§ If any difficulty arises with respect to the constitution of local health committees, or the advisory committee, or otherwise in bringing into operation this Part of this Act, the Insurance Commissioners, with the consent of the Treasury, may by order make any appointment and do anything which appears to them necessary or expedient for the establishment of such committees and for bringing this Part of this Act into operation, and any such order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear necessary or expedient for carrying the order into effect."
§ Mr. C. BATHURST
I beg to move, to insert after the word "arises" ["If any difficulty arises,"] to insert the words "within six months after the passing of the Act."
My object is to restrict the operation of this Clause to six months after the passing of the Act. I do not quite under- 2006 stand how this can be incorporated at the end of the Clause. It has already been pointed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to this Clause, that it is merely the necessary machinery in order to correct initial defects which were not foreseen in the first instance and which is necessary in order to bring the Act, into operation. We have been told that this custom harks back to the time of Henry VIII., and that similar words to these have been incorporated in a large number of Acts of Parliament to secure the smooth working in practice of such Act. This Clause does give large and extended power to the Insurance Commissioners. In fact, it goes so far as to permit them actually to repeal, substitute, or modify what we are now deciding in this House shall form part of this statute. A precedent has already been referred to in the case of the Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1898, and on reference to that Act I find that the operation of this Clause was limited to a certain number of months. The Act came into operation on the 12th August, 1898, and its operation was limited to a period that elapsed from the 12th August to the 31st January only, and that is less than the six months I am asking the House to approve of. Unless some limitation is put upon the operation of this Clause you may be giving the Insurance Commissioners much wider powers than are usually given to a body outside Parliament to seriously alter and interfere with the provisions of an Act of Parliament, without such revision being absolutely essential to secure the practicable working of the Act. If it is intended to confine the operation of this Clause to the process of bringing the Act into operation surely six months would be adequate for the purpose. Taking the precedent of the Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1898, I submit to the Committee that that ought to be quite sufficient time within which to give to the Insurance Commissioners these very large and somewhat arbitrary powers.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I should first like to have your ruling, Mr. Chairman, upon the question as to whether I am entitled upon this Amendment to discuss the whole Clause. It seems to me that this Amendment is vital to the whole Clause, and in that case it will now be in order to discuss the whole Clause. I had intended to discuss the whole Clause on the question "that the Clause stand part of the Bill." But, 2007 as it is getting rather late, I would prefer, with your approval, making the remarks I had intended to make on the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I do not know whether I should be in order in doing that.
It would certainly not be in order to discuss the Clause as a whole. The question here is whether the powers of the Clause be given for a limited period only. Of course, the nature of the powers naturally has something to do with whether they should be limited or not.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
My hon. Friend proposes that these extraordinary powers which are being conferred upon the Insurance Commissioners should be limited to six months. The difficulty I have in supporting him is that I do not think these Commissioners ought to have these powers at all; but, if they are to have them, I think six months is the very utmost limit. Never in the history of the House have powers of this description been given unless they have been limited. In fact, my hon. Friend in quoting from the Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1898, with that natural modesty for which he is distinguished, did not press the matter with sufficient force, because that Act did not give unlimited powers. Clause 104 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1898 enacts:—There shall apply to Ireland so much as the Lord Lieutenant, by Order in Council, declares applicable of the English and Scotch enactments.It therefore limited the Lord Lieutenant to certain things which had been declared by Parliament right and proper things to be enacted. It then goes on to specify the different matter. There are a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, I, m, n, o, all distinctly specifying the powers which the Lord Lieutenant may exercise; and it then goes on in order that there may be no mistake to say:—… The Lord Lieutenant, by Order in Council, may make such adaptations of the Irish enactments as appear to him necessary or expedient for carrying into effect this Act or any Order in Council made there-under,Therefore, all the power the Lord Lieutenant had was to apply certain Clauses of Acts to Ireland, and in order that that might be made quite clear it goes on to say:—Such adaptation of Local Acts as appear required to bring them into conformity with any of the said enactments.Then in Clause 107, it says:—Such order of the Lord Lieutenant shall not have effect after January—2008 —that is the six months limit which my hon. Friend proposes—until it has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.3.0 P.M.
