Commons Sitting of 15 November 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Message from the Lords—That they have agreed to—
Amendments to:—
Thorney Drainage Bill [Lords],
Saint Mary, Prestwich, Rectory Bill [Lords].
Saint Mary, Radcliffe, Rectory Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) [PENSIONS].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of a retiring annuity to any Chairman of the Land Court in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to encourage the formation of Small Agricultural Holdings in Scotland (King's Recommendation signified), to-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]
PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (ENGLAND AND WALES) (NUMBERS ON ADMISSION REGISTERS).
Return ordered, "of Summary Tables showing the number of Boys and Girls, respectively, on the Admission Registers of ordinary Public Elementary Schools in England and Wales on the 1st day of October in the years 1909 and 1910, arranged according to their years of age on the preceding 1st August, respectively."—[Mr. King.]

FEES CHARGED IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Return ordered, "showing, under county boroughs and administrative counties, for each Public Elementary School receiving an income from school pence, the name and denomination of the school, and the religious denominations, if any, with which it is connected; the total amount received from school pence; and the amounts
344
received by the managers and the local authority, respectively, for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1911 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 162, of Session 1903)."—[Mr. King.]

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
Copy presented of Return of Eviction Notices filed during the six months ended 30th September, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  H.M.S. "Indefatigable."
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the mean draft of water of His Majesty's Ship "Indefatigable" when she attained a speed of twenty-nine knots; and whether it is intended to carry out speed trials of His Majesty's Ship "Lion" with that vessel immersed to her full load line?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): It is not in the public interest that the information asked for should be given.

  Osborne College.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether there were cases of scurvy at Osborne College last July; whether a London specialist was sent for to attend the cadets suffering from this affection; whether mysterious complaints of the eyes, known as pink-eye, are constantly occurring; and whether he has official reports showing that there is more illness at Osborne College than at any other public school in England?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There were no cases of scurvy at Osborne last July. No London specialist was sent down on this account. There have been no mysterious complaints of the eyes, but, as frequently happens in all schools, mild cases of conjunctivitis have cropped up from time to time. No official reports such as are referred to have been received; and it is not considered that any comparison can usefully be made between the conditions at Osborne, where there are some 400 boys, all of whom are from twelve years and eight months to fifteen years old, and over 200 of whom change every year, and the

  345
  average public school where the ages vary considerably more and the boys remain for a much longer period.
  Mr. HUNT: Is it not well known and recognised that Osborne College is unhealthy for boys?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, Sir.

  Signalling in Mercantile Marine.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether a Special Committee was constituted to inquire into the question of signalling in the mercantile marine; if so, did the Committee report; whether, in some of our largest lines of merchant mail, passenger, and cargo carrying ships, efficient signalling, more particularly Morse signalling at night time, is absolutely forbidden when at sea, and numerous complaints have been made as to signals made to these ships not being answered; and whether the Admiralty and the Board of Trade will take steps to help officers of the mercantile marine not only to maintain the efficiency in signalling at which they have arrived, but to improve matters still further in this respect?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: A Committee was appointed and their report was published in 1906. The signalling of the mercantile marine as a whole has much improved latterly, and the reports received by the Admiralty at stated intervals are satisfactory. It is, I regret to say, the case that the directors of certain of the large steamship companies have not seen their way to meet the efforts of the Admiralty to encourage signalling on board their ships. I am, however, glad to say that the officers of the mercantile marine generally have shown a desire to make themselves proficient in signalling. The Admiralty are fully alive to the importance of this question, and, as I stated on 1st November, have for some time past had under consideration the best means of assisting officers of the mercantile marine to qualify in signalling. It is hoped soon to make an announcement on the subject.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Admiralty cannot bring influence to bear upon these companies who do not carry out this signalling to do so, considering the importance of efficient communication at sea?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We will consider that question, and we shall make an announcement shortly.

  Labour Exchanges and Dockyards.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether men cannot obtain employment in His Majesty's dockyards except through local Labour Exchanges; and whether other than local men are taken on?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am sending the Noble Lord the very full replies given upon the question of the utilisation of the Labour Exchanges in the filling of vacancies in the dockyards, on 26th, 30th and 31st October by the President of the Board of Trade and myself. Generally, we think it desirable as employers of labour to avail ourselves, as far as practicable, of the machinery of the Labour Exchange. At the same time our arrangements, which are experimental, do not in any way limit the discretion of the yard officials in asking for men whose services it is desired to secure. Where suitable men are available in the locality such men will, as in the past, be given preference.

  Ex-Naval Man's Pension.
  Mr. HUNTasked why the pension of 13d. a day of W. C. Rudgley (8415), who was wounded in the thigh in China on 13th July, 1900, has been stopped; and whether he is aware that this man depends to a considerable extent for his living on this pension?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Rudgley was, as stated, wounded on July 13th, 1900. He was discharged on August 13th, 1903, with a service of 6 years and 361 days. A pension of 1s. 1d. was granted him from year to year. When the question of a further renewal was last under consideration, in October, it was ascertained that for some time he had been guilty of grave misrepresentation respecting the amount of his earnings. His pension has consequently been discontinued in accordance with the regulations, but Rudgley's case will be further considered if, as a result of his injury, his earning capacity is seriously affected.

  Admiralty Salvage Lighter (Yarmouth Harbour).
  Mr. FELLasked if Mooring Lighter No. 78 was in Great Yarmouth harbour from the 4th to 10th November, moored within 300 yards of the spot where the sunken drifter lay in the fairway from the 3rd to 7th November, when she was raised by the Port and Haven Commissioners; and, seeing that the Lighter No. 78

  347
  was fitted with appliances which would have enabled the sunken drifter to be raised in a few hours instead of taking three days, will he explain why she was not employed?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Mooring Lighter No. 78 with attendant tug put into Yarmouth, as already stated, on account of stress of weather. She waited until the 10th, as stated in the question, prepared to leave the moment the weather abated. The lighter was proceeding north for mooring work, and had left her salvage gear at Sheerness in order to lighten her for the long journey north, and to accommodate mooring materials. Apart therefore from the fact that the service for which she was detailed was urgent, and that any unnecessary delay was extremely undesirable, she was not suitably equipped for raising the sunken vessel.

  Admiralty Vessels (Assistance in Accidents).
  Mr. FELLasked whether Admiralty vessels may only render assistance in accidents where risk of loss of life is involved; and, if so, will he explain why on the 10th November His Majesty's ship "Halcyon" sent a boat with diver and apparatus to assist in the salvage of the steam drifter "Au Retour" which had been sunk at Lowestoft?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Article 1,881 of the King's Regulations directs that "all officers of His Majesty's ships are to afford every possible aid to vessels in danger, distress, or in want of casual assistance, and in saving life." The action taken by the "Halcyon" is as described in the last part of the question.
  Mr. FELL: Arising out of that answer, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the instructions are sufficient to meet this case?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: If the hon. Gentleman refers to the King's Regulation 1,881, yes, certainly.

  Gaming Houses in Malay States.
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the official notice published in the
  348
  "Times," of Malaya, on the 13th October, 1911, inviting tenders for licences for public gaming houses in the State of Negri Sembilan (Federated Malay States); and will he say what are the grounds upon which this system of public gambling is officially recognised and encouraged?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The policy of His Majesty's Government, with regard to gambling in the Federated Malay States was explained by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, then Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, on 3rd December, 1906, in answer to a question asked by the then hon. Member for Renfrewshire (East). The views of His Majesty's Government as to the desirability of the suppression of gambling and the impracticability of total prohibition at present remain unchanged, but no suitable opportunity of restricting the area within which gambling is permitted has been or will be neglected.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Has gambling in the Malay States diminished since the Government took it in hand?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I think it has. Certainly it is at a very much lower level than when it was in private hands.

  Colonial Office (Promotion).
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTONasked whether a governorship lies outside of the ordinary course of promotion in the Colonial Office; and, if that is the present practice of the Colonial Office, whether he is prepared to reconsider and modify it?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir. A governorship lies outside the ordinary course of promotion both in the Colonial Office and in the Colonial Service. I see no reason for reconsidering or modifying the present practice, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the claims of the Service are fully considered whenever a governorship becomes vacant, my only object being to get the best available man.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: In the case of a Colonial Secretary say, of Ceylon, would not his claim be considered paramount to that of another person outside the Service of equal ability?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The only claim I consider paramount would be the question of merits.

  Silver Currency in Southern Nigeria.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSasked what portion of the £8,000,000 sterling of silver coin put in circulation during the past ten years in Southern Nigeria has been annually circulated in the western, central, and eastern provinces, respectively, during that period?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I regret that I am not in a position to answer my hon. Friend's question. The only statistics available relate to the direct importation of silver coin at the various seaports, and a considerable movement of coin takes place within the Colony and Protectorate.

  Land Valuation.
  Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total cost incurred in connection with the issue of and collection of returns to two forms, recently declared by judgments of the High Court of Justice to have been unauthorised, commonly known as Forms IV. and VIII.?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I must refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer which I gave him on the 9th instant.
  Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what the answer was?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. and learned Member will see the answer in the records. The answer was given in the ordinary course.
  Mr. NEWMANasked whether the total of £368,680 for the land valuation staff represents, in addition to the salaries of that staff, including rent of offices and postage, any salaries or costs incurred in connection with the issue of and collection of any forms that may have been or are now being issued to aid members of the land valuation staff in the assessment or collection of land value duties where due, or at arriving at the site value of any hereditaments in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The figures given include all expenses in connection with the issue of forms by the valuation staff. They do not include payments which are made to the land valuation officers specially appointed for the purpose of issuing and collecting the preliminary returns, and which for the current year will amount to some £650 only.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Has the sum of £174,300 anything to do with the £68,000?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not know what sum the hon. Member is referring to. There is no such sum as that mentioned in my answer
  Mr. NEWMAN: That is the sum mentioned as the cost of issuing Form IV.

  Sanitary Administration (Harrogate).
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked what was the date of the Report on the sanitary administration of Harrogate; whether that Report was based on an inspection made fully a year previous to its issue; whether the Report referred to a small proportion of the houses in the town; and whether later sanitary reports by the medical officer of health for the borough record the remedying of the defects mentioned?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Report in question, as my right hon. Friend was careful to state on Thursday, is dated the 16th November, 1908. It is admitted that the state of affairs to which he called attention existed at the date of its publication in February, 1909. The later reports of the medical officer of health record the remedying of defects, but they also indicate that they existed to a serious extent. I am aware that action has been taken by the council since the report of the Local Government Board inspector, but inquiries that my right hon. Friend has since instituted have convinced him that there are still houses in Harrogate unfit for human habitation.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the serious injury such partial statements may do to a growing health resort?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot admit that the statements are partial. I think a good deal of the ratepayers money is often spent on the more showy portions.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: The Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted one report and not the others. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that is a fair way of dealing with the matter?

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    REPORT STAGE.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the duration of the interval between the con-

    351
    clusion of the Committee stage and the commencement of the Report stage of the National Insurance Bill; and if he can arrange that a reprint of the Bill, as amended, may be at the disposal of the Members of the House within a day or two of the termination of the proceedings in Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As I have already announced, our intention of taking the Scottish Land Bill on Friday, the two last days in Committee for the National Insurance Bill will be Monday and Tuesday next. I will give due notice of the date upon which the Report stage will be taken, but meantime I would call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that every morning the Clauses, as amended on the previous day, are circulated with the Votes. Arrangements will be made to have the full Bill circulated at the earliest moment on the completion of the Committee stage.

    CONTRIBUTIONS PAID BY INSURED CONTRIBUTORS.
    Colonel BATHURSTasked if the righ hon. Gentleman can state when he will put down the Amendment promised by the Government to alter the present provisions of the National Insurance Bill under which the contributions paid by insured contributors are forfeited in the event of their salaries being raised above £160 per annum?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Amendment in question must be made on Report, and will not be tabled until the Committee stage is completed. The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that the point will not be lost sight of.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: How is it possible to consider this question adequately during the Committee stage unless we know what Amendments are going to be introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Report stage?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The question will be considered on the Report stage.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: How will it be possible to move Amendments on the Report stage if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendments are inadequate from our point of view?

    GOVERNMENT AMENDMENTS.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would put down any Government Amendments after the Committee
    352
    stage of the Insurance Bill as soon as possible, so that Members may have some chance of considering the amended Bill before the Report stage comes on in the House?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No avoidable delay will be allowed to occur in this respect, but the hon. Member will recognise that the preparation of the Amendments will be a task of some considerable magnitude and intricacy for which time cannot be found while there are still Amendments to be prepared and considered in the Committee stage.
    Mr. HUNT: In view of the fact that the Government have put down new Clauses and Amendments to an enormous extent at very short notice, will the right hon. Gentleman promise to give a full week between the end of the Committee stage and the Report stage for the consideration of what is practically a new Bill?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is not a matter under my control.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: When will the Report stage be taken?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That I am unable to say.

    POSITION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked what would be the position under the National Insurance Bill of a teacher in a secondary school who, having commenced service at a salary of £120 a year, attains to a salary of £250?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My right hon. Friend has now under consideration the question of the position of secondary teachers in relation to the Insurance Bill.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Am I to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will put down an Amendment dealing with this question?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, if necessary.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the fact that there are over 4,000 assistant masters and over 4,500 head and assistant mistresses in secondary schools receiving annual salaries of less than £160, and that many of them have the prospect hereafter of receiving salaries in excess of this amount, he will make provision in the National Insurance Bill against the loss by secondary school

    353
    teachers in such event of the benefit of their weekly contributions, or, alternatively, exempt them altogether from the operation of the Bill, substituting a State-aided superannuation or pension fund, as in the case of elementary school teachers?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I will refer the hon. Member to the answer that I have just given to the hon. Member for London University.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: When is it proposed to translate consideration into action in this matter?
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: Will they lose their benefits of their weekly contributions if their salary rises above the limit?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Hon. Members had better wait until the Amendments are put down.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Does that apply also to the higher branches of the Civil Service?

    DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACT.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked if the right hon. Gentleman will state to what date it is now proposed to defer the commencement of the National Insurance Bill after becoming an Act of Parliament?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not in a position at present to give a definite date. There are many considerations that have to be taken into account.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is most necessary in country districts to have time to arrange the grouping of the societies?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, I quite recognise that.

    Irish National Teachers (Readjustment of Salaries and Pensions).
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chancellor whether, in accordance with his reply to the Irish national teachers' deputation in August, 1910, he would, when introducing legislation for the readjustment of salaries and pensions, also make provision for teachers who are being compelled to retire under the present age limit rule, so that they may come under the benefits of his new promised pension scheme?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot make any statement now as to the details of any scheme that may be adopted as a result of the consideration of this matter.

    Finance Act, 1910 (Repairs to Property).
    Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the fact that whereas, under the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909, Sections 14 and 15, the landlord is made liable for repairs to houses of a rental value in London of £40, in boroughs or urban districts with a population of 50,000 and upwards of £26, and elsewhere of £16, he is only entitled to relief from Income Tax under Section 69 of The Finance Act, 1910, in respect of repairs to houses not exceeding the annual value of £8; and whether he is prepared to extend the relief granted by the last-named Section at least in respect of those houses which the landlord can be compelled to maintain and repair under the former Act?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Where the landlord of a house bears the cost of repairs an allowance of one-sixth of the annual value is already made under the Finance Act of 1894 to cover this cost. The special considerations which led to the grant of an increased allowance in the case of houses of an annual value not exceeding £8 do not apply in the case of the class of houses to which the hon. Member refers.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILE: Is it proposed to do away with the anomalies existing between these two Acts in reference to this matter?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member must give me notice.

    Licence Duties (Amount Collected in Ireland).
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked what was the amount of Licence Duties collected under each of the different classes of licences in Ireland, including wholesale and brewers' licences, for the financial years ending March, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, and 1911, respectively?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The information desired by the hon. Member is given in the 50th (Cd. Paper 3686), the 51st (Cd. Paper 4226), and the 52nd (Cd. Paper 4868) Reports of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and in the 1st (Cd. Paper 5302) and 2nd (Cd. Paper 5827) Reports of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

    Industrial Alcohol Duty.
    Mr. HUNTasked (1) if the right hon. Gentleman will state what is the Excise Duty on a gallon of industrial alcohol manufactured in this country, and what is the Customs Duty on a gallon of industrial alcohol imported from abroad; (2) if he will state what is the Excise Duty on a gallon of methylated spirit manufactured in this country, and what is the Customs Duty on a gallon of methylated spirit imported from abroad?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the two kinds of methylated spirit, generally known as "industrial" and "mineralised." No Excise Duty is charged on spirits methylated in this country. No spirit other than that prepared in this country under the prescribed regulations is recognised by the Revenue authorities as methylated spirit. There is no special rate of Customs Duty on methylated spirit, and, if imported, it would pay the full Spirit Duty. Consequently no methylated spirit is imported from abroad.
    Mr. HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that in 1906 the 3d. Home Duty was taken off industrial alcohol?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put down his question.

    Small Holdings.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether county councils who have borrowed money to acquire land for small holdings are required to include in the rent payable by the tenant the amount necessary each year for the repayment of the purchase money of the holdings?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): Legal opinion is divided on the subject, and in practice some local authorities include in the rent the annual instalment required for the repayment of the purchase money and others do not.

    Swine Fever Order, 1911 (Cost in Shropshire).
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Swine Fever Order, 1911, will impose expense amounting to £1,000 a year on an agricultural county like Shropshire; and if he can state what assistance will be given out of the Exchequer to local authorities
    356
    on whom this duty is imposed to carry out the recommendation of the Departmental Committee?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no means of testing the accuracy of the Estimate referred to in the first part of the question. As the hon. Member is aware, the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, requires that the Orders of the Board shall be executed and enforced by the local authority, and there is therefore no prospect that any contribution towards the expenses will be made by the Treasury.
    Mr. COURTHOPE: Do the Government intend to ignore the unanimous recommendations of the Departmental Committee?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware that the Government have ignored those recommendations, but I am looking into the whole question, and if the hon. Member will put down a question at some future date I will give him a full answer.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Are we to understand that the question is not definitely settled?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is no prospect that any contribution towards the expenses can be made by the Treasury.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Then what is the object of the inquiry?

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Inquiry into Causes of Outbreaks).
    Mr. STANIERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can now give the constitution of the Committee to inquire into the causes of the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, and state when it will be appointed and the terms of reference?
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTalso asked when the right hon. Gentleman proposes to constitute the Departmental Committee on foot-and-mouth disease, and to announce to the House the names of its members and the terms of the reference to it?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Committee will consist of twelve members, who have been requested to inquire into the circumstances of the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and to consider whether any further measures can be adopted to prevent their recurrence. The right hon. Sir Ailwyn Fellowes has consented to act as Chairman of the Committee. The following are the other members who have consented to serve:—The hon. Member for

    357
    South Wilts, Mr. Richardson Carr, of Tring, Hertfordshire; Major E. Marten Dunne, of Gatley Park, Kingsland, Herefordshire; the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin; the hon. Member for Barkston Ash; the hon. Member for Carmarthenshire West; Mr. E. E. Morrison, of Bonnytown, Stravithie, Fifeshire; Mr. E. P. Nunneley, of Wellingborough; the hon. Member for the Newmarket Division of Cambridgeshire; and the hon. Member for North Bucks. I am endeavouring also to secure the assistance of a member of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. The veterinary and administrative officers of the Board will give the Committee every assistance. I desire, however, to arrange for the prosecution at the same time of an expert scientific inquiry into the more obscure characteristics of the disease, an inquiry which this Committee cannot be expected themselves to undertake. I am informed that the Indian Empire, where the disease is more prevalent than is, happily, the case in this country, affords a wide field for an investigation of this specialised character. I am in communication with the India Office on the subject, and I hope that it may be found possible to arrange with the Indian Government for the constitution of a small Scientific Commission consisting of two experts from this country, with whom may be associated, if the Indian Government approve, an equal number of experts appointed by them, to visit India and to study in that country the characteristics of the disease, its etiology, the means by which it is contracted and spread, and practicable means of prevention. I am aware of the difficulties which may beset the further inquiry which I propose to set on foot; but I believe that the great interests of this country in valuable livestock, and of India also, justify a more thorough scientific investigation than has been made up to the present. I am convinced that by these means we shall most effectively mitigate the loss and inconvenience suffered not only by agriculturists, but also by those whose business transactions are hampered by the restrictions which these outbreaks make it necessary to impose upon the free movement of agricultural produce.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will it be possible for the Departmental Committee to take evidence from the chief veterinary officer of the Board and other officials of his Department?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Oh, yes, certainly.

