CLAUSE 10.—(Reduced Rates of Benefits where Contributions are in Arrear.) (Hansard, 19 July 1911)

HC Deb 19 July 1911 vol 28 cc1052-139 1052

§ (1) Where an insured person being a member of an approved society is in arrear to an amount greater than thirteen contributions a year on the average since his entry into insurance, his right to benefits under this part of this Act shall be suspended, and at the expiration of the next succeeding calendar year any sums credited to the society in respect of him, calculated in the prescribed manner, shall, if his right to benefits still continues to be suspended, be transferred to such account and dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed:

§ Provided that if at any time after such suspension he again becomes employed within the meaning of this part of this Act he shall be entitled to benefits at such rate, after the lapse of such time and after the payment of such number of contributions, as would have been applicable to his case had he not previously been an insured person, but if he so elects at any time the rate of benefits shall be such rate as he would be entitled to, were the period from the time of his original entry into insurance taken as a whole.

§ (2) Where an employed contributor claiming sickness benefit is at the date of such claim in arrears but the arrears are less than as aforesaid, then the rate of sickness benefit shall be reduced to a sum not less than five shillings a week, or the time when sickness benefit commences deferred proportionately to the amount of arrears in accordance with the Table in the Fifth Schedule to this Act.

§ (3)Where a voluntary contributor is in arrears he shall be liable to such reduction or suspension of benefits as may be prescribed.

§ (4)In calculating arrears of contributions, no account shall be taken of any arrears accruing—

(a) during any period when the person in question has been, or but for this or the two next succeeding Sections of this Act would have been, in receipt of sickness benefit or disablement benefit; or
(b) in the case of a woman who, being an insured person, is herself entitled to 1053 maternity benefit, during two weeks before and four weeks after her confinement; or
(c) during the first twelve months after the commencement of this Act; or
(d) during any period when the contributor (if an employed contributor) is under the age of sixteen years;

but, save as aforesaid, contributions shall be deemed to be payable in respect of every week from the date of entry into insurance.

§ (5) Where an insured person has paid any arrears of contributions payable by or in respect of him which accrued during the calendar year current at the date of payment and the previous calendar year, together with interest thereon at the rate of three per cent. per annum from the respective dates on which the contributions accrued due and the date of payment, he shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if the arrears so paid had never become due:

§ Provided that if such person is at the date of payment or subsequently within one month thereafter becomes unfit to provide for his own maintenance through disease or disablement, he shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to be still in arrear in respect of the amount so paid until after the expiration of one month from the date of his recovery from such disease or disablement.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I beg to move in Subsection (1) after the word "Act" ["benefits under this part of this Act "] to insert the words "other than medical benefit, sanatorium benefit, and maternity benefit."
I understand the arrangement is that the medical benefits are paid for a year in advance. I would have preferred with regard to the whole of the medical benefit, the sanatorium benefit and the maternity benefit, that they might have been dealt with on other lines altogether, and not in this Bill, but as this is a Bill to ensure treatment for these persons, and as the State is putting up a certain amount of money towards the public treatment of these diseases generally, I want to put it to the House that the worst thing we can do is to allow a person who is half-cured of consumption or of the terrible disease mentioned the other day by the hon. Member for South Birmingham, to suddenly stop having treatment. It might be said that a person can get a continuation of this treatment through the Poor Law, but ex- 1054 perience shows that persons suffering from those kind of diseases go on suffering rather than come under the Poor Law.
With regard to the maternity side, it seems to me that, as regards the wife of a respectable artisan, who becomes a member of an approved society, the worst thing we can do is to leave her untreated at the time of confinement. I do not ask for these exemptions on the score of sentiment. There is the sentimental side to this question and there is the human side that all suffering ought to be treated. I have been convinced from experience that the worst thing that can ever happen is to leave sickness and disease untreated, or leave any person who needs skilled treatment without it. I shall defend this proposition from the point of view of public economy of money rather than on the other ground. I put it to the Committee that on two occasions you have had long discussions on phthisis and tuberculosis, and on each occasion we have been told that what was needed was early, persistent, and thorough treatment, and that the patients should be kept until they get well. As the Clause reads now they are liable to be turned out because of lapse, and the same is true of all other diseases. It might be that it is necessary to have a period set somewhere, and I am willing that that point should be discussed. I am not however willing myself that the sort of proposition contained in this Clause should remain, and should apply to the cases I have mentioned. I hope the Committee will support this Amendment, and if they wish to put in some long period, that is a matter to be decided afterwards. I suggest that it is not worth while when the State is putting up such a huge sum of money as we shall have to find for the treatment of these diseases, that we should only half cure people, and then because of some lapse, allow them to go back or leave a woman untreated at the time of maternity.

§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)
I am very glad to have from the hon. Member a recognition of the fact that we are really spending a huge sum of money upon this scheme. The discussions in Committee, at any rate, have had that influence upon the hon. Members.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I have always said that we were spending a large sum of money, but I said we were spending it wrongly.

1055

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I hope the next time the hon. Member goes to Trafalgar Square he will make the same statement. The question is not whether it is desirable that there should be treatment in cases of maternity and that medical benefit should be given. The real question is whether you should put those charges on the Insurance fund. If you place upon the fund a charge in respect of people who only work just when they feel inclined, who go on for a few weeks and then leave again, that would not be fair. I want the hon. Member to treat this purely as an insurance proposition. From that point of view there is a good deal in the hon. Member's contention. I am glad he realised that there must be a limit, and I am prepared to meet him on that point. I suggest that 25 per cent. or thirteen weeks should remain in respect of sickness and disablement, but that the insured person should be entitled to medical benefit, sanatorium benefit, and maternity benefit up to 50 per cent. arrears, that is twenty-six weeks in all. That is infinitely more liberal than the treatment afforded by any friendly society in the world. As a matter of fact, thirteen weeks is about the average. The Amendment is that thirteen weeks shall be the limit of sickness and disablement pay, but even if he exceeds thirteen weeks average, so long as he is only twenty-six weeks in arrear, he shall still be entitled to medical, sanatorium and maternity benefits. If the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, we will propose words to meet the case I have indicated.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I do not rise to criticise the suggestion that has just been made. It is almost impossible for us to criticise effectively proposals which are sprung upon the House at the very last moment when the subject comes under discussion. I rise only for the purpose of renewing the protest I have made on several occasions, I hope with good temper, and in such a way as to convey to the House my sense of the injury that is done to the deliberations of the House by what is now the settled practice of the Government never to put their Amendments on the Paper. This is not fair to the House. The Government are dealing with a most complicated measure on which they are prepared to accept perhaps an unusual number of changes, and even to make on their own Motion a great number of changes, and they habitually give us no indication until we actually enter upon 1056 the discussion of the immediate matter of what their intention is. It is not fair to the House, and it is impossible for hon. Members to take any responsibility for what is done under those circumstances. I only desire to add a request that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us what is the amount of money he is giving away by this Amendment. When the right hon. Gentleman objects to an Amendment from our side of the House, he tells us he has to set one advantage against another, that we cannot have them all, and that everything we take in one way must come oft" somewhere else. He always gives a very large estimate of the cost of proposition from this side of the House, and I want to know if he can give us any estimate of the expense of his own propositions. It would add to our obligations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he were in a position to say at this moment that he would let us know, either by a Paper laid on the Table of the House or a statement made in the House at the earliest possible moment, what is the total cost of the various alterations accepted in the course of our discussions as compared with the original calculations when the Bill was first submitted.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I think this is rather a remarkable request. This is not my Amendment, but one which appears on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, who has made suggestions for the improvement of this Bill. I am bound to give full and fair consideration to every Amendment. Is it really to be said that if I accept an Amendment which appears on the Paper, whether it stands in the name of a Labour Member, a Conservative Member or a Liberal Member, and do not give notice of my intention, that that is an outrage on the procedure of the House. I am accepting this Amendment together with the suggestion made by the hon. Member himself that there should be a limit. It is impossible for the Government in advance to always say what Amendments they can accept, because we want to hear what is to be said in support of it. I have been in opposition for about fifteen years criticising measures, and I cannot recall a single instance where I ever got up and condemned the Government for accepting an Amendment. If this was our Amendment, I could understand the right hon. Gentleman saying it is very unfair to spring this upon the House, but it is not our Amendment. We have given fair consideration to the Amendment of an hon. 1057 Member who belongs to a Party which is not ours, and who has been more in opposition to this Bill than even the right hon. Gentleman opposite—in fact, the hon. Member is the leader of the opposition to this Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman said I was always complaining that the suggestions made would put an additional charge upon the fund. I have always told the House what the margin was. My complaint is that the House, or at least certain Members of the House, want it both ways. They want it for the small thing, and they want it for the bigger thing, and I have always said you cannot have your cake and eat it. If you spend the money on trivial Amendments you will not have it for more important points. I have always said these questions of maternity benefits and the treatment of women are, in the judgment of the House, more deserving than other questions. The right hon. Gentleman asks me what this will cost. It will not cost very much. I did make that inquiry before accepting the Amendment. I cannot at the moment tell him how much, but it will certainly be nothing approaching the cost of Amendments moved yesterday and the day before, which would have run into hundreds of thousands. This does deal with a grievance, and it does not cost very much, and that is why I accept the Amendment, limited in the way I have suggested.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I understand the right hon. Gentleman cannot say how much it is going to cost, but ho has ignored my request as to the cost of the other changes.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I am sorry. The right hon. Gentleman wants a Paper circulated saying what the changes will cost. I think that is a very fair request, and I will see that Paper is prepared, as I told him yesterday. The actuaries, however, have been very hard pressed. I pressed them again yesterday, and they told me they were at it as hard as they could be, and were working overtime.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I think it is very necessary, because undoubtedly considerable disquiet is spreading abroad amongst people who are themselves experts in questions of this kind as to what the effect of the Amendments we are passing will be. Two actuaries cannot do more than two men's work, though they may work overtime and put in special 1058 exertions. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider whether it is possible to have additional assistance. I am quite sure money ought not to stand in the way of their having any assistance they require, so that they may give their assistance to the House of Commons in these matters. Of course, I do not want to deter the Chancellor of the Exchequer from accepting Amendments moved in any quarter of the House when it is desirable it should be done, but in nearly twenty years' experience of this House I have never known a great Bill on which the mind of the Government was so little disclosed as it is in the present case. If this Amendment stood by itself I should not comment on the treatment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is giving to it. It is only because it is one of a long series of cases, and because we do not have even the Amendments which the Government themselves contemplate placed upon the Table of the House, that I have made this protest again. I do trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take us into his confidence a little in advance wherever he can, and give the Committee the opportunity of considering the larger changes he proposes in the Bill and a reasonable time for consultation if they desire to have it.

§ Sir HENRY CRAIK
I just wish to point out what effect this will have upon the medical benefits. Upon the basis of the Actuarial Report a certain sum will be available for medical benefits, and if you bring in a large number of cases which you did not contemplate in the first instance it will reduce the payment which it will be in the power of the local health committee to make for medical benefits. It may force the right hon. Gentleman—and I shall not be sorry if it does—to consider some way of relieving the great difficulties which will arise with regard to the insufficient amount available for medical benefits. If he has gauged correctly the figures upon the Actuarial Report he is now placing a very considerable additional burden upon the narrow sum available for medical benefits.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
No; it is not very considerable. Neither the sanatorium treatment nor the maternity benefit affects it at all. It is only the medical benefit, and that is not a serious item. I do not think it is even a portion of a farthing.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
Of course, like everyone else who moves an Amendment, I am 1059 very glad to get even a part of my Amendment accepted. I would like to make my own position with regard to this business perfectly clear. My objection is to the manner in which the money is going to be spent. I believe it might be better spent by the provision of a public health service controlled by the State, but the Bill is as it is, and my business is to get just as much medical attention for those who need it as I can within the scope of the Bill, and that is the object of all my Amendments.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "suspended" ["under this part of this Act shall be suspended"], to insert, "and where he is in arrears to an amount greater than twenty-six contributions a year on the average since his entry into insurance, his right to medical benefit, to sanatorium benefit, and to maternity benefit shall be suspended."
Those words carry out exactly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated was the intention of the Government. It extends the right to these three benefits to a person who is in arrears for a period of twenty-six weeks on the average, instead of thirteen weeks, so that the sickness and disablement benefit will be suspended after thirteen weeks' average, but the medical, sanatorium, and maternity benefits will only be suspended after twenty-six weeks' average. The words are very plain, and carry out exactly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I do not rise to oppose this Amendment, but I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find he is landing the approved societies in an extraordinary position. They will have to keep a sort of double account for a man. He will be suspended for sickness and disablement benefit after thirteen weeks' average, but not till after twenty-six weeks' average for medical, sanatorium, and maternity benefits. There will be a great difficulty about his contributions after the thirteen weeks. I am not proposing to divide against the Amendment; I am merely drawing the attention of the Committee to this difficulty.

§ Mr. JAMES THOMAS
I rise to clear that point up. A large number of societies already differentiate between certain benefits, and there will therefore be no new book necessary.

1060

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "and at the expiration of the next succeeding calendar year any sums credited to the society in respect of him, calculated in the prescribed manner, shall, if his right to benefits still continues to be suspended, be transferred to such account and dealt with in such, manner as may be prescribed."
I move this Amendment for two reasons. The Clause provides that the contributions paid by the man who is in arrear beyond an average of thirteen weeks are to be transferred to such account and dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed. I object that a man's contribution should be taken away from him on the ground of his misfortune, and should be transferred to an account to be dealt with in a manner to be prescribed at some future period, and about which the Committee knows nothing. That point might no doubt be met by providing that it should be transferred to some stated and definite account, but even then I should object to the Clause. I will deal with the objection on the broader lines. The Committee ought to understand what is happening under Clause 10. If a man is in arrears for over thirteen weeks on the average, he is suspended from benefit, except, in accordance with the Amendment just accepted, with regard to medical and sanatorium benefit, and at the end of two years, if he continues to be in arrears, a lapse occurs, and he forfeits all rights to any benefit at all, unless the Amendment just moved continues to allow him to be entitled to medical and sanatorium benefit. He can become an employed contributor again by coming into insurance as a new entrant. He will not get the benefit as if he were sixteen, but he will have to come in on some unknown age rate which is not to be found anywhere in the Bill, but which is to be subsequently ascertained by regulations of the Commissioners. He will have to wait six months before he gets medical or sick benefit. I am speaking, of course, subject to the effect of the Amendment just adopted, which I have not had time to consider. In some cases the man will be out of insurance for a year. In other cases he will have to wait six months before he gets the medical benefit. In all cases six months will elapse before he gets the sickness benefit, 1061 and, further, he will have to wait two years before he can get the disablement benefit.
I call the attention of the Committee to this point because it hits those people whom we most need to bring into insurance—those who, through irregularity of employment or otherwise, will in this way be forced to pay contributions while they are employed with very little or no prospect of getting continuous insurance under the Bill. That class of man will constantly be in a state of being insured for a period, then dropping out, and then coming back again, and all through the working periods the contributions will be taken from him, but he will have no insurance at all unless he joins or tries to join an approved society; otherwise he will fall into the class of deposit contributors, and his fate will be even worse. The actuaries have shown that on the basis on which they have made their calculations the Bill is very much more severe than is really necessary. This is a point I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider, because if he were to adopt my view he would find it necessary to re-draft the whole scheme under this Clause with regard to arrears. The actuaries have calculated that the State will not receive an average of two and a-half weeks' contributions in every year from every insured person. They have calculated that every insured person will be two and a-half weeks in arrear every year. It is obvious that many insured persons will not be in arrear at all. It is obvious, too, some will be more than two and a-half weeks in arrear, and what I submit the Committee has to consider is that on the average it will be possible to be more generous in the treatment of those who fall into arrear. The simplest method of illustrating that will be to take a supposed society containing 100 members, and see how it would work. We might assume that of the 100 members ninety paid fifty-two contributions in the year, and did not full into arrear at all. The remaining ten only paid thirty-nine contributions. It would work out thus: The State would receive 4,680 weeks' contributions from the ninety members, and 390 weeks from the ten, or a total of 5,070, giving an average receipt by the State of fifty and a-half weeks' contributions. That is well within the actuaries' allowance, and therefore there would be more than sufficient money to provide for full benefit being given instead of reduced benefits in the case of the ten members in arrear.
1062 It seems to me the Committee ought also to understand how these provisions are going to affect individual men. They will have the effect of keeping a man in reduced benefits year after year. The Committee have decided that 10s. should be the normal amount of the benefit, and that it will enable the sick man to tide over his difficulty. But the cumulative effect will be that for a very long time after a man has once got into arrear it will be impossible for him to get full benefit. It does not apply in the case of the first year. But, say, in the case of the second year a man loses ten weeks through unemployment. His benefit for the future year would be 6s. 6d. per week instead of 10s. Let us assume that for the first, second, and third years he was, on the average, eleven weeks in arrear. His benefit by that time would be reduced to 6s., and if in the following year he paid the full fifty-two contributions and was not in arrear at all, his benefit would go up to 7s. 6d. Again assume that in the succeeding year, through unemployment, ho lost seven weeks, his benefit would then be 7s., and if he had no unemployment after that, and paid the full contribution, it would still take him a very long time to recover his position. I think, having regard to the calculation made by the actuaries, on which the funds have been provided, these provisions are unnecessarily severe in dealing with arrears.
I will only refer very briefly to the effect on members who start with the 5s. benefit. If they get into arrear they will practically become uninsured in respect of a greater part of the sickness which experience shows they are liable to. There has not been time for any individual member to work out any alternative scheme for dealing with arrears, but I feel perfectly satisfied, from the information embodied in the actuaries' report, that it is possible to make better and more generous provisions for those in arrear. At least this could be done: permission could be given to pay up arrears and thus prevent a lapse. At the present moment that power is limited to two years, but at least it might be extended so as to enable a man to put himself back into the position which he would have occupied had he had no arrears by paying up both capital and interest. I hear a remark that that is already provided for, but it is not in the Bill, and I suggest that there should be an extension in the direction I have indicated, or that alternatively the lapse which occurs at the end of two years might be post- 1063 poned and the suspension might go on for a longer period, or the final confiscation of the contributions made by men might be postponed so that at least they would have a better opportunity of getting the insurance we are trying to secure for them.