It is evident, therefore, at that time Parliament contemplated the limitation of the power of the Lord Lieutenant to certain enactments which had been authorised by Parliament and to a period of six months, and there was the further limitation that nothing should be done unless Parliament approved. All those things are absent from this Clause. This Clause gives absolute power to the Insurance Commissioners to do practically what they like. Unless some limitation of this sort is put in, we are practically sitting here for nothing. We are merely enacting certain things, and somebody else over whom we have no control whatever can, for an indefinite time, for all we know for the next fifty years, alter all the work we have been endeavouring to do. Possibly it may be argued this Bill is so unintelligible and unworkable that it is absolutely necessary after it comes into operation there should be a certain number of people to find out all the weak spots—and there will be a great many of them—and to put them right without an Act of Parliament; but, if it is so, do not remove from Parliament for an indefinite period the control which it has had and which it ought to exercise over all Acts of Parliament, and do not delegate your powers. Personally, I would rather the Clause was omitted; but, if we are going to have the Clause, then in heaven's name let us limit it to six months. I appeal to every Member who holds dear the traditions of this House, because this is not in any way a party question, that they will not deliberately throw away the control we have at the present moment and place it for an indefinite period in the hands of some unknown people. We do not know who the Insurance Commissioners are going to be. We have several times asked for their names, but the Government have taken no notice of our request. A similar request was put forward when the Development Bill was before the House, and the Government were obliged to comply with it. Even if we knew who the Commissioners were going to be, I should hesitate to give them indefinite power; but we do not know in the least who they are going to be, and I hope the House will rise independent of party and support my hon Friend in the 2009 very moderate—in my opinion much too moderate—Amendment which he has moved.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)
The hon. Baronet has made a tremendous case; he has satisfied himself that this Clause gives indefinite powers to indefinite gentlemen, and that, although the Committee has spent weeks and months in framing this Bill certain persons are authorised by this Clause to upset what the House of Commons has done and to lay down such provisions as they may think fit. The hon. Gentleman endeavoured to establish that absurd claim by reference to an Act of Parliament relating to Ireland in the year 1898. What are the real merits of this case?
§ Sir F. BANBURY
May I point out that in 1898 this question was raised by the then hon. and learned Member for Louth, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in the Act.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I am not going to base my argument on that. I want to come to the real facts of the case. What is the primary condition of the exercise of power under this Clause by the Commissioners? It is that the exercise of the power shall be for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation. That governs everything they may do under this Clause. It is in the Clause, and there is nothing else in the Clause whatever that the Commissioners may do. Everything is governed by these limiting words: it must be for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation. Here we are establishing by Act of Parliament machinery of a very complicated and extensive kind. Everything, so far as human intelligence goes, that can be foreseen has, I hope, been foreseen. But in setting to work this difficult and complicated machinery it is inevitable some matters may have been overlooked. Some authority ought to have power to set the machinery at work. These powers are strictly limited under this Section, but they are powers which have been given again and again by Act of Parliament. They have been construed to mean nothing like interfering with the general administration of the Act. They deal simply with matters of interim arrangements which have to be made in order to enable the Act to work.
If you do not give some such powders as are suggested under this Clause the effect 2010 will be on the slightest obstacle appearing the Commissioners will have to come to Parliament and ask for a new Act. These are obstacles which can only arise on the first occasion of putting this Act into operation. If the obstacle should be one which really cuts at the whole scope of the Bill the Commissioners would have no power to take action on their own authority. All they can do is something which must be for the purpose of putting the Act into operation.
The precedent of the Act of 1898 has been quoted. I have here a later Act of Parliament, an Act of 1902, and I quote this in preference to later precedents, be cause, if I quoted precedents under the present Government, I know the sort of reply I should be likely to get. I therefore take my precedent from the legislation of the late Government, and it is a precedent which, in its essence, although the subject matter dealt with is quite different, is very appropriate to the present case. I refer to the Metropolis Water Act, 1902. It will be remembered that under that Act a Board was set up for the first time, and very extensive powers were given to it. Section 51 of that Act runs as follows:—
I have read the whole of the Clause, and there is no other Clause in the Act relating to this point. It will be seen that there there was no limitation of time to three or six months, because the true limitation of time was the time necessary for the establishment of the Water Board, and, in the same way, for the purposes of the present Clause the true limit of time is the time necessary to bring the Act into operation.
- (1) If any difficulty arises with respect to the establishment of the Water Board, or to the appointment of the first members thereof or to the first meeting thereof, the Local Government Board may by order make any appointments or do anything which appears to them to be necessary or expedient for the proper establishment of the Water Board and the proper holding of the first election and first meeting.
- (2) Any such order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear to the Local Government Board necessary or expedient for carrying the order into effect.
§ Mr. MALCOLM
Was there not something in that Act in the nature of an appeal to the Local Government Board? May I point out there are no similar words in this case.
§ Mr. McKENNA
As I stated, although the subjects dealt with in the two Acts are entirely different you must compare the one with the other under the changed circumstances. In the present Bill the Commissioners occupy the position of the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board was the authority over the "Water Board, just as the Commissioners are the authority dealing with the approved societies. Bearing this point in mind the two cases are on exactly all fours. As the Clause runs it says, "if any difficulty arises," and I will suggest that the difficulty is limited to cases necessary for bringing this Act into operation. In the present case it would be with respect to the constitution of the local health committees or advisory committees. It has precisely the same effect as Section 51 of the Act of 1902.
§ Sir P. MAGNUS
Is there not a difference between "constitution" and "establishment" in connection with these bodies?
§ Mr. McKENNA
I quite agree that "constitution" and "establishment" are not the same. Under the Act of 1902 the whole purport of the Bill was the establishment of the Water Board, and if any difficulties had arisen in connection therewith it became necessary to leave them to the authoritative control of the Local Government Board. In the present case the essential to bringing the Act into operation is the constitution of the local health committees.