    Ireland's Life Assurance Society.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the liabilities now being contracted in Ireland by the Law Integrity Insurance Company, the National United Insurance Society, Limited, the Irish Provident Assurance Company in gremio, and the Guardian Bank, Limited, as guarantor for Ireland's Life Assurance Society, if he can ascertain and state the amount of capital available and secured to meet the liabilities of each of those bodies?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): According to the balance sheet of the Law Integrity Insurance Company, Limited, which has been issued to the shareholders of that company, the assets available to meet its liabilities at the 30th June, 1911, consisted of: Investments, £6,417; furniture and stationery, £907; outstanding premiums and agents' balances, £1,141; loans on policies and amounts due from other companies, £907; and cash at bank and in hand, £996; there were also unpaid calls or uncalled capital amounting to £1,988. The National United Insurance Society, Limited, is registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, and according to the statutory return for the year 1910, the assets available to meet the liabilities of the society consisted of: Cash at bank and in hand, £287; office furniture and stationery, £118; amount owing by members for premiums, £356; and capital on shares issued but no paid, £1,712. The Irish Provident Assurance Company, Limited, is being wound up under an order of the Irish Courts, and the Board of Trade have no information as to the assets of that company. According to the balance sheet of the Guardian Bank, Limited, which has been filed with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, the assets of the company available to meet its liabilities at the 30th June, 1911, consisted of: Cash at bank and in hand, £1,746; advances to customers, £4,731; and furniture, home safes, and stationery, £1,488. There were also on that date uncalled capital and unpaid calls amounting to £6,370.
    Mr. GINNELL: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the bogus character of the second and fourth of these bodies, they will be allowed to continue?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I must ask for notice of that.
    Mr. NANNETTI: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the managing director of the Guardian Bank has sent a letter to the President of the Board of Trade denying the statement made by the hon. Gentleman that the Guardian Bank is guarantee for any society but the bank itself?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not aware of that. Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state what available assets, if any, exist to meet the liabilities now being contracted throughout Ireland by the United National Friendly Assurance Collecting Society, and by Ireland's Life Assurance Collecting Society; and, if he is not aware of any capital secured for this purpose, whether the persons collecting money under those names will be allowed to continue?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: According to the annual returns of these societies for 1910—the last year for which information is available and the first complete year of existence of these two societies—their assets were as follows:—

    United National Friendly Assurance Collecting Society

    £76

    11

    7

    Ireland's Life Assurance Collecting Society

    £481

    7

    6

    The returns did not show any capital secured for the purpose of meeting liabilities. I am advised that the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies has no legal power to prevent the persons collecting contributions for these societies from continuing to do so.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is there any intention of amending the law in order to give the inspector power to do what is absolutely necessary?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not convinced it is necessary to give that power to the Registrar of Friendly Societies.
    Mr. GINNELLasked, in view of the facts that policyholders of the Irish Provident Assurance Company are too poor to be professionally represented in the proceedings for winding up that company, with the result that only an ex-parte view of the matter is obtained, whether the Director of Public Prosecutions in Ireland will be present or represented in the further winding-up proceedings, endeavour to accelerate them, and will ask
    360
    the Court, pending the result of those proceedings, to restrain the directors who brought the policy holders into their present condition from carrying on the same business under the same name, amalgamated with that of the London and Provincial Company, employing the same agents and organisation to collect money, and using the same Dublin office with the official liquidator?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I am informed by the Attorney-General that he has no right to appear or to be represented in the matter of the winding up of the Irish Provident Assurance Company now pending in the Court of Chancery. The Attorney-General has, however, kept himself informed of the proceedings in that matter, and has no reason to think that they have been, or will be, unnecessarily delayed. The directors of the company and the official liquidator come under the jurisdiction of the Court, and the Irish Government are not entitled to interfere.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will ascertain and say what amount of the policy holders' money has been set aside or earmarked to cover the cost of winding up the Irish Provident Assurance Company; how much of it goes to the official liquidator; how he is paid; what time limit is imposed; and whether it is usual to allow an official liquidator to work for six months in an office in which other work is being done which the Court has declared to be illegal?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The question of the hon. Member deals with matters over which the Irish Government have no control. The allocation of moneys in the matter of the winding up of the Irish Provident Assurance Company, the remuneration of the liquidator, and the conditions in which he carries on the business of his office, are within the jurisdiction of the Court, and it would be manifestly improper of the Government to make the inquiries suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. GINNELL: Are the Irish Government aware that the company is carrying on business at the present time in conjunction with another?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, I am not aware of that.
    Mr. GINNELL: It is a fact.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will ascertain and say why the Director of Public Prosecutions in Ireland has taken no action on the decision of the Court that certain policies of the Irish Provident Assurance Company were life policies, contrary to statute and to that company's articles of association, and on that company's practice of instructing their agents to cease calling for premiums, and then treating all the premiums paid as forfeited to them and the policies as lapsed, and on the conduct of the directors in first depreciating their trust property and then transferring it to themselves as directors of another company; and whether he will allow those men to prolong the winding-up proceedings indefinitely while they are victimising poor people by similar tactics?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The decision of the Court that certain policies issued by the Irish Provident Assurance Company were contrary to statute and the company's articles of association does not, in the opinion of the Attorney-General, necessarily involve the directors or agents of the company in criminal liability, but, if the inquiries which are now proceeding result in furnishing materials for a criminal prosecution proceedings will be taken against the parties who may appear to be liable.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has the Attorney-General for Ireland given any opinion on the transactions stated in the question, the depreciating of their trust property, and then transferring it to themselves under another name?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know that he has. He is watching the inquiries that are taking place in a Court of Justice, and if, in his opinion, those inquiries show a case for criminal prosecution he will not hesitate to institute it.
    Mr. GINNELL: The particular Clause to which I direct attention has appeared on the Paper three times. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the opinion of the Director of Public Prosecutions on that particular Clause?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. I am not at all disposed to interfere with judicial proceedings now pending in the Courts in Ireland.
    Mr. GINNELL: These are not judicial proceedings at all; they are financial proceedings of a dishonest character.

    Collieries (North-Eastern Area).
    Captain FABERasked why the Lidgett colliery at Tankersley has been shut down; whether the collieries in the north-eastern area, commonly known as the Furness area, are being worked at a loss; and whether they are likely to shut down?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have no other information than that published in the newspapers.

    Coal Mines Bill.
    Captain FABERasked whether the Clause in the Coal Mines Bill prohibiting women's work at the pit brow is to be deleted; if so, at what date; whether the restriction to prohibit tub-shoving will affect the women more adversely than the original Clause; and whether the evidence of the doctors is that tub-shoving cannot possibly be harmful to the women's health, seeing that they start the tub with a push of one hand?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. It is the intention of the Government to move on the Report stage of the Bill the omission of the provision which was inserted in Committee, prohibiting the employment of women, other than those already employed, on the surface of mines; and to propose that this class of employment shall be subject to certain conditions with the object of safeguarding so far as may be necessary the health of the workers. The question of the conditions necessary is now under consideration, and I am not in a position at present to make any statement. Representations have been made to me in regard to the employment of women in pushing tubs, which will receive attention, but I may say that I am advised that it is not by any means always the case that a tub can be started with a mere push of one hand.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman before making these regulations inquire from the local medical officers who attend these women, so that the regulations may be fair to them?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will bear in mind what the hon. Member says.

    Great Southern and Western Railway (Thurles Fair).
    Mr. HACKETTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the arrange-

    363
    ments made by the Great Southern and Western Railway to deal with the traffic on the occasion of the November fair at Thurles were so inadequate that it was necessary to hold over 100 wagons of cattle and horses until next day; and whether, seeing that such negligence on the part of the company in failing to provide, facilities is detrimental to the interests of the cattle and horse trade, he will take steps to prevent its recurrence?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have asked the railway company for their observations on the hon. Member's question, and I will communicate with him on receipt of their reply.

    Flannelette.
    Dr. ADDISONasked whether, in view of the Report of the Departmental Committee (Coroners) published in 1910, and the evidence afforded by coroners' inquests held on infants and children that great dangers arise from the use of inflammable kinds of flannelette, the Government is prepared to take steps to prevent the sale of flannelette which does not conform to a standard test, to be prescribed by Government, as to non-inflammability?
    Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. No steps to prevent or regulate the sale of inflammable flannelette could be taken without legislation for the purpose, and I cannot hold out any immediate hope of the Government undertaking legislation on this subject. The Committee considered the question of establishing a standard test, but regarded the suggestion as impracticable.

    Motor Cars (Imports from United States).
    Mr. FELLasked if the import of motor cars from the United States of America is increasing at a rate that is affecting the sales of the cheaper kind of English-made cars; and whether the American cars are delivered here at cost price or below cost price?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: There has been a considerable increase in the importation of motor cars from the United States of America, and no doubt these cars enter into competition with the cheaper descriptions of British-built cars. The average declared value of cars imported from the United States of America during the first nine months of this year was £164, but I have no information showing that
    364
    this average declared value, which is the wholesale value exclusive of retailers' profits or agents' commission, is less than the American factory cost.
    Mr. FELL: Are inquiries being made at what price these cars are being sold in the United States?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not aware that inquiries have been made. I will ask the question.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Has the hon. Gentleman made any allowance for the number of cars brought over for private use and taken back again?
    Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the average life of American and English motor cars?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. COOPER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that two and three-quarter times the rate of wages are paid for making these cars in America than is paid in this country?

    Delivery of Goods by Railway Companies.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the hardships sometimes suffered by farmers by the non-delivery to them by a railway company of the approximate quantity of manure or other goods alleged to have been delivered to the company, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to substitute for the usual consignment note a bill of lading for land, as well as for sea, carriage, which besides being quasi-negotiable would be in the hands of the consignee a document of title and impose upon the carrier the obligation to deliver the goods in accordance with the particulars contained in the bill and to the amount described therein?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The conditions of carriage by rail and carriage by sea are very different, and my right hon. Friend is not sure of the expediency of adopting the system of bills of lading in respect of traffic conveyed by land; more especially does it seem doubtful whether negotiable bills of lading are desirable in case of traffic by rail.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the hon. Gentleman aware such bills of lading are in use in many countries on the Continent?

    Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway.
    Sir JOHN DEWARasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that negotiations between the directors of the Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Company and the directors of the North British Railway Company have come to a deadlock and that traffic on the Invergarry Railway has been suspended; if he is aware of the sum offered by the North British Railway Company for the line; and if, under the circumstances, he will endeavour, by arbitration or otherwise, to get the two companies to arrive at an agreement so that this well-equipped railway may not become derelict?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am aware that the Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway was closed last month, after lengthy negotiations between the parties concerned, in which the Board of Trade assisted so far as they were able. I fear the Board have for the moment exhausted their good offices in the matter, and cannot usefully intervene further.
    Sir J. DEWAR: Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether legislation could be introduced to meet a case of this kind?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I should think it exceedingly unlikely.
    Mr. WATT: Will the Government consider the advisability of buying this railway, and thus beginning the nationalisation of railways?

    Land Value Duties.
    Mr. FELLasked how much of the £650,000 received from Land Value Duties since the passing of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, was collected from the tax on mineral royalties, from land increment value, and from Undeveloped Land Duty respectively?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The figure given by the hon. Member represents the amount of Land Values Duties paid into the Exchequer up to 30th September. The sum of £650,000 is made up approximately as follows:—

    Increment Value Duty

    …

    £1,000

    Undeveloped Land Duty

    …

    £12,000

    Reversion Duty

    …

    £7,000

    Mineral Rights Duty

    …

    £630,000

    £650,000

    Hygiene in Printing Works and Type Foundries.
    Mr. GILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received from the central office at the International Association for Labour Legislation at Basle a petition drawing his attention to a resolution of the association recommending the adoption of various regulations respecting hygiene in printing works and type foundries; and, if so, what reply has been sent as to what steps he proposes to take?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have received through the British section of the association a communication calling any attention to the resolution referred to in the question. The general powers which are given by the Factory Act are found sufficient at present to deal with the conditions of employment in printing works in this country, and the need for additional regulations has not yet been established. The recommendations, however, of the association have been noted and the British Section has been so informed.
    Mr. GILLasked the Home Secretary whether he has received from the central office of the International Association for Labour Legislation at Basle a petition drawing his attention to a resolution of the association recommending certain principles for the regulation of work in caissons; and, if so, what reply has been sent as to what steps he proposes to take?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have received through the British section of the association a communication calling my attention to the resolution referred to in the question. There is no power at present to make regulations in regard to caisson work, but the question has been engaging the attention of the Home Office, and proposals to give the Department power to deal with this and some other matters in connection with works of construction were contained in the Buildings and Engineering Works Bill, which has been introduced in some previous Sessions. The recommendations of the association have been noted, and will be considered in the event of the Bill becoming law.
    Mr. GILLfurther asked the Home Secretary whether he has received from the central office of the International Association for Labour Legislation at Basle a petition drawing his attention to a resolu-

    367
    tion of the association recommending that the use of lead paints and colours should be prohibited for interior work, and that all receptacles containing lead should be required to be clearly marked to that effect; and, if so, what reply has been sent as to what steps he proposes to take?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have received through the British section of the association a communication calling my attention to the resolution referred to in the question. The question of the use of lead in paints is now being investigated by two Departmental Committees, and I do not propose to take any action in the matter pending the receipt of their reports. In any case, further legislation would be necessary before effect could be given to the recommendation of the association that the use of lead should be prohibited for interior work. I have informed the British section that the recommendations have been noted.
    Mr. GILLalso asked the Home Secretary whether he has received from the central office of the International Association for Labour Legislation at Basle a petition drawing his attention to a resolution of the association recommending that the use of lead glaze should be prohibited in the manufacture of china and earthenware fired at a high temperature; that in the manufacture of earthenware fired at a low temperature a list of articles should be drawn up for which no lead should be allowed; that occupiers should be assisted by the Government in making experiments into the use of lead glazes; and, if so, what reply has been sent as to what steps he proposes to take?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have received through the British section of the association a communication calling my attention to the resolution referred to in the question. The question of the use of lead in the manufacture of pottery has recently been the subject of an exhaustive investigation in this country by a Departmental Committee, who did not see their way to recommend restrictions on the use of lead as suggested by the association, but submitted instead proposals for more stringent regulation of the conditions of employment, which the Home Office are taking steps to bring into effect. The conclusions of the Committee must, I think, in the present state of knowledge on this subject, be accepted as final.

    Morocco.
    Mr. GOLDMANasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by the Imperial Chancellor in the German Reichstag, on Thursday last, to the effect that before the "Panther" reached Agadir the British and other Governments were officially informed of the expedition; that they were at the same time informed that Germany's action was not directed to any territorial seizure in Morocco; that after the Mansion House speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 21st July, the German Government informed the British Government that the negotiations pending with France in no way affected British interests, and that if the British Government thought otherwise they were invited to communicate through the usual diplomatic channels; that the British Government made no reply, and expressed no desire to take part in the negotiations; whether, in view of these official statements, the Government will explain whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech was made with the full approval of the Government, and, if so, what was the justification for the speech, and why was no reply made to the German representations on this subject; and whether, in view of the feeling in both countries, he will take an early opportunity of explaining the attitude of His Majesty's Government in the situation that has arisen?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member's inquiry covers a number of matters of gravity and delicacy with which it is impossible to deal adequately in answer to a question. The Foreign Secretary will make a full statement in the debate which will shortly take place: I hope in next week.
    Mr. PIRIE: Is it not a menace to peace that such questions should be asked in this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather not express an opinion on that point.

    Scottish Education Debate.
    Mr. WATTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in the Scottish education discussion, arranged for on the adjournment of the House on Tuesday, the 7th instant, a count was moved, and the House adjourned in the middle of the reply of the Lord Advocate to the various points raised; and whether, in these circumstances, a further opportunity will be

    369
    given to the Lord Advocate to reply to the criticisms of the Scottish Education Department?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that on the occasion in question the Lord Advocate had almost finished his reply, and that previously there had been a very full discussion upon the allocation of the Education Fund. As the Minute is now in operation, I do not think that any good purpose is to be gained by another discussion.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member who moved the count was a Coronation baronet?
    Mr. PIRIE: Would it not have been more equitable to the rights of minorities, which are too small to keep a House and which consequently frequently suffer great hardship from the Government to have kept a House, so as to give them an opportunity of discussing what has long been felt to be a gross injustice?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think the Government acted very fairly. They gave the time asked for, and if the House was not kept it was not their fault.
    Mr. PIRIE: But when a small minority of Scotch Members receive no support from any other part of the House would it not have been more equitable and just for the Government to have acted for them and given them fair play?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think they had nearly two hours.
    Mr. WATT: Was the count moved at the instigation of anyone but the hon. Baronet who moved it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is contrary to practice to call attention to the name of the hon. Member who moves a count. It is quite competent for an hon. Member to call attention to the fact there is not a quorum, but it is not usual to mention his name: it is not done in the Press.

    Post Office Wages.
    Mr. COOPERasked the Prime Minister why, in view of the fact that the Government do not intend to lay it down as a general rule affecting all workers under the Government's control that no variation in wages will be granted pending the result of the Board of Trade inquiry, it has none the less been decided to withhold any increases in the Post Office wages until this result has become known;
    370
    and will he give the reasons for this preferential treatment?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. There will be no change of practice respecting alterations of wages in the Post Office on account of the fact that the Board of Trade inquiry is proceeding.
    Mr. COOPER: Is it proposed to give preferential treatment in this matter to questions chiefly affecting Post Office employés over other Government employés?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir.

    Prison Warders.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary whether he has sanctioned any statement to the effect that it is not intended to accede to the requests contained in the prison warders' petition?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have not sanctioned this or any other statement on the subject. The Prison Commissioners have been inquiring into the prison warders' petitions, and I have only now received their Report.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was so stated in the Press on the 4th November on the authority of a Home Office official? Has he taken any steps to inquire who that official was?
    Mr. McKENNA: I can assure the hon. Gentleman I know nothing whatever of the matter. But, if any such statement appeared in the Press, it is not true.

    Police Court Procedure (Case of H. Boulter).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the sentence of three months' imprisonment passed upon H. Boulter, at Bow Street Police Court on Friday last; whether this man was arrested at his place of business on Friday morning, taken to the police court and charged the same day, and sentenced as stated above; and what was the nature of this man's offence, and why it was necessary to proceed against him by way of a warrant and not by a summons?
    Mr. McKENNA: Owing to the grave disorder caused by the provocative language used by this man on Streatham Common on the 15th instant, it became necessary for the police in the interest of public order to take proceedings to prevent a repetition of it on the following Sunday. A

    371
    warrant was issued because it was necessary to take action immediately. He was called on to find sureties for his good behaviour or in default to go to prison for three months. I have received no representations on his behalf, and have no reason to doubt the ample justification for the proceedings taken against him.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is it the law of the country that because he uses certain language a man may be proceeded against on the morning of one day and in the afternoon taken before a magistrate, given no opportunity of consulting a legal adviser or any friend, and be summarily called upon to find a surety for £400 or else go to prison for three months?
    Mr. McKENNA: On the question of law I am informed there was no defect in the legal proceedings. On the question of merit I am quite satisfied justice was done.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to give notice that on the Motion for adjournment I shall call attention to this matter.

    Poor Law (Expenditure on Poor Relief).
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked if the decrease in the number of persons in receipt of poor relief has been accompanied by any marked decrease in the expenditure or in the rates levied for that purpose?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Materials are not yet available for a detailed reply to this question, but the returns of expenditure on the relief of the poor for the last half-year which are now being received indicate that there has been a considerable decrease in the cost of out-relief.

    Old Age Pensions (Cost of Maintenance in Union Hospitals).
    Mr. HICKS BEACHasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that old age pensioners are being admitted to union hospitals and maintained and treated therein at the cost of local rates, and are at the same time considered eligible to receive the old age pension, which is either allowed to accumulate to be drawn on discharge from the institution or is paid to some person by authority of the pensioners, such person being allowed, with the pensioner's consent, to appropriate the pension to his
    372
    own use and benefit; and whether he will introduce legislation to provide that persons shall not be eligible to receive the pension during any period in which they are being wholly maintained at the cost of local rates in a Poor Law institution, or that the guardians shall be empowered to appropriate the pension in part payment of maintenance?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Under the Statutory Regulations issued under the Old Age Pension Acts, an agent, who must be definitely appointed by the pensioner, and may be an officer of the guardians, can only draw the pension on a written undertaking to pay the amount to the pensioner forthwith, and, under Section 16 of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1849, guardians have considerable powers of recovering the cost of relief of the kind referred to from moneys coming into the possession of the recipient while in the infirmary. The class of cases to which the hon. Member refers is in any case not a numerous one, and in the circumstances explained does not appear to me to present much difficulty except in cases where the pension is allowed to accumulate pending discharge, and this difficulty has been met to some extent by the provisions of Section 5 (b) of the Old Age Pensions Act of this year, making it impossible so to accumulate a pension for a period of more than three months. The question was considered in connection with the preparation of the Old Age Pensions Bill introduced by my predecessor earlier in this Session, when it was decided to take no action, and I regret that I am not now prepared to introduce legislation on the lines suggested in the last part of the question.

    Scottish Deputations.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Lord Advocate, with reference to the Scottish deputation at Dover House on the 2nd instant, and seeing that a Return is in existence giving the expenses in other details of similar deputations in the past, if he can explain why it is impossible in the present instance for him to give an estimate of the expenses falling on the ratepayers of Scotland for the deputation in question; and could he also state the approximate number present from Scotland on that occasion, excluding Members from this House; may I also ask, as the Scottish Office seem to be unaware of the Return in question, whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the expenses of the deputations from Scotland for five years

    373
    was £37,500, or an annual average of £7,500, and whether he does not think that the annual average will be much increased this year if the practice of receiving deputations goes on?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better hear the answer.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): By applying to the local authorities concerned after their accounts have been made up, it would no doubt be possible to obtain a statement of the actual expenses occasioned by the deputation referred to. My hon. Friend asks me for an estimate. That, however, I should not be justified in making; and I see no sufficient reason for calling for another Return, considering that the general Return for Scotland referred to was issued in 1909. The approximate number of the deputation on the occasion referred to, excluding Members of this House, was about eighty.
    Mr. PIRIE: Am I to understand that the expenses of each individual are about £10, so that the expense of this deputation was about £800. Is it worth while to encourage such expenditure for the result obtained? Will the right hon. Gentleman grant a continuation of the Return if I put a Motion on the Paper?
    Mr. URE: I will see, if my hon. Friend will be so good as to give me notice.
    Mr. PIRIE: I will.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the number and the nature of the deputations from Scotland which were received at Dover House during the week beginning Monday 30th October and the respective dates on which they were received?
    Mr. URE: During the week mentioned the following deputations from Scotland were received by the Secretary for Scotland and myself at Dover House:—On Monday, 30th October, a deputation of about thirty persons, and on Tuesday, 31st October, a deputation of about thirty-five persons, representative in each case of the Corporation of Glasgow and a number of parish councils and others with reference to the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Bill; on Wednesday, 1st November, a deputation of about twenty-four persons representing the County Councils Association and the Convention of Royal Burghs with reference to the National Insurance Bill; on Thursday, 2nd November, a deputation of about eighty persons representing the various educational authorities
    374
    in Scotland with reference to the Allocation of the Education (Scotland) Fund. The numbers I have just given relate to the deputations and do not include the Members of Parliament who accompanied them.
    Mr. PIRIE: May we take it that this sort of thing has been going on every week during the Autumn Session?
    Mr. URE: No, Sir. The hon. Member may not take that as a fact.
    Mr. PIRIE: I beg to give notice that I will put a question to prove that I am nearly correct.
    Mr. WATT: Was it at the request of the Scottish Office that these large deputations came from Scotland, and can the right hon. Gentleman say if it would not be better if they went to Edinburgh?
    Mr. URE: It was not at the request of the Scottish Office. They themselves requested that they should be received in London, and that the meeting should take place after the assembling of Parliament.