§ The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna)
But a small portion of the hon. Member's speech was really germane to the Amendment, the rest dealt with a very interesting proposal which would more properly come under discussion in a later part of this Clause. The Government sympathise so far with the first part of the speech that they propose to accept an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones), and I think the hon. Member for Colchester will realise that the acceptance of that Amendment will meet his point. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that reply.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
On the understanding that the Amendment in question will be moved I will withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON
I understand that the Government has signified its willingness to accept an Amendment which will practically render it unnecessary for me to move one standing in my name. Under this Clause as it stands, hon. Members will notice money accruing through the suspension of members from benefit owing to arrears is to be "transferred to such account and dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed." As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester pointed out, that presumably means the Insurance Commissioners. But in the actuaries' report it is stated clearly that these sums are to go to the account of the approved societies in order to meet their extra expenditure consequent on the increase of sickness due to a reduction in the general rate of mortality. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated himself quite clearly in reply to a question on the 27th June last that The saving due to the suspension of a member of any society from benefits on account of arrears of contributions in excess of 25 per cent., accrues to the advantage of his society. If I have the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that I need not further detain the Committee.

1064

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The only suggestion I have to make is that the hon. Member should himself move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division as I am advised by the draftsmen that these words are better calculated to secure the object we have in view.

§ Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON
I hardly like to take it out of the hon. Member's hands.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
I shall be quite satisfied if the hon. Member will move it.

§ Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON
Then I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "transferred" ["transferred to such account"] and to insert instead thereof the word "carried."

§ Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

§ Further Amendment made: After the word "account" ["transferred to such account"] insert the words, "for the benefit of the society or any other society to which he may subsequently be transferred."

The CHAIRMAN
The next Amendment in the name of the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) seems to me more properly to belong to Sub-section (4).

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
I have a series of small drafting Amendments, the first of which is to leave out "again" ["he again becomes employed "].

§ Amendment made: Leave out the word "again."

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
The next two Amendments on the Paper in my name read together. They are not much more than drafting Amendments. The effect is that the words in the Clause as they stand, "if he so elects at any time" shall be continued, "the benefits to which he is entitled shall be such as he would be entitled to."

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
We accept them as drafting Amendments.

§ Further Amendments made: Leave out the words "rate of" ["at any time the rate of benefit"].

§ After the word "benefits," insert "to which he is entitled."

1065

§ After the words "shall be such," leave out the word "rate."

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "employed contributor," and to insert the words "insured person."
It will have the effect of bringing the voluntary contributors into this provision Provision is made at present which is only applicable to the compulsory contributor, and I think it ought also to apply to the voluntary contributor. The next Clause does not seem to have any provision for it.

§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part."

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The effect of the Amendment, as the hon. Member who has moved it has said, would be to extend to the voluntary contributor the provisions of Sub-section (2) relating to the scale of reduction of benefits on account of arrear. But if this table were extended to the voluntary contributor it would mean that if he neglected to pay three contributions he would receive the full rates. I do not think that is fair. There is no reason why he should pay more than forty-eight contributions in that case.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
That deals with one point. But there is another reason to which the right hon. Gentleman has not referred. If a compulsory contributor finally gets into arrear you let him have reduced benefits, and if it is fair for the compulsory contributor, why not for the voluntary contributor? Otherwise you shut him out altogether.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
A man who is in employment pays fifty-three weeks per year, whether he likes it or not, but a voluntary contributor may get the same thing by paying forty-eight weeks. Of course, he would pay only forty-eight weeks.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I do not think that meets both my points. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider my suggestion and keep it in mind on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I beg to move, simply in order to get an explanation, to leave out the words "the Fifth Schedule." There is a reference 1066 in Sub-section (2) to the Fifth Schedule, and I would like to know what the Schedule means. I am unable to find in this Section any relation to that Schedule. The reference is generally to the deferring of the payments to a later day. The first part I understand, but I cannot see in the Schedule any direction as to these deferred benefits, or under what circumstances a particular benefit is to be taken on the fifth day after notice instead of the normal time, and then six and seven days and so on consecutively.

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

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
The first part I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say is perfectly clear. It begins with arrears amounting to less that four contributions per year on the average. In that case there is no reduction of benefit at all. Then you get to arrears amounting to more than four contributions on the average, and the benefits are reduced to 9s. 6d. for men and 7s. 3d. for women, and so it continues right to the end. But when they get 5s. benefits there is a reduction so many days after notice. It begins with the fifth day after notice and goes on to the sixth day after notice. That is the deferred benefit if they are in arrears.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
As I understand the Schedule it refers to certain people who are in arrears, but I do not understand the application.

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the last part of the note to the Schedule he will read:
"When the rate of sickness benefit during the first thirteen weeks to which the insured person is entitled is by virtue of any of the provisions of this Act, other than those relating to arrears, less than 5s. a week, this table shall have effect as if such lower rate were therein substituted for the rate of 5s. a week."
There is also in the Schedule the lower rate, which must begin as stated, so many days after notice—five, six, seven, and eight, and so forth.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I do not think that is quite plain. The Section which refers to the Schedule deals with people who are up to thirteen weeks in arrears, and not more than thirteen weeks. But if the person is thirteen weeks in arrears, a normal person, he is to have 1067 5s., and then, after that, come the other people, not specified, whose 5s. commences the fifth day after notice, instead of the fourth. Would the people who are more than thirteen weeks in arrears come under that, as the Attorney-General appears to suggest, because the Sub-section governs the application of the Schedule, which does not deal with people who are more than thirteen weeks in arrears. They have forfeited the benefit altogether.

§ Mr. BOOTH
On a point of Order. May I ask what is this particular Amendment which is before the Committee?

The CHAIRMAN
Occasionally when an explanation is asked I do allow an Amendment, which, if passed, would make nonsense; but that is only occasionally done, and it is in the discretion of the Chairman whether it is in order that an explanation should be asked and given on such an Amendment.

§ Mr. BARNES
Some parts of this Act are complicated, but I do not think this is one of them. A man may be in arrears, as I understand it, for an average of three weeks, and he is not in any way penalised. These two Sub-sections deal with a man after that period has expired. He can either be dealt with under the provisions of the first part of that Schedule when he comes within the 9s. 6d. a week. If he is in arrear four weeks he gets that instead of 10s., or he can be dealt with in another way, and instead of getting the 9s. 6d., according to the top part of the Schedule, he can be dealt with under the second part of the Schedule, and get pay for the first week after the fifth day's notice, and then if he is further weeks in arrear after the sixth day of notice right down to thirteen weeks.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), who knows this Bill so very well, has just given me a personal explanation. As I understand it this matter in the Schedule deals with people who are only entitled to a small benefit. In that case the benefit is not to be reduced, but to be deferred.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON
I beg leave to move, to add to Sub-section (2), at the end, the following proviso:—
"Provided that if on the average of the three previous years the amount of unemployment in respect to the persons 1068 insured in any approved society has not exceeded two and six-tenths weeks per insured person per annum the Insurance Commissioners may suspend the provisions of this Sub-section as regards that approved society on its application for such suspension."
5.0 P.M.
I have to apologise for moving a manuscript Amendment, but I may explain that I have sent a copy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and my excuse is that I was talking this morning to the actuary of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, and he was very anxious it should go down. He entirely approves of it. According to the actuaries' estimate the hon. Member for Colchester has pointed out that two-and-a-half weeks on the average per member per year would be the lowest possible among the membership of an approved society of their unemployment, but that really would not be the case in many societies, for the reason that unemployment in some trades is more acute than in other trades, and in every approved society practically, which represents the more fortunate trades, they will only get about eight or nine shillings per week benefit, or a lesser amount. The Clause in the Bill deals only with individuals without having regard to the average income of the society as a whole. I believe this provision in the Bill is strongly repugnant to the general feeling of friendly society members. As hon. Members know, in every lodge of the Manchester Unity, at present, there is a distress fund, one of the objects of which is to keep the men good upon the books when they happen to be out of employment. The lodges of the Manchester Unity take particular care-not to denude their benefit fund for this purpose. They take this fund for the sick and their unfortunate members who get into arrear in this way. This shows very clearly the strength of the fraternal feeling that animates friendly societies. I believe the friendly societies throughout the country would welcome this Amendment. It would permit many more of their members to receive benefit than would receive benefit under the Bill at the present moment. The Amendment has also the merit of preserving that element of self-government and self-control of which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd George) spoke so well and eloquently in a former debate. If this concession is accepted, it will reduce the surplus to a small extent, and so diminish the additional benefits in some of these 1069 societies. But from what has been said at meetings of friendly societies, the friendly societies do not attach much importance to the additional benefits in comparison with the maintenance of that feeling of brotherliness which has characterised them in the past.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say the friendly societies disapprove of this Clause. I do not know where he got that notion from. I would like him to point out any friendly society that gives anything like the advantages provided by this Clause. It gives a maximum of thirteen weeks for unemployment. I do not know any society which does that; certainly not the Manchester Unity. It is true societies send the hat round in order to enable people in arrear to keep on the books, but, nevertheless, there are 250,000 a year who pass out of the friendly societies purely because they are in arrear, very largely from unemployment. For the first time we are allowing something like 25 per cent. of arrears without disqualification, and allow a period without any reduction of benefits at all. Will he point out any friendly society in the country that does that? You will find in Germany if you are in arrears twice in succession you lose your rights altogether in the society. This is a very liberal attempt to meet the difficulty of unemployment. I am not sure this Amendment is the best way of dealing with this matter. I am sure it is not. It is no use giving the Insurance Commissioners power at the end of three years. They may be three very good years. You impose an obligation to give the same benefits whether a man pays or whether he does not. This may be accepted as an additional benefit, but not as a part of the mechanism of insurance. I would not object to it as one of the additional benefits.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I would like the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) to withdraw this now. I wish to thank the hon. Member for doing me the favour of sending me a copy last night. The Amendment is one with which I am rather in sympathy, but it would come better as an additional benefit. If it comes in at this point it will not have the effect desired.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I am inclined to think my hon. Friend would be wise to fall in with what the Chancellor suggests—that this should come as an 1070 additional benefit. If we had had more time and better information, it might have been possible to construct a scheme in more detail. But it has become necessary to do it at the last moment, and it is not surprising my hon. Friend has not got it in its best form or its best place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, replying to him, asked him to point out any society which gives as good terms regarding arrears as this Bill does. He did not suggest any society did. No society can give as good terms as the Bill does, for the Bill has got the State and the employers' contributions. If in respect of these it does not improve upon the practice of the societies there is no justification for compelling people to join.

§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
After what the right hon. Gentleman has said on the point in a very conciliatory manner, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I wish to leave out Sub-section 3. This is one of the Sub-sections I always try to leave out when I see them. Here is another of these proscriptions withdrawing from the House and the Committee of the House the control of what is to happen to the voluntary contributors. This particular Sub-section ought to come out, because it is a contradiction to Sub-section (1) which applies to insured persons.

§ The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna)
The hon. Member will see if this Amendment is accepted that there will be no provision in the Bill for the reduction or suspension of the contributors at all. The ordinary contributor comes into the scheme with his eyes open. Before he comes in the rules will have been made by the Commissioners, and the voluntary contributor can leave or accept the scheme as he pleases.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
What you intend to do is to reduce the voluntary contributor's benefit in proportion to the amount he is in arrear; why not say that in this Sub-section instead of saying the benefit shall be reduced as may be prescribed. Why should we not give the general governing line here in the Bill. With the compulsory contributor we have provided that under certain conditions and with certain qualifications his benefit shall be reduced in proportion to the amount he is in arrear. The voluntary contributor can have his benefits reduced in proportion to the amount he is in arrear.

1071

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
If Subsection (1) does not cover this, and I am wrong in supposing that it does, then you ought to set out distinctly what your proposals are, instead of leaving them to be prescribed. I think Sub-section (1) does cover it, and if it does I cannot see the necessity for Sub-section (3).

§ Mr. BOOTH
I must say, speaking from the standpoint of the approved societies, it is much more desirable to have this in the Bill. I see that it would be an advantage to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), but surely the Amendment would have the effect of making a cast-iron provision. What we are anxious for is that if a scheme is found to be unworkable we shall be able to get it altered with a certain amount of ease. If we give this power to the Commissioners, and if they lay their proposal before Parliament for a certain number of weeks, that will be a simpler way of dealing with the matter than by Act of Parliament. If you put it in the Bill you cannot alter it except by Act of Parliament, but if you put the matter in the hands of the Commissioners they can lay their proposal on the Table of the House. This is a business matter, and it is important that if a difficulty should occur there should be an easy way of getting over it.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
I think my hon. Friend is right in stating that an insured person, under Clause 10, includes a voluntary contributor.

§ Mr. McKENNA
Clause 10, Sub-section (l) deals with an insured person who is a member of an approved society, Sub-section (2) deals with an employed contributor, and Sub-section (3) deals with a voluntary contributor, who in each case is in arrears.

§ Mr. GOULDING
Would it meet the case to omit the word "such" and insert the word "proportionate," and to leave out the words "as may be prescribed," so that the Sub-section would read, "Where a voluntary contributor is in arrears he shall be liable to proportionate reduction or suspension of benefits."

§ Mr. McKENNA
We have prescribed by a schedule of the Bill as regards the employed contributor, but the schedule with respect to the voluntary contributor is to be prepared by the Insurance Commissioners.

1072

§ Mr. CASSEL
May I suggest that the words "or suspension" should come out also?

The CHAIRMAN
I understand that the First Lord of the Admiralty accepts the form of words suggested by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding). In that case the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Colchester should be withdrawn.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I will withdraw my Amendment and move another in the form suggested by the hon. Member for Worcester. In doing so may I protest against the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty that voluntary contributors come in with their eyes open? They do not come in with their eyes open in the sense that they have an alternative, because by this very Bill the voluntary societies are to be roped in as-approved societies, and they will not have voluntary sections, apart from what is done under this Bill, to choose from, or probably they will not.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I wish to distinguish between a person who is bound to insure and one who is not bound.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I beg to move to leave out the word "such," in Sub-section (3), ["be liable to such reduction"], and to insert instead thereof the word "proportionate."

§ Amendment agreed to.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I beg to move to leave out the words "or suspension," in Sub-section (3), ["reduction or suspension of benefits"].

§ Mr. McKENNA
It would be safer not to leave out these words as they may be necessary.

§ Mr. HILLS
I think the question of suspension is dealt with in Sub-section (1) as regards an insured person who is a member of an approved society.

§ Question, "That the words 'or suspension' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

§ Mr. LEES SMITH
I beg to move to leave out, in paragraph (a) Sub-section (4), the words, "Or the two next succeeding Sections of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words, "Section or any other provision of the Act disentitling a 1073 person to such benefit." This Amendment deals with rather a complicated point. It is intended to remove a slight injustice, which I think is not really in the mind of the Government. The object of paragraph (a) is to relieve contributors from the necessity of paying contributions during periods of sickness or disablement. Hon. Members will see from the paragraph that contributors need not pay contributions while receiving sickness benefit or disablement benefit, but by Sub-section (7) of Clause 8, which deals with the waiting period of six months as regards medical benefit, and twenty-six weeks as regards sickness benefit, persons can be sick or disabled and yet not receive sickness benefit or disablement benefit. Under the present wording of Clause 10 they would not be free from the obligation of making contributions. It seems clear that they have a right to be free from paying contributions if they fall sick or become disabled within the waiting periods, and it is in order to give this right that I move the Amendment.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)
I think my hon. Friend is quite right in saying that it is necessary to insert the words which he proposes for the purpose of meeting the case of the person insured during the waiting period. It is unnecessary to recapitulate what the effect of this Amendment will be. Under paragraph (a) arrears of contributions are not to be calculated during any period when the person in question has been in receipt of sickness benefit or disablement benefit, but this particular point which my hon. Friend has referred to was not met in the Bill, and, consequently, I accept the Amendment.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
had given notice of an Amendment in Sub-section (4), in paragraph (a), after the word "benefit" ["or disablement benefit"], to insert the words "unemployment benefit."

The CHAIRMAN
I think the words of the hon. Member's Amendment cannot be inserted here. We have no unemployment benefit in the Bill up to this stage.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
Is there no unemployment benefit in Part II. of the Bill?

The CHAIRMAN
We have not yet arrived at Part II. of the Bill, and there is no Clause giving unemployment benefit up to the present time.

1074

§ Mr. LEES SMITH
I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), in paragraph (b), after the word "confinement" ["four weeks after her confinement "], to insert the words "or in the case of maternity benefit payable in respect of the posthumous child of an insured person, during the period subsequent to the father's death." This Amendment deals with another small point. If a man dies he is no longer in benefit, but if some weeks or months after his death a child is born to his wife, is she entitled to the maternity grant? It is in order to make quite clear she is entitled to it that I move the Amendment.

§ Mr. McKENNA
We are only dealing now with the question whether arrears are to be counted after a definite time. I think the object my hon. Friend has in view is that arrears shall not be counted after a man's death in a case where a woman is confined of a posthumous child. That point has already been dealt with as regards sick benefit, and it is obvious that it should be dealt with in this case. I do not think that the words proposed by my hon. Friend are the proper words to insert, and if the Amendment is accepted now it must be on the understanding that it is subject to alteration afterwards if it should be found necessary to use other words.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Mr. LEES SMITH
I beg to move, to insert at the beginning of Sub-section (4), paragraph (c), the words "in the case of an employed contributor."