§ Mr. McKENNA
That is governed by what is necessary for bringing the Act into operation. The hon. Member for Wiltshire who proposed the Amendment has recognised the general necessity for such a Clause as this, but he has argued that we ought to limit its operation to six months. Dealing with that particular Amendment I have gone rather at length into the subject matter, but, accepting the principle that you ought to have special machinery for bringing such a complicated Act as this into operation, ought we to limit the operation of that machinery by a period of months, or should we limit it by the extent of the time that the introduction of the Act requires? I think it is perfectly safe to follow the precedents which have been laid down again and again in innumerable Acts of Parliament similar to this, and to leave the period 2012 of time to be governed by the requirements of the case. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment.
§ Mr. W. THORNE
I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some explanation of the last two lines. It appears to me that the sting of the Clause is in those lines.
§ Mr. McKENNA
Although the words, "for bringing this part of this Act into operation," are not repeated there, those words govern the last two lines on the Clause just as much as they govern the earlier part of the Clause. The Commissioners may not make an order altering or modifying the provisions of the Act except for the sole purpose of bringing it into operation. I fear the Committee has been led off the scent by the ingenuous hon. Member opposite, who I quite admit is as capable as any Member in this Committee of supporting a case by argument, only in this matter his argument is extremely weak. If the Committee will not be misled by him I think they will be following the precedents laid down again and again, and they will be acting wisely in facilitating the Act being brought into-operation as early as possible.
§ Mr. FORSTER
The right hon. Gentleman has quite failed to realise the strength of feeling there is on the part of Members in reference to this Clause. He has quoted to us the precedent of the Act of 1902. He endeavoured to draw a strict analogy between the effect of that Section of that Act and the effect of the Clause now under discussion. He claimed that the effect of that and of this would be the same; that the powers of that are not wider than the powers of this, and that the powers of this are not wider than the powers of that. I think that was totally wrong. I do not think there is any real analogy between the two cases. What was the object of the Section of that Act? It was to secure the establishment by election of the first officers of the Water Board. There was a necessity for the Clause in that case because there were no by-laws of the authority to be created and there was no power to anybody to elect the first board. That was why the section was necessary in that case. Who was the supervising authority who were to frame the rules under which the election was to take place. The Local Government Board—a Government Department—represented in this House and responsible to this 2013 House. Who is the authority to whom you entrust the wide powers of this Clause? There is not a single Member of the Committee who knows. We do not know whether any one of the Commissioners will have a seat in this House. We do not know who is to be responsible to this House for anything that the Insurance Commissioners may do. I say there is no real analogy between the two cases. Even if there were, even if the precedent the right hon. Gentleman has quoted were a complete precedent, I say it is time we departed from it, and that it is time we departed from it in special reference to this Bill.
I will not argue the scope of the Bill to show how vitally it affects, not a limited class, not a limited area of the King's dominions, but I shall show later the wide effect it will have upon all classes and sections of the people of this country. When you are dealing with a Bill of that magnitude you ought to take every care that the authority of Parliament is maintained, and that nobody, however able they may be, has any power to vary what Parliament has laid down. What is the effect of the Amendment of my hon. Friend? Granted that what the Home Secretary has said is true, that the effect of the Clause has only the narrow meaning he has sought to put upon it, what is the effect of the Amendment. That these powers shall be exercised within and no longer than six months after the commencement of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman says these powers are necessary for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation. Surely if you have not put it into operation within six months after it has to come into operation you are in a very peculiar position.
This Clause gives authority to the Insurance Commissioners to depart from and to vary, wherever they think necessary or expedient, the provisions of the Bill with respect to the constitution of the local health committees. The local health committees are the pivot of this Bill. You can do nothing without the local health committees, you cannot even bring the Act into operation without the local health committees, you have got to get your committees established before the Bill can come into operation. Then you do not want that power to continue six months after the local health committees have been established and constituted. The right hon. Gentleman said that the concluding words of the Clause only have 2014 reference to the general power given to bringing this Act into force. I would really ask him to see what they are: "and any such order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear necessary or expedient for carrying the order into effect." These words are altogether too wide. That is, to my mind a power which no Department, even if it were a Department of the Government, ought to have, and' these words, at any rate, ought to be struck out, and the words proposed by my hon. Friend ought to be put in.
§ Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH
I am in some agreement with hon. Members opposite upon this Amendment, although I should prefer myself, if it were possible, that we should have no such Clause as this in the Bill at all. This Clause seems to me to confer upon the Commissioners powers of a most formidable and dangerous character. I do not think the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) is correct in saying that there is no check on these powers. I observe that the Commissioners can only exercise them with the consent of the Treasury, and I would suggest that the Treasury, in cases of this kind, have an equal authority with the Local Government Board in the case that has been instanced. I suggest that if it is necessary to have some such Clause as this, then the powers given under the Clause ought to be very strictly defined. I venture to submit to my right hon. Friend that the setting up of a board under the Metropolis Water Act is a slightly different thing from varying the constitution of the local health committees under this Bill, and from doing anything the Commissioners like to bring the Bill into operation. There is a considerable amount of sympathy on this side of the Committee with a proposal for having the powers defined. I hope it will be possible to find words to meet the representations made upon the other side of the Committee.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSON
I think the Committee will feel that the Home Secretary was under a great disadvantage in replying, because I do not think he was present on the discussion of Clause 43, and therefore he did not know the change made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer while that Clause was under discussion. It seems to me that those who care for the smooth working of the Bill will endeavour to prevent, as far as possible, any suspicion arising on the part of members of approved societies as to acts being done which bind them, and in which they have 2015 no voice. I take it, under this Clause, it would be possible for the Insurance Commissioners to appoint members of approved societies who would make up the Insurance Committees, as they are to be called. It strikes me even the change of name made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer becomes rather ridiculous if these committees are to be appointed other than by the direct voices to a large extent of the members of the approved societies. It would be fatal to the scheme if the opinion of those who are interested was not properly represented, and although I do not say that the Insurance Commissioners would not do their best to ascertain on what side that opinion lay, it is obviously very difficult for them, and it is not the intention of this Committee, to entrust powers of nomination of that kind to the Insurance Commissioners. We do not know whom they are. No doubt they will be men of eminence, but this is to be, in its essence, a popular and democratic scheme, and this Clause is strongly anti-democratic, and creates an arbitrary power which may not be used, but which certainly the Committee ought not to be asked to accept. There are very important things to be done by these committees when they are once composed which will influence the whole course of procedure under the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he re-christened these bodies, also promised that the auxiliary committees should be changed in like manner, and that they would have their powers and duties further defined. Supposing that the committees are going to be appointed not in the way defined by the Bill, but practically on the nomination of the Insurance Commissioners, they can exercise all the powers which he is going to provide, and which are partially provided, in the appointment of local committees, but this certainly ought not to be done by those who do not draw their power and inspiration from the representatives of the societies and other bodies who are to compose the insurance committees. For this reason I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree to modify the Clause in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend, because that really makes for the smooth working of the Bill, which he wants more than anyone.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I have been considering this point, and I agree on the face of it it looks as if the powers con- 2016 ferred on the Commissioners by this Clause are almost unlimited. That is certainly not the intention of the Act. As I explained earlier in the Session, it is purely to deal with temporary difficulties. The hon. Gentleman said that is a reason why you should make it perfectly clear on the face of it that it is to deal with temporary difficulties. I do not object to that. I find there are two Amendments on the Paper which will have that effect. They are the two first Amendments and the two last Amendments, which propose that the Insurance Commissioners shall only exercise their powers until 1st January, 1915.
The Amendment before the Committee now is that it shall be for six months after the commencement of the Act. That will mean all the time until the commencement of the Act, and then six months afterwards, being practically a year, and if by that time the Insurance Commissioners cannot make up their mind what is necessary to bring the Act into operation it needs something more.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I do not think the hon. Member quite realises the whole difficulties of that time. If the Committee thinks 1915 is too long, I should be perfectly prepared to cut it down to, say, two years after the commencement of the Act. That would make it quite temporary. We want to have these powers which have been in all recent Acts, and I do not think there is any limit of time in the other Acts.
Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANS
In the Irish Local Government Act there was a limit of time till the following 31st January, and I believe the Act came into force on 12th August, so that there were about four or five months only.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I now suggest 1st January, 1914, if that will meet the views of the hon. Gentleman. As a matter of fact, we shall have to put off the commencement of the Act, and 1st January, 1913 will hardly be six months. I think we ought, at any rate, to have a full eighteen months in order to get over these preliminary difficulties, and if it meets the view of hon. Members I shall be very happy to make it 1st January, 1914.
Personally, I think that is much too long. The Amendment gives him a year, and that seems to be quite sufficient. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer then consent to accept an Amendment which I put down 2017 to leave out the last two lines of the Clause:—Any such order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear necessary or expedient for carrying the order into effect.If the object is merely to carry out the Act which is passed by the House of Commons and to make any regulations necessary for that purpose, the earlier words in the Clause are sufficient. But if the object of the Government is to override the Act of the House of Commons, and if the Government insist on these last two lines, I shall oppose the Clause altogether, and no compromise of any sort will satisfy me if these last two lines are in. I want to say frankly what my position is. I object to these last two lines, because they modify the provisions of the Act. That is what I object to.
§ Mr. NEWMAN
I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer where Ireland comes in under this Clause? Two Clauses further on I see an Amendment down in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond), which runs as follows:—There shall be constituted Commissioners for Ireland (to be called "the Irish Insurance Commissioners") with a central office in Dublin, and with such branch offices throughout Ireland as the Treasury may think fit.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House when the Home Secretary read a Clause of an Act of 1902 in justification of this proposal. There seems to be some difficulty as to the length of time which is to be inserted in the Clause. I understand both sides of the House have come to an agreement that there should be some length, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes two years. I am always anxious to pour oil on the troubled waters. I would suggest a compromise. The right hon. Gentleman justified his Clause by quoting Section 51 of the Act of 1902. That was the only argument the right hon. Gentleman brought forward. Why not put the words of Clause 51 of the 1902 Act in this Act? I would suggest that he should leave out the words which deal with the advisory committee "or otherwise in bringing into operation." That is a very 2018 much stronger power than is contained in Clause 51 of the 1902 Act. I would suggest that we should insert later on the words "if any difficulty arises with respect to the establishment of the local health committees, or the appointment of the first members thereof, or as to the first meetings thereof, the Insurance Commissioners," etc. Then there would be no limit of time, and the words would define what is to take place. I hold that out as an olive branch which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept.