    Postmen as Sorting Clerks.
    Mr. COOPERasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the fact that postmen at Oxford post-office were employed last July on the duties of sorting clerks when no overtime was being performed by sorting clerks and telegraphists; and, if so, is this a contravention of the declared policy of the Government?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As I informed the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford on the 2nd instant, there has been some misapprehension at Oxford on the subject of the employment of postmen as substitutes for sorting clerks and telegraphists, and steps have now been taken to put matters on a proper footing.

    Indian Factory Act (Appointment of Inspectors).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked if factory inspectors have been, or are about to be, appointed under the new Indian Factory Act; and, if so, how many Indians have been appointed to such positions?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The new Factory Act will not come into force until 1st July, 1912. The question of strengthening the inspection staff in the different provinces is engaging the attention of the

    375
    Government of India, but no proposals have as yet been received by the Secretary of State.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the suggestion made in the latter part of the question—the appointment of Indians to the position of factory inspectors—be taken into consideration?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It is not yet quite certain that any new inspectors will be necessary. The attention of the Government will be first directed to getting satisfactory inspection of factories. No differentiation will be made between the races.

    Education Act, 1902 (Dismissal of Teachers on Religions Grounds).
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware of the hardships arising from the exercise by the managers of non-provided schools of the power given them by Sub-section (7), Clause 3, of the Education Act of 1902, to dismiss teachers on religious grounds without any right of appeal to the education authority; and whether his Department has under consideration such an alteration of the law as will secure for public school teachers a right of appeal to a public authority?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 2nd November to a similar question put by my hon. Friend the Member for the Colne Valley Division, a copy of which I am sending the hon. Member.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. O'DOWDasked whether the Congested Districts Board have approached Colonel Wood Martin, of Cleveragh, Sligo, with the view to the purchase of his estate, situate in the townlands of Killery, Bally-somaghaun, and Ballinakill, county Sligo; and, if not, will they do so, in view of the congestion on this estate?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board communicated with the agent of this estate, and were informed that the owner did not see his way to negotiate for a sale through them, but that he was willing to sell direct to his tenants on reasonable terms?
    Mr. O'DOWDasked whether Colonel M'Clintock, of Dunmore, Carrigans, Londonderry, over twelve months ago offered his estate for sale to the Congested Districts Board, the estate situate in Coolock, Riverstown, county Sligo; and, if so, whether negotiations are now taking place in regard to the purchase of this property?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The estate referred to has not yet been offered for sale through the Congested Districts Board. The Board will now communicate with the owner.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the tenantry on the M'Loughry estate, situate in Clog-hogue, Tamplevanny, East Division, and union of Boyle (No. 2), the owner of which is Palmer M'Loughry, Esq., Riverstown, Ballymote, county Sligo, have appealed to the landlord for the purchase of their holdings under the Act of 1909; whether the landlord has refused to negotiate with the tenants; and, if not, whether action will be taken by the Congested Districts Board so that a sale may be brought about?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have no knowledge of the negotiations between owner and tenants for sale of this estate under the Act of 1909. The Board communicated with the owner asking whether he proposed to negotiate for a sale of his estate through them, but so far no definite reply has been received.
    Mr. O'DOWD: In view of the state of discontent in the poor county of Sligo by reason of the fact that most of the estates are sold while others will not be offered for sale at all, will the Congested Districts Board take action?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, they have asked the owner whether he will sell, and have received no reply. They are pressing for a reply.
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that an arrangement between the tenants on the Buchanan estate, Ballinaglera, county Leitrim, and the landlord was made for the sale of the estate in July, 1909, but, owing to the death of the landlord, it has fallen through and the tenants are now being sued for all arrears of rent; and whether, having regard to these facts, the Congested Districts Board will intervene with a view of bringing about the sale of this estate and others yet unsold in the district?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board inform me that if the estate referred to is that of Mrs. Catherine J. Buchanan and others, townland of Annagh Lower, the Board in April, 1910, gave their consent to the completion of its purchase by the Estates Commissioners. The estate comprises some 167 acres of tenanted and nine acres of untenanted lands. The owner instituted formal proceedings for its sale to the Estates Commissioners in August, 1909, and the estate will be dealt with in order of priority. In the meantime the Commissioners cannot interfere with any steps which the owner may have taken to recover any rents due.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Patrick Feehily, of Coonalaghta, county Leitrim, was granted an old age pension by the Manonhamilton sub-committee, but on appeal it was disallowed by the Local Government Board; and whether, having regard to the fact that Feehily produced affidavits from old age pensioners that he was over seventy years, that he was the fourth child of the family, and not the fifth, as stated in the Census of 1851, the Local Government Board will reconsider this application?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to his similar question on 14th February last.

    Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act.
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether the Estates Commissioners received an application from Michael M'Gowan, of Conswell, North, an evicted tenant on the Johnston estate, Kinlough, county Leitrim, for a free grant; and whether, having regard to the fact that M'Gowan was compelled to pay two years arrears of rent before being reinstated, which left him without means to work his farm or repair his house, he will be awarded a grant to enable him to stock his farm and rebuild his house?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member presumably refers to the case of Martin M'Gowan, who signed an agreement to purchase his former holding on the Johnston estate, which is the subject of direct sale proceedings under the Irish Land Act, 1903. His application has been inquired into, and is at present under consideration.
    Mr. O'SHEEasked whether Mr. John N. Wall, of Dungarvan, who was evicted within the statutory limit for non-payment of rent from two holdings, and who lodged an application under the Land Act of 1903 with the Estates Commissioners as an evicted tenant, is entitled under that Act to be provided with a holding; whether the Estates Commissioners duly noted his application about four years ago, and in their discretion decided that he was a suitable evicted tenant and that they would provide him with a holding; what are the grounds on which the Estates Commissioners are now departing from that decision; and whether it is open to them to alter their present view on sufficient grounds and to again decide to provide Mr. Wall with a holding?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to his question on this subject on the 1st instant, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. O'SHEE: Was not the right hon. Gentleman's former reply that the Commissioners did not see their way to reinstate Mr. Wall to his evicted holding, and is it not the fact that those evicted holdings are in the possession of other persons who cannot be dispossessed; and will he ask the Commissioners if they cannot see their way to reinstate Mr. Wall in another holding elsewhere?
    Mr. BIRRELL: In my former answer I stated that the Commissioners did not intend to provide Wall with a farm elsewhere.
    Mr. O'SHEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the ground on which the Commissioners refused to do so?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No; the Commissioners, for very obvious reasons, refuse to state publicly their grounds for making a refusal of this character.
    Mr. O'SHEE: Could the right hon. Gentleman give me the name of the inspector who interviewed Wall in regard to the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No; if I am not going to say anything I had better not give an opening.

    Lords Justices (Government of Ireland).
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked on what ground, having regard to the fact that in the absence of the Sovereign from Great Britain Lords Justices for the government of the kingdom have not on any occasion

    379
    been appointed since 1821, owing to increased facilities of communication which enable the Sovereign to transact business without inconvenience to the conduct of government when absent, are Lords Justices for the government of Ireland appointed on such occasions of the absence of the Lord Lieutenant from Ireland, however short that absence may be; and whether, with a view to the saving of expense, the practice of appointing Lords Justices in the absence of the Lord Lieutenant from Ireland will be discontinued as in the case of the absence of the Sovereign from Great Britain?
    Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already informed the hon. Member, if Lords Justices were not appointed during the absence of the Lord Lieutenant there would be no one in Ireland possessing the power to exercise the prerogative of mercy in criminal cases or to perform other important official acts which do not admit of delay. No expense to the public is caused by the appointment of Lords Justices.

    Housing Scheme (Kilmallock, County Limerick).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary if he will see that the Local Government Board will send down an inspector at once to carry through the inquiry into the second half-acre scheme and also the new housing scheme at Kilmallock, county Limerick; and, having regard to the fact that the council has already gone to considerable expense in connection with the scheme for additional allotments, will the request of all classes in the rural district be acceded to, namely, to carry out inquiry at once, and thus enable the workers to have the allotments fenced in by spring-time?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Kilmallock District Housing Scheme must wait its turn. Eighty-five schemes have been prepared under the new Act involving proposals for 8,750 additional cottages. These schemes will be put through by the Local Government Board in order of urgency—urgency being determined mainly by a consideration of the number of cottages already built and the total number of agricultural labourers in each district. As the average number of cottages for each rural district in Munster is 336, for Leinster 287, and Ulster 127, and as Kilmallock rural district has had no less than 1,090 sanctioned already, it certainly has no claim for its scheme to be taken out of its turn. If the
    380
    allotment scheme can be separated from the housing scheme, and an undertaking given that it will be financed by raising money for the purpose in the open market, the inquiry as to the allotment scheme can be held at once.
    Mr. LUNDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the allotment scheme has been in the hands of the council for the last two years and that they have gone to considerable expense in the incidental work?
    Mr. BIRRELL: So far as the allotment scheme is concerned—that is to say, giving the extra allotment of land for cottages already in existence—the Local Government Board will institute an inquiry at once. What they will not do is to proceed to sanction the erection of cottages in this district, which has so very amply and properly supplied itself with a much larger number of cottages than any other district in Ireland. My object is that these 8,750 new cottages should be built where at present there is a total lack of supply of this very necessary article.
    Mr. O'SHEE: As this council is more generous than any other in Ireland in providing cottages for labourers, does not the right hon. Gentleman think he ought to facilitate them if they consider they ought to provide more cottages?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, I cannot. Such allowance of money as I have been able to obtain—this extra £1,000,000—is required for the erection of cottages in those parts of Ireland where there is a lamentable deficiency of cottages.
    Mr. O'SHEE: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will suggest to the Local Government Board to send an inspector without delay?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Certainly I will.

    Shooting of the Rev. A. J. Douglas.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether he has anything to add to the reports which have appeared in the public Press with reference to the alleged shooting of the Rev. A. J. Douglas by a Portuguese official at Kango, on Lake Nyasa, and whether he can state what steps the Colonial Office is taking in connection with the incident?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have nothing to add to the reports which have appeared

    381
    in the public Press on this matter. I telegraphed yesterday to the Governor of Nyasaland requesting him to telegraph any available information, but no reply has yet been received.

ARTICLE IN "SPECTATOR."
Mr. BOOTH: I desire to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a reference to yourself in the "Spectator" of Saturday last. A suggestion is made in the leading article, which is afterwards followed up by a reference in the notes on the front page. I raise it, not because it will make any difference to our loyalty to you, but on account of its bearing on the important office you hold. The extract is as follows:
"We feel sure that in him (the Speaker) the Unionist party has a great unrealised asset, and if he can be persuaded to leave the Speakership and undertake the work it is almost impossible to exaggerate the effect which such a choice would have upon the fortunes of the Unionist party."
This, I think, is the more objectionable part:—
"The respect for and the obedience habitually shown to the Speaker would make the task of uniting the various sections of the Unionist party for him comparatively easy."
I wish to ask whether that does not reflect upon the high office which you hold?
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not understand the object of the hon. Member. I do not understand that he wishes to raise this as any breach of privilege. If he does he is, of course, four days too late. If he simply raises it in order to have my opinion I shall be very glad to give it him in private.
Earl WINTERTON: Go back to your company promoting.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Have you any objection to give the hon. Member an advertisement publicly?

POINT OF ORDER.
Mr. BOOTH: On a personal matter, I wish to say that the Noble Lord the Member for the Horsham Division of Sussex (Earl Winterton), made a personal remark to me across the floor of the House—[An HON. MEMBER: "Quite right."]—to the effect that I am a company promoter. I have never been, and it is not likely that I ever shall be a company promoter. I ask whether I am to be expected to submit to offensive observations of that kind?
Mr. SPEAKER: Members desiring to take their seats will please come to the Table.
382
Mr. E. R. B. DENNISS took his seat as Member for Oldham.
While the hon. Member was signing the roll—
Mr. BOOTHinterjected: Winterton, you are a cad.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): On a point of Order. An offensive personal observation has been made across the floor of the House by the Noble Lord opposite (Earl Winterton) to an hon. Member (Mr. Booth) on this side of the House. It was offensive, and I am assured it was untrue. I submit respectfully as a point of Order to you that the hon. Member is entitled to protection of the Chair in these circumstances.
Mr. SPEAKER: The words I caught as having been used by the Noble Lord were "Go back to your company promoting."
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: An untruthful, observation and offensive.
Mr. SPEAKER: Is it offensive?
Mr. BOOTH: It was intended to be.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must, come into court with clean hands. I do not for a moment suggest that in saying he had nothing to do with companies he said anything which was not perfectly true. I accept his statement at once, but I am bound to say that I cannot see that it is necessarily an offensive thing to suggest that the hon. Member is a company promoter.
Mr. BOOTH: May I not ask for the question to be decided, on the ground that it is untrue. Whether it is offensive or not it was meant for me. What I insist upon is that it is untrue.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Before you answer may I ask whether there is no Member of the Government present to protect the Chair?
Mr. SPEAKER: After the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) that he is not connected with any company promoting, I think it would be right if the Noble Lord withdrew his statement.
Earl WINTERTON: I regret I was misinformed that the hon. Gentleman is a company promoter. I thought it was a profession well adapted to his capabilities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
Mr. SPEAKER: That is not the proper way of withdrawing.
Earl WINTERTON: I was only giving my reason. [HON MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] My reason was that the information had been given to me some days ago that the hon. Gentleman was a company promoter. I regret that I made the statement that he was, and I fully accept his denial. I should have withdrawn the statement before, but I did not know that being a company promoter reflected any discredit.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask if the remark made twice across the floor of the House by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) as compensation to himself for the disorderly remark of my Noble Friend, "Winterton, you are a cad," is out of Order?
Mr. SPEAKER: I did not wish to call public attention to that. These words had reached my ears, and that was why I did not take any action. It also accounts for my having said that those who brought complaints should come with clean hands.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is it in order for an hon. Member, without moving a Motion, to read an extract from a newspaper containing the suggestion that the Speaker of this House is a party politician?
Mr. SPEAKER: I think I must leave the House to form its own judgment of the incident.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I always understood that it was for the Leader of the House when such a reflection was made, just as he has now championed the interests of a private Member, to have at least defended the interests of Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

NATIONAL INSURANCE [MONEY].
Resolution reported—"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of further sums towards the cost of benefits provided under any Act of the present Session relating to National Insurance, and towards the discharge of contributions payable by contributors under such Act."
4.0 P.M.
Mr. FORSTER: I understand that the Report of the Money Resolution is to be taken later on. I want to ask the Government whether in their view it would now be possible to move Amendments to the National Insurance Bill which will have
384
the effect of enlarging the Government contribution, and whether it would now be possible to get a readjustment in the scale of contributions which it is proposed to levy on the three partners in the great undertaking? I know that some hon. Members sitting below the Gangway opposite entertain the view that the contributions are not distributed justly under the proposals of the Government, and in the course of the earlier part of our proceedings various attempts were made to rearrange the burden of contributions. I would like to know, either from you, Sir, or from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether we shall now be in order, if we can find the time available under the guillotine, in discussing those Amendments?
Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman. That would be for the Chairman of the Committee. I cannot tell what Amendments will be moved in Committee.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: When this Money Resolution was before the Committee previously, we had no opportunity of discussing it at all, because it was proposed after half-past ten, under the provision of the guillotine, so we have never yet had the advantage of hearing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer why it was brought in or the amount which he anticipated would come to be paid under it. The actual form of the Resolution, as I understand, is that a further sum of an unlimited amount and not in any particular proportion to contribution will be authorised. In the previous Money Resolutions there was a strict limit, namely, that the Government were to be authorised to pay two-ninths of the benefits, which a certain set of contributions would produce under this Bill. There was, therefore, an automatic limit to the State subsidy and a proportion to the amount which the various contributors were taxing themselves. In this Resolution the amount is unlimited, and I think we ought to know from the Government whether the Government has any estimate of the extra sum that the Bill in its present amended form is likely to cost, and which makes it necessary to ask the House for this additional money. It may be a large or a small sum, but the House at present is unable to form any sort of estimate of the amount. Nor does the form of the Resolution give us any assistance. All we know apparently is that whatever checks were put upon expenditure by the first Resolution are

385
now to be removed, and consequently a series of Amendments which were proposed in Committee and were ruled out of order owing to the previous Money Resolutions, will probably now be in order, and may perhaps be moved when we come to consider the Schedule. Surely the Government must have come to some conclusion before they put down this Resolution as to the amount of money they are going to ask the House to vote.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The reason why the new Resolution is put down is because the Government have promised to consider first of all the possible burden upon the Exchequer in reference to the extension of sanatorium benefit to women and children. I am not quite sure whether it will be necessary, but as a precaution we thought it better to have it. The second reason is that the Government have already put an Amendment on the Paper to take off an extra penny from the lower grade of wages, the nine shillings a week grade, and then there is the reduction in the twelve shillings a week grade besides. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right in his view that when the question comes to be before the Chairman of the Committee the terms will enable an Amendment to be moved in the Schedule. We thought it better that the Committee of this House should be free to discuss the matter without any restriction, and we have therefore put it in this general form.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: This is an extremely unfortunate Resolution, inasmuch as it does away with the safeguard afforded by the original Resolution, and leaves it open to any single Member of Parliament to vote a sum of money to increase the contribution by the State.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: To propose to increase it.
Sir F. BANBURY: Under previous Resolutions that was not possible. It has been held over and over again that a member could not increase the two-ninths contribution by the State. Under this Resolution an Amendment is in order which may authorise a contribution by the State not of two-ninths, but of the whole nine-ninths if necessary. (Cheers.) That is cheered by hon. Members below the Gangway. Plainly they contemplate moving an Amendment for the whole of the cost to be borne by the State. That, I think, would be quite in order. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that yesterday the
386
hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. W. O'Brien) told him that while he was very lavish in his language, he was very costly in his figures. Here is an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to give to the House ample information on a very important question. All he has told us is that the reason for the Resolution is that certain fresh expenditure will be cast upon the sanatoria and that a penny has been taken off the contributions of the workmen in certain conditions. He quite avoided giving us any idea of what amount those two alterations will add to the burden on the State. There have been many important alterations in the finance of the Bill, and here was an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to have said, "I have not had an opportunity of explaining these alterations, but when I come down to the House with this important Resolution, I will take the House into my confidence and tell them, what perhaps I should have done before, what the result is going to be and what burden is about to be put upon the finances of the State." When the right hon. Gentleman and those who sit with him were in Opposition, they were never tired of denouncing the slip-shod methods of my right hon. Friends who now sit below me, and when he brings forward a Resolution of this sort, which involves an enormous sum of money, he does not give us the necessary information.
The right hon. Gentleman is always prepared to admit that his conduct when in Opposition was not always identical with his conduct in his present position, but I do not think he will deny the accuracy of my statement. It is most important that we should know what we are going to do with regard to the finances of this measure. I do not pretend to have followed all the intricacies of this measure. I hardly ever address the House now, much to my own satisfaction, and I daresay to the satisfaction of the House, but I asked an hon. Friend of mine yesterday, who has followed with great care this measure, in reference to a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, "Is that correct? I did not know that that alteration has been made?" My friend said, "Yes." I said, "How does that work in with the finances?" My friend said, "That has all gone into chaos. Nobody cares about the financial question at the present moment." Now when the right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity of telling us what he thinks this measure is going to cost the State, he should avail himself

387
of it. More than probably he does not know, or, if he does know, it is a sum so vast that he would rather not inform the country. But at any rate he must know more or less what these particular alterations which he has foreshadowed are going to cost. Is it asking him too much to give us more detailed information as to what he thinks these two alterations—the sanatorium and the penny on the lower grade of wages—are going to cost the State? I do not think that hon. Members on either side of the House quite realise the enormous importance of the financial part of this question. The expenses of the nation are now over £180,000,000. We have Consols at about 79½. The credit of the nation has been falling for many years. Here we are going to spend, I do not know whether it is seventeen or twenty-five or forty millions, but when we are going to spend enormous sums like these we are not to be told by the guardian of the National Exchequer what the result is going to be. Unfortunately, I have not got the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman, but I approach him in a serious manner, and I hope he will meet my observations in the same spirit; and I trust that the House will give him leave, which it can do if it likes, to reply to these few observations.
Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Is this Resolution limited to the two cases which the right hon. Gentleman, has mentioned—the sanatorium benefit and the additional penny? If I am right in that I do not understand the Irish position. The right hon. Gentleman said that the object was to provide only for these two cases.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Then we may take it that one of the objects of this Resolution is to meet the Irish case, where the State contribution is larger than two-ninths?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
Mr. CASSEL: I should like an explanation as to one of the new Clauses. These Financial Resolutions appear to extend the provision in connection with sanatoria. It seems that they will place Wales in a better position than other parts of the country.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can discuss that point when we reach the new Clauses.
Mr. CASSEL: There are twenty-one new Government Clauses, and I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman for an explanation of the financial effect of those Clauses. I should have waited until the new Clauses were reached, but there are twenty-one new Clauses on the Paper in the name of the Government. They deal with the case of the Marines, with domestic servants, agricultural labourers, and a number of other cases, and the Clause upon which I wish now to ask a question is number nineteen among those twenty-one.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot discuss those fresh Clauses to-day; he must wait until to-morrow.
Mr. CASSEL: I do not wish to traverse your ruling, Sir, but I wish to ask whether the financial effect of these Resolutions would not be to enable a special advantage to be given to the Welsh sanatoria as compared with sanatoria in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, that is not so. I answer it in the negative.
Mr. G. FABER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the effect of the new Resolution is to open up the whole financial question of the contribution by the State under the Bill, or whether he intends to restrict it merely to the extra benefit to be given for sanatoria, or to the contributions which under the Bill as it originally stood were made by the workmen at the lower end of the scale. If that is so, would it not have been within the rules of the House to have restricted the Resolution to those two matters, and not opened it up in blank? I can quite well understand the effect of giving the right hon. Gentleman a blank cheque to be used in any way he pleases.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In answer to what was said by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City, I propose to make a financial statement as to the effect of the 1d. There will be no increase in the charge save a prospective contingent one in connection with sanatoria. Except in regard to the Schedule, even in reference to Ireland, the Resolution does not increase the estimate of the State charge, but it alters the proportions, because there has been a reduction in the charge upon the employé. It applies in the same way to the agricultural labourer, because the proportion there again is altered, but

389
the amount of the contribution by the State is no higher than I originally contemplated. I could not have proposed the alteration without moving this Resolution, because the proportions are changed. The only possible increase is the increase in the Schedule, and there is also a contingent and possible increase, if there is a deficiency, in the case of sanatoria. That is not a blank cheque to me, it is a blank cheque to the Committee.
Mr. FABER: I am afraid that is the same thing.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If I were certain of that, I think I should find myself almost alone with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City in resisting increases.
Mr. DAVID MASON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any estimate now of what the amount is likely to be?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it is rather an unsatisfactory way to make a statement purely on an enabling Resolution, but when the new Clauses are reached I will make a financial statement;. I am quite prepared to do it.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Bill further considered in Committee.
[PROGRESS, 14th November — THIRTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

  CLAUSE 59.—(Application to Ireland.)
  This Part of this Act, in its application to Ireland, shall be subject to the following modifications:—

  (1) The reference to the Lord Chancellor shall be construed as a reference to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.