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Colonel HICKMAN
I beg to move, to. leave out paragraph (c).

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
On a point of Order. We have inserted words at the beginning of Sub-section (c), and we must finish it somehow.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)
The hon. Member is quite correct. I had overlooked that point. The hon. and gallant Member must find some other method of amendment.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
Will not the words come in front of Sub-section(d)?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
No.

§ Mr. WYNDHAM
Does not the rule that applies to a Clause apply to a paragraph?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
No.

1075

§ Colonel HICKMAN
I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), paragraph (c), to leave out the words "after the commencement of this Act."
My object is to find out what is the meaning of this Section, which appears to be rather involved. Section 8 says that no insured person shall be entitled to medical benefit during the first six months after the commencement of the Act, or shall be entitled to sickness benefit for the first twenty-six weeks. If a man is entitled to receive either of these benefits after six months I cannot understand why he should be allowed to pay no money for twelve months. It also appears to me that if a man is in arrears in the first twelvemonth his rate of insurance ought to begin in the second year.

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
This applies only to an employed contributor. He cannot help himself. If he does not pay the contribution is deducted by his employer. It is intended to give him some advantage during the first twelve months. If he is out of work he has not to pay, and if he is in work he cannot help himself.

§ Amendment negatived.

§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
I beg to move, to insert at the end of Sub-section (4), paragraph (c), the words "for any period within the second twelve months after the commencement of this Act during which the insured person is disabled after having exhausted his sickness benefit under the Act, or."
I hope that the Attorney-General will think that this is a reasonable Amendment. Although a man may become disabled he gets no disablement pay at all until two years after the passing of the Act. He is paying contributions, but getting no benefit. If he does not pay his contributions, arrears will begin to run against him. My object is simply to exclude that second year.

§ Mr. McKENNA
The hon. Gentleman, as I understand, takes the individual case of the man who becomes disabled during the period of the first two years' operation of the Bill who is not getting disablement pay until the two years elapses, and who falls into arrears.

§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
That is so.

§ Mr. McKENNA
We would all desire to have more money at our disposal to make the Bill more favourable, but I regret 1076 that I do not think that this is a case in which additional exemption ought to be made. It must be remembered that in framing this particular part of the Clause under which arrears are not to be counted the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone far beyond any precedent ever set by any society. There is no doubt that at each point it is quite possible to propose Amendments' pressing small concessions further and further, but I would beg the hon. Gentleman to accept the arrangements made under this Clause, which are extremely generous.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not accept this very small proposal, which covers many hard cases. The whole question is what will it cost. I cannot conceive that it will cost very much. It would not be likely to arise very often. If you have the case of a man who during the first two years had exhausted his sickness credit and could not get disablement benefit because it does not come for the first two years it is very hard that arrears, which may not amount to more than a few weeks, should count against him in regard to other benefits later on. If it were going to cost a great deal I am sure that my hon. Friend would not press it, but it would cost very little, and as it meets a very hard case I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider it.

§ Mr. BOOTH
This is the kind of Amendment that we can propose all through the Bill. If we carry many of them the whole thing will be unworkable, and it will be impossible for approved societies to make both ends meet. This is a most dangerous Amendment. There is scarcely an Amendment on the Paper which would do more to encourage malingering than this. This provision is a concession to a man who would be one of the greatest recipients of benefit under this Bill. If there is any man who should be thankful to have this Bill passed it is this man. We are not helping him out of Government funds? This comes out of the funds of approved societies to which workers contribute. I think this is a fortunate, and not an unfortunate individual, when you compare his new position with his position before the passing of the Bill. It does seem to me that the malingerer will avail himself of this at once. A suggestion was made yesterday with regard to the great danger of malingering. There is no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has this idea impressed on his mind more and more 1077 with all the concessions which he has made. It is not the working class as a rule who will malinger. It is the odd man who spoils the benefit of the other ninety-nine. My own opinion is that working people as a class are less given to it than the middle and upper classes. The percentage of malingerers which there would be among Members of this House is far greater than you would get in an average trade union. I can see many hon. Members before me who are endowed with very great gifts. I believe that they are able to drive a coach and four through any Act of Parliament, and if they were to set to in order to extract benefits under this Bill they would develop into malingerers to an extent which would put any working man to shame. It is not with any desire to attack the working people that I say this, hut we must have regard to the odd men who are looking at all the provisions simply and solely with the object of trying to extract as much money as they can from the pool. I do not wish to press that point too far. I rise now only in the interests of approved societies. We should bear in mind all through that if we give benefits and concessions to disabled people we are likely to have them turned against us, and that the finances of the approved societies would become more and more unsound.

§ Mr. HILLS
The hon. Gentleman talks as though this Amendment was going to give increased benefit and thereby encourage malingering. I should like to point out that if a man is malingering under this Amendment he loses both his employment and his benefit, and why a man should malinger for the purpose of getting no wages and no sick pay I cannot understand.

§ Mr. McKENNA
Will the hon. Member allow me s If this Amendment is intended to cover only what he has referred to now it has already been dealt with by the Amendment which the Attorney-General accepted to Sub-section (a). The case of the individual disabled during the first two years of the Act has been already dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Attorney - General on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones). If there has been any misunderstanding, I should say that it does not propose to touch benefits at all, but merely arrears during the first two years, and if the hon. Member looks at Sub-clause (a) where amended, he will see that his point is already covered.

1078

§ Mr. HILLS
If it is the case that in the second year the man who runs out his thirteen weeks on sick pay is not to come into arrears for the rest of that year, then I quite agree that the point is met.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the point is met by what has been already done in paragraph (a).

§ Mr. WYNDHAM
I am disposed to think that is so. I have read through paragraph (a) as it now stands, and I think the alteration made in it does cover this point.

§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
I was not in the House when the point was dealt with. I now ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after paragraph (a), to add the following paragraph: "(e) during any period when the insured person was involuntarily out of work."
By the Bill as it stands, where a person is sick for a period of thirteen weeks he is suspended from benefit altogether. In reply to a question which I addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day, the answer was repeated that during the period of unemployment not only the arrears of the workman but the arrears of the employer have to be met, the workman being responsible for his own arrears and the arrears of the employers. I am quite sure that if the Bill is left as it stands the certain result will be very serious in respect to the benefits of the workmen, after two or three years' operation of the Act. There have been strikes of ten or eleven months' duration in South Wales, and some 1,000 or 1,200 men have been out of employment. It is quite conceivable, I think very probable, that a labour dispute of such magnitude will occur during the first three or four years of the operation of this measure. What would be the effect?

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
The Amendment of the hon. Member's refers to persons involuntarily out of work. Are they out of work "involuntarily" if they strike?

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
It is quite a difficult thing where there is a labour dispute to distinguish between a lock-out and a strike. I will deal with the case of a lockout, in order to meet the point of the hon. Member. The lock-out may continue for several months, and the result of that will 1079 be that all these men would be suspended from benefit, and it would be impossible for them to pay up the arrears. What would be the amount of arrears they would have to pay? Suppose they paid up arrears by weekly contributions, they would have their own 4d. to pay, then their 4d. for arrears, and the employer's 3d., making l1d. a week altogether. I think it would be quite impossible for the working man to pay that amount out of his wages. We must remember that fact, where there is a long period of unemployment. I should like to have this Amendment fully met, or if the Government are not in a position to do that, then the very least they can do is to relieve the working man from being responsible for the employer's contribution when he is out of work. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us more than once that there are something like a quarter-of-a-million of lapses in friendly societies every year, and these are due almost entirely to the inability of the members to pay. The rule of the friendly societies is to allow a member 10s. a week for relief, and the workman is not going to sacrifice that after paying for years. We may assume that in the quarter of a million cases of lapses there was complete inability to continue the payment of 4d., 5d., or 6d. a week. That fact alone, apart from the experience of every member of this House as to the conditions in which working men live, is sufficient to recommend this Amendment to the favourable consideration of the Government.

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
In the form in which this Amendment is moved it is quite impossible to accept it. Supposing the employed contributor has paid for one week, and then afterwards fell out of employment, under this Amendment he would thereafter be entitled to benefit. I do not think that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) intends that. I do not want to limit criticism to the exact words of his Amendment; I only wish to point out to him that this Amendment, if accepted, would go much further than the hon. Member for Blackburn has appreciated. The hon. Member cited the instance of a lock-out or a strike—remarking that it was difficult to distinguish between them—in which men are involuntarily out of work for twelve or eighteen months. He suggests that it would be very hard to ask them for arrears during the whole of that period. 1080 But the hon. Member is leaving out of consideration the very considerable benefits already given by the Government to the person who is out of work, and who is contributing under the paragraph of this Clause with which we have already dealt. Those benefits are certainly greater than are given by any friendly society in this country, and certainly infinitely greater than are given in Germany. But let me meet the argument of my hon. Friend, that the Government are not doing sufficient. What we are doing is this: First of all, if a man is sick, he has no payment to make. That is quite clear. We have already dealt with that. We give him that advantage, which is a considerable advantage, and which he does, not get now in any insurance or friendly society. His contribution is not deducted for the time he is receiving sick benefit, and it is not counted as an arrear against him. In other words, he is treated as if he was paying during the whole time he is-sick. When we deal with the arrears, we say that when a man is in arrears for a period of four weeks it is not counted against him. That is to say, he does not lose anything in the shape of benefits. That is a very considerable advantage, which is not given by friendly societies, and under this scheme it is an advantage-to the person unemployed. But we go further than that.
Supposing a man is in arrears during thirteen weeks. We have already decided that at the end of that period the benefit for which he is suspended is sickness and disablement benefit, but he is to continue to get medical benefit, sanatorium benefit and maternity benefit up to the period of twenty-six weeks. All these are advantages which we are giving under this Bill to a person who is in arrears and who is unable to pay because he is out of employment. I should have thought that it certainly could not be said against the Government that they are not dealing very liberally indeed with the man out of employment. If we accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member the result would be to throw out of gear the whole of the calculations upon which this scheme is based. I am sure that those who may be sympathetic to this Amendment cannot have considered what the effect of this would be. Take the case my hon. Friend put of a man being out of employment during twelve months, through a lock-out. That would be a most grave and serious-matter, but it is already met to a very large extent by the concessions to which 1081 I have called attention. I do not want to go into a lengthened exposition of how we deal with a man who comes into the society again and gets the benefit of his earlier contributions. My hon. Friend pointed out that a man might be out of employment for some months, and that when he comes in again he would be in great difficulty for a very long time. That is not really the case, because under the Bill he has the advantage of coming in again the moment he is employed. It is true that when he does come in again he at first gets reduced benefit, the amount being reduced to 5s. He is allowed to come in again the moment he is employed, even if he has been out of employment for years, but he is obliged to come in under reduced benefit. After he has been in employment for a time, it is possible, for him, under the Bill, to get back on the old terms under his old insurance, and he can do that the moment the benefit is reduced. I have no doubt my hon. Friend has studied the Bill, though it is not very easy to understand it, and if the House will listen I would like to explain the matter, which is a little complicated.
6.0 P.M.
When you talk of four weeks, of thirteen weeks, and of twenty-six weeks it should be remembered that we are speaking of an average period during years. And what does it mean? Supposing a man has been contributing for twenty years, he does not come under the suspension of benefit until he is five years in arrear. The Committee ought to keep that quite clearly in mind. When we speak of thirteen weeks we are apt to make a mistake and calculate it in just the same way. If the man has been contributing for twenty years he must be five years in arrear before he is suspended from benefit. Bearing that in mind, as well as what we are already providing under this scheme, it will be seen that we are doing a great deal for persons out of employment. Supposing a roan has been out of employment, when he returns to his employer he at once becomes an insured—that is to say, he again becomes an employed contributor. The moment he is an employed contributor his contribution goes on with a reduced rate of benefit. But with every payment which he makes he is approaching nearer to the period when it is to his advantage to get back to the old insurance—that is to say, to use a convenient expression, to couple up the new payments with the old payments, so that the man who has been in arrear for a considerable period of 1082 time, when he rejoins, pays the same contribution for reduced benefit for a certain period; but every week that he pays for reduced benefit brings him nearer to his full benefits, because he has lowered his average arrear for a period of years. The fact is, he goes on paying, and so lowers the average of arrears piled up against him. A man has been off for a considerable period, and the hon. Member wishes to put him back at once into the old position, and to strike out this period in which he had never been insured at all, except for the purpose of counting up the arrears to see what they would have been if spread over the whole period, before he ceased to pay, and since he came back. If we take all these considerations into mind it will be clear that the proposals of the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snow-den) and those who sympathise with his views that full benefit should be given under this Bill to those who are out of work are enormous proposals. We have already loaded this scheme very seriously in order to give these benefits, which have-always appeared to me very valuable indeed, and having done that, if we include in the scheme upon this basis these additional burdens, it must become impossible altogether. Are we to open the doors in this way, and allow free entry to all who may be out of work, not to have their arrears counted up against them, and to get full benefit just the same as if there had been a period of full time of payment. [An HON. MEMBER: "How long is he to be unemployed?"] That is not the point. The Amendment does not seem to me to relate to that particular matter. In this case you must have the payment of the contribution in order to get to the period when the arrears may be worked off and the man entitled to full benefit. I want to point out, in answer to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Blackburn, that we should open the door wider still to the man who is out of work in this part of our scheme, that we have done everything we possibly could be asked to do, and I say that to ask the House of Commons to take upon itself to accept such an Amendment is nothing more nor less than to ask us to make the scheme unsound and financially unworkable from the time it leaves the House.

§ Mr. ROWNTREE
Is there not provision for re-entry?

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
In the re-entry there is a great advantage. When he 1083 re-enters he comes in on a rate of benefit which is properly attributable to his age on entering and proportionate to the contribution he is making. If he gets benefit it is not the same benefit, and he cannot get it when he makes his first contribution. He is treated as a new member or a new entry. It is impossible to give him benefits until he has had a waiting period. But in this case, as soon as he pays back the thirteen weeks and the twenty-six for the arrears, he gets back to the old standard of insurance, and gets the benefit which is proportionate, and the old arrears having been paid up, he gets rid of the extra payment and of the reduced benefit.

§ Mr. LEES SMITH
Referring to the Amendment on the Paper with regard to employer's contribution, I have an Amendment on the Paper to that effect, and it was ruled out of order in that place. I did not intend to move it, as the question is now raised in a wider form. If the Attorney-General wishes it, I will move it so that he may make an explanation.

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
It docs not arise now.

§ Mr. BARNES
I and those who sit beside me quite appreciate the fact that the Government have been fairly liberal in the provision so far as a man is concerned who comes on sick. It is something unusual, I admit, to find a man coming on to sick benefit of this sort and getting credit for three or four weeks. I am not quite sure whether it is three or four weeks.

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
It is reduced on the fourth week of arrear. That is the average.

§ Mr. BARNES
I quite understand it begins at the fourth week, so therefore it is only three weeks actually. So far as a man going on sick benefit is concerned, the provision is fairly good, and I think the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) is of the same opinion. But we have put this Amendment down, and the man we have in our mind is the man who gets out of work, and one of the conditions in that case is that that man shall pay up not only his own contribution, but the contribution of his employer in order to keep himself in benefit. If he has not done that he will receive a reduced benefit. When a man gets out of work other things roll up as 1084 well as that, and it is hard that he is to be asked to pay up these arrears or get a. reduced benefit until they are paid up. A man who gets out of work has enough to do without trying to pay up for sick benefit when he gets work, and we say he has a reasonable claim for some consideration in regard to this matter. When a man is out of work he does not necessarily go sick under this Act. The Amendment of my hon. Friend may be drawn a little wide, but we have put down another Amendment a little further down the Paper which deals with the other alternative, and to some extent limits and defines the liability provided the Government are disposed to accept it. We lay down that it shall be: "during any period of unemployment when the insured person is receiving benefit under Part II. of this Act, or would be receiving such benefit if he belonged to a-trade specified in the Sixth Schedule to this Act to the extent of an average of one month each year."
That does not require that the man should be exempt from contribution if out of work except under certain conditions. That difficulty is met by the conditions specified in the Second Part of this Act—that is to say, he would not be on strike or locked out, or would not have left his-employment under certain conditions there laid down, and, generally speaking, he will be under the provisions of that part of the Act. Then, further, we ask that the period of unemployment for which we ask such exemption shall be an average of one month per year. I do not think that proposal, at all events, is open to the statement made by the Attorney-General that it will upset the whole Bill, and upset the working of this Act in an actuarial sense. Provided he does not require sick benefit, that would not apply. The man would have to pay during the time of unemployment, and if he did not pay it then he would have to pay it afterwards, and therefore it does not apply. We seek exemption from contributions whether the man comes under sick benefit or not. We say he shall not be required to pay the 4d. in respect of himself and the 3d. in respect of his employer on a very limited scale of benefit under the Act in Part II., 7d. per week in respect to the receipt of 7s. or 6s. per week. We limit the arrangement to a period of one month per year. That, in our opinion is not an unreasonable Amendment. It gives relief to the man who goes out of work, a relief to which we think he is entitled, and which is much needed, because he has not the 1085 wherewithal to find 7d. a week. Therefore, I would ask the Attorney-General to reconsider the matter in the light of this more limited and reasonable proposal.