§ Mr. W. PEARCE
I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given way as much as he can reasonably afford to do. This is one of the most difficult points in connection with the administration of the Act. It will not be easy to find suitable people to serve on the local health committees, and I think the elasticity which the right hon. Gentleman asks is required. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given as much as is absolutely necessary.
§ Sir JOHN SIMON
May I point out to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), who took exception to the last two lines of the Clause, that these lines do not in the least enlarge the purpose to which the Clause applies. They merely provide the necessary and obvious thing, that, in so far as this order is allowed by the Clause when the order is made, it should take effect. If the hon. Gentleman were to persist in his proposal and persuade the Committee to agree with him, the Treasury might make an order which would not have obligatory effect. There is in the Metropolitan Water Board Act, Section 51, as in such cases there must be as a matter of drafting. In referring to the Metropolitan Water Board Act, the hon. Gentleman did refer to the section which contains the necessary validating words. I think on reflection the hon. Gentleman will see that it does not enlarge the operation of the Clause itself.
§ Mr. C. BATHURST
The only precedent which the Home Secretary cited in addition to the one we have emphasised, is that of the Metropolitan Water Board Act. That cannot properly be described as a private Act of Parliament. It is at least a local Act of Parliament, and, I understand, it went through all the forms of a private Bill, and was considered as such upstairs. That is a very different case from what is now before the Committee. This is not only a public Bill we are considering, but 2019 one of a more far-reaching character probably than any Bill ever introduced in the House. It affects every part of the community, and involves enormous expenditure of public money, and so far as we can, we should guard most jealously the rights of the House of Commons. It seems to me that if we were to agree to a compromise such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had suggested that this Clause should be limited to a period of two years, we shall be parties to stretching a precedent which is already a dangerous precedent. I cannot, at any rate, by withdrawing my Amendment, be a party to any such stretching of a most unfortunate and undemocratic precedent. It would go down to history that the constitutional party, and as we believe the true champions of democracy, had deliberately been parties to a compromise of a most undemocratic character, as we view it. Surely the remedy lies in the way the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already indicated. He says he proposes to further postpone the commencement of this Act. Then why not accept the Amendment, and let the period remain at six months. The right hon. Gentleman will be able, if he chooses, by postponing the commencement of the Act, to make the operation of it exactly what he desires. As a matter of principle, I cannot withdraw my Amendment.
§ Sir LUKE WHITE
I think there is a great deal more in the Clause than was mentioned by the Home Secretary when he cited the Metropolitan Water Board Act. Immediately on the establishment of the Metropolitan Water Board that Clause came to an end. But this Clause
§ contains very far-reaching consequences, and I think it is agreed on all sides of the House that there should be some limitation of the time in which these powers should be exercised. I suggest, and I think it would be a very fair compromise, that the period of six months should be altered to twelve months, which would give eighteen months. I think that would give a fair amount of time for the exercise of the powers in this Clause.
§ Sir HILDRED CARLILE
I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he wants these two years. I noticed that when the question was raised the right hon. Gentleman went through more or less of a calculation as to the period he was going to suggest. It seemed to me that the calculation in his mind was running over the probable legislation of the next two years. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how many amending Acts he was calculating he would have to pass before this period came to an end, and whether that was not really what was passing in his mind at the time when he suggested that two years would be necessary. It seems to me that the Bill is so complicated that the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the Bill knows perfectly well that there will have to be a lot of amending Bills introduced in a comparatively short period, and that he has suggested a period of two years in order that he might have as much time as possible to deal with these complications as they arise.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 69; Noes, 148.2021
|Division No. 381.]||AYES.||3.45 p.m.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||Newman, John R. P.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Goldman, C. S.||O'Grady, James|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Goldsmith, Frank||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Grant, J. A.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Helmsley, Viscount||Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Hill, Sir Clement L.||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hoare, S. J. G.||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Beresford, Lord Charles||Houston, Robert Paterson||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Bigland, Alfred||Hunt, Rowland||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Boyton, James||Ingleby, Holcombe||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Jowett, Frederick William||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Butcher, John George||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cassel, Felix||Kirkwood, John H. M.||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Lansbury, George||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Eyres-Monsell, B. M.||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|Fell, Arthur||Macmaster, Donald|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||M'Mordie, Robert||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)||Magnus, Sir Philip||Mr. C. Bathurst and Sir H. Carlile.|
|Forster, Henry William||Mason, James F. (Windsor)|
|Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Nolan, Joseph|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Goldstone, Frank||Norton, Captain Cecil W.|
|Adamson, William||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Nuttall, Harry|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Greig, Colonel James William||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Anderson, Andrew Macbeth||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Hackett, John||O'Dowd, John|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Hancock, J. G.||O'Malley, William|
|Barnes, George N.||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W)||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Haslam, Lewis Monmouth||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Boland, John Pius||Hayden, John Patrick||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor||Pointer, Joseph|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Higham, John Sharp||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Hinds, John||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Holt, Richard Durning||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Hudson, Walter||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Cameron, Robert||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Radford, George Heynes|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Reddy, Michael|
|Chancellor, Henry George||John, Edward Thomas||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Clough, William||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Clynes, John R.||Joyce, Michael||Roche, John (Galway, E.)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Kelly, Edward||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Sheehy, David|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Kilbride, Denis||Shortt, Edward|
|Cotton, William Francis||Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Crooks, William||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Crumley, Patrick||Leach, Charles||Tennant, Harold John|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Lundon, Thomas||Thomas, J. H. (Derby)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)||Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Dawes, J. A.||Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Devlin, Joseph||McGhee, Richard||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Dillon, John||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Donelan, Captain A.||M'Callum, John M.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Doris, William||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Duffy, William J.||M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)||White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Masterman, C. F. G.||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Meagher, Michael||Whyte, A. F.|
|Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., Nn.)|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Menzies, Sir Walter||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Molteno, Percy Alport||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Mond, Sir Alfred M.||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||Mooney, John J.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|France, Gerald Ashburner||Munro, Robert||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.||Mr. Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward.|
|Glanville, Harold James||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move, to leave out the words "constitution of local health committees, or the advisory committee, or otherwise in bringing into operation this part of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "establishment of the local health committees, or to the appointment of the first members thereof or to the first meeting thereof."