  The reference to the Lord Chief Justice shall, as respects disputes or questions arising between the Insurance Commisioners and any approved society having its head office or principal place of business in Ireland, be construed as a reference to the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland.

  References to the Local Government Board shall be construed as
  390
  references to the Local Government Board for Ireland, and the reference to the Local Taxation Account shall be construed as a reference to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account.

  (2) A reference to the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1908, shall be substituted for the reference to the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, 1890 to 1909, and a reference to the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1907, shall be substituted for the reference to the Public Health Acts.

  (3) Where the number of members of any society being insured persons exceeds five thousand, the society may receive the approval of the Insurance Commissioners notwithstanding that the number of such members is less than ten thousand, and in the provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to the approval of societies "five thousand" shall be substituted for "ten thousand" accordingly.

  (4) (a) If it appears to any county council that, having regard to the number of employed contributors resident in the county who are not members of any society approved under the foregoing provisions of this Act it is desirable that steps should be taken by the council for the establishment of an approved society for the county under the council (in this Section referred to as a county society), the council may at any time before the expiration of one year from the commencement of this Act submit to the Insurance Commisisioners a scheme for the establishment of a county society;

  (b) The scheme may provide for—

  (i) the representation of the council on the committee of management of the society;

  (ii) the appointment of officers and district and other committees by the council;

  (iii) the delegation of powers to committees;

  (iv) the giving of security by means of a charge upon the county fund or otherwise;

  (v) the restriction of membership to insured persons resident in the county not being members of any other approved society;

  391

  (vi) the reduction of benefits below the minimum rates fixed by this Part of this Act; and

  (vii) such other matters as may appear necessary and in particular such further modifications of the provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to approved societies as may be required for the purpose of adapting those provisions to the case of a county society;

  (c) The scheme may be approved notwithstanding that the number of members or prospective members of the society is less than five thousand;

  (d) Where such a scheme has been approved by the Insurance Commissioners, the provisions of the scheme shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Part of this Act; and, subject to those provisions, the county society shall be an approved society for all the purposes of this Part of this Act;

  (e) A county council desirous of submitting a scheme under this Section may at any time after the passing of this Act take such steps as appear necessary with a view to ascertaining what insured persons resident in the county are eligible and willing to become members of the proposed county society, and generally for the formation of the society;

  (5) The local health committee of a county shall consist of such number of members as may be determined by the Insurance Commissioners, and of that number not more than one-fourth shall be persons appointed by the Insurance Commissioners, and the remainder shall be appointed by the county council.

  (6) Subject to the provisions of this Section the rules of a local health committee of a county may provide for the performance of duties by officers of local authorities in connection with the administration of benefits administered by the committee, and those officers shall perform the duties so assigned to them, and shall in respect thereof be entitled to the remuneration fixed by the rules.

  (7) The following provisions shall have effect with respect to the adminis-
  392
  tration of medical benefit by a local health committee of a county in the case of deposit contributors resident in the county:—

  (a) It shall be the duty of the medical officer of health of each dispensary district in the county, without the production of any medical relief ticket, to attend and treat every deposit contributor resident in his district and requiring medical attendance or treatment, and at the expense of the guardians to supply proper and sufficient drugs and medicine to the contributor;

  (b) There shall be paid to the medical officer in respect of his services under the last preceding paragraph such yearly sum as may be prescribed in respect of each deposit contributor resident in his district;

  (c) There shall be paid to the guardians of the Poor Law union in respect of medicine and drugs supplied to deposit contributors resident in the union, or the part of the union within the county as the case may be, a sum calculated at such rate as may be prescribed;

  (d) Any sums so payable to a medical officer or board of guardians shall be paid in the prescribed manner and at the prescribed time by the local health committee out of the amount paid or credited to the committee on account of sums payable in respect of deposit contributors resident in the county for the purposes of the cost of medical benefit.

  (8) If a grant is made to a county council or county borough council out of any sum made available under any other Act of the present Session for the purposes of the provision of sanatoria and other institutions for the treatment of tuberculosis or such other diseases as the Local Government Board may with the approval of the Treasury appoint, the council may, subject to the sanction of the Local Government Board, exercise for all or any of those purposes the powers given to them by Part II. of the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1908, in like

  393
  manner as if those purposes were purposes authorised by that Part of that Act, and any expenses of the council so far as not defrayed out of the grant shall be defrayed in manner provided by that Part of that Act.

  (9) If on a representation made by an approved society the Insurance Commissioners are satisfied that the society is unable to make arrangements upon reasonable terms for the administration of medical benefit in the case of members resident in any specified locality, the Commissioners may authorise the society in the case of members resident in that locality to suspend medical benefit and out of the moneys otherwise payable for the cost of that benefit to distribute any one or more additional benefits among those members in accordance with a scheme approved by the Commissioners.

  (10) For the purposes of proceedings in Ireland under the provisions of this Part of this Act relative to disputes regulations of the Insurance Com missioners may apply all or any of the provisions of the Common Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1856, with respect to arbitration.

  Amendment proposed [14th November]: To leave out paragraph (c).—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move to leave out Sub-sections (5) and (6), and to insert instead thereof the following Subsection:—
  (5) The provisions with respect to the appointment of local health committees shall have effect subject to the following modifications, namely:—
  The number of members of a local health committee shall be twenty-four, and of that number—

  (a) twelve shall be appointed in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations of the Irish Insurance Commissioners so as to secure representation of the insured persons resident in the county or county borough who are members of approved societies, and who are deposit contributors in proportion as nearly
  394
  as may be to their respective numbers, and the regulations so made shall provide for conferring on the approved societies which have members resident in the county or county borough the power of appointing representatives of such members, and where an association of deposit contributors resident in the county or county borough has been formed under such regulations as aforesaid for conferring on such association the power of appointing the representatives of the deposit contributors,

  (b) eight (of whom at least one shall be a member of a local sanitary authority and at least two shall be women) shall be appointed by the council of the county or county borough; and

  (c) four (of whom at least two shall be duly qualified medical practitioners) shall be appointed by the Irish Insurance Commissioners;

  Provided that the Irish Insurance Commissioners may, where any part of the cost of sanatorium benefit is defrayed by the council of the county or county borough, increase the representation of the council and make a corresponding diminution in the representation of the insured persons.
  Mr. FORSTER: Shall I be in order in offering one or two general observations on this Amendment? They will not take very long.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is a question of striking out Sub-sections (5) and (6), and inserting instead thereof the new provisions with regard to the appointment of local health committees. Anything on that point would be in order.
  Mr. FORSTER: I wished really to call attention to the position of the deposit contributors, and this seems to me the only place where I can do it. So far as I can see the deposit, contributor comes in the earlier lines of this Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman can only refer to the deposit contributors on this particular Amendment in so far as he refers to their representation on the health committees. I think that is the only way in which we can go into this matter.
  Mr. FORSTER: I think that pretty well covers the point I want to make, which is

  395
  this: I think we have got to face the possibility, at any rate, of the proportion of the deposit contributors being larger in Ireland than elsewhere. In my judgment the proportion of deposit contributors amongst all the classes of insured persons will be larger there than in other parts of the country. Therefore, I wanted to refer to the difficulty which might arise in getting representation on the local health committees. The reason why I say that in my view there is a possibility of the deposit contributors being more numerous in proportion in Ireland than elsewhere, is this: Supposing there is any strong opposition on the part of the lower members of the community towards the approved societies in Ireland, not to put too fine a point upon it, supposing that the Roman Catholic hierarchy are directly against the approved societies, then it seems to me that those members of the Irish community who give the fullest measure of obedience to the direction of the hierarchy, will not join the societies, but will become deposit contributors. I make no secret of the fact that I speak in the very greatest ignorance of the condition of affairs in Ireland, and I am perfectly unable to say whether or not there is any real danger to the scheme in the suggested hostility on the part of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Hon. Members sitting below the Gangway told us yesterday very frankly—and they quoted statements in support of what they said, and they were not wholly contradicted by those who did not agree with them—that the Roman Catholic hierarchy are opposed to the establishment of those approved societies.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have never heard of that. They are opposed to a particular society.
  Mr. FORSTER: They are opposed to a particular society. Supposing they could not get that society eliminated or disqualified, and that there was risk that they would carry their opposition further, would there not then be ground for believing that the number of deposit contributors would be larger in proportion? What facilities are offered to the deposit contributors to form associations by means of which they can secure representation on the local health committee? There would be no one among the deposit contributors to take the lead, and the right hon. Gentleman knows how much depends upon the lead which is given in starting an association of any
  396
  kind. The existing societies have their leaders and their organisations, but to start new associations of new deposit contributors all over the country seems to me to be a very difficult undertaking. Who is going to take the first step? There is nothing in the Bill to say that the first step is to be taken by the local health committee, or whether the Insurance Commissioners are to stir themselves in the matter. It is left entirely to the deposit contributors themselves to take their own initiative. When you remember that, whereas in all probability the deposit contributors may be drawn from scattered districts, the right hon. Gentleman will see how difficult it will be for anyone to undertake the lead in forming associations—which are their only means of obtaining representation upon the local health committee—in connection with the administration of the benefits. The reason for my rising to put the question to the right hon. Gentleman is that the machinery proposed to be created is in order that the deposit contributor may have representation on the local health committee.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. Gentleman is arguing on a false assumption altogether with regard to the facts. Last night, no doubt, there were statements made as to the hierarchy and that they were opposed to one particular society, and that that was for a special reason. Whether that is true or not, I do not know, but assuming that it is so, that does not mean that the Roman Catholic bishops are opposed to the formation of other societies. As to the facts in Ireland, I do not pretend to have any special knowledge, but I trust that there will be fewer deposit contributors in Ireland than in this country. I believe it will be found that other societies will be formed, and the more opposed the Roman Catholic hierarchy are to the Ancient Order of Hibernians the greater, I should have thought, would be the incentive to form other societies in opposition. I do not doubt that there will be other societies formed in Ireland. I am sure that if the Irish people find it to their advantage to be in a society rather than to be deposit contributors, that they will join the societies. It is to their advantage undoubtedly to join societies of one kind or another, rather than to be deposit contributors. There is no difference really in Ireland from England, Wales, or Scotland, as to the position of the deposit contributor. There is no doubt there is a difficulty if they are scattered, but that is the difficulty of the

  397
  deposit contributor. It will be very difficult no doubt to form associations of them. If you get a man amongst them of great organising ability and force of character to gather together these poor remnants and form them into associations, then you will get them. Otherwise, there is a real danger that you cannot have them organised and that they will not get representation on the committees. That is one of the difficulties of the deposit contributor, and that is why we are making the deposit contributor a purely temporary provision rather than a permanent one.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting statement, with which I would agree but for one thing. He is thinking of England, where you will have medical benefits in your society, while in Ireland in the society the man would have to pay on the double. What are societies formed for? They are formed largely for the purpose of getting medical benefit and the position in Ireland will now be that you will have to pay into your society to get medical benefit from the society as you get none from the State. You are to pay the State contribution also, so that really the right hon. Gentleman, I must acknowledge, has been forced into making a visionary concession, but he is omitting to take into account the effect of this so-called concession. I am disposed, therefore, while agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman under normal conditions, to agree with the hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench. You are giving the friendly societies in England an enormous attraction so far as the working man is concerned. You are relieving them of contribution for medical benefits. Why should a man in Ireland join a society if that society is not going to give him what he most expects—I mean medical benefit. You may tell me that he will get other advantages, such as sick benefit and maternity benefit, and so forth, but I respectfully think, although I do not pretend to any special knowledge on the point, that most people join societies for the purpose of getting medical benefit. A great many societies give medical benefit not only for the members but for their wives and children. While I am not disposed to doubt the right hon. Gentleman's statements generally, I think his forecast in this case is extremely unsound.
  Mr. MOUNT: I would like to ask, what is the reason of the difference in the com-
  398
  position of the health committee in Ireland as compared with England? The county councils in England get a representation of one-third and in Ireland two-thirds. I think, if there was any reason why any part of the United Kingdom should have a greater share of representation than another on the health committees it should be in the case of England, partly for the reason which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has mentioned of the difficulty of organising the deposit contributor and in getting his opinions formulated for the committees, and, secondly, because in Ireland no medical benefits are to be given to insured persons. One of the reasons why representation is given to the county councils in the case of England is because there is a possibility, and, I think, a great probability, that certain burdens will be placed on the rates because of the excessive expenditure that will have to fall on the local health committees for medical benefits. That cannot occur in the case of Ireland. I should very much like to know what is the reason why you have got in Ireland a greater proportion of representation of the county councils than in England? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Debate we had the other day with regard to the composition of the local health committees, said:—
  "I trust that the Committee will come to the conclusion that the demand of the friendly societies and trade unions and others is a perfectly fair one, namely, that, as much of the money is to be contributed by these bodies, the power of administering it should also be triven to them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1911, col. 1682.]
  If that is true with regard to England, it is even more true with regard to Ireland.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): There is this great difference between Ireland and England and Scotland, that there are already in England and Scotland some five millions of persons in friendly societies and trade unions, whereas in Ireland, although I should be sorry to say what the existing figure is, it is a very small one. Our hopes are that in the future there will be established in Ireland a large number of friendly societies. At present what is called the friendly society feeling does not get its full and free play in Ireland. Consequently it is necessary in the absence of those societies to give the county councils in Ireland a larger share of representation than would be undoubtedly given to them if the position of things had been the same there as in England.
  Mr. LARDNER: The view of the hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench is entirely unfounded. I am a member of a society, a friendly society incorporated under Act of Parliament. It is a non-sectarian society, but the majority of its members are Catholics. On several occasions we have received the approval, not alone of the clergy of the various parishes, but also of the Cardinal and Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland, while many of the clergy are honorary members. No doubt what is operating in the mind of the hon. Member is that, in bygone days, owing to various political exigencies, there were secret, oath-bound societies, which the hierarchy never failed to denounce. Those are not the societies that will have representation on the health committees. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North East, Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), expressed the view that the very reason why insured persons would not join friendly societies was because there was no medical benefit under the Bill. That is the very reason why they will join, because the friendly societies at the present moment are giving medical benefits, not alone to the insured persons but to their wives and families for a smaller contribution than the Bill provides here per individual, so that, as circumstances are at present, assuming that the Bill was passed, not alone is it not likely that the Irish people will be such fools as to remain as deposit contributors, but there is an inducement owing to the absence of medical benefits to go into the societies, and as quickly as they can.
  Mr. MOUNT: I should have thought that the arguments of the Chief Secretary were in favour of greater representation for insured persons in Ireland rather than for uninsured persons.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: So far as I can make out, the representation of the county councils in England is to be one-third, and it is to be the same in Ireland.
  Mr. MOUNT: It is not a third in England.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: The original Clause provided that a third should be elected by the members of the county council. The amended Clause provides that two-thirds shall be elected in a particular manner, and that one-half of that two-thirds, which, I take it, is one-third, shall be elected by the county council.
  Mr. MOUNT: It is not two-thirds of the whole number, but of the number appointed under Sub-section (2).
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Of the remaining members of the committee one-third is to be appointed in England. The criticism I would make on this Clause is as to the number of persons selected by the county council who are members of local sanitary authorities. The original Clause provided that of the one-third selected by the county council that they should consist wholly or partly of members of the local sanitary authority. The amended Clause provides that the local sanitary authority is to get substantial representation. In Ireland the one-third of the local health committee, which is to be selected by the county council, need only contain one member of a local sanitary authority. I understand that the function of these health committees is to exercise a kind of general supervision over the sanitary work of the local bodies to see that the local sanitary authority does its duty in sanitary matters. If it neglects its duty in carrying out sanitary work or in looking after sanitation or seeing that the dwellings of the people are kept in a sanitary condition, the local health committee have in such a case jurisdiction. To some extent it may call for a levy on the rates if disease follows through neglect by the sanitary authorities of their duties in that respect. That being so, it appears to me that the English precedent has been partly followed in giving the local sanitary authorities larger representation on the public health committee. In Ireland, and I suppose in England, the county councils have never anything to do with sanitary work. They do not enforce the sanitary laws. When you come to deal with a county borough it is different, because the council is both county council for the borough and sanitary authority. My complaint is that that has no application to my own Constituency, because the county council for the borough is the sanitary authority. Take the case of the great county of Cork. There are plenty of local sanitary authorities in that county—the urban sanitary authority of Queenstown, and so on. To give these bodies only one representative on the local health committees is to deal with them rather unfairly. In the first place it would be an ambiguous distinction to make. For one body of the local authority in a county to have representation on a local health committee

  401
  and none of the others, would set up rivalry and complaints of unfair treatment. The object of giving these local sanitary authorities any representation on the local health committee is to enable their voices to be heard and to enable them to defend themselves. I confess that if I had the framing of this Clause I would not at all quarrel with making the county council the selecting body, but I would be disposed to say that the representatives selected by the county council should be drawn in a much larger proportion from the local sanitary authorities than is proposed.
  Mr. O'SHEE: Probably 800,000 persons will be insured under this Bill in Ireland. At the present time there are certainly not 100,000 persons in benefit societies in Ireland. There are only 20,000 or thereabouts members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians in the benefit section of that society, and probably there are only 20,000 more in the Foresters. Ireland, practically speaking, is unorganised as regards the vast majority of the persons who could be insured under this Bill. It is most desirable that at the beginning of this system of insurance men of affairs, such as representatives of the county councils, should have at least one-third of the entire membership of the local health committees. County councils are entitled to appoint eight. At least one of those shall be a member of the local sanitary authority, and at least two shall be women. May I point out that the county councils include the chairmen of every rural district in that county, and the rural district council is the sanitary authority in the rural district. Therefore we should have the chairman of every rural district council members of the county council by reason of their office. The county council can select from the chairmen of the rural district councils in the county their representatives on those committees, and they can also select women. Women are in increasing numbers becoming members of rural sanitary authorities. Therefore the sanitary authorities in Ireland can have a full and fair representation on these committees. It is not desirable that the sanitary authorities should have any large representation on these health committees, one of the principal objects for which they are set up being to supervise and stir up the sanitary authorities themselves. The proposal that insured persons should have half the entire number on these committees is a reasonable and fair proposal.
  402
  Very few people in Ireland out of the vast number who will be insured under this Bill will have any experience of benefit societies and their work.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (7), and to insert instead thereof the following words,
  (7) An insured person in Ireland shall not be entitled to medical benefit under this Part of this Act, and the provisions with respect to medical benefit shall not apply;
  Provided that medical benefit for an insured person being a member of an approved society shall be deemed to be included amongst the additional benefits specified in Part II. of the Fourth Schedule to this Act;
  (8) As respects employed contributors in Ireland, the employed rate shall be the rate specified in Part II. of the Second Schedule to this Act, and the contributions by the contributors and contributions by the employers shall be at the rates specified in Part II. instead of the rates specified in Part I. of that Schedule, and there shall be credited to the society of which any employed contributor in Ireland is a member or, if he is a deposit contributor, to his account in the Post Office fund, the difference between the amount of contributions actually paid by or in respect of him at the rate specified in Part II. of the Second Schedule to this Act and the amount which would have been paid if those contributions had been at the rate specified in Part I. of that Schedule, and the amount of that difference shall be treated as having been expended on benefits and the proper proportion thereof shall accordingly be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament;
  (9) The foregoing provisions of this Section as to the crediting of differences shall apply in the case of voluntary contributors in Ireland, with the modification that where the voluntary rate is not the same as the employed rate the difference to be credited shall be the difference between the amount of contributions actually paid at the voluntary rate and the amount which would have been paid if the contributor had been a voluntary contributor in Great Britain;
  Provided that in the case of a married woman in Ireland becoming a voluntary contributor at reduced rates of benefit

