to take into consideration. I do not think it is possible for private Members to draft the sort of Sub-section which is necessary to deal with intricate matters of this kind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in an earlier reply which he gave to me, explained that the man under forty-five who has been an employed contributor until within five years, and becomes a voluntary contributor, would carry with him to the credit of his new voluntary account whatever contributions have been paid by himself or his employer on his behalf. But he shall not carry with him the contributions which he had from the State, or would have had, had he remained an employed contributor, to equalise his age. As far as that goes the Sub-section is not dealing with anything in the future, but it is dealing with a

  271
  special provision which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in his scheme for persons over the age of sixteen, in order to prevent their having to pay a higher contribution. If the words remain exactly as they are, if the Sub-section is made to read exactly as explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one result will follow: The man who joins within six months as an employed contributor, being over the minimum age and under forty-one, and within five years becomes a voluntary contributor, will be worse off than the man who starts as a voluntary contributor.
  Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: On a point of Order. Hon. Members on the Labour Benches are talking so loudly that I have great difficulty in hearing what the right hon. Gentleman says. These hon. Members are not referring to the Bill at all.
  The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Gentlemen who are sitting near the hon. Member for Mansfield, and have been talking so as to prevent his hearing what is said, should cease to do so.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The provision to which I was referring is paragraph (a) of Section 1 of Clause 5 which we have just passed. That provides in the case of voluntary contributors who come into insurance within six months after the commencement of this Act, if he is below the age of forty-five at the date of coming into insurance, that the rate shall be the same rate as the employed rate; that is, the minimum rate unweighted by anything on account of his age. The voluntary contributor under the age of forty-five coming in within six months of the Act into insurance does get the State assistance to counterbalance his excessive age. If he comes within five years as an employed contributor, and he is then transferred, he loses it. That is the difference between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and me, taking the Sub-section as expounded by him.
  Mr. CASSEL: I do not wish to be unduly insistent, but I should like to have the point cleared up. The Member for West Ham took the case of a person who is an employed contributor. For two years he remains an employed contributor, and he then loses his employment. He hopes to get employment again, but for six months or so he is out of employment. He does not wish to get into arrears but continues to pay both the 4d. and the 3d.
  272
  He does not hope to get the 3d. any more, but he pays the whole 7d. voluntarily. He is not in arrears, therefore Section 10 does not touch him at all. He is a voluntary contributor, and being a voluntary contributor he is hit by this Section. The First Lord of the Admiralty shakes his head. I know he thinks that notice has to be given, but the provisions applicable to notice relate only to the case where the person who starts as a voluntary contributor, becomes an employed contributor. But in the case of a person who starts as an employed contributor, when he becomes unemployed and does not wish to get into arrears, if he pays the contributions, he is a voluntary contributor. He is certainly not a compulsory contributor, and cannot be anything but a voluntary contributor. Therefore his case is hit by the Sub-section. Supposing he continues being unemployed for three, four or even five months, hoping to get back to employment, and not wishing to get into arrears he makes his contributions, and therefore is a voluntary contributor, and hit by this Sub-section. In justice, I think he ought not to be hit by the Sub-section, and for that reason, unless I am satisfied to the contrary, I shall vote in support of the proposal of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The person does not become a voluntary contributor, and he still remains an unemployed contributor. This does not deal with voluntary contributors at all. I should like a little more time to consider the last point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). I am rather disposed to think that the case which he has put is one which has got to be dealt with. I should like to consider it, because for the moment I cannot quite see the answer to the point. In the case he has put the person ought not at any rate to be worse off than if he joins at the start. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press the point until I have had an opportunity of considering it.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: How long would a person go on being an employed contributor, if he is out of work and avoids arrears? There must be a limit somewhere—six months or nine months. If a man wants to leave his employment all he has got to do is to give notice and profess to seek some other employment, and in that case he would be better off than the man who does give notice, and is transferred under the Section. Surely there

  273
  must be some limit where a man is out of work, and ceases to be a voluntary contributor.
  Mr. CASSEL: I would point out that the provisions for notice are not applicable to this case at all. I think that is where the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was wrong.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: I think we should have a better understanding as to the question of arrears. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, if we are right in our impression, that the rates in respect of voluntary and employed contributors are identical. If the rates on the ordinary working of the Bill are identical, then the Sub-section falls through.
  Mr. HOHLER: I have listened carefully to the discussion, and I confess I cannot follow this Clause at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us it related to the ago of 45, but there is nothing in the Section to say so, not one word. It would apply equally to anybody who was an employed contributor at any rate, and became a voluntary contributor at any time. I further desire some explanation of the language employed in the next Subsection:—
  "Where an employed contributor within five years from his entry into insurance ceases to be employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act and becomes a voluntary contributor, he shall be deemed to be in arrear, as from the date when he became a voluntary contributor, to the amount of the difference between the aggregate contributions paid in respect of him as an employed contributor and the aggregate of the contributions which would have been payable by him."
  May I call attention to the fact that the difference is not between the contributions, but in regard to contributions paid in respect to him, and those which would have been paid by himself. The only contribution paid in respect to him would have been dealt with by the employer. Why is he not to have the benefit of both the contributions paid in respect to him and those paid by himself? It seems that the contributions paid by himself are lost sight of, and I confess the Clause to me is quite unintelligible.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: If a man is in employment and then ceases to be in employment because there is no work
  274
  for him, he may go and look for a situation for an indefinite period, and it becomes a very curious question for the purposes of this Section, because he may keep up his own payment and voluntarily pay the proportion his employer would have paid if he had remained in employment. At what stage is it that he becomes a voluntary contributor? If we pass this Section in this form, he would become a voluntary contributor immediately he ceased to be employed, and immediately he paid out of his own pocket not only his. own contribution but the contribution which should have been paid by the employer. If that be so, then the whole mischief of the Section immediately arises, and we come to the difficulty which has been discussed. But there is one point on which we have not had any explanation yet, although we have pressed it on the First Lord of the Admiralty and also upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and this point has reference to the last lines of the Sub-section. What is it that the man who is out of employment does? He does not want to get into arrears, and he pays the two contributions. What is it he is going to lose? If he is not going to lose anything, what is the necessity for the last lines of the Sub-section. It is a case for consideration. It is a hard case, where the man is out of employment, and to prevent himself from getting into arrears, he has paid not only his own but the employer's contribution. Yet this man under this Clause is to have something cancelled because he has gone out of his way to make these voluntary contributions; whereas, as far as we can make out, if he had been without any past history at all under the Bill, and had simply joined as a voluntary contributor, there would then, of course, have-been nothing for him to lose. The Subsection, as far as we can understand it, is calculated, I think, to do a very serious injustice to a very considerable number of people.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I really do not think there is any such difficulty as the hon. Member suggests. It may be necessary in Clause 10, Sub-section (6), that it should be made absolutely clear that they should not be applied to a person who pays his arrears when he is out of work. I think Sub-section (5) of Clause 10, as it stands, would cover the case, but this point would be more properly raised then. If it is not adequate, I agree with the hon. Member that we ought to make it still more clear. This refers to a totally different category, that is the person who

  275
  pays under another class and who is a voluntary contributor; I do not think he ought to get the benefit of a great reserve because he is in the employed class for a short time.
  Mr. NEVILLE: I would like to ask what attitude does the Chancellor adopt with regard to the voluntary conributor. Does he desire to attract them? I am now speaking of the class of man who by increased prosperity is enabled to get out of the ranks of the employed contributor and to become a voluntary contributor. Does the Chancellor want to have as many people as possible pass from the ranks of the employed contributors to the ranks of the voluntary contributors? That seems to me to be the key of the whole position. Suppose a man has passed from the ranks of the employed to that of the voluntary contributor, what is his position? Either he has to pay increased contributions, which we could understand if he is to be treated actuarially, or he is to forfeit something. Supposing a man gets into a position and wishes to cease as a voluntary contributor, there is no means under this Bill, so far as I can see, by which he obtains the surrender value, so that the position of the voluntary contributor seems to me to be one of considerable hardship. Supposing he continues to pay his 7d. per week, will there be a scale of benefits proportionate to that payment?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member does not seem to me to be speaking to the Amendment.
  Mr. NEVILLE: I am sorry if I have transgressed in any way. I was trying to show, as well as I could, that the position of an employed contributor when he becomes a voluntary contributor is one which we do not understand. I want to understand what is likely to happen when he is transferred from the ranks of the employed to the voluntary contributors. He is faced with increased subscriptions and does he get reduced benefits?
  The CHAIRMAN: What words are there in this Sub-section which it is proposed to leave out which deal with the question of reduced benefits?
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I think the words will reduce the benefits. That is really the point.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think so; this seems to me to deal with the question
  276
  of arrears. What depends on those arrears is treated elsewhere in the Bill, and can be dealt with where it is so treated.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: On the point of Order, if this Sub-section is passed, I do not think it is possible hereafter to deal with the question of arrears as it is under this Sub-section.
  Mr. W. THORNE: For the last quarter of an hour we have been pressing the Government to give us some information in regard to the last five or six lines. What we want to know is, what is going to be cancelled? Surely the Government must have some idea of what is going to be cancelled. If they are not prepared to give us some real idea of what is meant then it appears to me to be better to postpone this Section until we get it cleared up.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am sorry I did not make myself clear, perhaps the hon. Member was not here.
  Mr. W. THORNE: I was all the time.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What really happens is this, if a man comes in as a voluntary contributor within six months of the passing of the Bill and is under forty-five he is treated as if he were sixteen. That creates a great deficiency; that deficiency is wiped out at the expense of the fund. Supposing he only comes in as an employed person over forty-five in order to be able to claim the benefit of that deficiency, and goes into employment for a few weeks merely in order to be able to claim part of that reserve; then, in order to check that, we say that if within five years he passes from the employed class to the contributor class, he shall not get the benefit of that great reserve of the State. That is the whole of the question.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: If the reading of some of us of this Sub-section is right, then it affects very seriously some of the employed contributors. Suppose a workman is an employed contributor for two years and pays his 4d. and the employer pays 3d., and suppose at the end of the two years he leaves his employment and becomes, say, a small shopkeeper, and then elects to become a voluntary contributor, then he pays 7d. What is troubling me is that I am under the impression that he is deemed to be in arrears for the difference between what he ought to have paid as a voluntary contributor from the day when he became an employed con-

  277
  tributor. That would amount in two years to a sum of 26s., and it would be a serious matter for the man to be called upon to pay that difference. I hold that it would be unfair to ask him to pay the 26s., for the simple reason that his employer has already paid that 26s.
  Mr. McKENNA: It has nothing to do with that.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I hold the man will have to pay the difference between what he ought to have paid if he had been a voluntary contributor from the beginning.
  Mr. McKENNA: No.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: The Sub-section reads:—
  "Where an employed contributor within five years from his entry into insurance ceases to be employed within the meaning of this part of this Act and becomes a voluntary contributor, he shall be deemed to be in arrear, as from the date when he became a voluntary contributor to the amount of the difference between the aggregate contribution paid in respect of him as an employed contributor and the aggregate of the contributions which would have been payable by him had he originally become a voluntary contributor …"
  I make that out to be 3d. per week.
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend is under the impression that that means the employer's contribution. It does not; it means the difference between what the man would pay as a voluntary contributor at sixteen and what the man would have paid as a voluntary contributor at the age at which he comes in. The State makes good the difference for him between the age of sixteen and the age which he may be. The Bill says that that difference has got to be made good, and not the amount of the employers' contribution.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I am quite certain that this Sub-section is giving the impression which I have tried to indicate to the Committee. If I am wrong, I think it ought to be made much more clear than it is. I hold that a man who ceases to be an employed contributor, and through going into a small business or something of that kind becomes a voluntary contributor, that such a man should not be deemed to be in arrears and thereby be reduced in his benefits under the Schedule. I think that point
  278
  ought to be cleared up. If the impression of the Committee about it is not correct, I think it ought to be so explained.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. NEVILLE: I understand now from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this particular Sub-section is entirely directed against those people who attempt to de fraud and claim benefit that they ought not to be entitled to. That, however, does not meet the point, and the point is that of a person who, with no desire to get any benefits to which he is not entitled, but perfectly bonâ fide, says "I wish to be transferred from the employed contributor to the ranks of the voluntary contributor." That is the position the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not dealt with. We want to know what is the attitude of the Government on that point. Do they wish to have people transferred from one rank to the other, or would they rather not have them? For instance, are they going to make any loss over the transfer? If they are not, what is the real position of the voluntary contributor when he is transferred from one rank to the other? As I understand, either he will have to pay an increased amount, which, according to the First Lord of the Admiralty, cannot exceed 2d. a week, or he will have to receive reduced benefits. I am not sure that I am right, and I should like to have the Chancellor of the Exchequer's view on the point.
  Mr. BAIRD: The real difficulty is that it is not defined when an employed contributor who is no longer in employment ceases to be an employed contributor. We want to know when an employed contributor is not an employed contributor. It seems to me that in endeavouring to meet a possible case of fraud the Chancellor of the Exchequer will inflict a certain amount of hardship. We. do not want to consider the man who, when he is in a position to be a voluntary contributor, endeavours fraudulently to get the benefit of the employed contributor, but we want to safeguard the man who, from no fault of his own, becomes unemployed.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have already stated that we will deal with that when we come to Clause 10, Sub-section (5), and that it may be necessary to insert some additional words; but the question does not arise at this point.
  Mr. BAIRD: Then what is the use of this Sub-section? As it stands, it does not define when a man is an employed con-