§ Mr. CASSEL
I cannot support the Amendment; but I wish to call the attention of the Attorney-General to an injustice to which the provisions of the Bill lead. The Attorney-General pointed out, and it is perfectly true, that so far as arrears are concerned, the terms under the Bill are far more generous than those of any friendly society in existence. But no man is compelled to join a friendly society, whereas under this Bill you are compelling people to join. The position of great hardship is that of the seasonal workers, who on the average work only nine months in the year. They would be always paying, but unless they could make sufficient provision during the time they are earning to come in as voluntary contributors during the other three months of the year, they would never get any sickness or disablement benefit at all. The proper course with regard to these people would be to give them the option of not coming in. They say, "We do not want to be insured, because under the terms of our employment we can never pay up for a sufficient period to entitle us to benefit." Under an Amendment which has been made they might get medical or sanatorium benefit, but they will be paying for sickness and disablement benefit as well. I submit that their position is one of great hardship, and that they ought at least to have the opportunity of not being bound to come in under the Bill.

§ Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN
An exceedingly important point is here involved. We all accept the statement of the Attorney-General as an excellent one, and as showing a genuine desire to meet the position, so far as it went. I have been for some years secretary to an organisation that, takes in unskilled labourers. The great difficulty experienced in the unskilled labourers unions is that when a man is out of work, not only can ho not afford to pay his union, but he has nothing to live on at all. In order to keep these men as members of our union we vest power in the hands of the branch to excuse a man altogether from paying his contributions for a month at a time. If a man is out of employment for six months on end he need not pay a cent., provided his branch excuses him on the ground of unemployment. That arrangement keeps the 1086 man in the union exactly in the position that he was in when he fell out of work. He does not gain any advantage by not paying his contributions, but as soon as he begins to pay his contributions again he immediately qualifies for benefit, and the period during which he has not contributed is not counted against him at all. It seems to me that if under this Bill a man is compelled to pay up arrears, you will have just the same difficulty as the trade unions have had in the past; you will have a tremendous number of men who will lapse and then rejoin; they will pay in for so-long, then lapse again, and rejoin once more. That has been the experience in the trade union movement, particularly in the unskilled workers' section. We must realise the tremendous difficulties of these people. There are hundreds of thousands in this country in receipt of wages of only 17s. or 18s. a week. They may have a wife-arid children to keep, and the Committee can easily appreciate the enormous difficulties in which these men find themselves as soon as they are unemployed. The difficulty is much greater than the Attorney-General appears to imagine, and the question ought to receive far more consideration if it is hoped to keep these men permanently in the organisation at all.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I wish to put in a plea-for the ordinary London casual labourer, who will be in the position of being practically always something in arrear. He is never certain of regular work, and to keep himself in benefit he will continually have to pay both the employer's and his own contributions for a certain number of weeks. The basis of the scheme is that not only should the man pay something, but also the employer. Why, then, should it be landed on to the workman to bear the whole burden of unemployment in this way? The proposal is really quite indefensible. There may be something in the argument of the Attorney-General with regard to the treatment of men under this measure in the matter of exemption for arrears as compared with their treatment by friendly societies. But nothing can be said for making the men take on their shoulders the burden of the employers. As I have said before, this is not a sentimental business. Unemployment as a rule creates ill-health. Everybody knows that during periods of bad trade the figures for sickness rise, especially among the class of people of whom we are thinking just now. Therefore I join in asking the Government to give the matter more consideration. 1087 You do not get out of it by showing how much has been done. We agree that you are probably doing more than other people. But this is a very rich country, and unemployment, generally speaking, is not the fault of the individual man or woman. I want, not the Amendment of the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Lames), but that, or some modification of it, of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). In any case, I want to see the employer's part absolutely taken off the shoulder of the workman or workwoman.

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD
If this Amendment is now put, will the Amendment to which my hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes) has referred be excluded from consideration?

§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott)
I think the question raised by that Amendment has been covered in the discussion on this Amendment.

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD
That being so, might we not ask the Attorney-General to give us his views on the statement of my hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes) who raised an issue much narrower than that raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn, and put certain points which had not been covered in the Attorney-General's previous speech. The point I should like to put is simply this. The Government admit that sickness necessitates certain privileges in respect of arrears. They admit that if an insured person is sick for five weeks, four weeks arrears are not counted at all.

§ Mr. McKENNA
If he is sick for five weeks no arrears at all are counted. Not only that, but those five weeks during which he is getting sick benefit are counted in his favour as part of the year, and towards giving him another free run of four weeks for unemployment.

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD
The point is that when a person is under benefit be-cause of sickness the Government give him special privileges with regard to arrears. If a person is in precisely the same position as a sick person so far as income is concerned, and is a beneficiary under Part II., why cannot the Government give him, not the same amount of consideration, but a sufficient amount of consideration to enable him to remain inside the Bill? The statement of the Attorney-General is very good so far as it goes, but I do not think he has quite 1088 visualised the very large number of people who will be permanently only partly in receipt of benefits under this Bill. They will be on a low scale, they will be in arrears, they will be partly in, partly out. For the sake of the success of his own scheme, more particularly in the lower strata of society, he must really meet us is some way in respect to unemployment. Therefore, I ask that he should say something in reply to the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division before this question is put to the vote.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I certainly could not support the Amendment with which the Attorney-General has dealt, nor could I have supported the other Amendment to which the hon. Member for Blackfriars has referred, which is covered by this Amendment and therefore cannot be moved. I agree with all the Attorney-General has said as to the very long way the scheme of the Bill goes towards making allowances for people who are unfortunately unable to maintain their contributions. I do not want in the least to underrate what is done. Nor must we forget the heavy charges which that places upon the fund generally, and therefore upon other contributors who are more fortunately situated. I do not want to forget or criticise, but there is one class about whom two hon. Members have spoken, and if it be the fact—I speak subject to correction, and I am not desirous to press for any immediate steps if the Government require time for the further consideration of the matter—if it be the fact, as is thought by those two hon. Members, that we are going to take a compulsory contribution from a considerable number of people, whenever they are in work, and owing to the terms and conditions of their life, they will seldom or never qualify for benefit, then I think that is a case which requires special treatment.

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
In what way?

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
It is really the case of the seasonal man. That was the case which struck me most as it was put. If other cases are of more importance than that, of course the greater number of cases the heavier will be the charge upon the fund in making special provision in their favour. The more difficult, therefore, it becomes to do anything. All the difficulties of the problem seem opening up to us. At the same time I do feel that the Committee will be uneasy if it is shown to them that they are going 1089 to take the contributions of a great number of men who can never hope under the conditions of their employment to get benefits. If there are a considerable number of men, as my hon. Friend, the Member for St. Pancras, suggests, who get not more than nine months employment in the year, and who cannot out of the wages of that time provide both for their own and the employers contribution in the time they are out of work, then the danger is that you are compelling them to come into the scheme in which there are nominal benefits to be derived by them, but of these benefits they will in fact have no share.
I do not press upon the Government more than that they should consider these cases, and consider whether the terms of the Bill are quite fair to the men concerned, or whether they can get out of the Bill to which they contribute what will be their proper share. I hesitate almost to make any suggestion without much further knowledge than I have, and much further consideration than I can pretend to have given to the subject, as to dealing -with this matter. But it does seem to me that it might be possible to allow in certain cases—in a limited class of cases at any rate—that men re-entering shall not have to have a new waiting period, but shall come into benefit when they come again into work. I do not know what the financial effect of that will be. The financial result might make it impossible even to consider the suggestion. But I do hope the Government will keep it in their mind. If men in these cases lapse and then become paying members again they should not have each time when they lapse to go through the whole waiting period. It seems to me that is what will happen, and that in many of these cases this provision will exclude the men from ever drawing benefit.

§ Mr. SHERWELL
I understand, Mr. Emmott, in an earlier ruling you gave this afternoon, you said that it would be open to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith) to move his Amendment, which raises a point of very grave importance, which hon. Members on this side wish to discuss. It refers to the paying of arrears represented by the employer's contribution. I want to ask now whether if this present Amendment goes to a Division the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton will be able to move the Amendment which stands in his 1090 name. That is in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words, "or in respect of" ["payable by or in respect of him"]?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I understand that we have not discussed during this present Debate the question raised by the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith), and Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), to leave out the words "or in respect of." I have not been present during the whole of the Debate, but I do not think this matter has been settled in this Debate.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
On a point of Order. The Amendment now before the Committee is a very wide one. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) raises practically the same point, though in a much narrower form. Therefore if we reject the prior one it seems to me we ought to be permitted to move the Amendment of the narrower character, because there seem to be many Members who would not go for my wider Amendment who would support the one not so comprehensive.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
On a point of Order. If it is possible to discuss thirteen or fourteen alternatives to the same general proposition we would never get to the end, I will not say of this Bill, but of any Bill. I take it that what we are really doing now is discussing the general principle. I understand the Debate has gone on for an hour and a half upon this general question—in fact, it has gone a good deal wider. I suggest that if we discuss the same thing over again on an Amendment which is simply an alternative, we will never get to an end.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I can only settle the points of Order on any individual Amendment put to me. In regard to this particular Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars, which, I said, should come later, the point is so nearly the same as the one which we are discussing, that I certainly cannot allow it to be raised, because the man who "belongs to a trade specified in the Sixth Schedule to the Act," and so on, must surely be involuntarily an unemployed man.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
Even if I were to withdraw this Amendment, Mr. Emmott, it would not be in order for my hon. Friend to move his?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have explained before that if an Amendment is withdrawn no 1091 effect whatever is produced, and the same Amendment may be moved again, though it would be rather an abuse of procedure to do it.

§ Mr. BARNES
In the event of my hon. Friend pressing his Amendment to a Division, the point then is: would it be in order for me to move my Amendment?

§ The CHAIRMAN
No, no, certainly not.

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
In answer to the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Black-friars and Leicester, this is, of course, a much narrower Amendment, but I would point out that what this Amendment seeks from the Government we have done under the Bill. We really have already done the very thing which the hon. Member seeks.

§ Mr. KEIR HARDIE
I am not quite sure whether the Government have considered the question of averaging unemployment for a period say of twelve months. There is one case which I have in my mind at this moment, and in which I am specially interested, and it is typical of many others. It is where the workmen are employed perhaps for two days a week, more or less all the year round. These men being employed two days a week, or it may be one, three, or four days in some weeks, have the deductions made from their wages, whereas if they were continuously unemployed for four weeks, they would get the benefit under the Bill. Can there be some arrangement made whereby unemployment can be spread over a period, and averaged, so that these men and men in similar circumstances would get the benefit the same as those continuously employed?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I think that would be a very dangerous thing to do. It would make a very great hole in the funds of the various societies. My own impression at the present time is that it would be an enormous reduction in the money available for distribution for benefits. A word or two in reply to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chamberlain) as to the case of the seasonal trades.

1092

§ These will be enormously better off than originally. They can go on without paying anything for thirteen weeks in each year, and still keep quite a considerable benefit, and even beyond that up to about six months they can still claim to get medical benefits, maternity benefits, and sanatorium benefits. I do not think that the person engaged in a trade of the kind referred to has ever been in such a position as he will be if this Bill is carried. May I just point out that even if he is in employment up to twenty-six weeks, he can still bank his earnings, and he will get his 4d., he will get the 3d. of the employer, and the 2d. of the State. This will be placed to his credit. In addition to that he gets the benefit of the sanatorium fund of a million drawn from the whole body of insured persons throughout the whole country. He also gets the benefit of a grant of one and a-half millions towards the building of sanatoria. There again he is not altogether deprived of his benefit.

§ I will consider whether it is possible to do something more for him. But I am just a little bit afraid of it at the moment. It is so difficult to distinguish between the seasonal man and the man who is more or less of a loafer. Nobody wants to encourage him at the expense of the industrious workman. He is the very man who goes on working for a few weeks and then says he is tired. He says he is very sorry, but he cannot find employment. That is the last thing in the world that he wants. We do not want to give the same benefit to the man of that kind as the steady workman who goes on all through the year. Especially we do not want to give it to him at the expense of the other. I will consider the matter carefully and see whether it is possible to do something more, but I am afraid that it will not be.

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

§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 256.

1095

Division No. 284.]	AYES.	[6.45 p.m.
Adamson, William	Goldstone, Frank	Hunt, Rowland
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Hancock, John George	Johnson, W.
Barnes, George N.	Hardie, Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Jowett, Frederick William
Bowerman, C. W.	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)	Parker, James (Halifax)
Brace, William	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Clynes, John R.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Pointer, Joseph
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Hills, John Waller	Richards, Thomas
Gill, A. H.	Hodge, John	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)	Thomas, J. H. (Derby)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Snowden, Philip	Wadsworth, J.	Yate, Col. C. E.
Spear, Sir John Ward	Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Stanley, Albert, (Staffs, N. W.)	Wardle, George J.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. C. Duncan and Mr. Lansbury.
Sutton, John E.	Wilkie, Alexander
Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles	M'Callum, John M.
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)	Ferens, T. R.	M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Addison, Dr. Christopher	Ffrench, Peter	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Flavin, Michael Joseph	M'Laren, H. D. (Leices., Spalding)
Allen Arthur A. (Dumbarton)	Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)	M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)
Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)	Furness, Stephen	Manfield, Harry
Anstruther-Gray, Major William	Gelder, Sir W. A.	Marks, Sir George Croydon
Armitage, Robert	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Gibbs, G. A.	Meagher, Michael
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Glanville, H. J.	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)	Geddard, Sir Daniel Forde	Molteno, Percy Alport
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Goldsmith, Frank	Mond, sir Alfred Moritz
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Mooney, J. J.
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	Morgan, George Hay
Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)	Greig, Colonel J. W.	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N)	Gray, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Barton, W.	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Hackett, J.	Needham, Christopher T.
Beale, William Phipson	Haddock, George Bahr	Neilson, Francis
Beauchamp, sir Edward	Hall, Fred (Dulwich)	Newdegate, F. A.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Nolan, Joseph
Bentham, G. J.	Harris, Henry Percy	Norman, Sir Henry
Bethell, Sir J. H.	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Bigland, Alfred	Harwood, George	Nuttall, Harry
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Booth, Frederick Handel	Haworth, Sir Arthur A.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Boyton, James	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Hayward, Evan	O'Doherty, Philip
Brunner, John F. L.	Helme, Norval Watson	O'Dowd, John
Bryce, J. Annan	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Bull, Sir William James	Henry, Charles E. H.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Burke, E. Haviland.	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Higham, John Sharp	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hill-Wood, Samuel	Phillips, John (Longford S.)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Hinds, John	Pollard, Sir George H.
Butcher, J. G.	Hoare, Samuel John Gurney	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)	Holt, Richard Durning	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Power, Patrick Joseph
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Hushes, S. L.	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Cameron, Robert	Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)	Radford, G. H.
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)	Raffan, peter Wilson
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	Rainy, A. Rolland
Cator, John	Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)	Raphael, Sir Herbert H.
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	John, Edward Thomas	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood	Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)	Reddy, M.
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts., Rushcliffe)	Rendall, Atheistan
Chancellor, H. G.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Chapple, Dr. W. A.	Joyce, Michael	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	Keating, Matthew	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Clough, William	Kellaway, Frederick George	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Kelly, Edward	Robinson, Sydney
Condon, Thomas Joseph	King, J. (Somerset, N.)	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Cotton, William Francis	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Larmor, Sir J.	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Crooks, William	Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)	Rothschild, Lionel de
Crumley, Patrick	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid., Cockerm'th)	Rowntree, Arnold
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	Leach, Charles	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Davies E. William (Eifion)	Levy, Sir Maurice	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Lewis, John Herbert	Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)	Logan, John William	Seely, Col., Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Dawes, James Arthur	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter	Sheehy, David
Delany, William	Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)	Sherwell, Arthur James
Dillon, John	Lundon, Thomas	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Doris, W.	Lynch, A. A.	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Duke, Henry Edward	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Maclean, Donald	Spicer, Sir Albert
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Stanler, Beville
Esslemont, George Birnie	MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Farrell, James Patrick	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

1094

1095

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Sutherland, J. E.	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Talbot, Lord E.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)	Winfrey, Richard
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Tennant, Harold John	Watt, Henry A.	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Toulmin, Sir George	Webb, H.	Wortley, Rt. H. C. B. Stuart-
Trevelyan, Charles Philips	White, Sir George (Norfolk)	Yoxall Sir James Henry
Verney, Sir Henry	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Walrond, Hon. Lionel	Wiles, Thomas	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

§ The CHAIRMAN
The next Amendment, standing in the names of the hon. Member for Derby and the hon. Member for Dundee, is, I think, covered by the present paragraph (a).

§ Mr. JAMES THOMAS
Then, I think, it should be clearly set out that while a man may be ill, and under the provisions of the Bill receive no sick pay from the fund because he is in receipt of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act he should not be called upon to pay contribution; that that ought to be clearly defined in the Bill.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
It could not be more clearly defined than it is defined in the Bill. The only possible additional effect of the Amendment of my hon. Friend would be this, that a man might not pay while he was actually at work.

§ Mr. JAMES THOMAS
The exemptions have been clearly pointed out under Clause 11 of the Bill. A man may be ill in consequence of an accident, and may during that illness be receiving compensation, and is therefore deprived of the sick benefit of the fund. What we want then is that he should be exempt from contribution.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
If my hon. Friend will look at the Clause he will see that that is what is done—
"No account shall be taken of any arrears (a) during any period when the person in question has been or but for this or the two next succeeding Sections of this Act would have been in receipt of sickness benefit."