  403
  under the special provisions with respect to married women, the rate of contributions payable by her shall be one penny halfpenny a week instead of three pence a week, and the difference to be credited shall be one penny halfpenny a week accordingly;
  (10) In estimating for the purpose of valuation the liabilities of an approved society having members in Ireland who are insured persons, and in ascertaining the voluntary rate applicable to voluntary contributors in Ireland in cases where that rate is not the same as the employed rate, regard shall be had both to the provisions of this Section as to the crediting of differences and to the proportion of benefits to be paid out of the contributions payable by or in respect of such members or contributors;
  (11) Rules of an approved society or local health committee under this Part of this Act may provide for the inspection of medical relief registers by officers of the society or committee at all reasonable times and for the furnishing to the society or committee of such medical certificates as may be necessary for the purposes of the administration of the benefits administered by the society or committee and for the payment by the society or committee to duly qualified medical practitioners of such remuneration in respect of the furnishing of those certificates as the Irish Insurance Commissioners may sanction and all payments so made by the society or committee shall be treated as expenses of administering the benefits aforesaid.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: May I have an explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the finance of this Amendment? I think I am correct in saying that this is the third form the Amendment has taken since it was drafted. I would like to get from the right hon. Gentleman some explanation as to how the provision works out. I may be grossly wrong, but it is all, I understand, for the purpose of enabling the original computation of two-ninths still to stand, and to enable a society or a deposit contributor to claim two-ninths as being the original figure instead of paying a reduced contribution. If I am right in so considering this, it is a very complicated and unnecessary machinery to achieve a simple result. At any rate, I shall be glad of the assurance that my reading of the
  404
  Clause is correct. I do not understand why the original framing of it did not contain these important words now proposed: "and the proper portion thereof shall accordingly be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament." It appears to me that these words were absolutely necessary to keep up the State contribution at its original figure.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman has stated so fairly and so clearly the case that I have little to add. This is the nature of the operation. It would be all very simple if you were dealing with persons entering at the age of sixteen. There is a deficiency credited owing to the fact that the ages have been equalised. Therefore we put it in the form of two-ninths in regard to England and Wales, and in this form so far as Ireland is concerned. If you put two-ninths here in this Amendment, Ireland would get less. In order to give Ireland her 2d. we have got to put it in this form. Each individual contributor must be treated as if he were paying the same amount as we pay in England so far as the State is concerned; but only so far as the State contribution is concerned. The matter is complicated. The words have been put in, it being discovered that they were necessary, as the only way in which we can carry out the intentions of the Government, and so make it perfectly clear that Ireland shall get exactly the same State contribution as England, Scotland, and Wales, in spite of the fact that her own contribution is less. We have got the same operation, more or less, in the case of the agricultural labourers in this country, where the contribution is reduced.
  Mr. FORSTER: I sympathise with the hon. and learned Member who has raised the point. I am not in the least surprised at his difficulty in interpreting the meaning of the Amendment. I confess I found it extremely difficult in following the various suggestions contained in it. It took me a considerable time before I was able to discover what was the effect of treating a reduction of contribution as a benefit. That is a thing that really restores to the contributor the full value of the State contribution. The hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly right when he said that it is crediting the society with a fictitious sum which it does not actually receive, and you debit it with a benefit which it is not actually paying. That describes the operation quite accurately. The hon. and learned Gentleman read out

  405
  the words of the Clause to which he attributed the receipt of the State contribution in full. It is only that we are going to treat a reduction of contribution as a benefit in respect of a benefit which the society actually receives in cash from the State the proportion of the amount which the State ought to pay. So far as I can see this does actually raise the State contribution to 2d. in the case of the younger members of societies.
  I do not know whether I will be in order to say a few words about the proposal of the Chancellor which is contained in the opening lines of the Amendment. I think it ought to be amended. I refer to the elimination of the medical benefit altogether from the scale of ordinary benefits which the Bill proposes. As I understand the matter, you take out the medical benefit here because there is throughout Ireland a network of dispensaries from which all the poorer members of the community can get medical treatment. I have talked the matter over with Irishmen, and it seems to me that some people take the view that that medical administration suffers from the taint of pauperism. People who take these medical benefits and get their doctoring and free drugs at the cost of the rates are branded, it is said, with the taint of pauperism. On the other hand, some say that this is not so; that people do not think any the worse of their neighbours in Ireland because those who are poor go to these dispensaries. There is not, in a word, the same feeling against these things as there would be in England. I have always been very anxious to keep the question of pauperism, and so forth, wholly out of our scheme of insurance. If I were left to my own free will I am not at all sure I should not stick to the medical benefit provided under the Bill, and not keep it out as the right hon. Gentleman has done. He says that he has acted in concert with those who claim to represent very largely the poorer members of the community. If they are able to assure us that this risk of the taint of pauperism is not so widespread as it would be in this country under similar circumstances, then perhaps the experiment is worth trying.
  I should like someone who speaks with authority from the opposite benches to tell me whether or not there are some people amongst the poorer members of the community who will, when this Bill becomes law, refuse to avail themselves of the dispensary treatment which is now
  406
  open to them. If there is any danger of that, then I am not sure that we ought not to give an option to them—if one can be given—either to pay their full contributions and get full benefit under the Bill, or at their own option to make payment on the lower scale of contribution and take their medical benefits at the hands of the community. This is a point that ought to be considered, and I do not think that we ought to lay down hard and fast terms in respect of it. The right hon. Gentleman will say that this medical treatment may be given by way of additional benefits. They may be given after the expiration of three years after there has been a valuation and if the funds of the society show a sufficient surplus to enable that to be done. But the poor deposit contributor, who is always presenting his hard case to my mind, has no opportunity of getting any additional benefits at all. The deposit contributor, under this Bill as amended will have to make up his mind either to take his doctor and drugs at the cost of the rates, or else pay for them out of his own pocket.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us yesterday that the success of this scheme in Ireland would depend on its administration. I agree. I believe that the societies in Ireland will take a most careful and scrupulous care in administration; only they are saddled with the burden, and I am not sure how heavy a burden it is, but it is this: Medical benefit is given at the cost of the rates. Sickness benefits come out of the funds of the society, with the aid of the contribution of the State. Sickness benefit is only payable on the certificate of a doctor. In England the certificate will of course be given by the doctor who attends the patient. There will be no charge, as I apprehend. The certificate will be included in the cost of medical benefit. But, if I understand the matter aright, in Ireland the doctor who attends the patient is not necessarily the doctor who will give the society the certificate. If I read the Amendment aright the society will be able to employ doctors of its own, and to grant a certificate for the payment of sick pay. Is the cost of paying for that certificate to be paid out of the administration charges of the society? I do not know whether it is going to be a heavy burden or not, whether it is to be 6d. or 1s. or what. It is going to constitute a charge which the societies will have to bear, not as far as the expense of medical benefits are concerned, but as part of the Irish administration, and

  407
  that is a charge which the Scotch societies will not have to bear.
  I am a little anxious about the administration of this scheme in Ireland, because, as hon. Members from Ireland have told us, the friendly society movement has covered very little ground there, and comparatively speaking, there are very few men in Ireland who have any experience of friendly society work. I do not envy the task they will have to undertake when they create approved societies and are saddled with the responsibility of carrying out this scheme. We all know, and are rather glad to admit, that the Irishman is generally speaking, a very able man, but I do not think he is ever abundantly distinguished for strict economy. Strict and ruthless economy will be essential if the funds of the Irish societies are to remain solvent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the creation of a body of Insurance Commissioners in Scotland necessarily meant the establishment of a purely Scottish fund. The same thing occurs for Ireland. The establishment of Insurance Commissioners for Ireland necessarily involves the creation of a separate fund for Irish insurance. I confess I am not very happy about the prospects of the Irish fund. I am not going into the matter at any length, but I wish to suggest one or two lines of thought that I should like the Committee to have before them. I have had a conversation with an eminent Irish actuary about the question whether it would be easy to find an actuarial basis upon which to build up an Irish contribution and an Irish fund, and he said it was more difficult in Ireland than in England. He told me he had to examine the tables of some societies and to look through their accounts, and he found that in the case of Ireland it was necessary to add cent. per cent. to the Irish tables on account of the higher rates of sickness, not because the Irishman was more unhealthy or suffered from more sickness than the Englishman, but because there was always a difficulty that seemed insuperable of ascertaining with precision the age of an Irishman.
  That difficulty has not been unknown in the case of old age pensions. In this case, I think there is the danger of the Irishman taking part in that process of rejuvenation which lies so close to the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that might easily constitute a danger to the fund. That danger cannot be left out of account when considering whether or not the fund for Ireland is going to start on a
  408
  solvent basis. Of course, in Ireland, in the case of the younger men the same difficulty does not exist in ascertaining ages. There is a registrar of births and so on, as there is in England. You can prove the ages of the younger men in Ireland as easily as in England or Scotland, but in the case of the men in middle life who come into the scheme for the first time if they have an opportunity of rating their age five years too low that may very well have the effect of making every fund in Ireland insolvent.
  Mr. DILLON: Similar statements were made with regard to old age pensions.
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes, but the fact here is far more serious than in the case of old age pensions. In the case of old age pensions it was a question of whether a man was seventy or not. If he was seventy he got his pension, and if not, he did not get it. Every man interested in this scheme in Ireland will have to see that these things are put upon a fairly sound basis. There is the further point of the doctor who treats a patient being wholly independent of the society that administers the sick pay. Of course, everybody knows the warm and generous instincts of the medical profession. The Irish race and everybody who had a chance would feel the temptation of saying to a man who thought himself sick he might have the benefit of the doubt, and would recommend that at any rate he should get such treatment as would enable him to draw-sick pay from his society. Unless the societies are able to exercise the most rigid supervision over cases of sickness for which they have to pay there will be thrown upon their funds a burden they will not be able to stand, and some means should be found to give the friendly societies power, either by employing doctors of their own, or by visiting the man who is sick, for the purpose of ascertaining for themselves whether or not he is fairly entitled to sick benefit before it is paid.
  These are the reasons which prompt me to think that the outlook for the Irish fund is not so rosy as I should like to see it. Of course, there is the argument which tells in the other direction. It may be said, "granted that you are right, at any rate there is a margin which would protect the fund from any dangers such as you foresee," and it may also be said that the general wages of agricultural labourers in Ireland are so low that the

  409
  benefits the funds would have to bear would not be the full benefit of 10s., which would have, to be paid to more highly paid labourers in England, and that as the average wage of agricultural labourers in Ireland is little over 11s. a, week, it is more than likely in a very large number of cases the full benefit would not be paid and on that account the funds would gain some credit. That is an argument which would console me from the point of view of finance, but it does not console me when I inquire whether a man is to get full value for the contribution he pays. The contribution he pays is a contribution that will provide for full payment of 10s. a week in case of sickness, and it will be no consolation to the Irish labourer to know he must pay full contribution, but will get no more than 8s. or 9s. a week benefit when he falls sick.
  There is one further source from which the Irish fund will derive contribution free of charge. Under the Amendment we are told that the migratory labourer who is not an employed person in Ireland, tout comes over to Great Britain to take part in harvesting operations and so forth, has to take back with him as credit to the Irish fund all contributions his British employer has provided, while he was employed in Great Britain. That is very desirable from the point of view of the Irish fund, but will it commend itself to the British employer? This labourer is not an employed person in Ireland; he is an independent man in Ireland; he comes over to work in this country, and simply because he is employed here his British employer has to put the stamps into his book. These stamps are going to confer no benefit upon that man; when he goes back to Ireland he is going to derive no benefit from the Irish fund. That means an extra from the British employer that may well prevent him employing Irishmen in that task. I think that we in Great Britain will make a very strong endeavour to get any money contributed by British farmers reserved to the credit of the British fund, and not reserved to the credit of the Irish fund. One other point, and that is in connection with the remarks which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, when he said that Ireland would derive the full benefit of every sixpence contributed under this insurance scheme, and that every penny would be spent in Ireland. They will up to a certain point, tout we were reminded yesterday of the man who leaves Ireland and comes to Glasgow or some other place
  410
  and becomes an employed contributor in Great Britain. He has to change his insurance from the Irish to the British fund, and in respect of him there is to be paid the transfer value, and this time it is not a probable transfer value, but the full rate of contribution toy the man himself and the full benefits. That may throw an additional burden upon the Irish fund. Hon. Members who have followed the Debate on the financial part of this Bill will remember that the transfer value stands at a higher figure than the reserve value. The transfer value will have to be made good out of the Irish fund, because I cannot see any other fund from which the money can be drawn. I have said this because I do not feel entirely happy at the prospect of the solvency of these Irish funds. The administration is bound to be put into the hands of men who are not experienced in these matters, and I am afraid lest they should take a more charitable view of their duties than they would take if they had had more practice in similar institutions which had to stand wholly and entirely on their own bottom. I confess that the Debate of yesterday augurs ill for the success of this scheme in Ireland. Yesterday we saw how largely personal matters enter into proceedings which ought to have no party bias, or personal bias of any sort or kind. Unless hon. Members belonging to all parties in Ireland are going to combine in an endeavour to carry out purely for the good of the general community this Bill, they will not succeed, and if they bring disaster by allowing their own personal, bitter differences to prevent this Act toeing carried to a successful issue, then they, and they alone, will have to bear the blame.
  Mr. DILLON: I wish to say a few words on the question of medical benefits, but before I come to that particular subject I wish to allude to one or two points made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. With regard to the case of the migratory labourers to England—and I have 8,000 of them in my Constituency—I wish to explain to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) that it is a matter of absolute indifference to us whether the English farmer has to pay the Irish labourers' contributions or not. That has got to be settled by the representatives of the English farmers, and it is a matter for the English people to consider themselves. If they do pay those contributions, clearly it is manifestly just that the contributions should follow the labourers. Any contribution by the State or the

  411
  employers really goes to the labourer, whether he resides in England, Scotland, or Ireland.
  Mr. FORSTER: I have given the hon. Member a false impression. The labourer will not have to pay anything, because he will have an exemption. This money will only be paid by the British employer, and it cannot confer any benefit upon the labourer.
  Mr. DILLON: It would confer a benefit on the man, because he might become a voluntary insurer. In the future, when the benefits of this Insurance Bill come to be understood, a great many of these men will become voluntary insurers. Whenever the migratory labourer decides to become an insured person all these contributions will be carried to his credit. We do not urge that the English farmer should pay the contributions of the Irish labourers, because it is for them to judge in the matter, but I must point out that the English farmer is not conferring a benefit on the Irish labourer by employing him. For years and years I have been intimately connected with these men, and I know there is a competition amongst English farmers to get their labour. They are exceedingly valuable labourers, and the English farmers are competing for this labour. The Irish labourer has this peculiar value, that his labour is always available when you want him at times of great pressure, and when it is no longer wanted it is cleared away, and the men return to their own homes and give no trouble to anyone, and they are ready to return again to this country when the pressure arises here for their work. Therefore it is not a question of a favour to these men to employ them. I may mention that many hon. Members of this House have come to me on more than one occasion and have asked me to put them in communication with the local labourers in Mayo, so that they may be able to get some of those labourers from my district. These men are sought for, and I really do not think that the hon. Member need trouble his mind upon that score. If any hon. Member chooses to move that the English employer should be exempted from all charge in respect of these casual labourers, we are not disposed to oppose it.
  Hon. Members have expressed commiseration for the large section of the Irish people who will be in the position of Post Office contributors, and the hon. Member said he was afraid that would have a
  412
  strong tendency to make this Act a failure in Ireland. I do not share that alarm. I think that one of the greatest benefits to be conferred upon the Irish people by the working of this Act is that the system which is so prevalent in this country, and which is much less prevalent in Ireland, of the labouring people being banded together in benefit societies, will enormously spread in Ireland, and I believe great masses of people in the various districts in Ireland where these societies have not hitherto been formed, when they realise that up to the present the machinery of these societies has not been understood—the Irish are very quick to take up anything new—when they see how much better off that section of the working people are who have enrolled in these societies, you will find those societies springing up all over Ireland like mushrooms. I think this Bill will confer a very great benefit on the Irish workers altogether outside the money benefits of the Act. It will induce them to form these societies, and on that point I Jo not think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks, need be troubled. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned his great anxiety because the Irish people are not distinguished for strict economy, and I know it used to be generally accepted as one of the characteristics of the Irish people that they were very free with their money. I heard the same warning addressed to this House when the Local Government Act was passed. I remember that we were told that the great danger was that extravagance would become rampant and that the taxpayers and the ratepayers would become bankrupt. What has been the result of the operation of the Local Government Act in Ireland during the last sixteen years? If the right hon. Gentleman will consult the annual reports which have been issued on this subject, he will find that they bear overwhelming testimony to the economy and good administration of Irish local bodies.
  Mr. W. MOORE: The rates have gone up.
  Mr. DILLON: At any rate in my district the rates have been reduced. I know that in some of the rural districts the rates have been increased by expenses put upon them by Parliament for the cost of extra police, but this has not been a voluntary charge. The Local Government Act in Ireland has proved that by throwing responsibility upon the people, you always have a tendency towards economy. If people have

  413
  no sense of responsibility and their economy does not relieve their own pockets, you will never find people economical. The one way to practice economy is to bring home to the people and to those who represent them, their responsibility and the effects of extravagance. It is a very curious thing that throughout these discussions, both on the Scotch night and on the two days given to the Irish Clause, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been over and over again attacked for yielding to opinion. Really this is a most extraordinary charge. I have been in this House for a great many years, and I have been continually hearing English Ministers abused and attacked because they would not give way to public opinion. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given way to Irish opinion on a great many points, and amongst others he has given way upon this question of medical benefits. So far as I am personally concerned, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I would rather see the medical benefits left untouched. If I had had my own way I would have left the Bill as regards contributions and medical benefits untouched, but we have to give way to Irish opinion, and I have yielded to it. We took the greatest possible care to ascertain what, was the popular opinion in Ireland. We have heard a good deal about the pauper taint and the grievance inflicted upon Ireland by the omission of medical benefits.
  When this Bill was introduced we were assailed in many parts of Ireland by the very men who are now lamenting the loss of the medical benefits, and we were attacked for giving medical benefits which they said they had got already all over the country. That argument emanated from the critics of the Bill, and they asked why the Irish people were to pay twice over for the same thing. We were told that they had medical benefits, dispensaries, and doctors, and I was greatly amused to hear at meeting after meeting, and on platform after platform, the most extravagant eulogy of the magnificent dispensary system we have got in Ireland. Really, to hear some of the speeches one would wonder that anyone ever paid for any doctor at all in Ireland. Now, because we have yielded to this strong expression of popular opinion, now that we have asked the Government to reduce the Irish contributions and drop the benefits out of the Bill, the very men who called upon us to do that say, "What good is this Bill. You are leaving the pauper taint and you
  414
  are giving up the only good thing that was in it." That is the kind of criticism we have had to face. As regards medical benefit, there is no doubt that there is a system of medical relief in Ireland which is more or less efficient. During the recent conference it has been preposterously praised, and I have also heard it unjustly abused. It largely depends upon the medical officer. I have known districts in Ireland where there was a conscientious, devoted, and enthusiastic medical officer, where the poorest of the poor got every kind of attendance, and, on the other hand, I have known other districts where the most disgraceful neglect took place. It all depends upon the man, and there is no machinery of the law which can secure, under the present Poor Law system, good medical attendance, because there is no power to force the doctor to do his duty if he does not do it upon his own initiative. I must say that I think their salaries are entirely too small. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, it was with the deepest and most profound regret I saw the medical benefits dropped out of this Bill, but I do not yet despair on this question of the medical benefits. I think a great revulsion of opinion has taken place, and that in many districts, where three or four months ago a loud clamour existed, created by misrepresentations and abuse of this Bill, those who were in favour of dropping out the medical benefits are now anxious to get them back again.
  We, as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have had strong representations made to us mainly from the great centres of industry in Ireland, from Belfast, Dublin, Cork, and other towns, begging us to reinstate the medical benefits. We cannot reinstate them without raising the contributions. It is all very fine, but you cannot expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us large benefits in Ireland with reduced contributions and to leave the higher contributions in this country. We cannot, therefore, get back the (medical benefits without raising the contributions, and I doubt very much whether Irish opinion would tolerate that at the present moment; but, so far as I am concerned, I look forward with hope to an early day when popular opinion in Ireland will demand restoration of the medical benefits. There are such things as amended Bills, and, if popular opinion in Ireland should demand it, it would be easy to reinstate the medical benefits in an amended Bill suited to Ireland. I looked