  279
  tributor and when a voluntary contributor; but it does provide for the man who becomes a voluntary contributor being put on a different footing and having to give up something which he would not have to give up if he remained an employed contributor. Whatever is done on Clause 10 this Sub-section is obscure, and all the explanations which have been given have failed to remove the obscurity. If we pass the Sub-section in its present form we shall be in the impossible position of not being able to tell our constituents what the Bill really does in this respect. Under the normal working of the Act will the rates at any given age for an employed contributor and for a voluntary contributor be identical? If so, there would be nothing to cancel. If not, we ought to know more about what the difference is.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not see what that has to do with this Sub-section.
  Mr. BAIRD: It has to do with the last few lines. We want to know what is being cancelled. If the rates are identical there is nothing to cancel. If the rates are not identical, what is being cancelled?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I would suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not press these words at present. I think he has admitted that the Sub-section will not do as it stands.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I did not say that. I said that I would consider the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and I have promised to consider the case raised by the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, which undoubtedly comes on Clause 10. The point raised by the right hon. Gentleman comes here, and I would like to have an opportunity of considering it. I did not say that it would be necessary to deal with it.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I thought I had carried conviction a little further, but I am not dissatisfied with the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to my particular point. Under the impression that he had made up his mind that the words must be altered I was going to suggest that, instead of passing the words now and amending them on Report, it would be worth while that he should cut out the Sub-section at this stage and bring it up in a clearer form subsequently. On both sides there is some difficulty in understanding exactly what will happen under this Sub-section.
  280
  After listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's explanation, I believe that only a very limited and temporary class will be affected by what he means to do. The difference between the employed and the voluntary contributors lies not in the amount which they have contributed, or in the rates appropriate to their ages in the future, but in the fact that from every employed contributor between the ages of sixteen and forty-five at the commencement the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to take a contribution as if the contributor were sixteen years of age and bring the resources of the State to bear to make good the loss on the insurance so created, and he does not wish to do that for the voluntary contributor. It is that which the man loses by being transferred from the employed to the voluntary class. If that is so, I think what the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires might be put much more clearly, and I do not think that these words carry it out. I think therefore it would facilitate business if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow the Sub-section to be negatived and bring up a new form of words on Report.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is purely a question of drafting. If I omitted the Sub-section now it would raise a much larger question altogether, and one that I could not deal with on Report. It is to a certain extent a relief. The relief may be small, but the amount has nothing to do with the rules of the House. All these points could be made clear on Report, because they are merely questions of drafting. When a promise is given that the Government will consider a question and do its best to make a Clause clearer from the point of view of drafting, it is usual to accept that undertaking, unless there is some great principle involved. I have listened very carefully to the Debate, and there is no question of principle involved between the Opposition and the Government. I still say that the suggestion we have made is perfectly reasonable. Nothing fresh has been advanced in the last half hour. I have explained over and over again all the points that have been raised. There is no point of difference between us except one of drafting, and I have promised to consider that. I would have considered it before if there had been any Amendment on the point on the Paper. I therefore suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn on the distinct undertaking by the Government to consider the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and to introduce any

  281
  Amendment that may be necessary to make quite clear that which in substance is agreed upon.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the very difficult question of when an employed contributor ceases to be an employed contributor. It is a conundrum: "When is an employed contributor not an employed contributor?" The right hon. Gentleman referred me to Clause 10 on that point. I referred carefully to Clause 10, and I do not find anything in that Clause that relates to that subject at all, or any place where it would be appropriate to put it in. I just wish the matter to be made quite clear. Are we to understand that somewhere in an appropriate place in the Bill it will be made clear that a man who has ceased to be in employment because he cannot find work, or for some other reason, and still continues to pay both his old contributions and the contribution his employer would have paid for him does not thereby become a voluntary contributor? If that can be made clear, as the right hon. Gentleman says, so as to save the unfortunate man who is out of employment from losing his benefit, from being subject to the cancellation involved in this Clause, and all the other disabilities involved in it, well, of course, we accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman at once.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I would point out that in Clause 10, Sub-section (5)—
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I cannot find anything in that Clause.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It does deal with the question of unemployment
  arrears, but that is not sufficient. What I say is that we are prepared, when we come to that Sub-section, to consider the point made by the hon. Member, and that other hon. Members have made, and see whether it is not necessary to strengthen the Subsection. I am not inclined to agree that it is necessary to strengthen it, but we ought to make it clear, and we ought to introduce words into the Sub-section in order to define clearly the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: There is one question I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. I have listened very carefully to this discussion. May I take the case of a workman at the age of twenty-five who is an employed contributor? At the age of twenty-nine he falls out of work for six months. At the end of that six months he goes back to work. I would like a very simple answer to this question: Will he at the end of that six months have lost any of the sum credited to him in the fund? It says in lines 20, 21, and 22, any sum "which would have been credited to that society in respect of him had he originally become a voluntary contributor shall be cancelled."
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That case is governed by Clause 10, Sub-section (5). He will be allowed to pay up the arrears and will not lose a penny.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: I am not satisfied with the explanation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us, and I am afraid I shall have to go to a Division.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 63.

  Division No. 268.]

  AYES.

  [8.20 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crooks, William

  Adamson, William

  Brace, William

  Crumley, Patrick

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Alden, Percy

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Delany, William

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Devlin, Joseph

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Fintbury, E.)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Doris, William

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Cameron, Robert

  Duffy, William J.

  Barnes, George N.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Barton, W.

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Ellbank, Rt. Hon, Master of

  Beale, William Phipson

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Clynes, John R.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Black, Arthur W.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Boland, John Pius

  Cotton, William Francis

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Ffrench, Peter

  Field, William

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rowlands, James

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Gill, A. H.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Manfield, Harry

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Hackett, John

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Sheehy, David

  Hancock, J. G.

  Meagher, Michael

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Shortt, Edward

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Morgan, George Hay

  Sutherland, John E.

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Sutton, John E.

  Hayward, Evan

  Neilson, Francis

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Hinds, John

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hodge, John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Wadsworth, John

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  O'Dowd, John

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Ogden, Fred

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  O'Grady, James

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Johnson, W.

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Waring, Walter

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Webb, H.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Joyce, Michael

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Keating, Matthew

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Kelly, Edward

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Kemp, Sir George

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Pringle, William M. R

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Lansbury, George

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (S. Shields)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reddy, Michael

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Lundon, Thomas

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Richards, Thomas

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  McGhee, Richard

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  NOES.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fell, Arthur

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Magnus, Sir Phillip

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Barnston, H.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Gretton, John

  Pollock. Ernest Murray

  Bird, Alfred

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Boyton, James

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hills, John Waller

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cave, George

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Clyde, James Avon

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

  Stanier, Beville

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Goldman and Mr. Baird.

  Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. BRUNNERmoved, to add at the end of Sub-section (4) the following new Sub-section:—
  284
  (5) "Where an unemployed contributor ceases to be employed within the meaning of this part of this Act by

  285
  reason of his income rising from under one hundred and sixty pounds per annum to over that amount, in the event of his not desiring to become a voluntary contributor he shall be entitled to receive back the amount of his contributions (but without interest) less one-third of the value of any benefits he may have received for the period during which he has contributed."
  It seems to me that when an employed contributor ceases to come under the title of such he surely ought to be allowed to draw out his money. This Amendment will enable him to demand back his contribution loss one-third, or the value of the benefits which I think is a fair amount. If there is any man who does not want to remain in the scheme, I do not think the Government would suggest that he should be kept in it, especially as he may have an income over £160, and perhaps running up to £400 or £500.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The scheme of the Bill is that if he is employed for five years he can come in as a voluntary contributor under the earlier Clauses. If, of course, he pays less than five years he can only get benefits and continue under special terms. My hon. Friend suggests that in certain circumstances he should receive back the amount of his contribution less the whole of any weekly payments he may have received during the period he was a contributor. There is no reason why there should be any difference in his case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up"]— and that of any other contributor. I cannot quite appreciate why my hon. Friend suggests that there should be any difference.
  Mr. BRUNNER: He may have a large income, and may not want to be in the scheme, and therefore in that case I think he ought to be allowed to come out on terms. If you do not give him back the whole of his contribution you might give him back part of it, reduced by one-third or by the amount of the benefits he may have received during the time that he was a contributor.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: As the Bill has been altered in certain circumstances, would it not be quite possible for such an employed contributor to become a voluntary contributor.
  Mr. FORSTER: What is to happen to a person who loses his qualification—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up, we cannot hear a
  286
  word"]—as an employed contributor or who is disqualified by reason of the fact that he has £160 a year. It seems to me that such a man goes out of insurance altogether. What the hon. Member who moved this Amendment proposes is to create a surrender value for those contributors who, owing either to a loss of employment or to increased income, are disqualified from coming under the scheme. The Committee has already decided that any one who is possessed of an income of £160 a year shall become a voluntary contributor; in these circumstances I hardly think the hon. Member will press his Amendment.
  Mr. BRUNNER: But he would lose the whole of the money he put in.
  Question, "That these words be there added," put, and negatived.

  CLAUSE 7.—(Power to Make Regulations for the Payment of Contributions.)
  Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Insurance Commissioners may make regulations providing for any matters incidental to the payment and collection of contributions payable under this Act, and in particular for—

  (a) payment of contributions by means of adhesive or other stamps affixed to or impressed upon books or cards, and regulating the manner, times, and conditions in, at, and under which such stamps are to be affixed or impressed;

  (b) the entry in or upon books or cards of particulars of contributions paid and benefits distributed in the case of the insured persons to whom such books or cards belong;

  (c) the issue sale custody or delivery up of books or cards and the replacement of books or cards which have been lost, destroyed, or defaced.

  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "may" ["the Insurance Commissioners may make regulations"], and to insert instead thereof the words "in conjunction with the Advisory Committee shall."
  Under the provisions of this Bill the Insurance Commissioners would be etitled to make highly technical regulations as regards the collections and payment of contributions, and I wish by my Amendment to make it compulsory that they shall act with the advice of the Advisory Committee.

  287
  At present we do not know who the Insurance Commissioners are, and we had not so long ago a person appointed as a Development Commissioner without any very expert knowledge, and it may happen that Insurance Commissioners, not having the necessary knowledge of friendly societies, may make it very irksome to the contributors through their lack of knowledge of the working of friendly societies. It seems very necessary in this highly technical work that the Commissioners should have the concurrence of the expert Advisory Committee on such occasions. If ever an Advisory Committee was required it is required in carrying out this Clause, and for this reason I ask the Government to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I would like to know if this Amendment is carried does it make any alteration in the Bill at all. Surely the Advisory Committee is appointed for the express purpose of advising the Commissioners in regard to the regulations?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that this Amendment is being moved to draw an explanation from the Government.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: My Amendment will make the Clause read that the Commissioners "shall make regulations" instead of "may make regulations."
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I omitted to notice the word "shall."
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: The Bill provides for an advisory committee, but the Insurance Commissioners are not bound to act on their advice; but if this Amendment is accepted they will be bound to act and accept the advice of the committee in making those highly technical regulations relating to the payment and collection of contributions.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I quite agree with the view expressed by the hon. Member that the Insurance Commissioners should act under the advice of the Advisory Committee, but really that is what the Bill does already. It is true the hon. Member proposes the substitution of the word "shall" for "may." The Bill says that the Insurance Commissioners are to make the regulations, and that they may make them acting with the advice and assistance of the Advisory Committee, as provided in Clause 42. The only effect of accepting
  288
  that Amendment would be that Insurance Commissioners would not only be bound to make the regulations, but they would be bound to make them in conjunction with the Advisory Committee. If this Amendment is carried, the Insurance Commissioners would be bound not only to take the advice, but also to act on the advice of the Advisory Committee, whereas as the matter is left by the Bill the Insurance Commissioners have to consult the Advisory Committee, and, of course, it is for them to decide after hearing the views of the Committee whether they will act in accordance with them or not. The hon. Member has put his point with perfect lucidity, but I submit that really there is nothing to be gained by asking us to accept this Amendment which places the Insurance Commissioners in the position of being outvoted by the Advisory Committee. That cannot be what the hon. Member intends. If he does mean that, then he is substituting for the Commissioners the Advisory Committee and putting a subordinate body at their head. I do not think any useful purpose will be served by pressing this Amendment.
  Mr. POLLOCK: What the Attorney-General has said is not the last word on behalf of this Amendment. Clause 42, it is important to observe, only requires that:—
  "The Insurance Commissioners shall, as soon as may be after passing of this Act, appoint an Advisory Committee for the purpose of giving the Insurance Commissioners advice and assistance in connection with the making and altering of regulations under this Part of this Act."
  The Advisory Committee is to be appointed for that purpose, but it is clear that the Insurance Commissioners can, if they like, use the Advisory Committee as little as they please. There is no guarantee that this Advisory Committee will have full opportunity of giving their advice, nor is there any guarantee that their advice will be accepted. I understand that the Attorney-General agrees that the Insurance Commissioners ought to make these regulations in conjunction with the Advisory Committee. All my hon. Friend wants is a guarantee in the terms of the Bill itself, that in fact the Insurance Commissioners shall do what the learned Attorney-General says they ought to do, namely, frame their rules on the advice, and only on the advice, of this important