§ Mr. LEES SMITH
I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words, "or in respect of ["when an insured person has paid any arrears of contributions payable by or in respect of him which accrued during the calendar year"].
Under the Bill as it stands, if an employed contributor falls into arrears and wishes to pay them up, he has to pay the employer's arrears, or the arrears that accrue in respect of the employer, as well 1096 as his own. It has been pointed out that it is quite a sufficient test of the man's genuineness if he is willing to pay his own arrears, but to put upon his back the employer's arrears as well as his own is to place upon him an impossible position. I would like to call the attention of the Committee to the effect of this upon small wage-earners. Take a woman earning 9s. a week. When in employment she pays Id. a week. If she falls out of employment and gets into arrears and wants to clear them off again, then, as the Bill stands, her contribution would be raised from 1d. to 6d. per week. It is quite clear that the Bill as it stands will make it practically impossible for her, and a great body of workers like her, to recover their position by paying off their arrears. I quite understand that there are most serious difficulties in the way of the Amendment which I propose. If it is unfair to ask the workman, it is equally unfair to ask the society to pay the employer's share. I confess that under the circumstances this seems to me to be a very special case in which this money should be found by a State grant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has complained that Members bring proposals before this House without calculating how much they are going to cost. It is very difficult, indeed, to make any calculations from the actuaries' report as to what such an Amendment as this would cost. The only calculation I have been able to make works out that the employed contributors would be out of work about two weeks and a-half per year. If during those two weeks and a-half the State was to bear the employers' share of the contribution it would come to something like £300,000. That calculation assumes that all those out of work pay up their arrears, but probably most of them, even if the State bore the employers' proportion, would not do so. The State's share, therefore, would probably be half the sum I have mentioned, and probably less.
I am quite prepared to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is not so much the financial difficulty as the 1097 serious administrative difficulties which stand in the way. It has been suggested to me in private conversation that if you carry such an Amendment as this it will be impossible to tell whether the person had really been unemployed or not. One Amendment of mine, which has been passed over, did suggest that the employers' share of the contribution should only be paid if the member in question had throughout the period of unemployment been on the register of a Labour Exchange, and had not refused any suitable work offered to him. That is only one suggestion. I wish to put this point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If it is only the difficulties of administration which stand in the way, I think it would be worth while taking a very great deal of trouble before giving up the task as hopeless. If the Bill passes unamended in this respect you will find that this question will be one of those things which will rankle in the mind of the people, and always be thrown against us in public. It will create a great deal of odium upon a Bill, which I expect will need all the popularity it can get.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I expected my hon. Friend would have been the last person in this House to put forward such an argument as the last he gave in favour of his Amendment. I am going to consider this Amendment on its merits. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] The hon. Member says it will only cost about £150,000. He takes a broad figure of £300,000, and then he says he thinks he can cut it down by one-half. He says that amount ought not to be borne by societies, and that it ought to be borne by the State. May I point out that it is quite outside the Resolution, and I should not take the responsibility of altering the Resolution for this purpose. I think my hon. Friend himself has made the best case against this Amendment. It is a proposal which is utterly impracticable, unless you are going to give this money to men whether they deserve it or not. As I have said several times before, it is very important that this Bill should not be an encouragement to thrift-lessness. My hon. Friend suggested that the employers' share of the contribution should only be paid if the member in question had his name on the register of a Labour Exchange, and had not refused any suitable work that had been offered to him. Who is going to judge whether the work is suitable? To carry this out you would have to set up most elaborate 1098 machinery. Are we going to set up umpires and referees to decide in each case whether a man is to be let off this extra 2d. per week or not? If we are to do this the £150,000, or at any rate a very good share of it, will have to go in setting up courts of Referees to decide these cases.
This is not a practical proposal as it stands. I can understand that there are certain cases which deserve a good deal of sympathy, but my hon. Friend has utterly ignored the fact that this is a proposal which in its latitude and generosity has not got a single precedent in any friendly society. He says it will rankle in the mind of the people, but he forgets that we are giving a large sum of money already to friendly societies. The hon. Member can always challenge his constituents to produce a single society which gives anything like the latitude we are giving in respect of unemployment. Every society charges a man when he is sick either employed or unemployed, and if he is unemployed for a certain period either they strike him out or he has to pay up the whole of the arrears. Under this Bill he has an average of about three weeks a year without any deduction from his benefits. Then he goes on for thirteen weeks with reduced benefits. Can the hon. Member point out a single society in Northampton which will allow arrears to the extent of 50 per cent. and continue medical, sanatorium, and maternity benefits. The State has got to obtain this money somewhere, and it does not really drop like the gentle rain from heaven. You have to impose taxation. The hon. Member says put this charge on to the State. Who is the State? He talks as if all that he had to do was to send the bill in to me or to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but we have to get the money out of the taxation of the country.
It is all very well to talk in this airy way about putting the cost on to the State. The House of Commons is responsible for the finances of the nation. Supposing the whole of these arrears are to be made up by those who work hard during the year and have been paying their contributions regularly. That is really the hon. Member's proposal. If this Amendment is carried the whole of that burden will be thrown upon the shoulders of the steady members of friendly societies. I would not object to friendly societies having the right to consider whether they should in these cases dispense with the arrears, but it is impossible for the State to set up elaborate machinery to try each case. 1099 Such a proposal is quite impracticable. May I say that after all I do not take the same view of the working man as my hon. Friend does. I think if he puts this matter fairly before them and shows how much better the provision is under this Bill than in the case of any friendly society, they are sensible enough to see what an immense improvement it is on their present position. Under this Amendment the members of friendly societies may have to pay for the loafer at their own expense unless a most elaborate system is set up to discriminate between them.

§ Mr. SHERWELL
What has happened in this discussion illustrates the great difficulties under which we labour in discussing this great scheme in the way we are doing. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has quite misunderstood the object which my hon. Friend had before him in moving this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman emphasises again and again and very properly the definite benefits that are conferred under this scheme upon those who at present are not in receipt of any benefit; but I think he sometimes overlooks the point that by his introductory speech when this Bill was introduced, and by all that was written and said in defence of this scheme at the advent of this Bill, there has been created a large expectation in the public mind, and particularly in the mind of the poor and destitute which my hon. Friend and myself greatly fear may be doomed to disappointment when the Bill actually comes into operation. I am not at all sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer allows for the prospect he held out at an earlier stage of our proceedings when he suggested that it would be quite within the prerogatives and power of this Committee so to reconstruct the proposals of the Bill and alter the proposed benefits as to make it possible to throw the weight of benefit upon the most needy rather than upon some of the classes who will benefit under this scheme.
My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment has emphasised the very grave and almost fatal deficiency in this Bill in regard to a large class of unskilled and irregular labourers, who may find themselves perfectly unable to get back into the scheme under this provision as it stands. When my hon. Friend calls attention to this grave fact he does so out of the sincere desire to avail himself of the opportunity promised by the Chancel- 1100 lor of the Exchequer of suggesting to the Committee some means of reconstructing the scheme so as to bring the most necessitous into the benefits of the scheme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests that under the operation of this, Amendment you would be putting a premium on loafing. I venture to think he did not pay sufficient attention to the argument of my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend most clearly pointed out that it would still be incumbent upon the man who desired to get back into benefit to pay not merely his current premium but the arrears of his own premium, and I venture to suggest, in full seriousness, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that a. man who, to regain his footing in the scheme has to pay not merely his 4d. for the current week, but the whole of his arrears, is giving the greatest proof that he at least is not a loafer. I cannot help thinking this scheme will be largely a failure if it fails to make adequate provision for a large body of helpless men in the labour market. My hon. Friend laid stress upon the woman in receipt of low wages. I have in mind the case of the unskilled labourer with a large family, whose wages are never large. If he passes through a period of unemployment he will be not merely in arrear under this scheme, but in arrear with his rent, and probably in debt to tradesmen. He is hardly in an economic position to pay the arrears under this Bill if he is to regain his place in the scheme. I do respectfully and most earnestly suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is unwittingly depriving a most important section of the, community—the section that is most deserving of consideration at the hands of this Committee—of that possibility of help and relief which they pre-eminently and in a paramount fashion demand at the hands of the House and State.

§ Sir ALFRED CRIPPS
I should like, on this Amendment, to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because if I understand his speech, it appears tome to have very little relevancy, if I may say so with courtesy, to the Amendment itself. In the first place, as I understand the Bill as it now stands, it requires an insured person in arrear not only to pay his own arrears but the arrears of his employer. Prima facie, that is an obvious injustice. If a person is to get the benefit of an Act of this kind, he ought to get it so long as he fulfils his own obligation, and you ought not to put upon him the 1101 duty of fulfilling obligations which ought to be fulfilled by other persons. Therefore to say he is to be fined or penalized because his employer has not paid his contributions up to date is, in. my opinion, certainly unjust and unfair. The Chancellor of the Exchequer compared the conditions under this Bill with the conditions of a friendly society at the present time. Those conditions are entirely different, and are really not capable of comparison at all. We are dealing here with a case where you have compulsory contributions in respect of which you ought to receive certain benefits. You cannot compare that with the mere position of a voluntary member of a particular friendly society, because the conditions there are entirely different. You ought surely, where you have compulsory contributions, to be extremely careful that the person who pays the contributions has the full corresponding benefit, and you ought not to deprive him of any of that benefit because someone else over whom he has no control has not carried out his duties under the Act.
What has this to do with the story of the loafer and the malingerer? The question is whether the individual, when he has fulfilled his own obligation, is to have the advantage of this Clause, or whether, besides fulfilling his own obligations he has to fulfil the obligations of someone else over whom he has no control at all. That is not a matter of the loafer or the malingerer at all. It is a matter of simple justice to a person who has been made to contribute compulsorily, and who is entitled to the benefits under the Act. Putting aside the benefit societies which have nothing to do with this question, and putting on one side the loafing individual who is not touched in this question at all, can the Chancellor of the Exchequer really substantiate the view that a man is to be deprived of his benefits because someone else over whom he has no control has not fulfilled his obligations? That is really the simple business point I want to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is very difficult in these matters to deal with what is fair and just in each particular case and at the same time keep in view the Bill at large, but it is really no answer to the case of an injustice of this kind to say there may be some difficulty with regard to funds, because the same answer may be given to every case of injustice under the Act. I do not desire to make the Act extravagant at all or to put burdens either upon 1102 friendly societies or upon the Treasury, but the question is whether it is just to the person who is compelled to contribute to the insurance scheme to make him liable for somebody else's contribution if he falls in arrears.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I agree it is purely a business proposition. The question is whether a friendly society which charges a certain sum in respect of each member is in future to give the same benefits to a man who has only contributed less than half the contributions. That is what it means.

§ Sir A. CRIPPS
All his own contributions.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
That is not the point. It is a business proposition. The State is not going to administer this Act; it is the societies, and the friendly societies are in a majority. We say, "you must allow certain, arrears, but, subject to those arrears, you are to get 9d." The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Oh, well, in certain cases they must get 6d., and, although they only get 6d., give the value of 9d." That is really the point. The hon. and learned Gentleman talks about justice; but you must look at it all round. They are getting value for their money, and what they want is something more than value for their money. I quite agree it is a business proposition, and, as a business proposition, I think we have gone to the extreme limit in meeting cases of this kind.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
The hon. and learned Member was perfectly justified in my opinion in stating the Chancellor of the Exchequer had never met the point before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman in his first speech adopted a practice, with which we are quite familiar, when he is faced with a case he cannot oppose of dealing with something which is altogether irrelevant. The speech which he delivered would have been quite appropriate to my Amendment under discussion a little while back. I would like to call his attention to the fact that what we are discussing is not whether the workman should pay his own fees, but whether he should pay somebody else's fees, and I would like the discussion to be confined to that question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said if the workmen were relieved of this additional obligation it would be an encouragement of thriftless ness. I quite agree we should do nothing in this Bill to encourage thriftless ness. There is, I think, 1103 an obligation upon us to observe that, but there is another and, I think, greater obligation upon us. We should not compel the observance of thrift at the expense of the starvation of our stomachs of the women and children, and that is what is proposed if you insist upon placing the arrears of the contributions of the employer upon the workman. The fact of the matter is that by opposing this the Chancellor of the Exchequer is putting an impossible burden upon the workman. He repeatedly put this question to my hon. Friend: "Is there a friendly society in Northampton that gives better terms?" That is not the question. He is trying to compare two things not comparable. Is there a friendly society in Northampton or elsewhere which calls upon its members to pay the arrears of somebody else in addition to his own arrears? Is it justifiable to compel a workman to pay, in addition to his own arrears, the arrears of his employer? I say it cannot be done.
I will tell the Committee what is going to happen. My hon. Friend quoted the average period of unemployment as being two-and-a-half weeks per year, but there must be an enormous number of men who are out of employment for a considerable period. They cannot pay the arrears, and they will never make an attempt to do it. They will always be coming into insurance and passing out of it, and they will never get any benefit. I am inclined to think a considerable portion of the working men of this country will be in that position. They will never make the impossible effort to pay not only their 4d., but 4d. accumulated arrears on their own account and 3d. accumulated arrears of the employer. How can they, on a wage of 15s. or £l per week, spare l1d. per week? At the present time every penny of that man's wage is more than mortgaged, and, if he makes an effort to pay this, it must be at the expense of the starvation of his family. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was altogether out of the question to put what ought to be paid by the employer on the State. Why is it out of the question? He said he could not find the money. Is the Exchequer in such a state of impecuniosities that it cannot find £300,0001 If it were an object of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer approved, he could find twenty times that amount to-morrow without the slightest difficulty. I can show him easily how he can do it. He has exempted the landlord from contribution under this 1104 scheme altogether so far as agriculture is concerned. He is putting the employer's burden altogether on the farmer, and the landlord is not to contribute a single penny. It would not require an eighth of a penny on the landlord's Income Tax in order to raise this money. If he were to readjust the assessment under Schedule B alone, he would get this sum four times over.
I venture to submit the employer's contributions which accumulate during a time of unemployment is an obligation on the State. It is admitted by all parties that the State has a responsibilty for the condition of the unemployed man, and the State ought therefore to show that responsibility. I want to put one further question. I want to know whether the State is going to pay its 2d. which has accumulated during the time the workman has been out of employment. I gather that is not going to be the case. Why not? Surely the State is able to do that as well as the workman who has been out of work. I repeat the obligation is on the State to find the money and certainly not on the workman. The State should have no difficulty in finding the money. It has been suggested that a man might have voluntarily remained out of work, but the machinery of the Bill is quite competent to deal with a matter like that. It is not a question of malingering, and I think we have already dealt with all the possibilities of abuse under that head, I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the ground of justice. This proposal cannot be defended as just, and I doubt if there is any member in this House who will seek to defend it on that ground.

Mr. PEEL
I cannot help thinking that it was the observation of the hon. Member about this Bill requiring all its popularity that made the Chancellor of the Exchequer give a rather less sympathetic reply than he otherwise would have done. The town I have the honour to represent practically lives on seasonal trades. A great many of the people want, and ought, to be exempted from the Bill, and if they are not to be exempted they will suffer great injustice under this Section. I agree with the hon. Member for Blackburn that they will always be coming into benefit and at the same time will be getting no benefit whatever from the Bill. These people are not malingerers. Their position is due to the course of trade. The orders for shirts, collars and blouses come 1105 in and have to be executed at a particular time. The trade only lasts for about six or seven months in the year. These people would like to be employed for the remaining five months. But it is not possible to give them employment. Surely some provision ought to be made in the Bill for this particular class of person.
After all, the same difficulty applies here as applies to other parts of the Bill. The same treatment is meted out to those who are less well off as to those who are better off. Exactly the same treatment is meted out to the malingering as to people who are employed in these seasonal trades. How absurd it is to suggest that a person willing to pay his arrears can be considered to be a malingerer in any sense. What has he to gain by being a malingerer? One who is guilty of such conduct wants to gain by it. This man would gain nothing by it, for not only has he to pay up the money he would have paid had he been in employment, but he will have to pay 3 per cent. on it as well. He therefore would be acting very stupidly in malingering, because it would involve his paying more than would otherwise have been exacted from him. But this provision goes further. If the man does pay up his arrears, he is not going to get benefit at once. Some time must elapse before he can come into benefit. Under these circumstances, to bring forward the case of malingering is not justifiable in dealing with this matter.
I urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make some distinction between those who are better paid and those who are worse paid. In the case of those who are better paid this provision is not an absolute bar. They may be able to climb back into insurance. But those who are worse paid may not find it possible to do so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that if special provision is to be made for these people it can only be done by reducing the benefits payable to others. There are many cases under this Bill where those who are really poorer have to pay for those who are richer, and it is not unfair that in a case of absolute necessity some rearrangement should be made which will meet these hard cases—the cases of those who are forced to come in and forced to fall out, and then find themselves faced by provisions which make it impossible for them to come in again.

§ Mr. HARWOOD
The impression left on my mind after listening to the Debates 1106 which have taken place on this Bill is that after all, with the very best intentions, it is really too aristocratic. It is a Bill for doing good for those who have done good work for themselves, and for not doing fairly by those who most need help. I do not say that that is the intention at the back of it, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech, let the cat out of the bag. He asked if there were any friendly societies or any trade union which would give terms such as those embodied in the Bill? But we have to remember that the friendly societies represent only 6,000,000 out of the 15,000,000 who are concerned with this Bill. I am most anxious about the 9,000,000, and if we cannot deal with both classes, then I should prefer to bring this measure down to a democratic level and legislate for the people who most need it, leaving those excellent men who are members of friendly societies out of it altogether. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made the remark, "We are on business." Sometimes we are on business, and sometimes on sentiment, and I can never quite say at times which we are on. I do not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we are on business. I never heard of a business that gave 9d. for 4d., yet that is what is proposed here. I do not want to be un-businesslike, but I say that the only justification for this Bill is not that it is an act of charity, but that it is a great attempt to deal with those social evils which those of us who are acquainted with the life of this country know are at present eating into its very heart.
I speak as an employer, and I am bound to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I am rather ashamed as an employer to hear it said that these poor men are not only to pay their own contributions, but also those that should have come from the employing class. I am not saying the man should not pay his own arrears. But let the House bear in mind that this additional burden is being put upon him just at the very moment when he is hampered by debt and by arrears of rent. You take that opportunity to say to him, "You must not only pay your own subscription, but you must pay the other man's too." We know how difficult it is to get people on their fret after they have suffered from unemployment. That certainly is not the time at which you should put a further burden on them. We may be told that the money cannot be found by the State. We say it must be. We were told by a celebrated statesman on one occasion that the re- 1107 sources of civilisation were not exhausted. Surely they are not exhausted in this case, with a Chancellor of the Exchequer so full of imagination and inventiveness. If we are on business why should he not be made to pay the State contribution? I believe employers as a body have too much self respect to call upon the men to pay their contribution under these circumstances. They would rather find the money themselves. Let the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter from a serious and business point of view. I believe here is a grievance that will nullify a great deal of the good feeling that would otherwise have been engendered by this Bill.