I move this Amendment in consequence of the precedent given to the Committee by the Home Secretary, who justified this Clause on the ground that there is a precedent for it in the Act of 1902. He cited Section 51 of that Act in support of his case. I was so much impressed by the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that, with all due humility, I ventured to take his -words, and in adopting his precedent he cannot refuse to support an Amendment which follows his words. The 2022 question is whether or not the Clause should be limited to a certain period of time. The Clause is not limited to any time, and as soon as the Bill comes into operation the Commissioners will have an indefinite period in which they have power to use its machinery for certain objects, supported by the precedent of the Act of 1902. If I may say so, I quite agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there will be considerable difficulty in putting the Act into operation, and therefore I am willing to assist him as far as I can by allowing him an unlimited period provided that the powers of the Insurance Commissioners are limited by the House to certain definite things. The Act of 1902 does limit the Local Government Board to certain definite things, as I am proposing to limit the power of the Insurance Commissioners to certain definite things. That 2023 is to say to establish local health committees, the appointment of the first members thereof, or for the next meeting thereof. That seems to me to meet all the difficulties raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would prevent the Commissioners from having the power to vary the Act of Parliament indefinitely. The Home Secretary said they will not have the power to alter the provisions of this Bill except in regard to certain things.
I think he cannot have noticed the words "or otherwise." Who is to decide the meaning of "or otherwise"? There is no definition of those words, and I submit to the Attorney-General that the insertion of those words "or otherwise" gives an indefinite power to the Insurance Commissioners. It may be quite true that the Home Secretary might say to the Insurance Commissioners that they were exceeding their powers, but the Insurance Commissioners would reply "certainly not." They are allowed to interpret the words "or otherwise" according to their wishes and desires, and there is nothing whatever to prevent them from doing that. I recognise that there may be some difficulty in setting up those local health committees, and therefore I am prepared to give powers to the Insurance Commissioners which are similar to those conferred on the Local Government Board under the Act of 1902. I think my argument is not unreasonable, and though I do not want to say anything disparaging of a Government, they do not always adhere to any definite period.
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Mr. McKENNA
The hon. Gentleman seems to suppose that the precedent I quoted of the Act of 1902 limits the precedents to one. As a matter of fact there are innumerable precedents. The hon Member only took the words of the particular precedent which I have quoted. The Local Government Act of 1888, the Local Government Act of 1894, or the Act of 1908 all contain precedents. He could
§ have taken the words of four separate precedents dealing with four separate matters. The words of the Act of 1902 are quite appropriate to the subject matter of that measure, but are not equally appropriate to this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already undertaken to introduce an Amendment at the end of this Clause limiting its operation to 1st January, 1914. I submit that under the circumstances of this Bill it is not reasonable to take the analogy of words which are quite appropriate to the Act to which they apply, but are not appropriate to the present Bill. In this Clause every operation of the Insurance Commissioners is limited by the fact that it must be in relation to something done in bringing the Act into operation, and this would sufficiently secure the hon. Baronet against any unreasonattempt by the Commissioners to vary the Act as decided by Parliament. I submit that in accepting the limitation of time, which is to be introduced by the Amendment at the end of the Clause, we have really settled the question of principle, and it is not quite reasonable to reopen the whole discussion in order to introduce words from another Act relating to an entirely different subject and really not appropriate to this particular Clause.