  289
  Advisory Committee. The Committee will be drawn from a number of persons who are very anxious as to how this Bill shall affect them, such as the representatives of associations of employers and approved societies, and of such other persons as the Commissioners may appoint. I feel confident that the large friendly societies will be discomfited by knowing that their representatives' advice may prove useless and that their advice need not be taken by the Insurance Commissioners. The intention of the Act is that the Insurance Commissioners shall only make regulations after this advice has been taken, and for the purpose of embodying that advice. If that is so, then let us have it made clear in the bill as it will be if this Amendment is inserted, for it will add the safeguard of "shall" instead of "may." That will give a clear indication that these regulations should be drawn up by the Commissioners upon the advice of the Advisory Committee. That Committee will represent people who are deeply stirred by this Bill and who represent important interests. I hope the Attorney-General will reconsider the matter with a view of giving it a more effective consideration than he has done up to the present.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: It seems to me that this is quite a revolutionary Amendment, because it changes the Advisory Committee into the controlling body. That is the real meaning of the Amendment. An Advisory Committee is a committee to advise, and we can hardly assume that the Commissioners will not take the advice of the Advisory Committee for what it is worth. The responsibility, however, must lie upon the Insurance Commissioners themselves, and we should not allow that responsibility to be diminished by accepting the Amendment.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: This Amendment has been moved simply with the object of providing that the Insurance Commissioners should consult the Advisory Committee on these points. The Bill provides that an Advisory Committee should be appointed. What we desire to secure is that those men in the country acquainted with friendly societies should give advice on these matters. We are not certain there will be representatives of the friendly societies among the Insurance Commissioners, but we do hope that on the Advisory Committee the friendly societies will be represented. All my hon. Friend desires is that it should be made absolutely
  290
  certain the Advisory Committee on which the friendly societies are represented will be consulted before these technical points are determined by the Insurance Commissioners. I hope, unless we get a more satisfactory answer from the Attorney-General, my hon. Friend will divide upon this Amendment.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: The Attorney-General said the Insurance Commissioners could be outvoted by the Advisory Committee. I do not quite see why. We do not know the number of Insurance Commissioners going to be made. You may make twenty Insurance Commissioners, and there may be only ten on the Advisory Committee.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: You might have twenty on the Advisory Committee and only ten Insurance Commissioners.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Yes, but you might have it the other way. I wish to provide that in making these highly technical arrangements which will affect the friendly societies very much, the Insurance Commissioners should be bound to take their advice.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I am in sympathy with the object of my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I must own it seems to me scarcely necessary to move the Amendment or to divide upon it. I think it very necessary the Insurance Commissioners should take the advice of this Committee, and it is very desirable the Advisory Committee should contain a number of persons drawn from different classes capable of advising the Commissioners, but when I read Clause 42 I must own it is almost impossible for the Insurance Commissioners to act without the advice of the Committee, because that Clause says the Insurance Commissioners shall, as soon as may be after the passing of the Act, appoint an Advisory Committee for the purpose of giving the Insurance Commissioners advice upon this very subject. It therefore seems to me that it will be almost a dereliction of duty upon the part of the Insurance Commissioners if they frame the regulations without taking the advice of this particular Committee. We cannot for a moment suppose the Advisory Committee will be the supreme authority. The supreme authority will be the Insurance Commissioners. The Advisory Committee can only give advice, and under this case I think there can be no doubt whatever the Insurance Commissioners would act,

  291
  and act only on the advice of the Committee. I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment to a Division.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to add, "(d) the production of his card by the member of an approved society, bearing the name of such society, at meetings thereof, at least monthly, for endorsement."
  Clause 7 provides for the making of regulations under the Act by the Insurance Commissioners for dealing with certain matters which are incidental to the payment and collection of contributions, and in particular, it provides for the payment of contributions by means of adhesive stamps. These regulations cover a very considerable number of what may be called small domestic items. I have moved this Amendment in the interests of the friendly societies, and I hope it is one which the Attorney-General will see his way to accept. It in no sense militates against the spirit of the Bill. The friendly societies are largely dependent upon that personal element by which the Members are bound together, and that depends to a large extent on their having the opportunity of frequently meeting. Their meetings are not always regularly attended, but still there are the weekly meetings at which members can get to know one another, and it is by this personal touch they get to know the best men to appoint to hold office in the societies. All this may be changed. I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to preserve the vitality of the friendly societies, but a very serious blow will be struck at their vitality if they do not have the opportunity of meeting as hitherto. Men do not meet one another if there is no business to be performed, and the friendly societies feel, if the stamp system of collecting is introduced, some provision ought to be made whereby they would have an opportunity of seeing these cards and requiring the attendance of members at their meetings in order that the same personal element may continue in the future as in the past. If some Amendment of this sort is not introduced, it may happen in a great many cases that the societies will not see their members for a very long period of time. If a member adopts this method of payment by adhesive stamps, instead of paying at
  292
  the meetings of the society there will really be no opportunity to meet him. The purpose of the meetings will be gone and the vitality of the societies will be sapped. So far as I can judge, no important alteration will be made in the scheme of the Act by the Amendment. All I ask is that in the matter of regulations one of the matters to which the Insurance Commissioners should pay attention should be the making of some rule and provision for the production of a card by a member of an approved society at least once a month for endorsement. This is not a final Sub-section, because it is a matter which will have to be dealt with by the Insurance Commissioners. It will have to be carried into effect more by the regulations of the Commissioners than by the terms of the Subsection itself. My Amendment will preserve the friendly societies in a manner which is at present in jeopardy, and I ask the Attorney-General to favourably consider it.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: On a point of Order. I want to ask whether this Amendment will preclude the discussion of an Amendment I have put down on Clause 21 with regard to the holding of meetings on licensed premises?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: (Mr. Whitley): It does not refer to that point at all.
  Mr. BOOTH: But is it not the case that many societies do, at the present time, meet on licensed premises, and if we decided to insist on compulsory attendance once a month would that not affect the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a matter of merit rather than of order, and we cannot argue it at this point.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I must say at once I can see no reason for accepting this Amendment. I agree with the hon. Member that the whole scheme is, as far as possible to be worked in conjunction with friendly societies. But we do not desire to fetter the freedom and liberty of those societies in any direction which is not absolutely necessary. We do not want to give the Commissioners power to make regulations affecting friendly societies unless it is shown to be really necessary. There is no necessity in this case. The cards will be issued in the ordinary course; the workman will take the card to the employer, and, when the period of issue comes to an end the card will be taken to the society. In the interval there must

  293
  necessarily be entries made in the lodge books of contributions and surely there are ample opportunities for the societies themselves to make regulations affecting their members without calling upon the Insurance Commissioners to make them. It will be for the societies themselves to decide this matter. We want to leave it to them. It will be possible for them to make a rule requiring the attendance of the member for the purpose of having his card endorsed. But I do not think it is desirable to insert a provision of that nature in this Bill.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. FORSTER: With the general object of my hon. Friend I am in entire sympathy, but I do not think the form of words embodied in his Amendment will really carry out the object which we both want to secure. After all we have to remember that many of the societies, which will become approved societies under this Bill, will not be friendly societies in the same sense in which my hon. Friend deals with them. There will no doubt be trades unions and collecting societies and other societies of a like nature. I think we should hesitate to impose any such regulations by the action of the Commissioners upon societies which do not under their own rules hold meetings at monthly dates. I do not think, therefore, the form of words suggested by my hon. and learned Friend is one we should insist upon. But there is a real anxiety in the minds of existing friendly societies that unless they are able to secure the attendance of members a their periodical meetings they will suffer under the provisions of the Bill. Speaking for myself, I believe that that fear is not altogether ill-grounded. I also agree that the fear present in their minds that unless they are able to insist upon the attendance of their members the spirit of brotherhood which friendly societies have built up will be diminished and damaged. The Committee will view with great reluctance any proposal that would tend to diminish that spirit of fraternity, and it is with the object of preventing such diminution that my hon. and learned Friend has moved this Amendment.
  Mr. BARNES: I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Amendment did it in the interests of friendly societies. I have been told that the Amendment is put forward with the goodwill and concurrence of the friendly societies. I am rather surprised to hear
  294
  that. I should not have been surprised to hear that it had been put forward with the goodwill and concurrence of publicans. I shall vote against the Amendment if it is pressed to a Division, because I think it is an unwarrantable interference with the liberty of friendly societies and trades unions, who prefer to manage their own business in their own way. We have been told it is the custom for friendly societies to meet once a week for fraternal purposes. Well, we want to promote these fraternal meetings, but I do not think it is to be done by adopting an Amendment of this character. I see no need for putting this pressure upon friendly societies and trade unions. Some friendly societies and trade unions have meetings, but I belong to a friendly society, a centralised society, which has no local meetings, and where all the business is done through the Post Office. If the terms of this Amendment were applied to that society it would be compelled to alter its rules and to alter them so as to be out of harmony with the general principles and administration of the society. The committees of the trade unions, who may have, or may not have, a meeting once a month, would be compelled to meet once a month.
  These societies, within the limits of their power over their own members, now make provision for their meeting together and you may safely conclude that they apply that very much to the limit of such power. If they think they cannot do that with safety, it is a matter for themselves and for their own discretion, as to how they can work this Bill in the interests, as they think best, of their own members and of their good administration. Therefore I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider whether it is necessary to take up the time of the House in pressing this Amendment to a Division. I can assure them that it will go against the grain of the organised workman of this country to put a provision of that sort in their rules and to compel members to meet once a month.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: I wish to support the Amendment, but I do not agree with the last two words which provide that the meetings should take place at least once a month. There is an Amendment lower down in my name which gives discretion to the societies and to the Commissioners to decide how often these meetings shall take place, and I suggest to the hon. and

  295
  learned Gentleman that he should withdraw his Amendment and perhaps support the. Amendment lower down. The hon. Member who has just spoken says this was an Amendment which was not supported by the friendly societies. It is one of the Amendments suggested by the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows. He said it was suggested not by the friendly societies, but by the publicans.
  Mr. BARNES: I said exactly the opposite. I accepted the statement that had been made that the Amendment was brought forward by, or supported by, the friendly societies.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: I understood the hon. Member to say that it really was in the interests of the publicans, and not in the interests of the friendly societies, and I wish to point out that it was suggested by the Manchester Unity at their Conference held in the month of June to consider Amendments to this particular Bill. As they are one of the most influential and largest of friendly societies, we may fairly say that this Amendment has got the support of the benefit societies of the country. It has been suggested that there would be great difficulty in getting members of the approved societies to attend meetings regularly. One of the things provided by this Bill is that the centralised societies may establish local branches in all parts of the country, and I think there will be no difficulty in making arrangements that members of approved societies should attend meetings of their particular societies. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Hearts of Oak?"] It is provided that centralised societies like the Hearts of Oak should provide local committees which would do the work in the particular districts, and, therefore, I think there would be no difficulty in working the Amendment. We put it forward with the object of giving friendly societies under the Bill the control which they have at present, and we wish to maintain that spirit of unity which has always existed among the members of friendly societies. You cannot do that if officers of friendly societies never get a chance of seeing their members. I hope the Attorney-General will see his way to consider the Amendment, and, if possible, meet the views of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am afraid the Amendment is a little more serious than the hon. Member who has just sat down quite understands. Even he did not like one of
  296
  the important Clauses in it. Surely in this Bill the intention is that trade unions shall act as approved societies for the whole of their approved members. A portion of this proposal provides that if a member of a trade union presents his card at a monthly meeting that card will bear the name of a society, but the employer of that man, if his card bore the name of his society, would see it when he came to put on the stamp. That strikes at one of the fundamental principles of this Bill, that a man need not disclose to his employer what society he is a member of or whether he is a member of a society or not. All the employer has to do is to put the seven stamps on—four for the man and three for himself—and he is not necessarily to know how that man is insured or from what union he cornea. I am perfectly sure there is no trade unionist in the country who would not rebel against this Amendment. As it is drawn it apparently meets the views of some friendly society men in this country.
  The Manchester Unity has been mentioned, but I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has seen in the public Press an important letter by the great Past-Master of that society, Mr. Hawkins, in which he strongly advocates that the new members; who come in compulsorily should not have votes, because if they had votes in the same way as the old members they might swamp them and turn the Order in a new direction. The hon. Member must see the effect if he considers his Amendment in connection with these views of Mr. Hawkins. The majority of the members of these societies, in some cases, will be new members compelled to come to the monthly meetings, but they will not have the power to vote, and they will have no control. I ask him whether that would improve fraternity among the workmen. I am quite sure it would not in the least improve the administration or the fraternity of any society. I do not know whether the hon. Member quite knows why the-Amendment has been framed in this way. I think I know, and that many people outside this House and some inside it also know. It is not framed to help any friendly society. It is framed with the object of making it difficult for approved societies to be formed under the Act. I am sure that is not the hon. Member's intention. The only effect it could have would make it very difficult for these approved societies to be formed if it is stipulated that they must have monthly meetings and all the members must attend.