§ Mr. ROWNTREE
I want to refer once more to the case of the man or woman who is getting under 15s. a week. I have, with the exception of urging a wider extension of sanatorium treatment, supported the Chancellor of the Exchequer throughout the course of this Bill. I do not wish for one moment to minimise the liberality of the terms of the Bill in comparison with those of any friendly society in the United Kingdom or with those of Germany, but I do think that if one simply speaks of the case of those who are getting less than 15s., it is extremely difficult to justify this proposal. Let us take a woman who is getting 9s. She has had to pay as long as she has been in the scheme a penny and the employer pays 5d. When she wishes to get back after her arrears—I admit the liberality of the averaging of the arrears and so forth—she will have to pay, instead of 1d., 6d., and I think that is practically an impossible proposition. After all, we want these people to get back, and the Chancellor wants them to get back, because, while I know there is the Post Office open to them, the difficulty about the Post Office is that that is not absolutely insurance in the sense that we understand it. When these people are told that in future, instead of having to pay 1d., they will have to pay 6d. plus the ordinary 1d., they will feel that it is practically an impossibility to attempt that. So I hope that the Chancellor will be able to suggest some way in which that case may be met so that it can never be said we did anything to discourage the lowest type of labour getting back into the main current of this scheme. I should also like to ask whether it is correct that the State will not pay the 2d. for those who are in arrear. That is a point that 1108 the House should know before it comes, to any decision on the matter. I ask the Government to very carefully consider at any rate these cases that I have mentioned if they are unable to grant the wider scheme.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I can assure the Committee that it is with the greatest, reluctance that I find myself constantly opposing proposals of this kind, and if I do it it is because I must consider this not as a charitable gift but as a business proposition, and it is with the deepest reluctance and with pain that I find it difficult to justify accepting an Amendment which appeals to me, and which I should, be very glad to accept, but really I am bound to consider the business side of the proposition, because if it fails as a business proposition it fails altogether. I do not think I have been at all obstinate or obdurate in the matter of these Amendments. I have accepted many Amendments which involve responsibility, and if I cannot see my way to accept an Amendment of this kind, it is because I see the real danger of doing it. I agree that the case that is put to me is a very hard one, and if I could see a way which would make it possible to deal with cases of that kind without setting up a tribunal I would. I have made a suggestion, but up to the present it does not seem to have met with much favour. The suggestion I have made is that the friendly societies themselves—it is entirely a matter for them—should be empowered to deal with these cases. They can judge between members who are pure loafers and those who deserve a little better treatment. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the health committee?"] The hon. Member cannot know the Bill, or he would not have asked that question; it has not the remotest connection with this. If the approved societies like, out of their own funds, to give relief in these cases, I am perfectly willing to assent to any Amendment that enables them to do so, but the moment you give a statutory right of this kind it means that we are to be taken advantage of by people who ought not to receive that advantage and at the expense of thrifty members of the community. These Amendments can only be put forward on the ground of charity. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] It is purely a question of business. It is a question, of whether for 9d. you are going to get a shillings-worth. If you ask for 1s. worth for 9d. it must be on some other ground than a business ground. I agree there is a very 1109 good ground for doing so, the ground of sympathy, but really we must not allow that to interfere too much with the business side of this proposition. The hon. Member (Mr. Harwood) said this must be done. He was really making a violent attack on the friendly societies in his own Constituency. They do not do as much as we are doing, and if we are guilty of being unjust who are doing so much more, what language will he use about friendly societies?

§ Mr. HARWOOD
Friendly societies do not pretend to be giving 9d. for 4d.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I agree, and we are doing it, and my hon. Friends want to give still more. We are even giving more to people who are in arrears. I do not think my hon. Friend quite realises what we are giving. We are giving these men not merely 9d. for their 4d., but we are allowing five per cent. of arrears in addition, and even twenty-five per cent., without losing benefits.

§ Mr. HARWOOD
It is rather like a trader advertising that he is giving all these things and yet he is putting upon people a burden which it is impossible for them to meet and therefore they cannot get the benefit.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Really all this has nothing to do with the Bill. As a matter of fact these people are getting their 9d. for 4d. as a foundation, and 5 per cent. of arrears, in addition to arrears for the whole time they are sick. We are making no charge, and there is no society that does that. In addition to that, we have given them a 25 per cent. margin, and are still giving benefits. Beyond that there is a 50 per cent. margin, and still they will get medical, sanatorium, and maternity benefits. My hon. Friend says we are giving these people nothing. We have gone to the very limit, and my suggestion is that, in addition to that, the friendly societies, which have the funds, should have the power to deal with these hard cases themselves, because they know them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will the State give 2d.?"] Yes, certainly, there is absolutely no question of the State's 2d. I am not defending the Treasury. That is regarded as an offence in a Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know I shall get a better hearing the moment I say I am not defending the taxpayer. We pay two-ninths of the benefit, whatever the friendly society decide, which means, of course, that they 1110 will get the State's 2d. If my hon. Friend is satisfied with that I shall be glad to move the Amendment.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I am more favourably impressed with the right hon. Gentleman's proposal than with the speech in which he has commended it to the Committee. He constantly tells us that what we have to consider is the business proposition. Of course, if we frame a scheme, it must be framed on business lines—that is to say, on solvent lines. That does not dispose of an Amendment like this, and it certainly doe3 not dispose of the argument adduced by the hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell). He, I think, put his finger on the real weakness of the Bill. I am afraid it is one which is inherent in the Bill, and which it is not possible for the Committee to eradicate. The whole Bill is framed on the lines of the State contributing two-ninths of whatever benefit is paid. The hon. Member pointed out that one result of that is that those who need help least are likely to get most. That follows from your making your contribution two-ninths of the benefit instead of making it proportionate to the needs of the man whom you force to be a contributor. I think that is a blot on the scheme of the Bill, though that is an altogether wrong analogy. It is a strand which runs through the Bill, and if you pull it out the Bill falls to pieces, and you cannot by an Amendment here and an Amendment there get rid of the difficulties which arise from that inherent principle of the Bill. That is my first objection to the Chancellor's speech. If it were not for that we might give less to those who can do most for themselves and more to those who can do least for themselves without making a raid on the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the taxpayer at all. In the main what I am asking for is not more expenditure, but better directed expenditure.
8.0 P.M.
In the next place the Chancellor of the Exchequer constantly says to us, "You cannot show me a friendly society in Bolton or Northampton which does these things." It cannot be compared with the scheme of the friendly societies. Everyone who joins a friendly society is a voluntary contributor. He may make sacrifices to join, but they are such sacrifices that he can make. The Chancellor of the Exchequer compels sacrifices whether the man thinks the thing in view sufficient or not. You compel sacrifices from all these people whether their means be big or 1111 small. It does not help us much to take the lines of defence which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has chosen. The Committee has got to face the fact that if this remains a great number of people would drop out, and never get back into an approved society. A large number would find that they had dropped out again and again. Then they would think it was no good going to the approved society, and they would become Post Office contributors. It would be a pity if people who had made a real effort to remain members of approved societies should fall into the class of Post Office contributors. I, therefore, am on the whole disposed to welcome the suggestion which the Chancellor has thrown out, although he did well not to accept the Amendment in this form. He will make it optional for the societies to forego or to pay on behalf of their members—not necessarily all their members, but such members as they think right—the contribution which would have been payable by the employer if the man had been in employment. The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. G. Harwood) said he would be ashamed of this Clause. Does he mean that he would pay the contribution of a man he discharged until that man got another engagement. That was a personal remedy, and it took a very practical form.

§ Mr. G. HARWOOD
We, the employers, would rather pay the arrears of the man we take on than make the man who has been unemployed pay our arrears.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
Does the hon. Member suggest that when he discharges a man he should continue to pay that man's contribution until he finds fresh employment.

§ Mr. G. HARWOOD
That would be impossible, because you have no connection with him. My proposal is practicable.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
That is answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in anticipation, about the Amendment itself. The hon. Member makes the alternative proposition that when he takes on a new man he should pay the contribution which would have been paid by the employer had the man been employed. I am not sure how he is going to check their employment dates. Human nature being as it is, the man who steps straight out of one employment into another would have a better chance of being chosen than the man who had a long list of arrears. I 1112 really do not think you can go as far as that. It is desirable that something of the kind suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be done, and that an option should be given to the friendly societies. Did I rightly understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal? I suppose this money has got to be carried to the credit of the individual. In fact, the society have not merely to pay the benefit, they have to make a credit as if the employer's contribution had been paid.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
We let him come in on payment of his own contribution, and excuse him the other.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
And will the societies be in a position to do that from the commencement of the Act, or must it be treated as additional benefit which they can only make after a valuation. That is a point with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not deal. It makes a very considerable difference in the initial stages.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
On the whole I have come to the conclusion it could not be treated as additional benefit. It must be incorporated in this Clause, and the power must be given to the friendly societies from the start to deal with this matter.

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD
I am afraid we are in fundamental disagreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has talked about a "business proposition." We are also talking about a business proposition. He talks also about the various benefits which the insured persons have under this Bill, of the elasticity regarding arrears, and that sort of thing. That does not affect this fundamental point that the Chancellor is imposing by compulsion certain lines of conduct, certain responsibilities, upon the whole of the people of the country who come under this Bill. A very substantial section of these people are not able to fulfil these obligations, and, consequently, he has got to meet that particular aspect of his problem. He has told us that when we are asking the State to pay for the unpaid portion of the employer's contribution when the workman is unemployed we are asking for charity. We are doing nothing of the kind. If it is charity for the State to pay that portion of the employer's contribution it is charity for the employer to pay it at first. We repudiate any charitable obligation. The Chancellor's theory is this, that this insurance scheme is going to consist of three sec- 1113 tions: the obligation of the workman, the obligation of the employer, and the obligation of the State. When the workman is unemployed he is being asked to fulfil the obligation of the employer as well as his own obligation. That double obligation means 7d. a week.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Certainly not. The only thing is somebody has got to pay. There will be power to excuse the employer's contribution, and the friendly societies can pay it.

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD
It is like the house agent who insists, upon a fact that the house he is showing you has a magnificent drawing-room, when you insist upon seeing the kitchen he takes you back to the drawing-room again, and says what a magnificent drawing-room you will have if you take his house. Part of this magnificent fabric is the obligation imposed upon the unemployed man to pay up his own arrears and the arrears of his employer. For the purpose of considering this Amendment and the purpose of considering the obligation placed upon the workman, let us take the case of the woman whose wages are 9s. a week. In order to get the full benefit she has got to pay 6d. a week plus the 3d. or 1d. which she has got to pay as a person who is again employed. It cannot be done, and that is our statement. It never was in accordance with the theory and provisions of the Bill that the insured person should be responsible for the employer's contribution. Precautions are taken under the Bill to prevent an employer deducting his contribution from wages. If the employer says to the employed person I will deduct 3d. in addition to the 4d. from your wages he is committing a crime under the provisions of this Bill. What is the use of the Chancellor telling us when we ask the responsibility to be borne by some other person—the State for instance—that we are asking for charity. We are only carrying to a logical conclusion the fundamental principles of this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says the approved society to which the person belongs ought to have the right or power to excuse the employer's contribution. Who is going to pay for that? Is that going to be charity? If the workman or workwoman gets benefit at the expense of his fellow workman that is more charity than if he gets it at the charge of the general taxpayer. The Amendment is a partial Amendment, as it must be under the Standing Orders of the House. It is an Amendment which 1114 opens a door, and if we can only get the Chancellor to go inside that door we will take him through another one. He says he will recommit the Bill with respect to the financial provisions, but if I might say so with respect, it is simply asking an approved society to bear the responsibility and burden of the employers' contribution of its members. If the Chancellor would say that when an approved society excuses its member in that way, then the State will give it special benefit, I am not sure, but I would accept the Amendment, but the responsibility must be the State's. The State comes to every person who comes within the scope of this Bill and says, "It does not matter what your income is, you have got to pay a certain sum for your insurance. If you pay that sum, the employer has got to pay another sum, and when you pay both these sums then the State is going to pay something in addition." Surely if the conditions are such that each section of our people, in order to keep in full benefit under the scheme, have to pay their own contribution, and not the employer's contribution under conditions, it is the fluty of the State, which compels them to insure, to see that they are regularly insured persons, and that the burdens which they cannot bear under their own scheme should not be borne by their fellow-workers, but by the State.

§ Mr. CASSEL
I rise to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is going to move the Amendment he has indicated, to put it only as additional benefit, because it seems to me it is a great injustice to other people who have subscribed to the fund that you should take away from their fund in order to make contributions for somebody else. You must at least give them the minimum benefit for which they have paid before authorising any society to act in the way proposed. I wish to put the case from the point of view that strikes me. It seems to me an injustice that A, B, C and D, who are compulsory contributors to the fund, should have something taken away from their fund in order to pay the amount of E's employer's subscription. I would not raise any objection to that so long as you secure the minimum benefits for which they have paid, but it seems an injustice that you should take away, before you have provided the minimum benefit, something from A, B, C, and D, because E is out of employment. It is not as if they voluntarily joined a society and were therefore bound by the resolutions of the majority. 1115 They are compelled to join under this Bill, and, therefore, I submit there is no justification for taking away from the other contributors any part of their contributions until at least you have assured the persons insured that they shall have their minimum benefits. That you can only get if you make the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal come in as additional benefit.

§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSON
I think a great deal of misunderstanding arises when people speak of the obligation of the State. There is no such obligation. The question is: Is this an Insurance Bill? I quite sympathise with the case put before the House by hon. Members, but I would point out that in all insurance schemes a man or a woman who is in arrear with the premium is bound to suffer. You may get some means of preventing that suffering, but it cannot be under a system of insurance. Insurance must stand by fixed figures, and, if you take away these figures, the whole structure falls. It is said here that you are asking a poor man or a poor woman to pay the contribution for the master. Well, that is not so. The master Is under no obligation to pay. It comes to this, that either the insurer or his fellow insurers must pay, or that the State should pay. I am against State payment. I protest against the State being asked to find any more money, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stand fast for this reason. This is only the first of many demands to be made upon him, and I know that it is hard for him to refuse what his natural feelings would incline him to grant. I implore the Committee to help him to make this a sound measure. The provision proposed to be made here by hon. Members should be found by some other means. It would be all very well in a Right to Work Bill or an Unemployment Bill, but it is out of place in an Insurance Bill. "You cannot found an insurance policy until you have actuarial figures, and when you have them you must stand by them or else your structure falls. On the insurance policy I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stand by his figures, and I beg the Committee to enable him to do so.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I do not rise to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to loosen his hold on the figures. I am anxious that he should stand fast, and not increase the cost to the State under the Bill. But I wish him to make 1116 the distribution in a more equitable way. This, after all, is an Insurance Bill, and it would deservedly fail, in my opinion, if this blot on the Clause were allowed to remain upon it. In the earlier part of the afternoon I gave my reasons for objecting to the Clause altogether, and I do not propose to repeat them now. I disapprove of the whole arrangement made in regard to arrears, and the whole incidence of the reductions that occur to the insured person under the Clause as now drawn. I believe it would be quite possible to recast the proposals with the same money provision in regard to arrears without asking the State or the employer to pay more. I believe it would be possible to use the money at hand in a far better way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer to this, it seems to me, is not a reasoned answer. He did at one moment seem to shift the responsibility. He seemed to suggest that this was a matter for the approved societies or the friendly societies, and not one for the State or the Chancellor of the Exchequer at all. He indicated that he would leave it to the friendly societies, and he is contemplating an Amendment which will leave it to them. That is the way, apparently, he proposes to meet the position. I think that is not dealing with the question at all. We are laying down conditions which the members of friendly societies have got to observe in future, in connection with the payment of contributions and the consequences of arrears. This Committee cannot escape the responsibility. We cannot say, "Let the friendly societies settle the matter." This very Clause will bind the friendly societies in administering the benefits.
What we have to do is to alter this Clause ourselves and not imagine we are shifting the responsibility on the friendly societies. Suppose the Chancellor's suggestion were adopted and the friendly societies began excusing the payment of the employer's contribution to those who are in arrears, deficits would very quickly pile up on those societies, and when the valuations were made those deficits would have to be paid by other friendly societies, perhaps consisting largely of agricultural labourers, in whose case there had been no arrear. It seems to me an utterly unworkable plan and quite unfair to future insured people. You had better spread it compulsorily over all the insured persons instead of doing what the Chancellor suggests. This is a particularly hard case for those with low wages. The proposition in the Bill is departing from the very prin- 1117 ciple of the grading of contributions. Grading of contributions has taken place in the low wages, but when you consider the employers' contributions you are not only grading but you are doing very much worse, you are trebling the original contribution on lower wages whereas you are only doubling it on higher wages. This Clause cuts at the root principles of the Bill. The Chancellor says that this is a business Bill; but it is not altogether free from its element of charity. Yesterday we tried by Amendment to provide that people under twenty-one but over eighteen should get the full benefits which we thought they were entitled to. The Chancellor answered that by saying: "We will give it to those people who have dependents upon them." Why give it to those people who have dependents upon them and not to those who have paid equal contributions but do not happen to have dependents upon them, if it is a purely business proposition? It is not a purely business proposition. It is a great scheme, to use the Chancellor's own words, for trying to help those people who need help, and on this occasion he is not going to help the people who most need help; he is going to drive them into the class of deposit contributors.