  415
  upon the medical benefits as one of the greatest advantages of the Bill, because I think they laid the foundations for the complete abolition of the whole system of pauper medical relief. We have sat here silent for weeks listening to criticisms of the details of this Bill from above the Gangway on this side of the House and from below and above the Gangway on the opposite side of the House. Those criticisms were sometimes helpful, but sometimes they were far from helpful, and I think far from fair. I have gradually come to form the view that, if these critics were listened to, the day of any measure of insurance would never come. Does any man for a moment suppose that human ingenuity could devise an Insurance Bill which would be watertight against criticisms in detail from any quarter of the House? An Insurance Bill is a most complicated measure. The Insurance Bill in Germany, so far as I know, is contained in two volumes.
  I am reminded by the criticisms made upon this Bill of the long experience we had on the Old Age Pensions question. We had five or six Commissions, we had endless discussions, we had Motions, we had promises, and finally the Government made up their minds to come down and pass the Bill. Although everybody in this House declared on their word of honour they were in favour of the principle of the Bill, still it was met with a storm of criticism and with every possible attempt to defeat it. It is the same thing with the Insurance Bill. I would like to know, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not had the courage to come forward and propose the Bill, how long this House and the country would have had to wait, if it had waited, until it could get a measure which could not be criticised. Therefore, I think we in Ireland, as well as English Members, have very reason to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for taking his courage in both hands and bringing forward a Bill and giving us an opportunity of criticising it. I have no hesitation in saying I am sorry we have had to leave out the medical benefits, although I recognise Irish public opinion renders that necessary. The hon. Member below me laughs at that, but he wants to laugh the whole Bill out and have no benefits of any kind. Hon. Members talk about pauper benefits, but, supposing the Bill is defeated, what becomes of the pauper taint; then? We have every reason to be grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  416
  for offering us an opportunity of criticising this Bill and getting some kind of Bill, and I, for my part, sincerely hope the day is close at hand when Irish opinion will be so altered that we can restore the medical benefits to Ireland.
  Mr. BIRRELL: A desire has been expressed that somebody who could speak with some authority should say a word or two about the existing medical system in Ireland, because, having regard to the Amendments before us, insured persons in Ireland will not be entitled to medical benefits under this Act. Consequently, we have to consider what provision is made at present for the class of persons who will be largely insured persons under the provisions of this Act. I think it is rather important the Committee should understand what the dispensary system is, how much it costs, and how it works. I find there are in Ireland 810 doctors who are retained under the Medical Charities Act for the purpose of affording free medical attendance and relief to the poorer classes in Ireland. There is no definition in the Act of a poor person, and it is generally interpreted, I think, to mean any person who cannot afford to pay a doctor's fee. Doctors' fees in Ireland are not very low, but the Irish people, on the other hand, have a kindly feeling towards doctors, and I think respond far more generously to their demands than corresponding persons in equally good circumstances do in England.
  The average income of each of these doctors—that is to say, the fee he gets—for attending persons who have either a red or a black ticket, either at the dispensary or at the patients' homes, they also being provided free with medicines and surgical appliances, may be said to be between £160 and £170 a year. That probably includes £20 which he obtains as medical officer. You have these doctors attending all the persons in their very large dioceses or domains who obtain these tickets and they receive that attendance free. They do not devote their entire time to the work. They are not required by their contracts of service to devote their entire time to attendance upon the poor. They are free to have a private practice, and many of them succeed in getting a very considerable private practice. These dispensary doctors in the majority of cases are amongst the most devoted members of society. Their kindness is remarkable, considering the circumstances in which they live, the very long distances

  417
  they have to travel through tempestuous weather—they are not all supplied with motor cars—and I am bound to say their duties have been very much increased by the Old Age Pensions Act. If an old age pensioner at 5s. a week begins to cough in the middle of the night so much anxiety is displayed by his family that the doctor is dragged out of his home and brought ten or twelve miles to prolong the life of this eligible member of the family. I am not joking. That has perceptibly increased the labours of this estimable body of men.
  There is great competition for these posts, and I am bound to say, although I have set my face against it as much as I could, so eager are the doctors to get these positions that they very often expend, no doubt in perfectly legitimate canvassing, amongst all persons who have any chance of saying a good word for them as much as I think would acquire for them a small practice in England. There is, however, no feeling in Ireland that this system is declining or dying. On the contrary, the number of cases treated increases every year, although the population does not increase. The number of cases treated at the dispensaries and at the patients' homes runs into very large figures. Last year 479,644 were attended at the dispensaries and 163,115 at the patients' own homes. Those are large figures. I see on the average twelve cases per week are treated at the dispensaries and four cases per week at the patients' homes. You ask how is the cost of this system of dispensary relief provided. It is provided about equally from the Local Taxation Fund and the Poor Rate. The cost last year was £193,153, and that cost, as I say, was divided between the Local Taxation or Imperial Fund and the Poor Rate. Of this £118,793 is paid as salaries to permanent and temporary medical officers, £17,833 to midwivas, £18,399 for medicines, £8,000 to doctors for vaccination fees, and the balance is made up by compounders and caretakers. I can assure you the utmost care is taken in the matter of the quality of the medicines, far greater care than in any other portion of the United Kingdom. The contracts are carefully examined by the Local Government Board, and I think the Irish poor person who receives treatment at the hands of a dispensary doctor probably gets better medicine and almost as good surgical appliances as the wealthiest people in other parts of His Majesty's dominions.
  418
  With regard to what is called the pauper taint, of course I need scarcely say that obtaining this relief carries with it no disfranchisement of any kind or description. The person who gets his red or black ticket, and who has medical relief for it, either at his own house or at the dispensary, remains an elector, possessed of any measure of freedom any of us electors enjoy. Therefore, what is meant in England by the taint of pauperism does not apply. When we speak in England about the taint of pauperism attaching to outdoor relief we mean that the right of citizenship of the person is destroyed. That is not so in Ireland. The tickets are obtained of the guardians or of the relieving officers, and that, no doubt, is a circumstance which calls to the mind of the person that he is not paying his own way. I agree that is true, but I do not think it is fair to say the taint of pauperism in any way attaches to the use of these tickets. I quite share the view of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. John Dillon), and I regret personally that the medical benefits have been struck out of the Bill. I think public opinion in Ireland has already veered round somewhat on that question, and I am hopeful that as time goes on the dispensary system may be revised, reinforced, and strengthened, and the salaries of these doctors, whom I greatly admire, largely increased by their being able to come in under the Act and the benefits of the Act by some reasonable provision.
  6.0 P.M.
  I hope it may be possible to include in the Act some reasonable provision whereby a fee may be fixed, not only for the treatment of the insured person but of his family as well, and that we may be able to supplement an admirable system of which I think Ireland may fairly be proud. Irish doctors play a great part in Irish society and in Irish life, and, although there are black sheep in all professions, and occasionally a doctor is in a position, owing to the nature of his work, to show inhumanity and hard-heartedness which perhaps no other professions have any opportunity of exhibiting, they are as kind-hearted a class of men as can be found anywhere. As a rule, I may say, they are decent and kind-hearted men, and no one can suggest that £166 to £170 per year on the average is a big fee for the large amount of work that they do, both in the dispensary and in the home. Ireland has a good system of dispensary doctors, and the cost, £193,153, is divided between Imperial taxation and the rates.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Not now.
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is, at all events, the scheme upon which we proceed, that the charge should be equally divided, and in the same way it applies equally to medicine and to medical appliances. I can only say I think the opinion which obtains in Ireland necessitate this Amendment, and I think the arrangement will work very well. At the same time, I do not wish to disguise from the Committee the fact that ere long an arrangement will be made of the kind I have already indicated, whereby larger salaries will be secured for these men and greater benefits conferred not only upon insured persons, but upon all the members of their families. Hon. Gentlemen opposite asked me to say how the particular scheme would work. I reply, that it is a workable scheme, which can work without inflicting upon any person any taint of pauperism.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: With regard to the issue of certificates by the dispensary doctor, is it proposed to give him an additional remuneration for the additional work that will be entailed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is necessary to get a medical certificate in order to secure, for a member of an approved society the benefit of the Act—in other words, to show that they are sick—and that certificate will of course have to be paid for.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: By whom?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That will be treated as "expenses for administering the benefits."
  Sir J. LONSDALE: But suppose the certificate is issued by the dispensary doctor? There are many parts of Ireland at which there is no surgery but that of the dispensary doctor.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The dispensary doctor will be entitled to the same fee as any other doctor.
  Dr. ADDISON: I think, after the defence made by the Chief Secretary and by the hon. Member for East Mayo, it would be well to press this question a little further. After all it was a very halfhearted defence of this Amendment to say that it rests practically on public opinion, and to suggest that Ireland is not ripe for the inclusion of medical benefits in the Bill. We do sometimes legislate, I hope, a little in advance of public opinion, and we can consider this matter apart from the existing state of public opinion; we
  420
  can look at it on its merits as it affects the usefulness of this scheme. Under the present system the dispensary doctors attend practically the working-class population in country districts. There are certain features of this practice I should like to have considered for a moment. Who does the dispensary doctor attend? He attends an individual who receives a ticket entitling him to that attendance. Who gives the ticket? The ticket may be given by the relieving officer, by any member of the board of guardians, or by someone elected by the guardians to issue it. The ability of the person to pay or otherwise is not specially gone into. The ticket is issued on the responsibility of the individual entrusted with the duty of issuing it, and the doctor has to attend the person presenting it at the earliest possible moment. Under this Bill an insured person as such has no right to the receipt of a ticket entitling him to medical attendance, and he will be unable to get such attendance unless he presents a medical certificate.
  It is suggested that there will be a certain amount of the increased work in respect of the signing of the certificate, but, as far as I can understand it, the idea underlying the exclusion of medical benefit comes down to this: that the Poor Law guardians are at the present time paying a salary for the attendance of people in their area, and, therefore, the contention is that the doctors will be paid twice over for attending the same individual. Surely this is no objection to the inclusion of medical benefits in this Bill; it is only a matter of administration. Some people think they may gain an apparent advantage from the fact that the contribution is 1½d. less than it otherwise would be. In certain districts the dispensary system has been a success, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has spoken quite fairly on that point. The hon. Member for Mayo said it depended mainly on the amount of work done by the doctor, but the fact remains that it has not been a success. An Irish practitioner told me yesterday that his salary was £110 a year, and that he had a district extending eight miles in one direction and six miles in the other.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: In what county was that?
  Dr. ADDISON: I do not propose to mention names, but I would like to point out in connection with this, that if one examines the return of deaths it will be found that many cases are entered in

  421
  which the cause of death is uncertified. In certain districts very nearly a quarter of the deaths are registered in that way. And why? Simply because the deceased had not been attended by someone who had sufficient knowledge to be able to state what was the actual cause of death. We do not want to perpetuate this system under which so large a section of the population are without proper medical attendance in their last days. It is not a (matter which commends itself to this House. It is not a system which we desire to be perpetuated.
  Let me take the question of tuberculosis. In 1855 the deaths from tuberculosis in Ireland numbered 2,500 per million. In England and Wales at the same time they were 3,300 per million. We have had fifty-five years' sanitary service since then, and what is the result? In England and Wales the percentage has fallen to 1,600. In Ireland it has fallen to to 2,400—a negligible decline. At the same time the death rate in England has declined while that in Ireland has increased. These are the fruits of fifty-five years' work. Nobody can look at these results with satisfaction. We do not want to continue the present system. We want to find something better. I am a supporter of this Bill because I believe it will do a good deal to diminish poverty. Statistics show that since 1865 the number of people in receipt of Poor Law relief in England has declined, while in Ireland it has gone up. Test the system in Ireland as you will, you cannot defend it as an adequate system of relief. There are certain manifest drawbacks to the omission of medical benefits in this case. As the Bill stands an insured person falling sick will require to get a sick certificate, and a doctor will give it or he will not, accordingly as may be convenient. There are men who will be anxious to act thoroughly in the interests of the whole scheme, and that is the reason why some of us contended earlier in the proceedings that it was desirable the local insurance committee should administer the Act. We want to concentrate in one body all the interests which will promote adequate attendance.
  What is there in this Bill which will secure to the insured person in Ireland adequate medical attendance? There will be no impulse, and nothing will do it. The local insurance committee has no power; the society has no power. What is there to satisfy us that the insured person will the sufficiently frequently visited? Nothing.
  422
  All these things necessarily follow from the alienation of the payment of sick pay from the administration of medical benefit. In any scientific arrangement they are inseparably associated. An insured person in Ireland, if we approve of this scheme, has no claim whatever to medical attendance. The society will pay for the giving of the certificate, but the giving of a certificate is not medical attendance, and it does not get a person better. Hon. Members may say that the Poor Law doctor is required, as a part of his duty, to attend the person. True; but what about all the workers in Belfast and in the urban districts who are in societies? They will want the man to whom they have been accustomed to apply, and he may not be a Poor Law doctor, and he has no claim upon the medical relief committee. There is nothing in the Bill to show that the person has any claim to medical attendance; all he requires is a certificate. In the country districts I am quite sure that the Poor Law doctors will do their very best, but the amount of work they will have to do will be greatly increased. The society will do their best to bring pressure upon them, but they will have no power to do it. Unless you want a man to fill up a certificate in his own surgery without seeing the patient at all, he will have to make more journeys. This doctor, with a district eight miles long and six miles wide, with £110 a year, will have to do more work still. Is that going to ensure more adequate medical attendance?
  If we put medical benefit in the Bill, insured persons will have a claim to the best treatment that can be given by a society or committee. The insured person in Ireland will miss the whole force of public opinion, the whole force of the opinion of his society, or of the local insurance committee backing him up; and this I believe will be one of the most potent influences for the improvement of public health in England and Scotland. The whole interest of the societies under this Bill will be directed to securing the best possible attendance for their members in order to get them off sick pay. No machinery of that kind will be provided in Ireland under the present scheme. One of the most serious drawbacks is that the insured person is entirely deprived of the free choice of a medical attendant where it is possible for him to have any choice. I know that in country districts that does not apply, but in the towns he will have no opportunity of selecting his own man except for

  423
  the purposes of this certificate. I for one object to a monopoly in this matter on every side. We have done our best before to break it down. The general view of the masses of the population in this country, and I believe it will be the same in Belfast, is that they ought to have their medical benefits from any man they choose. That is entirely left out in the case of Ireland. I hope that if a society administers the medical benefit it will be secured that the members of the society shall have some free choice in selecting their medical attendant as we have given to them in England.
  A much more fatal objection than all these is that the ultimate success of this scheme depends upon the development of preventive medicine. If you separate medical benefit from it there is no machinery for the promotion of the prevention of disease. I do not know anything of the actuarial considerations; I do not know how fine the margin is which is allowed in Ireland, but I feel certain of this, that unless the margin is a very liberal one it will be absolutely essential to link up medical benefit with the payment of sick pay, because only in that way will you be able to provide machinery to focus public opinion and all the power of society on the prevention of disease. You will have domiciliary attendance entirely dissociated from the public authorities working through this Bill for the prevention of disease. To make the Bill a success in any way we shall have to combine all the machinery of the State for the prevention of disease. I hope the anticipations of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and of the Chief Secretary, that this defect may soon be remedied will prove correct. I should even hope that it would be possible to devise an arrangement before the Third Reading by which we could get medical benefit in. If public opinion in Ireland on this matter is developing at a rapid rate, I hope it will be found possible before the Third Reading to incorporate some scheme for medical benefit in the Bill.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I cordially concur in the remarks of the hon. Member for Hoxton (Dr. Addison) except where he says that this difficulty will soon be removed. If this Bill passes, this defect will never be remedied. We have been promised, for instance, Poor Law reform in Ireland ever since I became a Member of this House. It has never come. Why? Because it is
  424
  a matter on which there is no political kudos to be made. The ordinary forms of legislation, such as statute law revision, is anybody's job, and therefore to suggest that there is anybody in Ireland, in the official life, shepherding the life of the people or taking the slightest interest in it except as voters—well, that view may prevail in Hoxton, but so far as this House is concerned it only deals with the Irish people as voters or agitators. Therefore the suggestion that this defect will be remedied is an absolute illusion. The hon. Member says that he hopes Irish opinion is being ripened and instructed about the matter. What chance has Irish opinion to ripen or to be instructed about the Bill? The first news the unhappy people of Ireland got on this matter they got last Friday.
  Mr. DILLON: Not at all.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Then was it Thursday?
  Mr. DILLON: It was three months ago.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am a very fair student of what is going on in Ireland—it is part of my business I hope—and so far as I am concerned, until these Amendments were placed upon the Paper on Thursday or Friday last, I never heard that this was the particular form that the blessed Amendments were going to take. Therefore, for ignorant persons like myself, at all events Thursday last was the first occasion that I had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the facts. If there should be other persons in the same depths of ignorance in which I am sunk, I should like to ask them what chance there was of getting Irish opinion acquainted with the fact that what was the kernel of the Bill in England, the heart and soul of the Bill in England, has been taken out and eviscerated so far as Ireland is concerned? What the statesmen and the financiers who have had the manipulation of this matter have decided upon is this. They said the coffin was too short for the patient; either his legs or his head had to come off. They determined, for the sake of convenience, to take off the patient's head, and accordingly Ireland is now beautifully fitted into the coffin with its head off. That is the present state of this scheme. But it is not merely of that fact that we have to complain.
  The astonishing thing to me is that we have never got from any quarter—and I have been drumming on this point until I am tired—anything to show us what is the

  425
  figure, what are the proportions, what is the actuarial value of this £110,000 of medical rates that the poor people in Ireland contribute. What comparison does that bear to the total cost of the scheme in Ireland, and what should be the proper amount of deduction we should get from the employers' and workmen's contribution? Nay, more, what is the estimated cost? On this point I am glad to have the Chief Secretary present, as he was one of the financial experts who discussed the matter with the Treasury on the great historic occasion on which the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) sent his two ablest financial lieutenants to the Treasury. There must be some estimates for all this business, for I am quite sure that these two able men were not taking a pig in a poke. I am quite sure they calculated that this £110,000 of Irish rates, which is now to be put into the pool as part of the Lloyd George contribution towards the inhabitants of Ireland, must have borne some relation to the amount of the reduction of the employers' and workmen's contribution and to the cost of the other benefits in the Bill. I have put a plain question. The benefits of the Bill are recited in Clause 8, and they are mentioned under six heads. I think we are entitled to know what is the cost for Ireland under each of those heads to the State; what figure was put down by the Treasury, or the two able men belonging to the hon. Member for Waterford, having regard to the fact that that contribution for medical relief was going to be dropped. Here are the eight heads of blessing which were to have been given. "Medical treatment and attendance." That must have been ear-marked with some figure of £ s. d. in the minds of the Treasury experts. The next is "treatment in sanatoria." How many do you intend to build in Ireland? That is a very easily ascertained figure. "Weekly payments while rendered unable to provide for their maintenance by mental disablement." If we have not asylums enough in Ireland at present, it is an extraordinary fact that we are to have more lunatics and more lunatic asylums than any part of the British Islands. Be that as it may, a figure attributable to that sub-head (c) ought to be forthcoming, and ought to be given to the House of Commons. The next is (d), "Disease or disablement continuing after the termination of sick benefits." I presume there was an estimate as to the amount of sickness in Ireland and the
  426
  amount of relief which will be attributable under that head. The next is (e), "Maternity benefit." If anything can be ascertained with ease it is the maternity benefit, because there are the figures of the annual births, and you can easily calculate that. The last is not so easy to describe—(f), "In the case of persons entitled under any scheme made in accordance with this Part of this Act, further benefits, called additional benefits, under Part II."
  Of these six heads of blessings one has entirely disappeared. It can be represented in £ s. d., and we are entitled to have an estimate from the Government as to how much in their opinion is going to be expended for the distribution of that form of blessing, and how much has been saved. I should like to know why, of the six heads of blessings, the first, and No. 1 in the Act itself, is the one that you have elected to decapitate. Is it because it saves the Treasury most? Instead of knocking off medical treatment, why did you not behead, for instance, the sanatoria or the weekly payment in the case of specific disease, or (d) disease or disablement benefits, or the maternity benefit, or the other benefit called the additional benefit? The reason is plain, because, if you had deprived Ireland of the other benefit, there was no system in the country which would have supplied them. Who supplies the system of medical benefit? The Chief Secretary said—and this is part of the delusion—that there are, I forget how many hundreds of dispensary doctors in Ireland. I am very pained to hear from the hon. Member (Dr. Addison) that anyone is getting £110 a year. It is shocking that the wages of a poorly-paid artisan should go to an unfortunate man who has been to college and passed an examination, and at the end of it he should not get more than £2 a week. It is shocking that such a system should continue in any country to expect these men to brave disease and death and all the horrors and squalor for £110 a year. It is a perfect disgrace to the nation. I suppose he has to keep a horse and trap out of his £2 a week. The Chief Secretary suggested—he did not state—that practically the Government provide half of that. No doubt it was upon that basis that it was started. The system was started after the famine and after the famine fever and every other fever and horror that existed in the country, and when our taxes had been very largely increased by this House, of

  427
  course it was necessary to give us some form of so-called State boon, and therefore the State undoubtedly provided half of that amount. But supposing the guardians, taking heart of grace, raised the salary of this poor gentleman, as they ought to do, to £150 a year, will the State pay half of that? Nothing of the kind, because the late Government, when they were making that rash experiment which the Chief Secretary has referred to, of passing Local Government for Ireland, earmarked the sum, so that if there is any additional contribution either in the case of medical benefit or of medical relief of any kind, surgical instruments or medicine, it is the Irish ratepayers who will have to provide the whole of the extra sum, and if there are additional doctors required it is the Irish ratepayers who will have to provide the whole of the additional sum. So that it is utterly absurd to suggest—I do not suppose the Chief Secretary intended it—that if this system is extended or enlarged the State will continue to pay half the additional medical benefits.
  That being so, let us now consider what would be the effect of this Bill in its present form. The hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) said I was opposed to the Bill altogether. That is one of the reckless statements which he is in the habit of making which no one except his own claque pay the smallest attention to. What must happen with the extraordinary form of economy which the Irish party has decided upon for the purpose of making this Bill tolerable in the agricultural districts of Ireland? Here I ask for explanation. I give my own opinion, but I will ask for information. I do not say that the conclusion I have come to is right. I first take the Post Office contributor. He has been contributing, we will suppose, for ten years and let us suppose he is an artisan and therefore unwilling to apply for relief. Take the ordinary tradesman in a town who has held his head high—the carpenter, the shoemaker, the plasterer, or any of these respectable trades. That man is a Post Office contributor. He falls ill. How is he going to get his medical benefit? We have had no answer upon that subject. It has not been suggested how it is going to be done. If he is a member of an approved society he can send his wife to the society to say he is ill and probably in return for his contributions he will get something. But take a man who is not a
  428
  member of a society. First and foremost he is too proud to send for the dispensary doctor, because he does not want to be on the red ticket list, and still, although we have our £400 a year, there is a little pride left among the artisans in Ireland. What is he to do? He has to employ a doctor. Doctors, like everyone else, must be paid. How is he to get a certificate from the doctor? The doctor has first to visit him. He has to diagnose his case. He has to give an honest opinion. He has not only to provide him with medicine, but to write out a certificate for him. What is that going to cost the patient? In the case of a man who has only been a year, or two or three years insured, the doctor's fee might easily amount to the whole of the Post Office benefit. Yet this is the portion of the Bill which hon. Gentlemen behind me have decided to amputate. They had six heads of benefit to get rid of, and accordingly they gave a grave blow to the most useful benefit under the Bill.
  Take now the case of the poor man who gets a red ticket—a labourer who is entitled to dispensary relief and, for short, without offence, I will call him the red ticket patient. Do you mean to say, after the confession, of the Chief Secretary that your old age pensions have already greatly added to the duties of these doctors, that you are going to place upon them the additional burden of giving certificates for coming under this Act? You will have a strike of doctors. Why should they? I want to know if these doctors are going to give certificates all over the country for nothing, and if they are not going to give the certificates for nothing, who is going to pay for them? Not the Treasury, but the Irish ratepayers. In other words, their salaries are to be increased for the addition to their duties, and that is why I take issue with the Chief Secretary when he says the State pays half the medical benefits. No. If the doctor's salary is increased by reason of his additional duties, the whole excess of salary which he is entitled to will be paid by the Irish ratepayer. Is that nothing? This House now, of course, has a Budget of £180,000,000, and no one thinks at all of a little country that ought to be run with a Budget of £5,000,000. I quite agree, we have all got swelled heads. When I came into the House first the Budget was only £60,000,000. I remember when Mr. Gladstone brought it up to £100,000,000, and the fact was published in large letters on