  297
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Bill invites people of all walks of life, in all parts of the country and of all kinds of parties to form themselves into approved societies. He includes the agricultural districts with the other parts of the country, but if you compel these societies to have monthly meetings you will be putting a great hindrance in the way, particularly in the country districts, of forming approved societies. That is why we object to it. We think these people should be induced to form these societies, and we would naturally like to leave them as free as possible. The rules can be enacted by the societies of any kind to suit their own purpose, and surely one ought not to begin by destroying the very foundation principle of friendly societies, namely, telling them when they must hold their meetings, how often members must attend, and what they must do when they get there. If we once begin that I am afraid we deal a deadly blow at the foundation principle of all these societies.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before the discussion goes any further, I must confess I have been a little neglectful of my duties. I notice that the whole of this Clause is subject to the words "matters incidental to the payment and collection of contributions," and therefore the argument with regard to maternity and so on hardly arises. I hope subsequent speakers will confine themselves to the Amendment as concerned with the collection of contributions.
  Mr. POLLOCK: Having heard what I have heard, I should like to move my Amendment in the form in which it appears in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Goldsmith). I hope in that sense it will be shown that the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) is effective in his criticisms as to one-fourth part, and I am sure that he will appreciate that I am endeavouring to meet some of his objections. May I now reply to some of the criticisms which have teen directed against this Amendment? One is astonished when one listens to speeches like that of the hon. Member (Mr. Barnes) how the Amendment is misunderstood, because the hon. Member says this was an Amendment which would be in the interests of the publican. Does he appreciate that in saying that he is making a very grevious attack upon the Insurance Commissioners? This Amendment is only to give power to the Insurance Commissioners under Clause 7 to deal by the
  298
  regulations that the Insurance Commissioners are going to issue with certain matters. Does he suppose that the Insurance Commissioners will by the regulations they propose always provide that these rules shall be viséd at a public house? It means that the hon. Member has not appreciated the Amendment. It is merely to add certain items that can be dealt with by means of regulations to be issued by the Insurance Commissioners, and one has confidence enough in. the Insurance Commissioners to know that they will take the proper steps in issuing their regulations to deal with the matters in Subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d), if my Amendment is accepted, and no others, and we may rely upon them to take all proper steps to see that the points which I think the hon. Member overlooked should be safeguarded. Therefore that danger does not arise.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood the hon. Member wished to withdraw his Amendment. Had he better not do that before he gets further with his speech?
  Mr. POLLOCK: I was afraid if I withdrew mine, you might rule that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend was out of order.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member was quite right there. I could not allow another Amendment so similar as the next on the Paper after a long discussion upon this.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Provided the Amendment now under discussion is not negatived but withdrawn, is it not possible to move the other Amendment? I think we ought to have been permitted to withdraw one Amendment, even after discussion, in order to move another —sometimes it has been done at the suggestion of a Government—not open to the same objections and which better meets the sense of the House.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Before you come to a decision as to that, may I ask you to consider Clause 7 and the Amendment which is proposed, which succeeds this one. There is a view I should want to put before you in reference to the proposed substituted Amendment on which I shall ask your ruling—a point which does not arise on the Amendment as it is at present framed.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Would it not be in. order to move to omit the words in the present Amendment—"bearing the name of such society?"
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Either would be in order. I did not mean to say-in reply to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) that the second Amendment should not be substituted by leave of the House, but I should not feel it my duty to allow a long Debate on the first Amendment and then another Debate on a similar Amendment. We had better get the revised Amendment before the Committee as early as possible.
  Mr. NEWTON: I do not want to interfere with what has been arranged, but there is one point I should like to have cleared up. The hon. Member (Mr. Booth) referred to the objection of the trade unions to having the fact disclosed to the employer that the employed was a member of their union. I sympathise to a great extent with that objection. I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether any other part of this Bill would enable an employer to know that an employed person was a member of a trade union. My own recollection of the Bill is that that would be disclosed under certain circumstances.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not arise at the present moment.
  Amendments made in the proposed Amendment: Leave out the words "bearing the name of such society." Leave out the words "at least monthly for endorsement."
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: On a point of Order. If you look at the Amendment as now proposed, together with the governing words of Clause 7, I would ask you what relevance is there in the Amendment to "regulations provided for in matters incidental to the payment and collection of contributions payable under this Act"? The point to which I desire to call your attention is that it is only such regulations which can be made. I submit that those words which it is proposed to insert have no reference whatever to the payment or collection of contributions, but deal with an entirely different subject.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I referred to that subject a few minutes ago. All I can say is that it is quite true those words are governed by the earlier words in the Clause. I do not rule this Amendment out
  300
  of Order on that ground. I leave it to the ingenuity of hon. Members, if they can, to-show that there is a connection, but I will not allow argument on other reasons than such as show that this is necessary as a matter incidental to the payment and collection of contributions.
  Mr. POLLOCK: The point raised by the Attorney-General does not really appear to be a relevant one. The Commissioners are to make regulations and in particular they are to make regulations for the payment and entry of contributions. We all know as a matter of fact that at the present time payment is made at meetings of the friendly societies and this proposal only carries out the present system. The rules should include the matters dealt with at the present time at meetings of friendly societies. I would point out that a rule when made at present has to be laid before the Registrar of Friendly Societies for approval, and that it is not an easy thing to alter a rule or to have a new rule made. I think it is better that these matters should be dealt with by regulations, and preferably by regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners. I was asked whether this Amendment was moved on behalf of the friendly societies. I desire-to draw attention to the fact that the Amendment is one of those drafted by the Amendments Committee of the Manchester Unity. It received the approval of all the delegates who attended the large meeting held at Brighton, and it is in the name of the Manchester Unity and others that I move it.
  Mr. ALBERT SMITH: I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Pollock) spoke as though the members of friendly societies were the only people to be considered in this matter. If the Amendment were passed, what would become of the members of the great trade unions of the country? They have large memberships and I ask how are they to go on on trade union basis if this proposal were accepted. I do not suppose that any societies in the world are better looked after in this respect than the trade unions, and I think they can be relied upon to see that their members are safeguarded. The proposed Amendment would be practically impossible to work.
  Amendment negatived.

BENEFITS.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Rates and Conditions of Benefits.)
  (1) The benefits conferred by this Part of this Act upon insured persons are—

  (a) Medical treatment and attendance, including the provision of proper and sufficient medicines (in this Act called "medical benefit");

  (b) Treatment in sanatoria or other institutions when suffering from tuberculosis, or such other diseases as the Local Government Board with the approval of the Treasury may appoint (in this Act called "sanatorium benefit");

  (c) Weekly payments whilst rendered unfit to provide their own maintenance by some specific disease or by bodily or mental disablement, commencing from the fourth day after notice thereof is given, and continuing for a period not exceeding twenty-six weeks (in this Act called "sickness benefit");

  (d) In the case of the disease or disablement continuing after the determination of sickness benefit, weekly payments so long as so rendered unfit by the disease or disablement (in this Act called "disablement benefit");

  (e) Payment in the case of the confinement of the wife of an insured person, who is not herself an insured person, or of a woman who is an insured person, of a sum of thirty shillings (in this Act called "maternity benefit");

  (f) In the case of persons entitled under any scheme made in accordance with this Part of this Act to any of the further benefits mentioned in Part II. of the Fourth Schedule to this Act (in this Act called "additional benefits") such of those benefits as may be distributable under that scheme.

  (2) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, the rates of sickness benefit and disablement benefit to which insured persons are entitled shall be the rates specified in Part I. of the Fourth Schedule to this Act.
  (3) The right to sickness benefit and disablement benefit shall not commence before the insured person attains the age of sixteen and shall cease on his attaining the age of seventy, but, save as aforesaid, the right to benefits (other than additional benefits) shall continue throughout life.
  (4) Except with the consent of the society or committee administering the
  302
  benefit, no insured person shall be entitled to any benefit during any period when ho is resident either temporarily or permanently outside the British islands, or to medical benefit during any period when he is resident outside the United Kingdom.
  (5) Where an insured person, having been in receipt of sickness benefit recovers from the disease or disablement in respect of which he receives such benefit, any subsequent disease or disablement, or a recurrence of the same disease or disablement, shall be deemed to be a continuation of the previous disease or disablement, unless in the meanwhile a period, continuous or discontinuous, of at least twelve months has elapsed, and at least fifty weekly contributions have been paid by or in respect of him:
  Provided that the benefit in respect of such subsequent or recurrent disease or disablement shall not commence to be payable before the date at which it would, apart from this provision, have commenced.
  (6) Where a woman is herself entitled to maternity benefit she shall not be entitled to sickness benefit, disablement benefit, or medical benefit at and for a period of four weeks after her confinement.
  (7) Notwithstanding anything in this Part of this Act, no insured person shall be entitled—

  (a) to medical benefit during the first six months after the commencement of this Act;

  (b) to sickness benefit unless and until twenty-six weeks have elapsed since his entry into insurance, and at least twenty-six contributions have been paid by or in respect of him;

  (c) to disablement benefit unless and until one hundred and four weeks have elapsed since his entry into insurance, and at least one hundred and four contributions have been paid by or in respect of him;

  (d) to sickness benefit in respect of any disease or disablement which commenced during the twenty-six weeks, or to disablement benefits in respect of any disease or disablement which commenced during the one hundred and four weeks, next following his-entry into insurance;

  (e) to sickness benefit or disablement benefit during any period when he is provided with board and lodging by his employer;

  303

  (f) to maternity benefit unless and until twenty-six, or in the case of a voluntary contributor fifty-two weeks have elapsed since his entry into insurance, and at least twenty-six, or in the case of a voluntary contributor fifty-two, contributions have been paid by or in respect of him.

  (8) As soon as a sum has been accumulated by investment sufficient, to provide interest at 3 per cent. per annum on the amounts then standing to the credit of all approved societies the benefits payable to insured persons under this part of this Act shall be extended in such manner as Parliament may determine, but in determining the distribution of such extended benefits amongst the persons who become entitled thereto regard shall be had to the claims or special considerations of persons who have entered into insurance at an early age.
  Dr. ADD1SON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "persons" ["upon insured persons"] to insert the words, "subject to the provisions of this Act."
  The purpose of this Amendment is to clear the ground for other qualifications proposed to be introduced in the Bill. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed his willingness to accept the Amendment, and for the general convenience of the House I do not propose at this time to make a long speech upon it. I may say that the object of the Amendment is mainly to facilitate the introduction into the Bill of such Amendments as will satisfy, in accordance with the opinions of this Committee, the reasonable requirements of the medical profession with regard to the administration and the style of various benefits. Unless some such qualifying words are introduced it will be impossible hereafter, without referring the Bill back, to introduce those Amendments.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Are we in possession of the Amendments to which the hon. Member refers? Do we know what we are voting for or rejecting?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It does not appear to me to be a case which requires that the Amendments should be put on the Paper. I take it that the purpose of this Amendment is that the Sub-section should not entirely close the question as regards rates and conditions of benefit. Possibly in a new Clause there might be something which would only be in order if
  304
  these words are inserted now. The hon. Member did not explain very fully what his Amendments are.
  Dr. ADDISON: There is a large number of Amendments on the Order Paper, which would necessitate this Amendment, and in order to save the time of the House I refrain at this stage from referring to them.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Amendment simply enlarges the freedom of the Committee. If these words are not inserted, it would be impossible to discuss some of the Amendments of which notice has been given. If they are accepted, it will be possible to discuss them. The Amendment does not necessarily bind the Committee to accept any of the Amendments.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I understand this Amendment is to enable further benefits to be moved. Surely we cannot discuss the benefits which are already set out in Clause 8 unless we know what are the further benefits to be proposed, and whether they will come within the financial limits.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Committee will not be in a position to discuss the medical position at all unless words are put in to give freedom to the Committee to discuss alternative proposals.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I think it is very desirable that these words should be introduced. The Amendment does not necessarily involve an increase in the number of benefits, but it will enable the Committee to discuss the conditions under which the benefits are to be given.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (a). I merely move in order to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to afford the Committee some information as to the present position of negotiations with the medical profession. He told us on the first day on which this Bill was in Committee that he had practically settled with the medical profession.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This should be discussed on Clause 14 and not on Clause 8. But for other reasons also it is extremely undesirable that this matter should be debated at this stage.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: With great deference to the Chancellor, it really is not out of order to move the omission of this

  305
  Sub-section. I move the omission of the Sub-section regarding medical benefits in order to obtain from the Government a statement of what those medical benefits are or how far the negotiations regarding them have gone. If the statement of the Chancellor should prove unsatisfactory, then I should be perfectly in order in going on with my Amendments to omit the medical benefits from the Bill altogether as being unsatisfactory. It is a constant practice to move the omission of provisions of a Bill in order to ascertain the views of the Government upon it. If the Chancellor appeals to me on the ground that this is not an appropriate moment for him to disclose negotiations that is another matter.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot rule this Amendment out of Order in this place on the ground that the subject comes up again in a subsequent Clause. If the hon. Member confines himself to the lines which he has indicated he is not out of Order.
  Dr. ADDISON: If the Amendment were negatived should we be able to discuss it again on Clause 14, where it is much more relevant and much more necessary that we should discuss it?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In Section 14, Sub-section (1) we have got the arrangements to be made with the medical profession. "Every approved society and local Health Committee shall for the purpose of administering medical benefit make arrangements with duly qualified medical practitioners for insured persons to receive attendance," and so on. That raises the whole of the arrangements with the doctors. I should like to know whether it is in Order to discuss on the character of the benefits given, the arrangements to be made with the doctors.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS:I have been approached by large numbers of doctors in my own Constituency, and their position is that unless they get satisfactory arrangements from the Chancellor they would prefer to leave medical benefits out of the Bill altogether, and leave the doctors to make their own arrangements with the insured, as they do at the present moment. It is impossible for me, as the representative of these doctors in the Brentford Division of Middlesex to decide whether these benefits should be included or not unless I know something of the views of the Government on the point. Everybody knows that negotiations have been taking place between the Government and the doctors.
  Mr. CAVE: Looking down the Amendment Paper there is a whole series of what I may call medical Amendments to this Clause. The point must come up over and over again. We have got the Chancellor of the Exchequer here to-day. We may not have him to-morrow. It would be impossible to deal with all the Amendments on this Clause without knowing something about the arrangements.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the arrangements are under this Clause.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give more favourable consideration to the plea put forward by my hon. Friend.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are still on a point of Order. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to address the House upon that point?
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I myself have an Amendment on Clause 8 which goes to the very root of the matter and is very important. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the first Amendment suggested that it should be limited to the medical benefits, and that the question of medical practitioners arises under Clause 14. The right hon. Gentleman probably knows very well that there is a very important Amendment to Sub-section (7) of this very Clause, and it will not be very easy to discuss the subject without some statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the position in which he stands with regard to the medical practitioners.
  Sir R. FINLAY: There is no doubt that my hon. Friend is in order in moving the Amendment, and it rests with the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he chooses to make a statement. The medical benefits have a direct bearing upon the question of the medical profession, and I respectfully submit that as the Amendment is allowed to be in order by the Chair the only question which remains is as to how far the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to go in stating what is applicable to the Amendment.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has correctly stated the question of order. I have allowed the Amendment because it is not out of order. The extension of the Debate on the Amendment of course is another question, and if I may say so, not a very easy one. Clause 14 is set apart for