§ Mr. FORSTER
The Home Secretary has not really given any sort of reply to the speech in which my hon. Friend proposed his Amendment. All he says is that it is not fair to take words from another Act and to introduce them into this Bill. Why did the right hon. Gentleman quote the Bill? The Home Secretary, when he wished to refer to the precedent of that particular Act, quoted the words as if they were absolutely conclusive, and now, when my hon. Friend seeks to put them into his Bill, he says they are wholly and utterly inappropriate.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 71.2025
|Division No. 382.]||AYES.||[4.5 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)||Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Carr-Gomm, H. W.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Chancellor, Henry George|
|Adamson, William||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Chapple, Dr. William Allen|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Boland, John Pius||Clough, William|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Bowerman, C. W.||Clynes, John R.|
|Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)||Brady, Patrick Joseph||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)|
|Anderson, Andrew Macbeth||Brunner, John F. L.||Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Condon, Thomas Joseph|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Byles, Sir William Pollard||Cotton, William Francis|
|Barnes G. N.||Cameron, Robert||Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)|
|Crooks, William||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Crumley, Patrick||John, Edward Thomas||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)||Jowett, Frederick William||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Joyce, Michael||Pointer, Joseph|
|De Forest, Baron||Kelly, Edward||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Devlin, Joseph||Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Dillon, John||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Lansbury, George||Radford, George Heynes|
|Doris, William||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Reddy, Michael|
|Duffy, William J.||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'r'ld, Cockerm'th)||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Leach, Charles||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Lundon, Thomas||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary)||Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||Sheehy, David|
|Ffrench, Peter||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Shortt, Edward|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||McGhee, Richard||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|France, Gerald Ashburner||M'Callum, John M.||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Tennant, Harold John|
|Glanville, Harold James||Martin, Joseph||Thomas, James Henry (Derby)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Masterman, C. F. G.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Goldstone, Frank||Meagher, Michael||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Greig, Colonel James William||Menzies, Sir Walter||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Mond, Sir Alfred M.||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Hackett, John||Mooney, John J.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Hancock, John George||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)|
|Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||Munro, Robert||White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Nolan, Joseph||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Henry, Sir Charles S.||Nuttall, Harry||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Higham, John Sharp||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Hinds, John||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Holt, Richard Durning||O'Dowd, John||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hudson, Walter||O'Grady, James||Mr. Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward.|
|Hughes, Spencer Leigh||O'Malley, William|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||Mason, James F. (Windsor)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Goldman, C. S.||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Goldsmith, Frank||Newman, John R. P.|
|Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Grant, J. A.||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Greene, W. R.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Gretton, John||Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)||Harris, Henry Percy||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Helmsley, Viscount||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)||Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Bigland, Alfred||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (Liverp'l, Walton)|
|Boyton, James||Hehler, Gerald Fitzroy||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Butcher, John George||Houston, Robert Paterson||Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Hunt, Rowland||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)|
|Cassel, Felix||Ingleby, Holcombe||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Kirkwood, John H. M.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Fell, Arthur||Lloyd, George Ambrose||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee|
|Fleming, Valentine||Macmaster, Donald||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)||M'Mordie, Robert||Sir F. Banbury and Lord A. Thynne.|
|Forster, Henry William||Magnus, Sir Philip|
I beg to move to leave out the words "and any such order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear necessary or expedient for carrying the order into effect."
The Solicitor-General just now said that if the Commissioners were to have powers 2026 they must have the powers conveyed in these words. I submit that that is quite unnecessary. They ought to have powers to carry out the Act as it leaves this House, but not to modify it. If these words are retained, the Commissioners will have power to make an order modifying the Act, and they may carry out that 2027 order. That, to my mind, is giving them power to legislate. Whether the Government intend to place a time limit on the powers or not, I hold that these words ought to come out. The effect of the time limit is broadly this: the Government have taken the year 1914, up to which time they think they will have the carrying out of the Act. Then the time limit comes into operation, and their successors in office are to be left with an extremely difficult Act to carry out. They are protecting themselves, and leaving to us the difficulties which they anticipate will be so troublesome. That is their generosity. Personally, I think the right course would be to limit, not the time, but the powers given to the Commissioners. I want to give them power to carry out that which Parliament has enacted, and not power to carry out something which they think Parliament ought to have enacted.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I think the hon. Gentleman has not fully appreciated the intention of these words. The purpose is simply to give effect to an order which the Commissioners might make. The power to vary the existing provisions of the Bill has already been given to the Commissioners. These last few words merely say that the Commissioners shall receive the power to make an order varying the Act—
§ Mr. McKENNA
Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to finish? The Commissioners, having received the power to make an order, may, under such order, modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear necessary or expedient for carrying the order into effect.
two lines is such variation of the Act as may be necessary in order to bring the order into effect. If the hon. and learned Member will read the earlier words they say:—
If any difficulty arises …. the Insurance Commissioners, with the consent of the Treasury may by order make any appointment and do anything which appears to them necessary or expedient….