  429
  every placard in London. Now it is £180,000,000, and it is nothing that the Irish ratepayers should have to pay an additional sum to doctors. It is only a bagatelle.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Irish ratepayer will not pay.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: We are improving under criticism. [HON. MEMBERS: "We all know it."] Everyone knows everything on that side of the House. I do not belong to the infallibles. I do not belong to the intelligent section of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has now told us that he is going to make a grant to the rates. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had only taken the trouble to read it he would have saved all this, because there is the same arrangement exactly in Ireland as in England for the payment of certificates. You must get your certificate in England and Wales as well as in Ireland, and it is provided for in the provision made for management expenses of the Bill.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman is very kind, but I take leave to say to him that when he put his Irish provisions into his Irish Clause, and when he had the assistance of two of the ablest Members of the party of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond), the least he can do would be to have expressed that in the Amendment he has put upon the Paper. May I remind them that it was only this morning or yesterday in consequence of criticisms of one of my hon. Friends that he changed one of his Amendments. It was only put down this morning. Of course, the intelligent party behind him did not know that. I accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that in the case of that contributor he is not going to allow the Irish ratepayers to be further mulcted.
  Mr. J. REDMOND: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the Irish Amendment he will find it set out.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: You have limited the Irish discussion to two days, and I am going to take my share of it. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford is, in regard to this whole question of insurance, determined to confine the Irish discussion to two days, or practically a day and a-half. That is to say, whereas between thirty and forty days have been allowed
  430
  for the discussion of these questions as regards England, so far as Irishmen are concerned Ave are to be limited in criticising the Bill to two days. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Waterford has any intention of enlightening the House, I would suggest that he should do it in his own time. Now I come to the case of the persons who are members of an approved society, which is the third branch. I should like to ask in the case of members of approved societies what is the view of English members who belong to these societies as to the proportion of sick benefit—of which we are to be deprived—which is paid for out of the 3d. and 4d. contributions. I do not know. The Government must remember that we are dealing with this matter, not with the experience of the Gentlemen of the Labour party, and not with the expertness of Liberal Members. I know that the hon. Member for Waterford and his friends have experience, but so far as the general run of Irishmen are concerned, the members of these approved societies are few and far between. The whole benefit is confined to a few towns in Ireland, and practically until recently it was confined to the Oddfellows and the Ancient Order of Foresters.
  Therefore, we are groping in the dark, and we expect to be provided with information. I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to treat me, at all events, as one largely in the dark and quite willing to sit at his feet and at the feet of some of the more intelligent of my Friends behind me. I therefore ask some information as to how much in the approved English societies of the contributions of the members is represented in the shape of medical benefit for the payment of 1d., 1½d., and 2d. per week. I think we are entitled to that information. The English member of an approved society has the advantage of sickness benefit for himself, and, as I understand, for his wife and children, and within reasonable limits of all the members of his household. I am not speaking about this Bill at all. I am speaking of the benefit he derives from his society, and I repeat that he has medical benefit for himself, and, as a rule, for the members of his family. Under this Bill in Ireland there would be no such advantage in belonging to an approved society as there would be in England, and I want to know whether that does not point to the fact, in the first place, that you are striking a blow at the formation of approved societies, because it means that

  431
  after you have got your approved society and joined it no medical benefit will be given in Ireland under the Bill. Therefore a man has to pay his State insurance for the five benefits mentioned in the Bill, and he has to pay the approved society for his medical benefit. That brings us to this—that the members of the approved society in England are in a better position than the members of the approved society in Ireland. I should like to know whether the reduced contributions which the Irish employer and workman have to pay would entirely account for this. It is on that matter that calculations and figures are absolutely wanting. It is on that matter that we are denied any actuarial calculations and figures. We put two questions to the Secretary to the Treasury long ago. One question was put in July, and another question was put in May. We asked whether there were any actuarial calculations made separately for Ireland. The answer was "No." The actuarial calculations were made for the United Kingdom as a whole. I could quote the answers to the questions. Therefore I now ask whether an actuarial calculation has been made separately for Ireland. How is any body of experts, including the intelligent Members of the Irish party, to arrive at the facts as regards this matter? Where do they get the actuarial figures? The figures, we are told, have been calculated not for Ireland, but for the United Kingdom, and if you have calculated for the United Kingdom only, I assume that the figures for Ireland have been taken out separately since these Amendments were agreed to. All I ask is that the House should be put in possession of these figures.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: I only rise to make a few observations in consequence of the speech of the hon. Member for Hoxton (Dr. Addison), which I am bound to say very much impressed me. My own view is—and I think it is the view generally held by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland—that it is a great pity, though I do not blame the Government for it, that these medical benefits have been eliminated from the Bill, and I really think it is even now worth while, remembering what the hon. Member for Hoxton has said, considering whether at some subsequent stage this matter may not be reconsidered and the benefits again put into the Bill for
  432
  Ireland. At the same time it is very easy to see how this matter has arisen, because the history of the agitation with reference to this Bill in Ireland is one that has given every Irish Member a great deal of anxiety. So far as I am concerned, my whole anxiety has been to see what was generally thought best on the whole for Ireland. So far as I have observed, that opinion varied absolutely from day to day. When the Bill was brought in so far back as May, I thought the general feeling in Ireland was absolutely against it. So far as I could see, nobody had a good word to say for it. We had several resolutions passed by important bodies, including the Irish Roman Catholic bishops, though I do not see why any more particular attention should be paid to them than to any other public body. Their resolution was read in the House yesterday, and it looked to me as if the Bill were to be in jeopardy as regards Ireland. That was not my own personal reason, for I think that, so far as this kind of legislation goes for the social betterment of the people, it is a great mistake to legislate for this country and Scotland and not to legislate for Ireland, because one thing which, above all others, we ought to try to carry out is, that Ireland should not be left behind in the race, for if Ireland was allowed to drop out of a scheme of this kind, or the old age pension scheme, the matter would never be taken up again, and Ireland would be left out entirely.
  I may say, in passing, that I think we made a vast mistake when we severed the scheme in Ireland from the scheme in England. I have grave doubts whether the scheme in Ireland will prove solvent. It was part of the scheme in England that if it did not prove solvent, it would be set right. I am not sure, if it is not solvent in Ireland, that it will not have to be dealt with in some purely Irish way. I have in my mind what happened in the case of the elementary school teachers' pension scheme. When the scheme proved insolvent the burden had to be borne by the school teachers themselves, and I suppose that if this scheme proves insolvent in Ireland it will be in some purely Irish way that it will have to be made good. I am perfectly certain that one of the most vital mistakes that could be made in putting forward these schemes for Ireland is that we should dissociate ourselves from the schemes put forward for this country, which is the vastly richer country, and being far the most extensive part of the

  433
  United Kingdom, the moment anything of that kind happens it is far more likely to be taken up than if it were merely a branch matter in relation to the other country.
  7.0 P.M.
  I think it will turn out to be a mistake to have severed the schemes. What happened was this. The Bill was unpopular when it was brought in, and I think not unnaturally, because even now the putting of this tax on the industries of the country is really a gamble. None of us know what effect it will have in Ireland. I do not know whether anybody knows the effect it will have in England. At all events, as regards Ireland and its industries, there are, as we know, very grave apprehensions among many people as to what may be the effect of this tax upon them. Therefore, it was not unnatural that there should be a good deal of misgiving at an early stage. Then came this idea of reducing contributions and making that reduction by leaving out the medical benefit, and, very naturally, it fell back on what the Chief Secretary has described as the very excellent dispensary system which we have in Ireland.
  Now we are told there is a change in the other direction, and that people are beginning to think that medical benefit ought to come in. I am rather inclined to think that a change had to come in, because the contribution has been reduced, and they think it might come in under the reduced contribution, and, therefore, there is a certain amount of popularity attached to the idea. But I am bound to say that to have in your society, or its administration of this matter, a number of people who will not be entitled to medical benefits, whereas the others will, is an unbusinesslike method of conducting the whole scheme, and cannot but, I think, in due course of time, give rise to very great dissatisfaction with the administration of this scheme. People who are paying exactly the same amount of contribution will be receiving exactly the same benefit, not under the scheme, I admit. One party will be receiving the dispensary relief, and the two things will come to be so mixed up from the necessity of having to employ these same dispensary doctors for the purpose of certificates and other matters for the working of the scheme that I think you will find in the end you will be driven to having the medical relief brought in. I believe that the position of dispensary doctors, if you had this medical relief in the Bill, could be, and would be, enormously
  434
  improved, and I think it would aid greatly in checking one of the most disastrous consequences that occur in Ireland through not being sufficiently able to look after particularly the preventive side of various diseases. For my part, I hope before the Bill becomes law we may again have some opportunity of reconsidering, with proper actuarial tables, the whole of this question.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Might I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is possible, in the case of either the whole of Ireland or in the case of those urban districts where there is undoubtedly a strong feeling that medical benefit should be given, to give either the whole of Ireland or those districts the option of coming in under the first part of the Schedule instead of the second part, of the Schedule which he has now set up? I recognise that that would necessarily be the option of the worker and would bind the employer. Still, it appears to me, having regard to the strong feeling that exists in the Irish cities, that the loss of this medical benefit is a serious subtraction from the Bill as a whole, and that is why I put this question.
  Mr. POWER: May I point out before the right hon. Gentleman replies that I think many difficulties in the working of this measure—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Does the hon. Gentleman want to ask me a question?
  Mr. POWER: I want to make some allusion to the statement which has been made.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is rather important for me to make some allusion to the very interesting and important statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson), and to answer the question put by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Maurice Healy). The right hon. Gentleman put the case very clearly, straightforwardly, and I think very fairly as to the position in Ireland. I have not a word of criticism of what has fallen from him. I think he stated quite accurately what really happened in Ireland. I will say frankly that the question whether Ireland should be in the Bill or not was to my mind a question whether Ireland really wanted to be in the Bill. If Ireland felt on the whole that the Bill was inapplicable to its conditions I should certainly not have pressed for Ireland to remain. And it is because I believe there

  435
  was a very strong feeling among the working classes in Ireland that they would like to come in, that pressure was first of all brought to bear on hon. Members opposite and also, I believe, on hon. Members sitting on those benches to see that Ireland was included in the Bill; and I think the general feeling in the whole of Ireland is, in spite of what my hon. Friend has said, that they would prefer to be in the Bill than to be left out. That is apart altogether from criticisms of detail. I come to the question put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman about medical benefits. As he has been perfectly frank with the Committee, I will answer him just as frankly, I did regret that medical benefits went out. I believe that is the feeling among my hon. Friends sitting above the Gangway. It is purely in deference to the wishes of not merely Members from Ireland, but of their constituents, that we decided to leave these medical benefits out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me was there any chance of this question being reconsidered. If there is any feeling in Ireland in favour of medical benefits being incorporated in the Bill I should certainly not resist it on behalf of the Government, if that is the real feeling of Irish Members of all sections in the House.
  Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me what would that cost actuarialy. When you come to tackle that subject it is not so much an actuarial question. I have discovered it is rather a question of the best bargain you can make with the doctors. I do not find that Irish doctors are any easier to bargain with than British doctors. On the contrary, I was advised that where doctors now get about 4s., if 6s. were put down as the financial basis off the Bill that would be really ample. But the whole of the doctors of the kingdom, including the doctors from Ireland, revolted against it and demanded a sum which, I think, was quite impossible, certainly impossible financially, and we made an arrangement with the medical profession in this country. A deputation of the British Medical Association came to see me, and began by asking for 8s. 6d. for each individual. Financially, that was quite impossible. It is true that after they discovered that medical benefits might not be included in the Bill there was a more reasonable spirit as to the financial aspect
  436
  of the question, and if the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends the hon. Members from Ireland, make some arrangement with the medical profession I should certainly not resist recommittal of the Bill in order to include Ireland in medical benefits if they really desire it. But I do not think it would be possible to do it under the 1½d. included in the Bill. A 1d. a week would make 4s., and 1½d. means 6s. That is the whole question. It is really a question of what bargain can be made with the Irish doctors. The actuaries cannot help with the Irish doctors. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork knows just as much as any actuary as to the probability of making arrangements with Irish doctors and what terms he can make. There cannot be a separate actuarial computation for Ireland with regard to medical benefits for that very reason. All you can do is take a kind of average for the United Kingdom and say doctors 4s. a head. If you add 50 per cent. to that that leaves a very good margin for making arrangements both in Ireland and Great Britain. That is all I have got to say with regard to that. I understand that a dispensary doctor in Ireland holds a position which is quite different from the position of parish doctor in this country. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork asked me whether it was possible to discriminate between rural and urban areas. I should like to know what his point is?
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Whether they can be left the option to come in under the first part of the Schedule instead of the second part.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it would be fatal to the finance of the Bill to leave an individual option.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Not an individual option to be insured, but an individual option as to which Schedule they would come under.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I quite appreciate the point. The hon. Member means the option of saying he will take the full benefits and therefore pay an extra penny and the employer pay an extra ½d. I think that that would lead to hopeless confusion, because you will get one workman on the higher scale and another on the lower scale, and the same workman might change from one scale to another. The reason why it is impossible is that there

  437
  is only one thing which enables you to make a bargain with the doctors at 6s., and that is the fact that they are dealing with large societies with both old and young. If you deal with individuals it is impossible to make an arrangement of that kind with doctors. I have been considering the question whether it would be possible to divide areas, but that eventually had to be abandoned as perfectly impracticable. I also agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that eventually Ireland will I think come into medical benefit and into the whole of these benefits. What I think will probably happen will be this. There are a great many workmen in Ireland who object to have the dispensary doctor, as they think it carries some sort of suspicion of pauperism if they get a red ticket. I am told that is the case in Belfast. They would rather pay the doctor like an Englishman.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: It is the case in Cork also.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is certainly the case in England. As long as a workman has a penny in his pocket he prefers to pay his own doctor rather than go in for the parish doctor. What I think will happen will be this, that workmen who join these societies will have an additional voluntary subscription for medical benefits. There will be some societies which will impose this additional contribution; there are others which will not, and they will not get the benefit of the employer's contribution. Eventually, I think, hon. Members from Ireland will be found inviting the Imperial Parliament to amend the Bill as far as Ireland is concerned by imposing an additional 1½d.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: That will be called dissension.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. and learned Friend criticises this, but he will not take the responsibility of moving its omission.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I preferred the Bill as it originally was, with the exception of the local control in Ireland; but as regards the contribution, I am in favour of the full Bill as introduced rather than the truncated Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is an admission.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: It is a declaration, and not an admission.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I need hardly say, of course, that I prefer the Bill as I introduced it, and it is purely because I found that Irish opinion as a whole prefers the 1½d. that I made this alteration. With regard to the certificate, there is a provision in the Amendment to the Bill in the last Sub-seotion—
  "For the payment by the society or committee to duly qualified medical practitioners of such remuneration in respect of the furnishing of those certificates as the Irish Insurance Commissioners may sanction, and all payments so made by the society or committee shall be treated as expenses of administering the benefits aforesaid."
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Under this Bill an additional amount of work will be thrown upon the dispensary doctors, and I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether they can be allowed to employ assistance in view of the fact that this additional work will be thrown upon them? Will the right hon. Gentleman at the same time state what remuneration will be given to the dispensary doctors?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is entirely a matter for arrangement between the local health committee and the doctors.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Under the Local Government Act the dispensary doctor is not allowed to employ a qualified assistant, and, in view of the additional work to be thrown upon the dispensary doctors because of the issue of certificates, there is a very strong feeling among the country doctors in Ireland that they ought to be allowed to employ assistants, especially as dispensary doctors receive no superannuation. They are the only people under the Local Government Board who are not superannuated, and many of them, in consequence of the absence of superannuation, remain in their positions until a very advanced period of life. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be good enough to consider the desirability of inserting something in the measure which will ensure that the dispensary doctors employed in the issue of these official certificates shall be permitted to employ assistants for that purpose. It may appear a simple question to the right hon. Gentleman, but it is a matter of very great importance to the dispensary doctors in Ireland; and I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of inserting some provision in the Bill, and not leave it to the local committee to decide whether

  439
  or not these professional men may be allowed to have qualified assistants to enable them to do all the additional work which this measure entails. The right hon. Gentleman at the same time might seriously consider, in view of the advanced age of many of those who occupy the position of dispensary doctors, the desirability of having this Bill carried out in an efficient manner by giving these men, at the usual age of sixty-five, some superannuation, in the same way as others are provided for.
  The CHAIRMAN: The question of superannuation does not arise on this Amendment.
  Dr. ESMONDE: Like my colleague the Member for Mayo, I am one of those who are sorry that medical benefit is not included in the Bill. Our position in Ireland is somewhat different from what it is in England. In Ireland seven out of every ten in the rural districts are already provided for in respect of medical attendance and medicine. You have got, then, probably three out of every ten who would come in under the Bill as better class workmen who have never applied to the Poor Law Board. In England the question is not the same as it is in Ireland. In Ireland you would have a doctor who has already been paid for a certain number of people whom he is attending, and you would have a doctor who would be taking the insured people who had never had any parish relief before. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that 8s. 6d for Irish medical men was not a fair and reasonable proposition. I hope and trust that he will be able, if not on Report, at some later time, to bring in and include medical benefit. Speaking as a medical men who knows something about the feeling of medical men in Ireland, I am absolutely certain some arrangement, should be made by which medical benefit should be brought into the Bill, and a reasonable sum paid to medical men. A small capitation grant could be paid to the dispensary doctors, and a somewhat larger contribution should be paid to those men who are not dispensary doctors, because I look upon it as one of the most important things that we should bring medical benefit into this Bill, and that we should have a big choice of doctors. Therefore I hope that some attempt will be made on behalf of the profession in Ireland to make some proposition in which we might all be able to acquiesce.
  Mr. P. J. POWER: I suppose this is one of the most complicated measures that have ever been submitted to the House of Commons. I quite agree with the remarks which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) when he said that at first this Bill was disliked throughout Ireland, but as time has gone on that dislike has lessened, and I think the vast majority of workmen in Ireland are now in favour of the provisions of this Bill. As far as Irish Members are concerned, many of us really could not understand it, and we appointed a committee of our own party which took great trouble in going into the pros and cons of the Bill. They devoted a good deal of time and study to it, and brought out a report which was submitted to the party. A good deal of ridicule was thrown upon that committee and their findings, but as a humble member of the Irish party I think we are all indebted, and Ireland is indebted, to the committee for their great care in investigating this complex measure, and giving us their views after careful consideration. I quite agree that there are more difficulties in the way of Ireland working this Bill than there are for Great Britain, because, after all, in the rural districts we do not know what the friendly societies are, and the working of this Bill will be largely affected by that circumstance. In England the people generally are conversant with the usages of these friendly societies and will be able to work them more easily. I wish to call attention to the dispensary committees and the Poor Law unions in Ireland generally. The working of the Bill will throw a great deal of the onus on the Irish people. To my mind they are not wise in trying to overwork themselves and undertaking all the provisions that are applicable to England. The Chancellor of the Exchequer some months ago referred to the dispensary committees in Ireland and the working of the Poor Law in general. He was misinformed, no doubt, and though misinformed, his remarks caused a certain amount of resentment in most parts of the country.
  I quite understand the working of the Poor Law in most parts of Ireland, and I have a fair knowledge of the working of it in Munster. I know from personal observation and knowledge that the remarks the right hon. Gentleman made did to some extent give offence, though they were made through misinformation. He said that the dispensary committees and the Poor Law unions were abused very largely