  307
  the arrangements to be made with the medical profession for carrying out the benefits under Clause 8. Therefore it would obviously be proper to leave to the later Clause the consideration of the details of the methods to be adopted. I do not think the hon. Gentleman would be out of order in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has expectation that a statement can be made, and therefore, whether it is practicable or not. But I think he will see that it will be desirable to go further than that, and to get an assurance from the Government whether it is worth while to go on discussing paragraph (a), which is the one proposed to be omitted.
  Mr. FORSTER: I think there would be no disposition whatever as far as any Member of this Committee is concerned to question the ruling of the Chair, but it seems to me when we are dealing with a Bill of this kind, that we should save time and make the passage of the Bill easier if we put our cards upon the Table. The Amendment of my hon. Friend is in order, and the question really comes to this, whether or not the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us an indication or some idea of the arrangements he proposes to put into the Bill with reference to the medical benefits. It is absolutely impossible to discuss the question of the medical benefits divorced from the attitude of the medical profession towards them. I submit on the point of Order, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might give us some general indication of what he proposes to do on this Amendment, or some other Amendment dealing with the same subject.
  The DEPUTY- CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is in order, and the hon. Member might ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer a question on the subject. It remains for the Government to say how far they think it necessary to discuss the medical question on Clause 14. Otherwise, of course, a discussion on that Clause could not be allowed now.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: On this Amendment the Debate will be confined to medical benefits and attendance, and whether or not the medical treatment shall or shall not be applied under the Bill. That would be the whole scope of the debate. Therefore it will be practically useless for the purpose desired on the
  308
  other side of the House. I myself have met doctors on this subject. I received a representative deputation of doctors, and I am just as keen to represent their point of view as is the hon. Gentleman opposite. But I contemplated that Clause 14 would be the proper place for such a discussion, and I thought it would be too restricted upon this Clause.
  The DEPUTY- CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is in order, and we shall see later on the course of the discussion.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was beginning my remarks when the Chancellor of the Exchequer raised a point of order, and I will try to confine the Debate within narrow limits. Under this Bill certain benefits are given to all insurers, and one of these is medical treatment and attendance, including the provision of proper and sufficient medicine. I submit to the Government that we cannot vote "Aye" or "No" in favour of rejecting these medical benefits unless we know what they are. We are not bound to vote blindfold for giving medical benefits unless we know in the first place what the medical benefits are; in the second place how they are going to be given, and, in the third place, whether they are likely to be given at all. These are three points upon which we are entitled to information. First, as to what the benefits are. I think we are entitled to know. There have been deputations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has had negotiations with the doctors. Most important of all, it is of no use our passing medical benefits which are to cost a certain amount of money under the provisions of this Bill, unless there is a distinct certainty, or something approaching to a certainty, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to make such arrangements with the medical profession that they will give these medical benefits that we the House of Commons are offering to the people insured under this Bill. It is perfectly obvious that it is of no use putting into the Bill that you are going to give insured people medical benefits if you cannot do it. You cannot give medical benefits unless you have been able to arrange with the medical profession. You might put into the Bill that you will give free legal advice, but unless you arrange with the legal profession it would be of no use putting such a provision into the Bill. Unless you can arrange with the medical profesion it is idle to pass a Clause giving medical benefit. Supposing this Committee passes in a blind way the giving of

  309
  medical benefits, those hon. Gentlemen who are more directly representing the views of the doctors, among them my Noble Friend, the Member for the University of London, would be largely prejudiced in the Amendments which they wish to move. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us the other day—and I do not think he will really dissent from my words—that he had practically arranged the question of medical benefits with the medical profession. It so happened that within five minutes afterwards I was receiving a deputation from the doctors in my own division, and they told me, on the authority, they assured me, of the British Medical Association, that no arrangement had up to that time been come to between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the medical profession.
  I tried to follow out the Chairman's ruling without going into details, though personally I think it would be in order to do so. I am entitled to move this Amendment for the express purpose of asking a declaration from the Government, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he sat on these benches must have done so scores of times, and he must have made it far hotter for the Government than I can ever hope to make it for him, with the best intentions in the world. I do ask what arrangements he has made, or is making, with the medical profession. If he tells the House that the negotiations are in a critical condition, then the proper thing to do would be to postpone paragraph (a), and, if he prefers, I should be willing to alter my Amendment and leave the Debate on the medical question until we get to the end of the Clause. On the other hand, if he has to any extent come to an agreement with the doctors, then we are entitled, as Members of the House of Commons, to know of it. We are being bombarded by Constituents, doctors and others, and. as the Chancellor knows, I say, with all respect, it is his duty to tell us, in order that we may assuage the very reasonable interest of members of the medical profession and our own Constituents as to what the position is going to be.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think, in the first place, if I were to go into the whole question of the arrangements with the medical profession, I should be raising a Debate which clearly arises on Clause 14. It might act to the prejudice of any arrangement which may be arrived at before we come to Clause 14, and that is
  310
  obviously the time. There is another reason why I think the Committee would not press me. Nobody knows better than. the right hon. Member for the University of St. Andrews (Sir R. Finlay) that negotiations are pending, and it is no fault of mine that I am not in a position at present to inform the House. If I were at present, to venture into the whole of that position, and raise a Debate which is not relevant on this Clause, and no Amendment as to the proposed method of payment would be relevant to this Clause, and the difficulty is with regard to the method of payment and the arrangement under which they are to be paid, if I were to open a Debate of that kind it would undoubtedly prejudice the discussions which are now going on. I do not believe that that is the desire of any hon. Member on the other side of the House. By the time we arrive at Clause 14 I feel very sanguine that an arrangement will be arrived at which will be very satisfactory to the medical profession, and satisfactory to those who want to see medical treatment under the very best conditions. The hon. Member says how can you consider paragraph (a) without first of all knowing whether you can give the benefits that it proposes. For the simple reason that paragraph (a) is the first charge on twenty-five millions. I have not seen any proposals which would make it impossible for us, whatever happens, to secure medical benefits for those who are included. I do hope, under those conditions, that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment, which will make it very difficult. I am sure nobody wants to make it difficult, and it would make it really difficult, I can assure you, to proceed with the negotiations. I must decline to enter into full particulars until1 I hear the views of the medical profession on certain proposals which are before them. Otherwise there would be difficulty in the negotiations.
  10.0 P.M.
  Sir R. FINLAY: The point the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made would be fully met if he adopted the modified proposals my hon. Friend indicated, namely, that the consideration of this paragraph should be postponed. The medical profession do not desire that medical benefits should be excluded from the Bill, but their approval of the inclusion of medical benefits is conditional upon this, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will show clearly that his attitude towards the medical profession is such as

  311
  to render the Bill intolerable to them and tolerable to the public so far as its relations with the medical profession are concerned.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: How could you postpone it?
  Sir R. FINLAY: If the Chancellor will indicate that he is willing to hold this subject over I do not ask him, and no one asks him, to go into full particulars with regard to those negotiations. We do ask that he should definitely indicate what his attitude towards the main proposal of the medical profession is likely to be.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman really know what the proposals are?
  Sir R. FINLAY: I do. I know something of the subject. The Chancellor, I am sure, knows a great deal more. I know that in the view of the medical profession and in the view of those who understand how far the interests of the public are identified with those of the medical profession it is essential that before we commit ourselves to the inclusion of medical benefits we should know in general terms, without going into great details, what the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to be. I do most respectfully submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be aware that successful working of this Bill, so far as medical benefits are concerned, must depend on the attitude of the medical profession towards the proposal which he finally adopts. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer inform us how the matter stands. We do not ask for further details. They would have to be considered when we crane to a later stage of the Bill. If the altitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unsatisfactory in the matter it may be that it would be much better that the sum spent in medical benefits should be applied towards the increase of benefits in sickness, or for the other purposes to which the Bill is directed. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not persist in the, as I think, unreasonable attitude which he has adopted of refusing in any way to commit himself or to state definitely what response he is going to give to the demand of the medical profession.
  Dr. ADDISON: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will resist this proposal. It would not be possible on a Motion of this kind to discuss in detail any suggestions which may be made by members of
  312
  the medical profession as to the conditions under which they should work. Nor would it be any gain whatever to the House to postpone the Sub-section or to strike out of the Bill the medical benefits. If that were done the Bill would be useless for the betterment of national health. For the reasons the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated, I am confident that to engage in any detailed discussion at this stage would be thoroughly mischievous, and I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will continue to resist the Amendment.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I think it would probably be desirable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not at the present moment enter into any detailed statement in regard to the negotiations with the medical profession, and particularly for the reason that possibly those negotiations have not yet arrived at any absolutely satisfactory conclusion. On the other hand, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be well advised to assent to the modified proposal of my hon. Friend that we should postpone for the present the consideration of Sub-section (a). That Sub-section implies that arrangements have been settled between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the medical profession, because unless the members of the medical profession are prepared to give medical treatment and medical attendance the passing of this Clause would be absolutely futile. It seems to me that that is an indispensable preliminary to the passing of this Clause, and that the negotiations now in progress, which we all hope will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and members of the medical profession should be completed before we commit ourselves to saying that any number of millions of pounds shall be spent on medical treatment. I have no doubt it would be a wise course for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom we are all anxious to assist in these difficult negotiations, to postpone, for the moment at all events, the consideration of Sub-section (a), and to go on to some other of the benefits which can be given without having arrived at any settlement of the negotiations now in progress.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.): On a point of Order, would it be possible to postpone Sub-section (a)?
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): No; a part of a Clause cannot be postponed.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will resist this Amendment, because I apprehend that those who are promoting it are rendering the greatest possible disservice to the medical profession. It is highly desirable in the state in which the negotiations at present stand that the atmosphere should be perfectly clear and cool. Everybody who has received deputations from the medical profession knows something of the negotiations which are proceeding and of the position in which they stand at present. I agree that without the hearty cooperation of the medical profession the whole scheme is doomed to failure. I believe it is possible for an equitable adjustment to be attained, but time is required. I know there are certain doctors in my own Constituency who desire further time for consideration and to approach other members in the district. As far as I have been able to gather, there is everything to be said for the postponement of the disclosure of the state of the negotiations until we reach Clause 14. Precipitate action might prejudice the situation and render it extremely difficult for an adjustment to be arrived at. We on these benches are often involved in similar circumstances. We are often engaged in delicate negotiations with employers, and if our members insisted that we should make public the exact state of the negotiations we should often thereby render nugatory the whole of our proceedings, and destroy any possibility of an agreement being arrived at. I am as desirous as any member of the House that an equitable settlement may be ultimately arrived at with the doctors, and I think that we shall best serve the interests of the medical profession by not pursuing the matter further to-night, but by allowing a little more time for matters to develop. When we reach Clause 14 we shall be in a better position to consider and discuss the whole question.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.): On a further point of Order: If medical treatment and attendance is left out of the benefits provided by this Clause, would it be in order to discuss Clause 14 at all?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having amended Clause 8 by inserting the words, "Except as hereinafter provided," would it not be in order to leave out Sub-section (a), and to insert a fresh Sub-section in Clause 14 providing that in addition to the benefits comprised in Clause 8 medical benefits shall be so and so?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not want to give a positive answer to the question of the hon. Member, but I think it might be rather difficult to deal with Clause 14 if this Sub-section were omitted.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Surely it would be in order, if this Sub-section were struck out, to move an Amendment on Clause 14 in the sense that I have suggested?
  The CHAIRMAN: Either you must keep the words in or you must leave them out. If the words are left out it might be difficult to deal with the matter on Clause 14. I think it would be better not to give a definite reply on the point raised by the hon. Member.
  Sir H. CRAIK: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, I speak on this question with an amount of interest that is equalled by very few Members. I have at least 5,000 doctors in my Constituency. I know quite well that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to come to a fair and reasonable settlement with the doctors, but I am not quite sure that it is necessary for their sake to postpone this particular Subsection. I hope hon. Gentlemen will not jump down my throat on a point of Order if I raise this difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman seems to contemplate going on with the whole of Clause 8. He knows quite well that there are two schemes, one of which must be adopted if there is to be satisfaction. Either you must restrict your range of benefits, restrict the number of those who come within any general scheme of medical attendance, or you must increase the payments made under Clause 14. The right hon. Gentleman knows that if the restriction upon those who are to receive medical benefits is to be made at all, it must be made by the Amendment that stands in the name of myself and several others as a Sub-section following Sub-section (7). We propose to add a certain Subsection later in the Clause. If the right hon. Gentleman would assure us that we shall have an opportunity of discussing on Sub-section (7), paragraph (a), that very important, that almost essential point of restriction or no restriction of the number of people who are to benefit, we shall be glad. If he will look at our Amendment, I think he will see that it is not altogether contrary to his own proposal. I think he will see to prejudge to leave that open and to pass Clause 8 in its present form, and to postpone the whole question to Clause 14, would so prejudge the whole position of the medical profession as to