§ Mr. KEIR HARDIE
I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having put himself right in regard to one blunder, will now proceed to do the same in regard to another by accepting the Amendment now before the House. It is perfectly obvious that the Clause as it stands cannot be accepted. Not a single Member in any part of the House has sought to defend it. Let the Government understand what they are doing. A man is out of employment and suffers by being out of employment. He returns to work, and is punished for having been out of employment by being called upon to pay his own contribution and that of his employer. The argument, as far as I can make out, is that it will be a check on malingering. The Chancellor several times used the word "loafers" who were to be held in check by the practice of making the unemployed pay double when they resumed work. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not mean that. He does not mean to say that all unemployed persons are loafers, or that any appreciable percentage of them are loafers. Why, then, are the very large proportion who are not loafers to be penalised for the very small proportion who 1118 may happen to be so? At this point we are prepared to concede the Chancellor of the Exchequer's contention that there should be no charity in this Bill. I think that should be emphasised. The money for the benefits has got to come from somewhere. The only question is whether the poverty-stricken worker, who has been out of work for months, is to be called upon to pay double contributions to make up the arrears of his employer, or whether it should come from the State?
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot find £150,000, which I understand is the sum at issue, there is another simple and easy way of raising it. Instead of putting it on the members of friendly societies, put it on the employer. It could be done in this way. The employer now pays 3d. a week for each workman. If for three specified weeks in the year he paid an extra 1d. for each workman, that would provide the £150,000 required and relieve the person who has been unemployed from being penalised in the way this Clause suggests. I put that forward to the Chancellor as an alternative proposal to putting the whole of the burden on the approved societies, because I submit that putting the burden on the approved societies will leave matters pretty much where the Clause put them. Take the case of a big trade union, the Boiler Makers Union. During the period of trade depression when the shipyards were practically empty, the proportion of members of that society in receipt unemployed benefit went up to over 20 per cent. What the Chancellor now suggests is that these men have to go on adding to the funds of the society for the time they were unemployed, when the period of unemployment is over, so that when these men go back to work their fellow members are again to be penalised to pay the employer's share of the contribution while out of work. Why should the members of that society more than the members of any other society be called upon to pay these additional contributions? The burden has got to be met in some way which will spread it over all and not impose it on any particular individual or particular organisations. The only ideal way of meeting it is for the State to provide the extra £150,000. If that cannot be done, if out of the whole £180,000,000 a year which we are raising there cannot be £150,000 for this purpose, then the alternative is to devise some means by which employers as a class will pay their own share to this 1119 fund and a special tax of 3d. a year probably on the contribution cards, if they meet the whole of the cost. Not only the case of the poor worker, but the case of the average worker must be considered in connection with this payment. Already this afternoon I have mentioned the case of men in my own Constituency who work only two or three days in the week, practically all the year round, earning on an average wages of 14s. or 15s. a week. These men have no margin to fall back upon; they do not belong to trades that are to be insured in this Bill. When they resume work they have got to pay their own arrears and also the arrears of perhaps some wealthy firm that employs them. I submit that is unfair and unjust, and it will, without a shadow of doubt, raise far more irritation in the minds of the workers than any other proposition contained within the compass of this measure. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, to keep the question open for the moment, whether the sum of £150,000 is to be found, and, in any case, neither the persons employed nor the approved societies should be called upon to pay it.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
If the Amendment is not carried, we propose to submit a form of Amendment to the Committee in substitution for it:—
"Any approved society may, if it thinks fit, excuse any part of the arrears which may have accrued due by, or in respect of, any member not exceeding such part as would have been payable by the employer had the Member been in his employment, and in such case the amount of arrears of that member shall be reduced accordingly."

1120

§ I want to point out that we are having Amendment after Amendment; if all these Amendments, all these little Amendments, were added together it would add a million and a half to the cost already incurred. I am not talking about the proposal to reduce the contributions, nor am I talking about another proposition in regard to married women, which would cost about two and a-half millions of money. Each of these Amendments is small, and each is supported by the same arguments. But we have got our cash limitations, and if my hon. Friends carry this to a Division they must fully realise that it may not only mean a defeat of the Government, but the defeat of the Bill.

Mr. TYSON WILSON
I belong to a. society which has for over fifty years remitted the contribution altogether in the case of members unemployed. In many other societies if the members are in receipt of unemployed benefit, they are relieved from paying their contribution to other benefits altogether. That being so, I feel sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by an effort, could meet the case of those poor people who are insured under the Bill. The Bill hits hardest the poorest of the poor workers, men and women, and I hope that something will be done for them, even if the means have to be obtained from those who are better off than they are.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I cannot understand any business men or insurance men trying to work the scheme of the Bill by adopting such Amendments as those which have been proposed.

§ Question put, "That those words stand part of the Clause."

§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 116.

1121

Division No. 285.]	AYES.	[8.45 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Doris, William
Acland, Francis Dyke	Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)	Duffy, William J.
Addison, Dr. Christopher	Byles, Sir William Pollard	Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)
Agnew, Sir George William	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)	Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)
Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)	Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Esslemont, George Birnie
Armitage, R.	Chapple, Dr. W. A.	Farrell, James Patrick
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)	Clough, William	Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Ffrench, Peter
Balfour, sir Robert (Lanark)	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward
Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Flavin, Michael Joseph
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Cotton, William Francis	Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)
Barton, William	Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Furness, Stephen
Beale, W. P.	Crumley, Patrick	Gelder, Sir W. A.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd
Benn, W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Glanville, H. J.
Bentham, George J.	Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Booth, Frederick Handel	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)
Brunner, J. F. L.	Delany, William	Greig, Colonel James William.
Bryce, John Annan	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Dickinson, W. H.	Hackett, John
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Lynch, Arthur Harold	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Maclean, Donald	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Harwood, George	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Macpherson, James Ian	Robinson, Sydney
Haworth, Sir Arthur A.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Hayden, John Patrick	M'Curdy, C. A.	Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Hayward, Evan	M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)	Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Manfield, Harry	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Henry, Sir Charles S.	Marks, Sir George Croydon	Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Higham, John Sharp	Mason, David M. (Coventry)	Simon, Sir John Asslebrook
Hinds, John	Meagher, Michael	Spicer, Sir Albert
Holt, Richard Durning	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Morgan, George Hay	Tennant, Harold John
Hughes, Spencer Leigh	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Hunter, W. (Govan)	Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.	Toulmin, Sir George
Isaacs, Rt. Han. Sir Rufus	Needham, Christopher T.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)	Nolan, Joseph	Wadsworth, John
John, Edward Thomas	Norman, Sir Henry	Walton, Sir Joseph
Johnson, William	Norton, Capt. Cecil W.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Nuttall, Harry	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Webb, H.
Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)	O'Doherty, Philip	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	O'Dowd, John	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Joyce, Michael	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Keating, Matthew	Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)	Wiles, Thomas
Kellaway, Frederick George	Philips, John (Longford, S.)	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Kelly, Edward	Power, Patrick Joseph	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
King, Joseph (Somerset, North)	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Radford, George Heynes	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Leach, Charles	Raffan, Peter Wilson	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Levy, Sir Maurice	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Lewis, John Herbert	Reddy, Michael	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Logan, John William	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Lundon, Thomas
NOES.
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Richards, Thomas
Adamson, William	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Greene, W. R.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Ashley, W. W.	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)	Hancock, J. G.	Rowntree, Arnold
Balcarres, Lord	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Baldwin, Stanley	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Sanderson, Lancelot
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)	Helme, Norval Watson	Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Barnes, George N.	Hills, John Waller	Snowden, Philip
Barnston, H.	Hodge, John	Spear, Sir John Ward
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Hohler, G. F.	Stanier, Beville
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, (N. W.)
Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Houston, Robert Paterson	Stewart, Gershom
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish	Hunt, Rowland	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Bigland, Alfred	Jowett, Frederick William	Sutton, J. E.
Bird, A.	Joynson-Hicks, William	Swift, Rigby
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-	Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.	Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Bowerman, Charles W.	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Boyton, J.	Lansbury, George	Thomas, J. H. (Derby)
Brace, William	Larmor, Sir J.	Thynne, Lord Alexander
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Touche, George Alexander
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)	Tryon, Capt. George Clement
Cassel, Felix	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Valentia, Viscount
Cautley, H. S.	Mackinder, H. J.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)	Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Clynes, John R.	Morrell, Philip	Ward, Arnold S (Herts, Walford)
Cripps, Sir C. A.	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)	Wardle, George J.
Crooks, William	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Dixon, Charles Harvey	Nield, Herbert	Wilkie, Alexander
Duke, Henry Edward	Ogden, Fred	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Parker, James (Halifax)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Parkes, Ebenezer	Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)
Fell, Arthur	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Yate, Colonel C. E.
Fleming, Valentine	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Gill, Alfred Henry	Peel, Hen. W. R. W. (Taunton)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Lees Smith and Mr. Sherwell.
Goldsmith, Frank	Peto, Basil Edward
Goldstone, Frank	Pointer, Joseph

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

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words, "which accrued during the calendar year current at the date of payment and the previous calendar year."
1122 This Amendment, if agreed to, would limit the power to pay up arrears, and some at least of the hardships of the provision, as it stands, would be mitigated. I press it upon the Government because 1123 it could not do the insurance part of the Bill any harm, it could not do the Government any harm, and it cannot make the Bill more expensive, whilst it may help some of those who otherwise would be shut out of benefit.

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
After the discussion we have had, I am sure the hon. and learned Member will not ask us to re-open the whole question, as this would do. The point was really covered by the previous Amendment.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words, "together with interest thereon at the rate of three per cent. per annum from the respective dates on which the contributions accrued due and the date of payment."
I think I am right in saying it is a matter which concerns the friendly societies more than the Exchequer. It really is the experience of most of the friendly societies that these arrears are hardly worth the trouble they give in book-keeping, and the like.

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
We accept that.

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

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
I beg to move, in the proviso at the end of Sub-section (5), to leave out the words "or subsequently within one month thereafter becomes."
This is a small point, but it would make the Bill a little easier. The proviso is that if a person who is in arrear is at the date of payment, or subsequently within one month thereafter becomes, unfit to provide for his own maintenance through disease or disablement, he shall be deemed to be still in arrear and so on. I propose to leave out the words fixing the limit of one month, I quite understand the difficulty of a person who is in arrears being disabled, but at the same time I think it is very hard, in the case of the man himself, when he has been out of work and has then begun to make headway and to pay up his arrears. When he is struggling and saving, being in perfect health to get rid of these arrears, and within a month he meets with an accident or illness unconnected with his previous lack of em- 1124 ployment, it is hard that we should take anything out of his scrapings, or that even a small sum of money should be forfeited because he falls ill. This man cannot control the time of his illness. I do not think the Amendment would make any serious inroad on the funds, and unless there is some strong ground of opposition I suggest that the Government should accept it.

§ Mr. McKENNA
The hon. Gentleman is quite right when he says that this Amendment might not make any great inroad on the funds, but it is one of those securities against improper charges being made on the funds of the societies which I think he might receive the full amount of benefit, kind. It is obvious that a man who knew he had sickness on him would be strongly tempted to pay up his arrears in order that he might receive the full amount of benefit. The security here given is that the payment of arrears must be bonâ fide and not in contemplation of some immediate sickness. I do not think that one month is an excessive period.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
The First Lord has used the words "bonâ fide," but if a man was falling sick or had sickness upon him that would not be a bonâ fide payment of arrears. The case I am putting is that of a man in perfect health, who saves up his money in order to pay off the arrears, and to get back into a sound position in the society. It seems a little hard that such a man, if misfortune overtook him at the end of three weeks, should not get the benefit, whereas if it happened on the thirty-second day he would be all right. I suggest that it is a small matter, and the Government might make the concession.

§ Mr. BARNES
I would join with the hon. Member in appealing to the Government to make this alteration. The only justification for the existing proposal would be the assumption that a man knows he is going to be ill within a month, otherwise there is no sense or justice in the provision at all. We have an Amendment further down to achieve the same object. Many statements made in regard to the practice of trade unions and friendly societies are of too far-reaching a character. I have heard statements made as to the practice being so and so, when as a matter of fact it very much varies. In this particular matter the period in some unions is a month, in others more than e month, and in others less. At all events I appeal to the First Lord to give the matter fur- 1125 ther consideration, because, as the Bill stands, it would press hardly upon some poor men.

§ 9.0 P.M.

§ Mr. GILL
I hope more consideration will be given to this proposal. If a person struggles to pay up his arrears and then, if he falls sick, is not to be entitled to anything, it is rather too severe. As an alternative suggestion I would like to move, to leave out the words, "his recovery from such disease or disablement," and insert the words, "such payment"—that is, one month after the payment has been made.

§ Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR
Could the First Lord tell us whether the alternative Amendment now suggested would be accepted? If so, perhaps the hon. Member opposite would withdraw his Amendment.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I must inquire what the cost would be.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
That being so, I will withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. GILL
I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words, "his recovery from such disease or disablement," and to insert instead thereof the words, such payment. The effect of the Amendment is that after an insured person has paid up his arrears there will be one month's grace, and if he falls sick he will be entitled to benefits at the end of the month. The existing proposal is altogether too harsh. A man may put himself to a tremendous amount of trouble to save his money, and pay up not only his own contribution but those of the employer, and then, according to the provision in the Bill, even if his illness lasts for twelve months, he will not be entitled to any benefit. I do not think anybody can justify that. I think the compromise we suggest ought to be accepted as a reasonable thing. The man will then have been punished to the extent of four weeks' benefit, and that after all the trouble and anxiety as to the paying up of his arrears.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I am impressed by the argument with regard to this point. I am naturally very doubtful of committing my right hon. Friend to accepting this without knowing what the cost may be. It is difficult to estimate that, almost impossible. There is no data to go upon. I should think that on the whole one month's 1126 prostration would be sufficient to prevent anyone taking an undue advantage of this proviso.

§ Mr. GILL
He would have to justify his bona fides.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I do not think anybody would risk it. I am willing to accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. JOHN WARD
There is one exception in this case which I think ought to be considered before you finally dispose of this Amendment. I quite agree that provision ought to be made that no imposition is laid upon the funds by men coming forward, with no intention ordinarily of paying up his arrears, but simply paying his arrears for the sole purpose of getting benefit. Whatever the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars may say, nearly every society in the country that pays sick benefit—and I examined a little while ago the rules of some twenty or thirty trade unions—have got this provision, which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolton is now moving to insert in this Clause. But there is another case where it cannot be alleged that the man is attempting to impose on the fund. The rules of several societies which I recently examined make an exception in the case of accidents. That is something that the man could not have contemplated. Therefore, I would suggest that that point ought to be considered. Ordinary illness, I can quite understand, ought to be provided against. There should be a month's probation after the payment of arrears if the man is but of benefits owing to arrears. But in the case of the man meeting with an accident it does seem rather hard, for he never contemplated getting his leg broken, or a scaffold falling upon him, and damaging him, or anything of that kind. I notice, therefore, in these rules of the trade unions, that they do make an exception in the case of accidents. A man can hardly come forward and pay up his arrears of contributions knowing that he is going to meet with, an accident.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I should like to be quite certain that I understand the original proposal: that if a man paid up his arrears of contributions he should not be entitled to benefit until a month had elapsed. Now I understand that the month is to be taken away.

§ Mr. McKENNA
No, no; the month stands.

1127

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I apologise. The month is to stand, so that the man who finds himself ill, or thinks he is going to be ill, and comes forward and pays his contribution, shall not get payment until after that month, whereas, it is suggested, that if he knew that in the ordinary course he would not be ill he would not pay up, and so deprive the fund of his contribution.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)
I rather think the next Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson), has been covered by the discussion. A manuscript Amendment has been handed in by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) which I do not think either adds or subtracts anything from the Bill.

§ Mr. CASSEL
I will read the Amendment. It is to add to the Clause the words:—
"Where an employed contributor within five years of Ms entry into insurance temporarily ceases to be employed within the meaning of this part of the Act, he shall be entitled to renew his contribution at the employed rate, and shall not be deemed to be in arrear so long as he makes his contributions at that rate."

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
If I am not mistaken that is already in the Bill.

§ Mr. CASSEL
It is not in the Bill. I tried to move the same Amendment on Clause 6, Sub-section (4), and I was then told that I ought to move it on Clause 10. I have a reference to the Debate here if I may refer to it.

§ Mr. McKENNA
On a point of Order. If the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to move an Amendment of this sort why did he not place it on the Paper? He asks us to consider a long Amendment of this kind without the smallest notice.

§ Mr. CASSEL
I gave notice of the Amendment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That is not a point of Order. I wanted to hear the hon. Member before I allowed the Amendment. The point I first made was as to whether this makes any difference to the question, or whether it is already provided for in the Bill.

1128

§ Mr. CASSEL
I do not think it is. I think my Amendment only carries out what is the intention on a very important point which is not at present provided for in the Bill. As the Bill stands at present, if a person becomes temporarily unemployed during the first five years after his entry into insurance and wishes to keep up his subscription, that is he does not want to go into arrear, he has to pay on the voluntary rate and not on the employed rate. That is a result of Clause 6, Sub-section (4). If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to that Clause—

§ Mr. McKENNA
He pays 7d. himself.