§ Mr. McKENNA
Yes, certainly; that is what we have been arguing. The order must be for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation; for giving effect to the machinery of the Act. After that explanation I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
§ Mr. FORSTER
Supposing that these words were left out as suggested by the Amendment, the Commissioners would still have the power to make an order. That is as far as we ought to go.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITH
It is in the first part of this Clause that the real power is given to the Commissioners to carry the Act into operation, but not to alter the Act; to carry it into operation as it leaves this House. It gives no power to alter or interfere with any Act of Parliament. In the last two lines of the Clause they are not, I think, given power to carry the Act into operation, but power to carry something quite different into operation—to vary the action of an Act of Parliament as it leaves this House. I think, therefore, we ought to have an assurance from the Attorney-General that the Commissioners are not going to alter the Act as it leaves this House.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 75.2029
|Division No. 383.]||AYES.||[4.20 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)||Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Boland, John Plus|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Bowerman, C. W.|
|Adamson, William||Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Brady, Patrick Joseph|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Barnes, George N.||Brunner, John F. L.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Bryce, John Annan|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)||Buckmaster, Stanley O.|
|Anderson, Andrew Macbeth||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Burns, Rt. Hon. John|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Cameron, Robert||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||O'Dowd, John|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Mailey, William|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Henry, Sir Charles S.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Clough, William||Higham, John Sharp||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Hinds, John||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Holt, Richard Durning||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hudson, Walter||Pointer, Joseph|
|Cotton, William Francis||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Crooks, William||John, Edward Thomas||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Crumley, Patrick||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Dalziel, Sir James N. (Kirkcaldy)||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Reddy, M.|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)||Joyce, Michael (Limerick)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Dawes, J. A.||Kelly, Edward||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|De Forest, Baron||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Kilbride, Denis||Scanian, Thomas|
|Dillon, John||Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)||Sheehy, David|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Shortt, Edward|
|Doris, W.||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|Duffy, William J.||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'r'id, Cockerm'th)||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Leach, Charles||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Lynch, A. A.||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Falconer, J.||Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Thomas, James Henry (Derby)|
|Ffrench, Peter||McGhee, Richard||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||M'Callum, John M.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|France, G. A.||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||Meagher, Michael||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Glanville, Harold James||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Menzies, Sir Walter||White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Goldstone, Frank||Molteno, Percy Alport||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.|
|Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Greig, Col. J. W.||Munro, Robert||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)|
|Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Nolan, Joseph|
|Hackett, John||Norton, Captain Cecil W.|
|Hancock, John George||Nuttall, Harry||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Mr. Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward.|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Green, Walter Raymond||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Ashley, W. W.||Gretton, John||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)||Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Harris, Henry Percy||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Helmsley, Viscount||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Radford, G. H.|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Hill, Sir Clement L.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)||Houston, Robert Paterson||Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (Liverp'l, Walton)|
|Bigland, Alfred||Hunt, Rowland||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Boyton, James||Ingleby, Holcombe||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Jowett, Frederick William||Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)|
|Butcher, John George||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Kirkwood, John H. M.||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Lansbury, George||Thynne, Lord A.|
|Clynes, John R.||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lloyd, George Ambrose||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Fell, Arthur||MacCaw, Wm J. MacGeagh||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||M. Mordie, Robert||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Fleming, Valentine||Martin, Joseph|
|Fletcher, John Samuel||Mason, James F. (Windsor)|
|Forster, Henry William||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Goldman, Charles Sydney||Newman, John R. P.||Mr. Worthington-Evans and Mr. Goldsmith.|
|Goulding, E. A.||O'Grady, James|
|Grant, James Augustus||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.|
Amendment made: At, the end of the Clause add,
Provided that the Insurance Commissioners shall not exercise the above powers until after the first day of
January, nineteen hundred and fourteen.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 65.2031
|Division No. 384.]||AYES.||[4.30 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||Munro, Robert|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Glanville, Harold James||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.|
|Adamson, William||Goldstone, Frank||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Nolan, Joseph|
|Alden, Percy||Greig, Colonel James William||Norton, Captain Cecil W.|
|Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Nuttall, Harry|
|Anderson, Andrew Macbeth||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Hackett, John||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Hancock, John George||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)||O'Dowd, John|
|Barnes, George N.||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||O'Malley, William|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Hayden, John Patrick||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Boland, John Plus||Henry, Sir Charles||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., South)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Higham, John Sharp||Pointer, Joseph|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Hinds, John||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Holt, Richard Durning||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Hudson, Walter||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Radford, G. H.|
|Cameron, Robert||John, Edward Thomas||Reddy, Michael|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Chancellor, Henry George||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Clough, William||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Joyce, Michael||Roche, John (Galway, E.)|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Kelly, Edward||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Cotton, William Francis||Kilbride, Denis||Sheehy, David|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)||Shortt, Edward|
|Crooks, William||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|Crumley, Patrick||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)|
|Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Leach, Charles||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)||Lundon, Thomas||Tennant, Harold John|
|Dawes, J. A.||Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Thomas, J. H. (Derby)|
|De Forest, Baron||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Dillon, John||McGhee, Richard||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Doris, William||M'Callum, John M.||Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Duffy, William J.||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)||White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Meagher, Michael||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.|
|Falconer, James||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Menzies, Sir Walter||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Molteno, Percy Alport||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||Mond, Sir Alfred M.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Mooney, John J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|France, G. A.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Mr. Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Goulding, Edward Alfred||O'Grady, James|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Grant, J. A.||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Greene, Walter Raymond||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Hill, Sir Clement L.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Bigland, Alfred||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Boyton, James||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (Liverp'l, Walton)|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Houston, Robert Paterson||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Butcher, John George||Hunt, Rowland||Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Ingleby, Holcombe||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Jowett, Frederick William||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Clynes, John R.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Kirkwood, John H. M.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||Lansbury, George||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude|
|Fell, Arthur||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Lloyd, George Ambrose||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Forster, Henry William||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh|
|Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||Martin, Joseph||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Goldman, Charles Sydney||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Colonel Yate and Mr. Harris.|
|Goldsmith, Frank||Newman, John R. P.|
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 13th November.