  315
  make any further discussion almost useless for them. I would beg the right hon. Gentleman if we allow him to get this general Section not to press the other matter at present, or until he is in a position to give a full statement as to the terms which he has arranged with the medical profession—to postpone that later Sub-section (7). I know he understands the matter very fully.
  He has told us that he hopes to secure and conciliate the medical profession, but I can assure him that, speaking for those whom I represent, unless they have changed their minds within the short while they will not be satisfied with anything short of the alteration of the final Sub-sections of this Clause 8—unless he is prepared to change materially and absolutely Clause 14. If we allow him, without discussion, to get the later Sub-sections of Clause 8 we are absolutely giving up the battle; we have given away our position in advance. He must see the reasonableness of our position. I recognise, too, the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman. I am fighting only to make this Bill as satisfactory as possible; and if possible to get the cordial co-operation of the profession, upon whose co-operation the success of the Bill must to a very great extent depend. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to satisfy those whom I represent; that he will at least give us a chance of discussing more fully these last Subsections of Clause 8.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am certainly very ready to respond to the appeal made by the hon. Member. I must ask the Committee to take notice of the fact that three hon. Members specially entitled to speak on behalf of the medical profession in this House, on both sides of it, accept the view that it would be undesirable to precipitate a discussion on this great question now. I hope the Committee as a whole will realise the importance therefore of the Debate not proceeding upon those lines at this moment. Within the last hour or two I have received a communication from the British Medical Association, and I think it would be very hard to be called upon at once to deal with that just now, and I hope the Committee will not press me to enter upon that matter at this moment. The hon. Member very fairly said there was one question of very great importance just now, namely, the limit of income—in fact it is the only question that presents any difficulty just now.
  Sir H. CRAIK: That comes under Clause 8.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I submit to the hon. Member it comes under Clause 14.
  Sir H. CRAIK: How?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Member will listen he will see. It is very important:—
  "Every such society and local health committee shall for the purpose of administering medical benefit make arrangements with duly qualified medical practitioners for insured persons."
  The persons who are to receive medical treatment come under Clause 14, and if you want to make exceptions that is exactly and obviously where they would come in. You would put it into that Clause, and the words which we will put in, in order to safeguard the position, will not prejudge the question here, because we are discussing it subject to the provisions in this Bill. We agree to the insertion of words so as not to prejudge under Clause 8 any discussion as to the limitation of persons who will receive medical benefit.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: The persons who will receive medical benefit are not necessarily the same as the insured person. There may be insured persons who will not receive medical benefit but who will receive other benefits.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is exactly what I am pointing out. That is why, under Clause 14, you are entitled to say, "Except or provided that persons whose income is over £2 a week."
  Sir R. FINLAY: With great deference to the right hon. Gentleman, surely Clause 8 provides who are the persons to be insured for medical benefit. Clause 14 enters into the details of the administration. The proper Clause to say who are insured for medical benefit is Clause 8, and not Clause 14.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Where does the right hon. Gentleman propose to introduce the words, "Subject to the provisions of this Bill?"
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I accept that from the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has a special interest in the matter. We have done that purposely not to prejudice Clause 8. There were exceptions introduced yesterday in the Amendments which I gave an outline of with

  317
  regard to sick benefit. You do not include them here. You simply safeguard the position in order to enable you later on to make restrictions with regard to sick benefit. I hope hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will not press the Government, not even when we come to Sub-section (7) to enter upon a discussion which the representatives of the medical profession in this House agree with the Government is so very difficult. There is practically only one question left. A certain question put forward for the consideration of both sides and it is very undesirable that there should be a Debate until we are ready to act upon it.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think that the primary object of my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment was to ascertain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the exact position in which we stood at this moment, and not to obtain exact information as to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's intentions. Certainly, I do not think there will be found on this side of the House any desire to prejudice an amicable settlement of a most difficult question by insisting upon a discussion in public when private negotiations are not yet completed. I do not know whether I correctly interpret what the hon. Member for Norwich said when I say that he stated that it would be as inconvenient to have a discussion on this question now as it would be to have a Debate on diplomatic negotiations. We do not wish to prejudice a future settlement by insisting upon a discussion at a time when the state of those negotiations makes a public discussion undesirable.
  On the other hand we do desire that there should be nothing in the portions of the Bill we pass that in any way prejudices our liberty of action when the result of those discussions is known. All private Members in this matter are in a great difficulty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is negotiating with certain representatives of the medical profession and in the meantime the movement which those medical authorities focus has spread all over the country, and the individual Member of the House is being pressed to receive deputations which are not informed as to the state of the negotiations, and they ask us for information and pledges and request us to tell them what is in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and what is the meaning of the hints he has thrown out, and we are unable to give them any such information. It really is a position
  318
  of great difficulty of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer must take account. May I say one word, not as to the time at which, but the place in which, this subject ought to be dealt with. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer refers to Clause 14 of the Bill he will not find a single exception to medical benefit. He will find that it deals exclusively with the arrangements which are to be made over what I may call the executive part of the medical benefit. The only exception to medical benefits are contained in the Clause we are now discussing, and Sub-section (7) lays down a series of exceptions of people who are not to receive medical benefit. I think there is great force in the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir Henry Craik) that Sub-section (7) of this Clause ought not to be taken until the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a position to take us into his confidence.
  I do not wish in the least to dictate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the time at which he should make his statement, but what I do press upon him is that he ought not to enter upon Subsection (7) of this Clause, which deals with exceptions from medical benefits, until he is in a position to make that statement. That is the real trouble. As a general rule in the case of a Bill of this kind, unless the Minister in charge is willing to accept many Amendments, while he is engaged in such extensive negotiations, he ought not to attempt to carry through his proposal until those negotiations have been brought to a conclusion and until he is able to place on the Notice Paper the alterations which he himself suggests. The trouble in this Bill is being pressed on with such haste with the double desire of getting it through this Session, and not keeping the House of Commons sitting late, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not able to do what I think has been done almost without exception in similar measures that have been introduced during the time I have been a Member of this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must recognise he is asking the House to take a very unusual course, and under those circumstances, he must go the utmost length he can to meet the convenience, not of one side of the House or of the other, but of Members in all parts of the House, by consenting to the postponement of those parts of the Bill which are dependent on negotiations which he is not yet in a position to disclose until such time as he is in a position

  319
  to disclose them. If the right hon. Gentleman will give that undertaking, I will heartily support him in adjourning any attempt to press him to disclose his mind until he is in a position to do so without injury to the cause, and I think if we are ready to support him in that respect he is bound to have so much consideration for us as not to commit us to those parts of the Bill which deal with this question before he is in a position to take us into his confidence.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman has argued on the assumption that this is not merely the proper place, but the only place to move this exception. I still contend it is not the proper place. The Amendments which have been drafted are all in Clause 14, and there is nothing to prevent the representatives of the medical profession from raising the whole question on Clause 14. Apart from the very natural anxiety of Members, who have been pressed by their Constituents, to know what is the position, there is no reason why this should be discussed in Clause 8, and had it not been for that fact it never would have been discussed on Clause 8. It would have been postponed to Clause 14. That is the proper place to discuss it.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: These are the exceptions.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am including them. That is part of the arrangement. The point is that the medical profession shall not be obliged, unless the terms are satisfactory, to attend under contract terms persons of an income of £2 per week and upwards. I say that is distinctly a Motion for Clause 14. If it is found it is not either in order or convenient to discuss that question on Clause 14, I will undertake the responsibility of moving the re-committal of Clause 8 in order to enable hon. Members to move it on Clause 8. I still contend that Clause 14 is the proper place, but perhaps that would meet the view of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. HARVEY DIXON: As far as I can see, this Sub-section is putting the Committee in a false position. It is, I think, a great piece of presumption for this House within these walls to decide what the medical profession are to do. The members of the medical profession are not slaves to be ordered about by this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may do
  320
  what he likes inside this House by the backing he gets here, but he cannot order the medical profession about. He says there is only one question outstanding between him and the profession. Will he say they are not to be put under the guidance and management of the friendly societies? That is a much more serious question to the medical profession than the question of an income limit of £2 per week. He said just now there was only one question, and that was the question of the limit of £2 a week. But I believe that the members of the medical profession have another and far more serious point to raise: they are against being put under the guidance and management of the friendly societies.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is clearly a question which should come under Clause 14.
  Mr. DIXON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer made use of the words—
  The CHAIRMAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answering a question, no doubt made a certain reply, but the actual discussion of the question must come under Clause 14, because it is naturally raised there and not here.
  Mr. DIXON: I do not wish to discuss it, and I only wish to say, in regard to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman, that he had twenty millions surplus with which to deal with this question that the medical profession are not to bought off like that. They are in a very strong position; they are determined to have their rights recognised, and we ought not to be asked to vote before knowing what their wishes are.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I know that the medical profession are anxious to carry on these negotiations. They recognise that it is a difficult matter to deal with at this stage, and, on the undertaking of the right hon. Gentleman to recommit the Bill in respect of Clause 8, if necessary, I am willing to agree to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: I am simply astonished at the arguments advanced from the other side that we should not discuss the point whether medical benefits should come into this Bill because the right hon. Gentleman is not ready to go into details as to how those benefits are to be applied. The object of the Bill is to provide insurance against loss of health. It consists of eighty-seven Clauses. Do

  321
  hon. Members suggest the whole matter of the Bill is concentrated in the first few Clauses? What we are discussing now surely is whether medical benefits should be applied under this Bill. We have to decide "Aye" or "No" in regard to that. The conditions how they are to be applied are stated in Clause 14. The hon. Member who moved the deletion of Sub-section (a) is apparently opposed to any medical benefits being applied at all under the Bill. That is really what we have to decide, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will stick to his guns. We on this side will support him loyally and consistently.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not going to follow the remarks of the last speaker, because they were a gross travesty of anything I or my hon. Friend ever said. Beyond that it is absolutely unnecessary to take any notice of such a speech. I speak within the recollection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, and I said when I moved this Amendment that I did so in order to ask for an explanation from the Government, and I added—I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear me out—that if he assured the House that it was not in accordance with public policy to make that statement to-night I should not press him for it. He has assured us of that, and he has told us that he is prepared to recommit the Bill if we are unable to move the Amendments we desire on Clause 14. I accept the Chancellor of the Exchequer's offer, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: On a point of Order. An Amendment is moved from the other side of the House, and have we not a right to express our opinion upon that Amendment? You put this Motion from the Chair, and as soon as you had finished speaking I said "No." I beg to ask you whether I had not a right as a Member of this House when an Amendment was moved from the other side, to have a vote taken?
  The CHAIRMAN: I did not hear any hon. Member say "No." If I had heard him I should have done what I always do under such circumstances.
  Mr. BATHURST: I beg to move in Subsection (1) paragraph (a) after the word "Medical" ["Medical treatment and attendance"], to insert the words "and dental."
  322
  I do so because I believe that prevention is better than cure. The word "medical" would not, used in the general sense, include any kind of surgical operation. I should like to emphasise the enormous importance of giving attention to dental defects, in order to avoid a very large amount of subsequent medical treatment. It is common knowledge at the present time that the state of the teeth of this nation is very serious, and that is evidenced by the reports of the medical inspection of the school-children. From the last of these reports it has transpired that something like 40 per cent. of the children attending elementary schools in this country are suffering from serious dental defects, which would have a serious influence upon the assimilation of their food, and, through the non-assimilation of their food, would have serious effects upon the nutrition of their bodies and the state of their digestion. If this is the cases with the children, how much more serious must be the state of affairs in the later stages of life. It must be well known to most hon. Gentlemen in this House that young persons between the ages of twenty and thirty at present have most seriously defective teeth. I am sure there is no one who employs domestic servants but must be aware of the serious trouble that they suffer from in connection with their teeth. Bearing in mind that prevention is better than cure, I want to ask the Committee particularly to accept the Amendment in order to prevent the necessity of a large amount of medical treatment, which would be rendered unnecessary if the teeth of the young people of this country were properly attended to. It must be perfectly clear to anyone who has any knowledge whatever of the medical profession that most of such complaints as enæmia and malnutrition, which are so common amongst our working classes are primarily due in their origin to the state of the teeth. I ask the Committee to elaborate the term "medical" so that it shall include the treatment of teeth.
  Mr. McKENNA: There is a certain difficulty about this. It would add considerably to the cost of medical treatment. It is quite conceivable that when the scheme has been at work for some time it will be found that the margin, both in the hands of the Commissioners and in the hands of the approved societies, will enable the societies to give considerable additional benefits. Part II of the Fourth Schedule