§ Mr. CASSEL
Sevenpence is the employed rate. And the employed rate is defined by Clause 4 which provides as follows:—
"The contributions payable in respect of employed contributors shall be at the rate specified in Part I. of the Second Schedule to this Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the employed rate')"
whilst in the case of the voluntary rate it is fixed by the Insurance Commissioner according to a table to be made after the passing of the Act. The point I want to ensure is that, where a person is temporarily unemployed and wishes to continue at the employed rate, he shall be able to do so.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Clause 5, Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), exactly covers that point.

§ Mr. CASSEL
No. For this reason, that it only covers a case where the person having been an employed contributor for five years or upwards—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member who raised it clearly understood the fifth Clause—

§ Mr. CASSEL
I intended to raise it there, but I was told I could not, and that I could raise it on a later Clause. This is only an attempt to give effect to something that everybody desires. The point is this: Where a man within the first five years becomes temporarily unemployed for three, four, or five months, and that, hoping to get into employment again, he does not wish to fall into arrear, but wishes to pay his subscription, this Amendment would insure that he would be able to do so at the employed rate.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That clearly is dealt with by paragraph (b) of Clause 5. Does 1129 the hon. Gentleman say he was prevented at that point from moving this Amendment?

§ Mr. CASSEL
I was prevented from raising it at two points. I referred to it then, and also on Sub-section (4) of Clause 6.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Was the hon. Member told he could not raise it on paragraph (b), Sub-section (1) of Clause 5.

§ Mr. CASSEL
I submit it does not arise there at all, for that provides far those persons who, having been employed contributors for five years or afterwards, become voluntary contributors, and the rate of contribution paid by them shall be deemed to be the unemployed rate. This in the case of persons who became unemployed within that period, and that is dealt with under Sub-section (4) of Clause 6, where you have this provision:—
"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."
That was the point at which I asked to move this Amendment.

§ Mr. McKENNA
Sub-section (4) of Clause 6 deals with the case of persons who are employed contributors and who then become voluntary contributors. The hon. Gentleman is under the impression that an employed contributor when unemployed becomes a voluntary contributor. It has been already explained that that is not so, and that is dealt with by Sub-section (5) of Clause 10.

§ Mr. CASSEL
The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken there. Sub-section (5) of Clause 10 does not deal with that point. It deals with the case of a man who is in arrear and only passed out after a certain period lapsed.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The point is whether this Amendment, if a valid one, ought not to have been dealt with on paragraph (b) of Clause 5, where the question of five years or upwards is dealt with. This Amendment starts by referring to that five years. I think if this Amendment makes any addition or subtraction from the Bill it obviously ought to have come on at that point.

§ Mr. CASSEL
Clause 5 deals with the case of persons who have been for five 1130 years employed contributors. I am dealing with the case of a man who is dealt with by Sub-section (4) of Clause 6. I have the reference here. I asked— 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 Sub-section. 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 ease?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1911, col. 265.] I tried to deal with it in that way. It is a perfectly definite Amendment to try to give effect to what I consider is the intention of the Government itself. My point is that a man who is unemployed and wants to pay his contribution and not to fall into arrear should be able to do so at the employed rate. I was stopped from moving my Amendment because Clause 10 was supposed to give effect to it. The First Lord of the Admiralty referred to Sub-section (5) of Clause 10 which is:—
"Where an insured person has paid any arrears of contributions payable by or in respect of him which accrued during the calendar year current at the date of payment and the previous calendar year together with interest thereon at the rate of three per cent. per annum from the respective dates on which the contributions accrued due and the date of payment, he shall be treated for the purpose of this Section as if the arrears so paid had never become due."
I am dealing with the case of a man who does not want to fall into arrear.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Sub-section (4) of Clause 6 deals with that point. The whole Clause deals with arrears and where contributions are in arrears.

§ Mr. CASSEL
I agree with you, Mr. Whitley, the proper place was Sub-section (4) of Clause 6, and at that point I did endeavour to raise it, but the First Lord of the Admiralty indicated that he would deal with the point on Clause 10. Now when they come to Clause 10 I am told I ought to go back to Clause 6. That is not dealing farly.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I have not said so.

§ Mr. CASSEL
I have read the reference from the Report. If the right hon. Gentleman presses the point I will abandon my Amendment, but he will have to bring in. an Amending Bill.

1131

§ Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON
It is very difficult to follow these manuscript Amendments, and it seems to me the hon. and learned Gentleman, no doubt quite unintentionally, is hardly treating the Committee fairly in not having put his Amendment on the Paper. I should like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a question.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I thought the hon. Gentleman was about to raise a point of Order.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
I understood the Amendment to be in order.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
No. The hon. Member (Mr. Cassel) was still arguing the point of Order. I am still very doubtful about his point, but I do not want to rule out anything without being quite sure. Perhaps because I am doubtful I ought to give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt.

§ Sir GEORGE TOULMIN
If you look at Clause 1, Sub-section (2), paragraph (b), I think you will find that this Amendment ought to have come in there:—
"Provided that where a person who has been a voluntary contributor for five years or upwards ceases to possess such qualifications as aforesaid, he shall not by reason thereof be disentitled to continue to be insured under this Part of this Act."
The object which the hon. and learned Member has in view would be secured by omitting the word "voluntary," so that any contributor, whether voluntary or compulsory, should not be disqualified by disablement or otherwise.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I do not think that is the proper place.

§ Mr. McKENNA
If the hon. and learned Member will look at Sub-section (3) he will see that the class of employed contributors remains in the category of contributors in arrear.

§ Mr. CASSEL
If the right hon. Gentleman will refer back he will find that Subsection (3) has been struck out of the Bill.

§ Mr. McKENNA
Not on that ground.

§ Mr. CASSEL
If the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to abandon my point I will do so, but I am pressing this matter with a view to getting an explanation. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that the persons who become temporarily unemployed within five years should be 1132 able to continue at the employed rate. Under the Bill as it stands my view is that that is not the case, and that he would have to come under the voluntary rate. From the moment he ceases to be employed he is no longer an employed contributor, and therefore the words "employed rate" no longer apply to him, and he is simply a voluntary contributor making his voluntary contributions. The first payment he makes if he is unemployed is therefore a voluntary payment. When he will come into employment is simply a matter of conjecture, and there is no doubt that his first payment after he becomes unemployed is a voluntary payment. I press this point because I think it is an important one for the working classes. It is important for them if they have to pay their own subscriptions as well as the subscriptions of their employers that they should be able to do it at the employed rate and not at the voluntary rate. I can see no words in the Bill to obviate that. The words which would have come nearest to preventing it are the words which have been struck out. With those words struck out, my view is that he comes under the voluntary rate, and on those grounds I ask the right hon. Gentleman either to accept the Amendment, or, if he prefers it, to give me an undertaking to consider the point on the Report stage. I know there is some difficulty in dealing with this point at such high pressure.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I think what the hon. and learned member has suggested is an extremely fair offer, and I will give him that undertaking. I beg to move to insert at the end of Sub-section (5) the following new Sub-section:—
"(6) Any approved society may, if it thinks fit, excuse any part of the arrears which may have accrued by or in respect of any member not exceeding such part as would have been payable by the employer had the member been in his employment, and in such case the amount of the arrears of that member shall be reduced accordingly."

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

§ Mr. BOOTH
I wish to call attention to the words in Sub-section (1) at the end of the first paragraph, "dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed." That is a 1133 phrase which often occurs. I presume that that means that the Insurance Commissioners are to make regulations. I want to make an appeal that those regulations shall lie upon the Table of the House for a specified number of days so as to give hon. Members an opportunity of consulting their constituents and obtaining their views upon them. I think it is necessary to raise the question now because the societies which are likely to become approved societies are a little concerned as to the enormous power given under this Bill to the permanent officials. I think the Insurance Commissioners would be very good servants, but I am afraid they would be rather bad masters, and those who know my views upon this question will not think it inconsistent of me making an appeal that these regulations should be laid upon the Table of the House. I would suggest that an answer should be given which will apply to these words wherever they occur in the Bill.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
For once I am in accord with an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House. Regulations may be all very well made by permanent officials provided that the House of Commons has some control over them before they are actually put into force. I am glad the hon. Member opposite has taken up such a courageous line. The tendency of this House in recent years has been to abandon its function and allow the permanent officials to do whatever they please, without knowing what action they may take. On this point I shall have much pleasure in supporting the hon. Member if he goes to a Division, providing the right hon. Gentleman does not give some assurance that what has been suggested will be carried out. I do not know what line the First Lord of the Admiralty is going to take, but the assurance which has been asked for would not damage the Bill, although it might damage the power of the permanent officials, and with that I do not quarrel. If in future this is going to be the only House which is to have any control over the business of the nation—and I hope it will not be so—then I say the control should be kept in the hands of this House, and not allowed to get into the hands of other people.

§ Mr. CASSEL
I wish to ask a question now which I was unable to ask owing to the point having been passed. I want to know what the words "the next succeeding calendar year" mean in Subsection (1). This is left indefinite by the 1134 Bill. We have now introduced two periods. One is thirteen weeks, during which there is an allowance for arrears of sickness and disablement benefit, and then there is a period of twenty-six weeks, during which a member still gets his sanatorium and other medical benefits. This is very ambiguous, and I think it ought to be made clear. I want to know whether the next succeeding calendar year means after the thirteen weeks or after the twenty-six weeks?

§ Mr. McKENNA
It means the year in which the last payment is made. The current calendar year in which that payment is made must include the previous calendar year.

§ Mr. CASSEL
Sub-section (1) contains the words, "At the expiration of the next succeeding calendar year." Then after that you have the words, "continues to be suspended," and here we have inserted the two periods I have referred to. One a period of thirteen weeks which is allowed for arrears for sickness and disablement benefit, and another a period of twenty-six weeks, which is allowed for sanatorium and medical benefit. Does "the next succeeding calendar year" mean next succeeding after the period of thirteen weeks has expired, or next succeeding after the period of twenty-six weeks has expired; or what does it mean?

§ Mr. McKENNA
The hon. and learned Gentleman must read these words in relation to the power to pay up arrears for the year and the preceding year. The period dates from the time when a man falls into arrear. The calendar years referred to either forwards or backwards are the year in which he falls into arrear and the succeeding year. In the case of this page and the next the succeeding year is taken first and then the preceding year.

§ Mr. FALLE
The date varies in the case of each individual?

§ Mr. McKENNA
The date starts from the time when the insured contributor falls into arrear. You take the calendar year during which that date occurs. I think it reads so. That is the only construction which would give sense to the Clause, and I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to construe it in the way which would give it sense. With regard to the other point raised, a promise has been given that the regulations issued by the Insurance Commissioners should be laid on the Table of the House, and I think 1135 the promise is given that the form of the ninth Schedule should be amended so as to cover the regulations issued by the Commissioner. I think that will be sufficient guarantee that the Insurance Commissioners will not have a free hand to bully the societies as they please, but that Parliament will have strict control over them by supervision of their movements.

§ Mr. LESLIE SCOTT
Does the Committee understand from the promise which has already been given, and which is now confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman, that the regulations are to lie upon the Table of the House on the condition that if an Address of either House is presented against the regulations they will not be confirmed? The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the point is one of cardinal importance with regard to this question of regulations which runs all through the Bill. Perhaps I may be allowed to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman's own experience when he was President of the Board of Education. I would remind him, to take an illustration, that the secondary schools regulations were not made pursuant to any Act of Parliament, and there is no provision as regards them that either when they were originally made or when they are changed from time to time they should be subject to confirmation. I suggest to him and to the Committee that it is absolutely essential under this Bill that no question of policy should be dealt with departmentally.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)
I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to put his question, but it would be out of order to debate this question on this Clause. If it is not raised in the Bill itself, it could be raised on a new Clause covering all these points. I could not, however, allow a debate to arise here. I thought it was merely a matter of question and answer, and I therefore did not interfere earlier.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I do not think my hon. Friend wanted to raise any debate. He only wanted to point out the assurance was useless unless it covered another assurance that the regulations shall not become law if an Address moved to the Crown is carried.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I allowed a question and answer, but of course there must not be a debate on the matter.

1136

§ Mr. McKENNA
Of course I could not give an assurance on this Clause. I merely reminded the Committee that a general assurance had been given that these Regulations should lay on the Table of the House. I do not think it is fair on an individual Clause which does not raise the question to press me to go one step further than the assurance already given by my right hon. Friend.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I am sure no one wishes to press the right hon. Gentleman on the point if he will give an assurance that he will consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if they do not come to a decision such as we desire that we shall have an opportunity of raising the question.

§ Mr. McKENNA
Of course you will have an opportunity.

§ Mr. BOOTH
This is an extremely important point. I want to ask—that was the purport of my inquiry—whether this will be treated in the same way as the first Clause was treated, because the word "regulations" was struck out by the Committee, and in its place the words, "by special order made in the manner provided" were inserted. I wish to ask whether the Government mean that should apply to this Clause as well as to Clause 1?

§ Mr. LESLIE SCOTT
On a point of Order. May I ask your ruling as to where in the Bill it would be in order to raise the question as to whether the regulations should lie on the Table of the House upon the express condition that an Address from either House should negative them?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
If there is not a Clause in the Bill on which that could be raised, obviously it would be quite in order on a new Clause.

§ Mr. McKENNA
The point raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth) is one of drafting, but this is not the only Clause in which the matter arises, and I would appeal to him to allow us an opportunity of consulting the draftsman before he asks us to deal with it.

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

§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 77.

1139

Division No. 286.]	AYES.	[9.45 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)	Hackett, J.	Paget, Almeric Hugh
Acland, Francis Dyke	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Parker, James (Halifax)
Adamson, William	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)
Addison, Dr. C	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E)	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Agnew, Sir George William	Harwood, George	Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)
Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Armitage, R.	Haworth, Sir Arthur A.	Pollard, Sir George H.
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Hayden, John Patrick	Power, Patrick Joseph
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Hayward, Evan	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Helme, Norval Watson	Radford, George Heynes
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Raffan, Peter Wilson
Sarran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)	Henderson, J. M' D. (Aberdeen, W.)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)	Henry, Sir Charles S.	Reddy, M.
Barton, William	Higham, John Sharp	Redmond, John E. (Waterferd)
Beale, W. P.	Hinds, John	Richards, Thomas
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Hodge, John	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Seek, Arthur Cecil	Holt, Richard Durning	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Bentham, G. J.	Hughes, S. L.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Booth, Frederick Handel	Hunter, W. (Govan)	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Bowerman, C. W.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Brace, William	Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Brunner, J. F. L.	John, Edward Thomas	Robinson, Sidney
Bryce, J. Annan	Johnson, W.	Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Burl, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Jones, H. Hadyn (Merioneth)	Roe, Sir Thomas
Buxton, Rt. Hen. Sydney C. (Poplar)	Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Rowlands, James
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Joyce, Michael	Rowntree, Arnold
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Keating, M.	Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.
Cassel, Felix	Kellaway, Frederick George	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	Kelly, Edward	Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	King, J. (Somerset, N.)	Sheehy, David
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Clough, William	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cookerm'th)	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Levy, Sir Maurice	Spicer, Sir Albert
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lewis, John Herbert	Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Logan, John William	Strachey, Sir Edward
Cotton, William Francis	Lynch, A. A.	Sutherland, J. E.
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Crooks, William	Maclean, Donald	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Crumley, Patrick	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Tennant, Harold John
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)	Thomas, J. H. (Derby)
Davies, E. William (Eifion)	Macpherson, James Ian	Thorns, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Thynne, Lord A.
Dawes, J. A.	M'Curdy, C. A.	Toulmin, Sir George
Delany, William	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas	M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)	Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Dickinson, W. H.	M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Doris, W.	Manfield, Harry	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Duffy, William J.	Marks, Sir George Croydon	Wardle, George J.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Mason, David M. (Coventry)	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	Meagher, Michael	Webs, H.
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Mooney, J. J.	White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Morgan, George Hay	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Esslemont, George Birnie	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Farrell, James Patrick	Murray, Captain Hon. A. C	Wiles, Thomas
Ferens, T. R.	Needham, Christopher T.	Wilkie, Alexander
Ffrench, Peter	Neilson, Francis	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Nolan, Joseph	Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Norman, Sir Henry	Williamson, Sir A.
Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)	Norton, Capt. Cecil W.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Furness, Stephen W.	Nuttall, Harry	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Gill, A. H.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Glanville, H. J.	O'Doherty, Philip
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	O'Dowd, John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Greig, Colonel J. W.	Ogden, Fred

NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry N.)	Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.
Ashley, W. W.	Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.	Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Clynes, J. R.
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)	Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Dixon, C. H.
Balcarres, Lord	Bigland, Alfred	Doughty, Sir George
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)	Bird, A.	Eyres-Monsell, B. M.
Barlow, Montague (Safford, South)	Boyton, J.	Falle, B. G.
Barnes, George N.	Burn Colonel C. R.	Fell, Arthur
Barnston, H.	Cautley, H. S.	Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

1138 1139

Fleming, Valentine	Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.	Stanier, Beville
Gibbs, G. A.	Kerry, Earl of	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Goldsmith, Frank	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Stewart, Gershom
Goldstone, Frank	Lansbury, George	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Macmaster, Donald	Sutton, John E.
Goulding, Edward Alfred	MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)	Swift, Rigby
Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)	Touche, George Alexander
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Hills, J. W.	Nield, Herbert	Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)
Hill-Wood, Samuel	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Hohler, G. F.	Peto, Basil Edward	Williams, Col R. (Dorset, W.)
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Pointer, Joseph	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Houston, Robert Paterson	Rawson, Colonel R. H.	Yate, Colonel C. E.
Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Ingleby, Holcombe	Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Worthington-Evans and Mr. Mount.
Jessel, Captain H. M.	Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Jowett, F. W.	Snowden, P.