  323
  contains a scheme of additional benefits. My right hon. Friend authorises me to say that he will include in the additional benefits provision for dental treatment. It would be undesirable to do more than that so long as the question of cost is so uncertain, and knowing as we do that we are limited to the possible margin of contribution which you can expect from the employer, the workman and the State, to commit ourselves to further expenditure for medical treatment at the present time, but if experience shows that there is a margin, as I believe there will be, dental treatment shall be included amongst the additional benefits.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to specifically mention dental treatment amongst those matters?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, after the word "attendance" ["(a) medical treatment and attendance"] to insert the words "for such insured person, or the wife, or child under sixteen of such insured person."
  If you are embarking, as we are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a great scheme of national insurance against bad health, you cannot possibly leave out of account the wives and the children of the men who are insured. It is well known to everyone who has had anything to do with administering education and the medical expenses and medical treatment orders of the Education Department that, I was going to say nearly every child attending elementary day schools has something or the other the matter requiring medical treatment. You have just heard the figures about children and their teeth. I venture to say that diseases of the ear and nose, to say nothing of the eyes, prevail in a very disastrous manner among the great mass of children. Those who have been sent to investigate the causes have reported that it is the very worst economy to leave these children untreated, because very little treatment of a disease when it first shows itself would get rid of it, whereas the leaving of it practically unattended makes it more or less chronic. There is one set of children not connected with the elementary schools. I mean those who are not of school age. We are providing maternity benefit which for a few weeks will
  324
  bring to the mother and the child the medical attendance they need if the husband or the mother herself is an insured person.
  I suppose we may take it for granted that for the mass of women and new-born babies the evils depicted in the evidence given before the Poor Law Commission will be to a large extent got rid of. Everyone of the medical officers, from the chief medical officers of the large Local Government Departments of the United Kingdom downwards, pointed out that there was always in working class families a tremendous amount of sickness which led to all kinds of diseases later in life, and which ought to be attended to. One of them is rickets. The evidence put before the Commission showed perfectly clearly that this disease, which some people are apt to think of not very much account, leads, if neglected, to all kinds of dreadful diseases among these people when they grow older. A national insurance scheme under which a mother and child are attended to for three or four weeks and then left without any attendance is not a national scheme at all. There are children who go to the elementary day schools. I think those who are connected with the London education authority will agree with me when I state that that authority is at present holding its hand to see whether under this Bill provision is going to be made for these children at all. I do not want to harrow up the feelings of hon. Members in regard to the tremendous number of children who are requiring treatment in London at present. They have run into, not merely tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands.
  These children are not getting the attention required, because it is held in some quarters that it will be provided under this Bill. I may be asked where the money is to come from to deal with the children in this way. I will not attempt the same kind of argument that I received the other night though it was perfectly sound. But you are already spending a large amount of money through various authorities in a very wasteful manner in the matter of public health. The school authorities attempt to deal with it in a very slipshod manner, and there are also the Poor Law Guardians and the public health authorities. Would not it be very much better, even at the cost of putting on the localities some portion of the charge for the children to bring them into the Bill and secure that every child who needed medical treatment should

  325
  receive it at the hands of the community? It may be argued that this ought not entirely be put on the National Exchequer. I would put. against that the money which to a very large extent is not being efficiently spent at present which could be used to supplement anything that we can get out of this scheme. Everyone must agree that we must at as early an age as possible arrest disease in the children by giving them the best treatment possible. The particular diseases singled out by the Chancellor to be dealt with by the Bill are tuberculosis and phthisis, of which there is a great deal among certain classes in the community. I happen to represent people who are very poor. Twenty-five per cent. of the workers in my Constituency are casual labourers, and I have to come face to face almost every day with people who have children needing medical treatment. I beg and borrow hospital letters and institution letters from people of all kinds. Any man in the East End is bound to have that kind of thing to do. The other day a mother came to me with three little children, each one of whom, although I am not a medical man, I could see at once was tubercular and ought to have been receiving proper treatment. Not one of these children was going to get proper treatment because the mother, with that spirit of British independence which some people admire so much, would rather see her children suffer than take parish relief to see them dealt with. That family is only one of many thousands of families in the East and South-East of London, and I believe in every industrial centre. I want that these children should be brought in, and that the necessary medical treatment should be provided. With regard to the women, you deal with them under the maternity benefit, which is for a certain short period. But it seems to me that the wife is just as much a wage earner as the husband. She takes charge of his home, she works just as hard as he, and she is just as much a wage earner as he is. If the employer shifts the 3d. on to the consumer or the workman, if you take 2d. from the Income Tax and put it on the consumer or worker, it is the wife in the home who will feel the burden. It is she who pays the 5d. tea duty, and it is she alone who will have to shoulder the burdens imposed upon working class families. I know, as do many Members, how in working-class families, the wife puts by the husband's contributions regularly week by week or quarter by quarter.
  326
  Such a woman is going to get the maternity benefit, for which indeed I am very thankful, and we should be less than human if we did not give it. But I submit that she and the children should share with the husband the benefits given under this Bill. People talk about malingering, but so far as women are concerned, my experience is that they work too hard, and, after their lying-in get about far too quickly. There are no malingerers among them taken as a whole. One or two may be found here and there, but the women of the working-class families work as hard as anyone and harder than many, and we want to see them with their children share in these benefits, even if it does cost more money.
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not wish to delay the Chancellor of the Exchequer's reply to the hon. Member, but I wish to ask him, for the convenience of the Committee, whether he can say how far he proposes to go to-night. We have had a very arduous day, we have another before us, and there are other big subjects to come on, though not on the Sub-section on which the hon. Gentleman has just spoken. There is the question of sanatoria, a subject on which we could not well enter at this time of night.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Before I reply to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, in answer to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, I agree that perhaps it would not be desirable to enter upon a fresh subject to-night. The question of sanatoria is a very very important matter, and we might very well begin our proceedings to-morrow with that, if we get paragraph (a) to-night, and there are only one or two more Amendments which I think are in Order. I come to the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Lansbury). Of course, we should all very much like to make an arrangement in the Bill to provide medical attendance not merely for the insured person, but for his wife and for his children, but let us not close our eyes to the fact that we would do so at the expense of the scheme. We have got a provision in the Fourth Schedule No. I., and it is the very first of the additional benefits we suggest:—
  "(1) Medical treatment for any persons dependent upon the labour of a member."
  That would include the wife and children, so that if there is any money left for the purpose it is one of the additional

  327
  benefits to be provided under the scheme. I believe there will be enough money for the purpose, and when the deficiency is wiped out there will be money to enable them to make provision for the wife and children, but I do not think it would be desirable that we should make it one of the compulsory benefits as otherwise it might very well be that a given society might not be able to find money for the purpose of other benefits. I think it is far better to leave it to the society itself to decide that question. May I also point out that it would add enormously to the difficulty with regard to the doctors.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Hang the doctors; I am sick of hearing about them. One would think there was nobody but the doctors.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am in the position of having to try and make the best bargain I can between the doctors and the others. I can hardly adopt the language of the hon. Member; if I did I think I might very well announce to the House that negotiations were at an end. In the meantime I think it would be very undesirable to make it compulsory. If the funds allow them there is power under the Bill to give the additional benefits, and this is the first mentioned in the Schedule. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that that is just as far as it is possible to go within the limits of the means at our disposal.
  Mr. HUNT: I am rather inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer raises the difficulty about the money. Very little is done in this Bill for women and children. You are making the children pay, but you are giving them very little benefit at all. I think a very strong case has been made out, and I would like to see it settled now that the children should have the right to go to sanatoria—
  The CHAIRMAN: Sanatoria treatment comes up on the next paragraph. I allowed the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) to mention it, because I thought he was going to deal with the two questions at the same time. But if the question is going to be raised again it cannot be discussed here.
  Mr. BARNES: If my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall have no option but to support him. I have heard with great regret the statement of the Chancellor of
  328
  the Exchequer. He says there will be immediate benefits for the women and children in the event of the fund being able to stand those benefits. The word "immediate" seems to me rather out of place, because there are no benefits until such time as there has been an actuarial examination, which cannot take place for some time. Although medical benefits of the kind mentioned are first-named in the Schedule, there is nothing to compel those concerned to make them the first benefit in point of time, and in a scheme drawn up for additional benefits by an approved society this particular benefit instead of being the first might be the last. The women and children deserve and demand our sympathetic consideration, and I shall support my hon. Friend if he carries his Amendment to a Division.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lend a more sympathetic ear to the Amendment. The Bill undoubtedly confers great benefits upon certain sections of the community, but it is possible for a Bill which confers benefits also to confer great disabilities. If those disabilities are imposed upon people who are rich and powerful, we can regard them as negligible; they are part of the price which such people pay for the security they enjoy. But if the disabilities are imposed upon people who are helpless and dependent, more helpless and more dependent than those who receive the benefits, then they are of a very harsh and cruel nature. The married women of this country who are not wage earners have by this Bill not merely a negative disability, but a positive disability of a most harsh and cruel nature imposed upon them. I can quite understand that the Chancellor only excluded them from the full benefits of the Bill with the greatest pain and reluctance. But it is not necessary, it is not desirable that married women who are not wage earners should receive the full benefits of the Bill. When a married woman is ill the family income is not stopped. Therefore she does not require sickness or disability pay. What we are asking for just now is something very much smaller. It is merely medical attendance, which will cost infinitely less—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: How much?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The Chancellor is in a better position to estimate what it will cost than I am; but I make the obvious statement that medical attendance alone will cost infinitely less than to pay

  329
  full benefits. I do not profess to have the information which the Chancellor has at his disposal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to the fact that medical benefits for women are included in the additional benefits which may be paid if there is anything left over. That is the position of the married woman. She has to wait until the period when we can ascertain whether there is "anything left over," which may be a period delayed for many years, as we have been reminded by my colleague from Glasgow. I said that this exclusion of married women is not merely a negative, but a positive disability. I will try to establish that point.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley has already given a clear statement about the economic position of the married woman who is not technically the wage-earner. That woman is doing as great and valuable a part of the world's work as a man is doing. She maintains and keeps the home. She toils and scrubs and carries on the whole business of the house, and by her labour enables the man to concentrate his attention upon productive industry outside the home. Apart altogether from the rearing of the family she, by her labour in the home, enables the man to go out and do his work. How does she get paid for that work which she contributes to the general stock of the world's work? Her husband's wage includes hers. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley was perfectly justified in maintaining that this 4d. which is nominally charged on the husband is also paid, and paid in full, by the wife of that husband. I believe that 4d. will represent a diminution in the amount which that woman will have to spend upon the family, upon the food and clothing of the family. She is paying every whit as much as the man for this insurance scheme, and by it she is directly ruled out and forbidden to receive any benefit in spite of the contribution—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Surely, the hon. Gentleman knows better than that?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I am referring to the married woman who is not a wage-earner, who is living with her husband. While she is living with her husband she receives maternity benefit, no other direct benefit. Technically this maternity benefit is the benefit of the husband. I would point out that this maternity benefit is one of the benefits which in
  330
  the event of deficiency may be reduced or may be abolished, whilst the husband's medical benefits may not be reduced. Consider the position of the married women who constitute the vast majority of the women of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] The single woman who is a wage-earner is protected; the woman who does not care for housework —the married woman who dislikes it and goes out to work to the detriment of the race and of the home and the family and of social welfare—she also is cherished and protected. The paid housekeeper is cherished and protected, and the unmarried mistress of a man who becomes a volunteer insurer is cherished and protected; but the married woman, the bearer and rearer of the race, the mother of men, the woman upon whom everything depends, she alone is excluded from receiving any benefit under the Bill. I consider that this is not merely a negative, but a positive disability of the harshest kind. The Chancellor, in the few remarks he made upon this most important Amendment, referred to the fact that there would be some difficulty with the doctors; the doctors would not for the same terms undertake to do the attendance upon these women. But he has already included some women, married and unmarried. If the doctors could be induced to attend them they could also be induced to attend married women. And lastly, there was one point which the Chancellor ignored. This Amendment, if I recollect aright, includes children, but the Chancellor said not a word about children. I think the Chancellor might consider whether it might not be actually cheaper and more economic to include children. If you have medical attendance for the children you would prevent a vast amount of disease, and clear the scheme from an enormous amount of preventable disease. "A stitch in time saves nine," and therefore I appeal to the Chancellor to give some consideration to this point in the Amendment to which he omitted any reference.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Before the Committee comes to a decision upon this subject I should like really to consider what this means as a financial proposition. I asked the hon. Member if he had any idea what it would cost; he thought that a most irrelevant question. I cannot take that view of the matter. Does he know what the charge for medical attendance is where doctors undertake to attend families? There are several cases.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Thirteen shillings a year.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Ten shillings a year in some cases.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is double the figure in this Bill.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It includes medicine.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: So does the 6s. in the Bill. The hon. Member's figure would represent an additional charge of about £5,000,000. Has the hon. Member thought where the money is to come from?
  Mr. LANSBURY: I do not want to make the same kind of suggestion as that which I made the other day as to where the money is to come from. I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider the frightful waste and overlapping in the administration of public health, which money could be spent more economically and efficiently in dealing with women and children. I put that suggestion forward and the right hon. Gentleman took absolutely no notice of it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I quite agree with the hon. Member. I have no doubt a great deal of money is wasted in overlapping. What I want the Committee to understand is that this proposal means the imposition of a fresh charge on the funds of about £5,000,000. I am fully in sympathy with the objects of the hon. Member, but after all the expense is an enormous one, and we cannot consider this question apart from the expenditure. There is nothing which has been said in regard to providing medical attendance for women and children that I do not agree with. I believe that eventually by this scheme you will be able to do it. You will have eventually a margin of £6,500,000, and then it may be possible to provide medical attendance for the whole of the family. The hon. Member and his supporters want to do the whole thing at once, but we cannot do it. We are engaged upon a very big task, and we are beginning our scheme with enormous benefits. We are making a good start, and I do not wish to endanger the carrying of this scheme through by doing something which may wreck the whole scheme. It is purely a question of ways and means. There is not the same urgency in the case of a married woman who has got a bread winner in full work as in cases where the bread winner is stricken down, when there is no one earning anything for the family. I am amazed to hear from the hon. Mem-
  332
  ber that the 30s. maternity benefit has nothing to do with the woman. The provision is that the money should be spent upon the woman and that it should be given to the woman. For these reasons I say that the present position represents an enormous advance upon anything that has been done for married women.
  Mr. HILLS: I do hope that even at this late hour the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his position. There is a feeling on both sides of the Committee that a Bill which is so unfair to women ought not to be allowed to pass. May I deal quite shortly with the arguments the right hon. Gentleman has used and restate the case of the women in a very few words. You give the man two sorts of benefits. You give him sickness and disablement benefit which is an insurance against his loss of wages through sickness. Besides that you give him medical benefit which is both curative and preventive. We do not ask for sick pay for the women because they are not wage-earners, but we do ask for medical benefits for them, and for that they have exactly the same claim as the men. Why should the fact that man's work is paid for by wages put him in a preferable position? After all, it is not the fault of the woman that her work is not wage paid. It so happens that by economic laws she does work that is not paid by wages, and this Bill would penalise her just because of that economic fact. That is the position of women under this Bill. They stay at home and mind the home, and they are excluded from medical benefit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has used certain figures. Will he listen to these figures which I think are applicable? The cost of medical benefit for women, according to Table S of the Report is about 1½ per week per head, which comes to about 6s. 6d. per year. Assuming there are some 6,000,000 married women who are not engaged in industry, if you give the whole of the State grant of 2d. per week, it would come to £2,250,000. I quite agree that is a very large sum of money.3
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What about the children?
  Mr. HILLS: I am arguing first of all the case of women, because I think that is the more important. It is a large sum, but just think what you get by it. First of all, you get a fair Bill, and then the cure of the health of these women. I should be prepared, if it were insisted

  333
  upon, to agree that some small contribution should be made by the woman or the husband, but do allow her some chance of coining into the medical benefits. Assume a woman is sick and cannot pay for the doctor. At present she can get a doctor free by going on the Poor Law. We do now pay for the cost of doctoring all women who cannot afford to pay for themselves. I want to keep her off the Poor Law. Look at this thing broadly. I want the Committee to realize that now the community, either through charities, hospitals, or the Poor Law, pays for the doctoring of all married women who cannot afford to pay for themselves. Surely the cost to the community would not be great even if it did cost £2,250,000. I agree with the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) that the waste in the Poor Law is now so great that you could easily save this and more. I do not base my case on that alone. I base it on. simple justice. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to make this a good and fair Bill, and I do suggest to him that he should reconsider his position. I shall certainly support this Amendment, and I am certain the country will not approve of a Bill which excludes the women.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The Chancellor of the Exchequer challenged me upon one point, which is a new point, and which I avoided because I thought it would be out of order on this Clause. He has asked me if I have any proposal to make with regard to providing for the extra cost of this. It so happens I have upon the Paper an Amendment which is directed towards providing at least a part, and I think a considerable part, of the cost. It is a new Sub-section to Clause 9:—
  "(2) In the case of insured males who are over the age of twenty-one years and unmarried, sickness benefit and disablement benefit shall be at the reduced rates specified in Table C, in Part I., of the Fourth Schedule to this Act."
  The rates specified in that Schedule are the same as the rates specified for women. You reduce the benefit for unmarried men so as to put them in the same position as women who are insured. They will get 7s. 6d. instead of 10s. They have not the responsibility of a family to maintain. I submit that this proposal goes some way towards the cost of providing medical benefits for married women.
  Mr. CLYNES: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us some encourage-
  334
  ment to press this Amendment further on the attention of the Committee. He asks us to rest assured of his sympathy, and the only difficulty he presented to us was a financial one. We have already had in these Debates, since we began the discussions on this Bill, arguments supplied from the Front Bench indicating how easily the money may be found if serious attempts are made to find it. We do not in this case require to procure fresh money—that is in addition to what we now spend. We rather desire to change the form and place of money that is now wasted. We want to change the character of the expenditure. The difficulty with regard to the doctors can be overcome; like most persons, they will do what they are paid for if only proper terms are arranged. Early this afternoon the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that this Bill was particularly intended to assist those unable to help themselves. Of all classes affected by this Bill that which is particularly unable to help itself is the one composed of women and children. Statements have been made to the effect that thirty per cent. of the persons who are in receipt of Poor Law relief are driven to that state of impoverishment because of sickness, and, further, that one-half of the money spent on Poor Law relief is expended in relieving impoverishment of that kind which is now seen in the workhouses of the country. Furthermore, I find that the great majority of the 600,000 persons who are in receipt of Poor Law relief are in that position because they have lost the bread-winner. They are women and children. The facts supplied by the Government appear to prove this, that we spend in relieving impoverishment which is due to sickness seven and a half millions a year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that to carry out this Amendment would cost five millions sterling, and the conclusion I am therefore driven to is that if we alter the form and character of this expenditure of seven and a half millions we can save money and at the same time deal with sickness at the right time before persons are driven by it into our workhouses.
  Mr. PETO: As I understand the speech of the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat, he proposes we should at once proceed to deal with the whole system of Poor Law relief, and that we should revise our expenditure on it before proceeding further with the consideration of the Bill before the House. He says there is a sum, of seven and a half

  335
  millions spent on the Poor Law and medical relief now. I propose to vote in opposition to his view. It is not very often that I find myself in agreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I cannot help feeling that there is an immense amount of force in the appeal which he made that we should not attempt to proceed to do everything at once. If I have learned anything in business it is that if you want to absolutely wreck anything you propose to do you have only to attempt to do at one swoop everything that may appear to be of advantage to your business and the same applies to legislation for the country. I think the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) is mistaken in trying to include at this stage of the Bill and in this particular Amendment the whole case of the married women. I see that the Amendment states, "The child under sixteen years of an insured person," but it does not refer to all the children of the family.
  As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated it is absolutely impossible to get a double benefit for a single contribution. On that ground, that you cannot get a quart into a pint pot, I have to oppose the Amendment. This is not the time to propose an addition to the maternity benefit and the medical attendance to a married woman or her children, but I have an Amendment at a later stage in which I propose to give some modified form of sick pay in addition to the maternity benefit. I believe I know how it can be done, and I believe there are benefits that ought to be given to married women, but at this point it is not reasonable, unless it is desired to make the Bill unworkable, to propose that the whole cost of medical attendance to married women and children should be borne out of a single contribution made by the wage-earner. I know the hon. Member for Durham said he would be willing that some additional payment should be made in respect to it, and he said it would cost l½d. in respect to wives. But he did not say what it would cost for the whole of the family. It would not be less than a double contribution from every wage-earner, and I do not think that when making the first step in a great scheme of this kind it is the time to propose that men in receipt of 20s. to 25s. per week should be asked to contribute 6d. instead of 3d.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I desire to ascertain the position in which we shall be with regard to married women if this Amendment
  336
  is rejected. As the Sub-section (a) stands at present it provides for medical treatment and attendance, but it does not say who it is to be for. It does not confine it to the insured persons. I understand that that question was really left over until Clause 34, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that we should have a full and unfettered opportunity, without any technical difficulties in the way, of discussing the position of married women under the Bill. That would be the practical outcome of the statement the other night. The hon. Member (Mr. Lansbury) proposes to put in medical treatment and attendance for married women and children. If that Amendment is rejected shall we have decided once for all that married women cannot under any circumstances under the Bill receive medical benefit? We have not had a full discussion on the position of women, and I feel confident that the House does not at all realise, or has not expressed, the strong feeling that there is in many quarters that married women are receiving scant justice. Under Clause 34 we hoped for a full opportunity to put that matter right. If we come to a hasty decision now which cuts out married women because the Amendment is proposed in the form of coupling them with children, which makes it too big an undertaking for the right hon. Gentleman it is very unfortunate that we should be compelled to vote upon it now, and I would ask my hon. Friend to-withdraw the Amendment and leave us free to do it on Clause 34.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The point that is raised on Clause 34 is a totally different point. It is the case of a woman who has-been an employed contributor. She subsequently marries and the question then was whether she would come under the medical benefit. I assume that would be still open. This is much more sweeping and would, in my judgment, absolutely wreck the Bill. I do not think it ought to be withdrawn after an hour's discussion so that it could be moved again later in the proceedings.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Are we quite clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right in that matter? Shall we be free to consider the position of the insured woman receiving medical benefit even if married?
  The CHAIRMAN: If the Committee decides as I suppose it will on this particular-Amendment, the decision must carry its

  337
  ordinary consequences, but to some extent the question must come up again on Clause 34.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I am entirely in sympathy with the hon. Member (Mr. Hills). I consider that one of the blots, and there are several very serious blots, upon this Bill is the very unfair treatment that is meted out to women generally, and especially to
  married women. If a little more time and trouble had been taken with this branch of the subject to do fairer justice to women, and particularly married women, with regard to medical benefits it would have been far better.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 62; Noes, 167.

  Division No. 269.]

  AYES.

  [11.50 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goldstone, Frank

  Richards, Thomas

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Barnes, George N.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Barnston, Harry

  Hancock, John George

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Hodge, John

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Brace, William

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Carlile, sir Edward Hildred

  Hudson, Walter

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cassel, Felix

  Hunt, Rowland

  Valentia, Viscount

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Clynes, John R.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Ward, A. s. (Herts, Watford)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Crooks, William

  Lansbury, George

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wilson, W. T. (West Houghton)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. George Roberts and Mr. Hills.

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Pointer, Joseph

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Delaney, William

  Johnson, William

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Doris, W.

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Alden, Percy

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T, H'mts, Stepney)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Ellbank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Joyce, Michael

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Kelly, Edward

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Armitage, Robert

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Falconer, James

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Field, William

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Barton, William

  Forest, Baron de

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Beale, William Phipson

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Lundon, Thomas

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Glanville, H. J.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Boland, John Pius

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  McGhee, Richard

  Boyton, James

  Hackett, J.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Manfield, Harry

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harwood, George

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Hayward, Evan

  Millar, James Duncan

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Clay Captain H. H. Spender

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hinds, John

  Neilson, Francis

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nolan, Joseph

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Dowd, John

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Ogden, Fred

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Scanlan, Thomas

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh. Central)

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E.B.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Sheehy, David

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Worcstr'sh., N.)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Shortt, Edward

  Winfrey, Richard

  Reddy, Michael

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. Mckinnon (Glas.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Taylor, Theodore C, (Radcliffe)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Lord HENRY BENTINCK: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), after the word "medicines" to insert the words "surgical instruments, spectacles, and other necessary appliances."
  The object of the Amendment is to make quite certain that surgical instruments and necessary appliances are included in the benefits. It may be that they are automatically included in medical benefit, but there is nothing in the Bill to show that medical benefit contemplates anything more than drugs and medicines. The Amendment is of so reasonable a character that it is not necessary to say anything more to commend it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would foe a very great hardship on a subscriber for medical benefits if ordered a truss or something of that sort to be obliged to pay for it himself.
  12.0 M.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What we propose to do is to follow the ordinary friendly societies' rules in this matter. The friendly societies generally supply simple appliances, but when complicated cases arise these are always treated institutionally. You cannot possibly expect the ordinary medical practitioner to treat complicated cases which involve operations. In all these cases it is simply a question of institutional treatment. We do not propose to go beyond that. If the Noble Lord will confine his Amendment to the terms of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Rowntree)—"And such medical and surgical appliances as may be prescribed by regulations to be made by the Insurance Commissioners"—I would accept it. I suggest that the Noble Lord might put. his Amendment in that form, which would be more convenient for us. If we were to depart from the ordinary practice of friendly societies we might be committing ourselves to greatly increased liability.
  Lord HENRY BENTINCK: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord HENRY BENTINCK: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "medicines" ["and sufficient medicines"] to insert the words, "and such medical and surgical appliances as may be prescribed by regulations to be made by the Insurance Commissioners."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).

COURSE OF BUSINESS.
Lord BALCARRES: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to make a statement about the course of business.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very glad the Noble Lord reminded me of that. I am afraid I shall be under the necessity of asking the Committee to report Progress at a fairly early hour to-morrow evening. I am in charge of the Bill, but I shall be away to take part in the celebration of the Investiture of my Prince, and I propose to move to report Progress somewhere about eight or nine o'clock, if we make satisfactory progress. There will be some very small Orders taken afterwards—Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, Merchant Shipping (Stevedores and Trimmers) (No. 2) Bill, Pensions (Governors and Dominions, etc.) [Expenses] (Report thereupon), and the Board of Education Scheme (Alnwick Corporation Payment) Confirmation Bill. Under these circumstances it will not be necessary to move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock rule.
ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes after Twelve o'clock.