  441
  throughout Ireland, and that in a great number of cases people applied for free medical relief who were not entitled to receive it. I speak with knowledge of the unions in my own immediate neighbourhood, and I must say, as far as my information goes, that the statement is not founded on fact, and the information given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not accurate information. I was chairman of a large board of guardians for many years, and in that capacity I had the distribution of the red tickets. During all those years not a single person applied for a ticket who was not entitled to it—not a single person applied either to me dircetly or to the relieving officer. If anything, our people are supersensitive in these matters, and they decline to apply for a ticket when they are able to pay for medical attendance. I am surprised that people have not oftener applied for these red tickets. I do not wish to say a word against the medical profession, who as a rule are not a mercenary profession, and they behave with great charity and consideration throughout the country. But the system which has hitherto prevailed in Ireland is one which leads me to feel surprised that many more men have not applied for red tickets. The doctors pay four and six visits for £1, and where a man is in a position to pay, he will not make one visit without getting £1. With many men pounds are few and far between, and I repeat that I am surprised that many of the poorer classes in Ireland have not more often applied for these red tickets. I am surprised that many of them who have paid have not tried for those red tickets. I believe that the medical profession now recognised that that is an unwise system, and that by charging smaller fees they can get on better, and certainly it would be better for the people. I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in the House when I made these remarks in explanation of the statement that he made inadvertently, and through misinformation, that there was a wholesale system of fraud practised, and that people obtained red tickets in Ireland who should have paid for doctors. I know that that is not the case. I am quite certain if the right hon. Gentleman had heard the statement of the Irish representatives on the subject, that he would candidly admit he was misinformed, and that what he said of the people was not true and was not fair to them.
  Mr. LARDNER: The Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) said that the party to which I have the honour to belong had got rid of the medical benefits in order to make the Bill acceptable to Ireland, or as he put it, the coffin was too small for the body and either the legs or the head had to come off. The head did not come off because the coffin was too small, but because the head was too big. Or in other words, the demands of the doctors for medical benefit were so extortionate and oppressive, that it was impossible to consider the possibility of working the Bill in Ireland. I have here the demand made by the doctors:—
  "Payment by capitation, with a minimum fee of 8s. 6d. for medical attendance alone.
  "(b) Extra provision for special services, such as (1) anæsthetics; (2) operations; (3) consultations; (4) night work. Mileage reckoned from doctor's house to patient."
  Dr. ADDISON: I hope the hon. Member is not attributing that to me.
  Mr. LARDNER: No. I will refer to that in a moment. That was the proposition we are up against, and that is what we had to consider. We knew that the argument would be raised against this Bill, that it would be the perpetuation of the pauper taint, and that argument was made yesterday as the reason why medical fees were being left out. Take the original Bill as introduced, and what do you find. In Clause 59:—
  "It shall be the duty of the medical officer of health for each dispensary district in the county without the production of any medical relief ticket to attend and treat every deposit contributor resident in his district and requiring medical attendance, and at the expense of the guardians to supply proper and sufficient drugs and medicine to the contributor."
  Our committee started with this principle and with this idea, that the foundation of any successful scheme of medical benefits or an insurance scheme as outlined in the State Insurance scheme should be one in which the man would get what he paid for and pay for what he got. At present the patient would have been getting a dispensary doctor and the medicine from the guardians. What is the Amendment we are now discussing? It simply provides that a medical officer who certifies illness will be paid for that. I should like to know from the Committee what is the difference between the situation in the Clause and in the Amendment we are considering. It is going to be the same doctor,

  443
  and he is going to be paid the same salary from the board of guardians. One of the reasons given in justification for this Bill was that it will mean a very serious reduction in the cost of Poor Law administration and a very great economy. What is the economy going to be? The advantage was held out to the patient of a choice of doctors. Is the dispensary doctor to be paid the same capitation grant as the private practitioner who takes a man under the State Insurance scheme? Where, then, is your choice of doctors, because if a man goes to a private practitioner and says, "I am a State Insurance patient," the doctor will say, "I will not take you, you are a dispensary patient." The impossibility of the whole situation is only realised by those in touch with the question, and who have studied it and looked at it from the standpoint of the people and of the friendly societies. I say that the elimination of the medical benefits is the only possible solution of the difficulty, unless, and until the medical profession come forward with their reasonable and proper scheme, so that we will not have the wearying and bitter experience of the past six months, meeting to-day to have one promise and to find that promise broken the next day. This is the last demand for 8s. 6d. We had that in October. What about the wife and family? They must get the red ticket or be paid for.
  Mr. BOOTH: May I ask whether that 8s. 6d. includes drugs and medicines? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
  Mr. LARDNER: May I read it again? It is a most interesting document. "Payment by capitation, minimum fee 8s. 6d." That is for medical attendance alone. In addition to that the doctor is to get a shilling per mile from his own house to the patient, and is as well to get special payment for night-work, for anæsthetics, to which I do not object, and for operations and consultations.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is there anything extra for wet weather?
  Mr. LARDNER: I think we will have that claim yet before we are done. It is easy to talk about perpetuating the pauper taint, and chopping the heads off. People with the facts before them consider that the real reason for the head-chopping is that the head was swelled too big in Ireland by people who were not friends of
  444
  this Bill, and who rather considered that the Bill was intended not for the improvement of health, not for the improvement of the working classes, but rather as a doctor's endowment scheme, because that is how it has been looked at and treated. I, for one, would like to see everyone entitled to get a doctor he has paid for for himself and his wife and family. What I say is that the question of whether we are to have medical benefits lies with the medical profession to make a suitable proposal, and I hope it will come from the hon. Member for Hoxton (Dr. Addison). If there was a suitable proposal I would be prepared and ready to vote for the inclusion of medical benefit for Ireland. I say that any proposal that is made must be a proposal made in the light of our present experience. Our present experience in friendly societies is that the minimum contribution is somewhere about 2s. 6d. or 3s., and that it does not run higher than 6s. 6d., with the exception of one special case in the South of Ireland of I believe 8s.
  Dr. ADDISON: Do I understand that the hon. Member is speaking for his party in saying that if I can arrange between him and the medical profession that he will have no objection to it going in the Bill.
  Mr. LARDNER: I am only speaking on my own behalf, and I have no authority to commit the party. After six months of negotiation and struggle they are not prepared at this last moment, but I say if any reasonable offer be made that I for one will vote for it. At present the minimum is 3s. and the maximum is about 6s. with an average of 5s. For that, we get the insured member, the doctor of the friendly society, and his wife and family attended and medicine supplied. That contrasts very strangely with 8s. 6d. for medical attendance and 1s. per mile and special fees for night work. Recollect that if a friendly society wants a doctor, it has not to go begging for him. The doctors rather come asking to be selected. I say if there is any offer or proposal to be made by which Ireland is to get medical benefit the remedy lies in the hands of the doctors in making a reasonable and fair offer.
  Mr. O'SHEE: This new Amendment includes the following Sub-section:
  (11) Rules of an approved society or local health committee under this Part of this Act may provide for the inspection of medical relief registers by

  445
  officers of the society or committee at all reasonable times and for the furnishing to the society or committee of such medical certificates as may be necessary for the purposes of the administration of the benefits administered by the society or committee and for the payment by the society or committee to duly qualified medical practitioners of such remuneration in respect of the furnishing of those certificates as the Irish Insurance Commissioners may sanction and all payments so made by the society or committee shall be treated as expenses of administering the benefits aforesaid.
  Most of the rural portions of Ireland have only got one doctor, who is the dispensary doctor. How are you to arrange for certificates for insured persons in the district, probably ten miles away from the nearest other doctor. If the medical practitioner says "I will not take you," are those insured persons to be deprived altogether of sickness benefit because they cannot got a certificate from the local man, who goes out on strike against the capitation fee, because the doctors have published resolutions threatening us with a strike because we did not give the 8s. 6d. and the mileage and the extra remuneration for night work. As far as I can see, the petition cannot be met, except by the inclusion of some such provision as was in the original Clause, which imposed the duty on the dispensary doctor of doing certain work. Many duties have been imposed on dispensary doctors by Acts of Parliament for reasonable and proper remuneration, and, of course, you must properly pay them. I greatly fear that unless the duty is imposed under this Bill on the dispensary doctors of doing this work, they being the only persons available, we shall have great trouble in many parts of Ireland in putting this Bill into operation at all as regards sickness benefit.
  The new Sub-section in the Amendment before us provides that the employed rate shall be the rate specified in Part II. of the Second Schedule to the Act. I wish to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to one matter which arises on the Schedule which is specified. At the last investigation by the Board of Trade in Ireland the average rate of wages for agricultural labourers was 11s. 3d. There was a sum included in that 11s. 3d. as being the equivalent value of board and lodgings. Board and lodgings are given in many parts
  446
  of rural Ireland. Very few weekly men are employed. They have practically nobody but a servant girl and a boy, who live in and get board and lodgings just as servant girls in the ordinary course. The last Report of 1907 gives the average wages of agricultural labourers in each county in Ireland, and it gives the average rates for the three different classes of labourers. It estimates that the average for those who receive cash weekly and are not provided with board and lodgings is 11s. 2d. For men paid weekly cash wages, and provided with board and lodgings, it works out at 11s. 7d., and for men paid yearly or half yearly cash wages and provided with board and lodgings it works out at 11s. 2d. In that calculation of 11s. 2d. the Report says that for Ireland the value of board and lodging has been computed at 5s. per week, and the value of a cottage at 1s. per week. I want to know whether that standard is to be adhered to, because it has a very important bearing on the contribution that would have to be made by the labourer. If you raise your 5s. to 6s. and state that the value of board and lodgings is 6s., you immediately get an average of 12s. 2d. instead of 11s. 2d. The result would be that every labourer who has only to pay ½d., provided his cash wages and board and lodgings is estimated at 12s. per week, would have to pay 2d. a week if the average is 1d. over the 2s. per day. The Treasury would be relieved of 1d., and the fund would be relieved of the other ½d. It is to the interest of the Treasury and the farmer to put a higher estimate on board and lodgings. The result of a higher estimate would be that the farmer would save 2s. 2d. in respect of each man per year, and the Treasury would save 4s. 4d.
  As it is to the interest of both the farmer and the Treasury to put up the estimate, I should like the Chief Secretary to give some assurance that that will not be allowed to be done to the prejudice of the labourer. It is most important in this matter of the value of board and lodgings that the precedent set under the Old Age Pensions Act should not be followed. We know how extravagant the Treasury have been in estimates of the value of real board and lodgings in Ireland. The pension officers and the Local Government Board estimated the value of board and lodgings of an aged person, living on the benevolence perhaps of a near relative or distant relative, at 12s. a week, although it ought in that case to have been less than

  447
  5s. I ask the Chief Secretary's attention to that point and to the point I referred to concerning the absolute necessity, if this act is to do good in the rural parts of Ireland, of imposing duties on dispensary doctors in the matter of furnishing these certificates. In the rural districts where the people are few and scattered it is reasonable that the rate should be larger. It ought to depend to a great extent on the number of insured persons in the doctor's district. The matter is an important one, and ought to be looked into and considered before the Report stage.
  Mr. CHAMBERS: I should like to make a friendly observation, particularly having regard to what the hon. Member for Monaghan said. He told us the real reason why medical benefits were excluded as regards to Ireland, and I think if it be the real reason it is a great pity an arrangement could not be at once made whereby those benefits could be extended to Ireland. It was alleged during the progress of this Debate that the reason why medical benefits were excluded as regarded Ireland was the dispensary system. Having some knowledge of the dispensary system in Ireland, I was somewhat astonished that some of those who represented Ireland should be satisfied with that system as a substitute for medical benefits. A moment's reflection would show that the system, particularly having regard to the fact that you are dealing with a country where friendly societies' system has not been generally applied, is wholly inadequate. There are 810 dispensaries in Ireland, and there is an average to each dispensary district of 25,728 acres. That is the medical capacity so far as the dispensary system of Ireland is concerned. I approve of the Bill, and am delighted with it, but I want the Bill to be the best that can be for Ireland, and to see if anything can be done to include medical benefit for Ireland. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Monaghan saying he welcomed medical benefits for Ireland, and I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Mayo give expression to similar sentiments. On behalf of Belfast I wish to say we will be delighted there, also, to have the medical benefits included, otherwise the system is altogether inadequate.
  8.0 P.M.
  I believe there will be more deposit contributors in Ireland proportionately than elsewhere, and I am afraid their plight
  448
  will be pitiable as regards medical benefit. Friendly societies do not exist very largely in Belfast. Section 24 of the Act prescribes that if the rules of the society permit they have the option to reject any particular applicant for membership. If the rules of the society prevent a person from becoming a member he is bound to adopt the position of a deposit contributor in Ireland. The very fact that few societies exist in Ireland show that there are a great number of people who may be forced to resort to the deposit system. Their position will be that they will be absolutely deprived of medical benefit, because, as already stated in the House tonight, only the very poor are to be allowed to get this relief from the dispensary. The deposit contributor, a very numerous class in Ireland, will be absolutely shut out from medical benefit of any description. I think that would be a great blot upon this Bill. Take the case of those who become members of approved societies. They will get no medical benefit for at any rate three years. It will all depend on their luck whether the society will turn out to have a surplus at that time. They are the people who demand our sympathy. I respectfully press upon the House that steps should be taken before the Bill passes into law to secure that the medical benefits will be extended to Ireland. I was not aware of the negotiations, or of the claims of the doctors of Ireland, but if there is a surplus in connection with the working out of this Bill—I am not in a position to say whether their demands are extravagant or not—I do know enough of the medical profession in Ireland to know this; if yielding on their part to a certain scale of charges would result in the inflow of benefits such as this Bill will undoubtedly bring into Ireland, that they will deal loyally and kindly. If that be the only obstacle I would most strongly and earnestly appeal that steps should be taken to bring the medical benefits into the country I live in.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: Leave out Sub-section (9).—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  Part III.
    GENERAL.

      CLAUSE 82.—(Provisions as to Stamps.)
      Stamps required for the purposes of this Act shall be prepared and issued in such manner as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, with the consent of the Treasury, may direct, who may provide for applying, with the necessary adaptations, as respects such stamps, all or any of the provisions (including penal provisions) of the Stamp Duties Management Act, 1891, as amended by any subsequent Act, and Section sixty-five of the Post Office Act, 1908, and may, with the consent of the Postmaster-General, provide for the sale of such stamps through the Post Office.
      Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, to leave out the word "who" ["who may provide for applying"], and to insert instead thereof the words "and the said Commissioners." This Amendment stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford, and I would like to move it.
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I accept it.
      Question, "That the word 'who' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
      Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, after the word "may" ["who may provide for applying"], to insert the words "by regulations in accordance with the provisions of this Act." I move this Amendment for the purpose of eliciting from the Government how it is proposed that the Inland Revenue Commissioners shall apply the provisions of the Stamp Act. As the Bill stands at present, the criminal law of the country can be altered by this provision being made applicable to these new stamps. I do not in the least object to that, but we ought to know how the thing is to be done. Is it by some resolution of the Commissioners, or is there some provision in the Act applying to the Commissioners on which the Attorney-General relies?
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I accept that Amendment too.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 83.—(Outdoor Relief.)
  In granting outdoor relief to a person in receipt of or entitled to receive any benefit under this Act, a board of guardians in England shall not take into consideration any such benefit, except so far as such benefit exceeds five shillings a week.
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move to leave out the words "in England" ["a board of guardians in England."]
  I had proposed with regard to this Clause to move its omission. I had also handed in a manuscript Amendment to leave out the words "in England," which really I think meets my point more clearly than leaving out the Clause. This Clause provides in England only—not in Scotland, Wales, or Ireland—that in the granting of outdoor relief to a person in receipt of or entitled to receive any benefit under this Act, a Board of Guardians shall not take into consideration any such benefit except so far as it exceeds five shillings a week. I apprehend the reason for that is that there is an Act of 1894 which was amended by the Act of 1904 under which Boards of Guardians in England in granting outdoor relief are not to take into consideration any benefits received from a friendly society except so far as it exceeds this five shillings. I rather presume it was in view of this Act that this Clause was put in. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, having regard to the fact that in Scotland, and I think in Wales and in Ireland, there are also provisions for giving outdoor relief, there is now any just foundation for maintaining this distinction? This is a Bill which applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. I would ask the Attorney-General whether he can really give us any sound reason for making a distinction between England, and Scotland, and Ireland in this respect. If the Attorney-General can point out to us any sound reason, I shall, of course, reconsider this Amendment. Personally, I do not see that there really is any substantial ground. The mere fact that there is this Statute at the present time applicable to England alone does not seem to me to be a good reason for making this distinction in a Bill which applies to the whole of the United Kingdom.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in his explanation of the reason for this Clause. It is only with reference to England that

  451
  the Friendly Societies Act applies. He rightly surmises that this Clause is framed upon that. There is quite a different system in Scotland and Ireland. The observations made by the hon. and learned Gentleman deserve consideration, and we are willing, if there is likely to be any injustice done by Scotland and Ireland not being included, to see that it is put right.
  Mr. CASSEL: The matter will perhaps be considered before Report stage. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 84.—(Priority of Claims for Contributions Due by Bankrupt Employers.)
  (1) There shall be included among the debts which, under Section one of the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Act, 1888, and Section two hundred and nine of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, are, in the distribution of the property of a bankrupt and in the distribution of the assets of a company being wound up, to be paid in priority to all other debts, all contributions payable under this Act by the bankrupt or the company in respect of employed contributors, workmen in an insured trade during the four months before the date of the receiving order, or as the case may be, the commencement of the winding up, and those Acts shall have effect accordingly.
  (2) In the case of the winding up of a company within the meaning of the Stannaries Act, 1887, such contributions as aforesaid shall, if payable in respect of a miner, have the like priority as is conferred on wages of miners by Section nine of that Act, and that Section shall have effect accordingly.
  (3) This Section shall not apply where a company is wound up voluntarily merely for the purposes of reconstruction or of amalgamation with another company.
  (4) In the application of this Section to Scotland a reference to Section three of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act, 1875, shall be substituted for the reference to Section one of the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Act, 1888.
  (5) In the application of this Section to Ireland a reference to Section four of the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy (Ireland) Act, 1889, shall be substituted
  452
  for the reference to Section one of the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Act, 1888; and any reference to a bankrupt shall include a reference to an arranging debtor; and the reference to the receiving order shall be construed as a reference to the order of adjudication in the case of a bankrupt, or to the filing of the petition for arrangement in the case of an arranging debtor.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the words "winding up" ["the commencement of the winding up"], insert the words, "or the Winding-up Order."
  In Sub-section (1), after the word "accordingly" ["shall have effect accordingly"], insert the words, "and formal proof of the debts to which priority is given under this Section shall not be required except in cases where it may otherwise be provided by rules made under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, or the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 85.—(Benefits to be Inalienable.)
  Every assignment of, or charge on, and every agreement to assign or charge, any of the benefits conferred by this Act shall be void and on the bankruptcy of any person entitled to any such benefit, the benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 86.—(Powers of Inspectors.)
  (1) An inspector appointed under this Act shall, for the purposes of the execution of this Act have power to do all or any of the following things, namely:—

  (a) to enter at all reasonable times any premises or place where he has reasonable grounds for supposing that any employed contributors or workmen in an insured trade are employed;

  (b) to make such examination and inquiry as may be necessary for ascertaining whether the provisions of this Act are complied with in any such premises or place;

  (c) to examine, either alone or in the presence of any other person, as he

  453
  thinks fit, with respect to any matters under this Act, every person whom he finds in any such premises or place, or whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be or to have been an employed contributor or workman in an insured trade, and to require every such person to be so examined, and to sign a declaration of the truth of the matters in respect of which he is so examined;

  (d) to exercise such other powers as may be necessary for carrying this Act into effect.

  (2) The occupier of any such premises or place and any other person employing any employed contributor or workman in an insured trade, and the servants and agents of any such occupier or other person, and any employed contributor or workman in an insured trade shall furnish to any inspector all such information and shall produce for inspection all such registers, books, cards, and other documents as the inspector may reasonably require.
  (3) If any person wilfully delays or obstructs an inspector in the exercise of any power under this Section or fails to give such information or to produce such documents as aforesaid, or conceals or prevents or attempts to conceal or prevent any person from appearing before or being examined by an inspector, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds:
  Provided that no one shall be required under this Section to answer any question or give any evidence tending to incriminate himself.
  (4) Where any such premises or place are liable to be inspected by inspectors or other officers, or are under the control, of some other Government Department, the Insurance Commissioners or Board of Trade may make arrangements with that other Government Department for any of the powers and duties of inspectors under this Section being carried out by in spectors or other officers of such other Government Department, and where such an arrangement is made such inspectors and officers shall have all the powers of an inspector under this Section.
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["under this Act shall"], to insert the words "if he has reasonable ground for believing that the provisions of the Act are not being carried out."
  454
  I move this Amendment for the purpose of eliciting from the Government whether or not they will be willing to accept it. The provisions of this Clause are extremely onerous, and will even remain onerous after the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes is inserted. It seems only right that the provisions of this Section should be put into force only where there are some reasonable grounds for suspicion. It ought not to be open for inspectors simply to go into any place on the chance of seeing whether or not anything is to be found out. There should be some reasonable grounds for suspicion that the provisions of the Act are not being carried out before an inspector enters upon private premises to put into force the very stringent provisions of this Act. I do not think that the Government themselves intended this Section to apply except in cases where there are some reasonable ground to suspect a violation of the provisions of the Act. I think, therefore, they will not have any difficulty in accepting this Amendment.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think it is necessary to accept these words, because they do import a danger in the working of this Clause. As a matter of fact, if you look, for example, at paragraph (a) you will see that the inspector must have reasonable ground for supposing that any employed contributors or workmen in an insured trade are employed. The inspector there would have a general right to enter. I should suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that it is not necessary to insert the words he proposes. The inspector must, of course, do his duty, but he is not to enter for the mere wanton purpose of annoying persons. There must be reasonable grounds.
  Mr. FORSTER: Are there any other words the Attorney-General can suggest to meet the case? We do not want people to go into all kinds of works unnecessarily, and where there is no suspicion of any trouble of any sort or kind. We do not want some officious fellows annoying either workmen or employers.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will consider the point.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), after the word "place," ["any premises or place"], insert the words "other than a private dwelling-house not being a workshop."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg leave to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (d).
  Surely the powers given to these inspectors are wide enough without this provision giving them general powers! Sub-section (1) gives power to enter premises and making inquiries that may be necessary, to examine persons either alone or in the presence of other people and to take declarations from them. Sub-section (2) gives the inspectors power to examine all books, registers, cards, and documents. Now, in addition to that some further indefinite powers are to be given to these inspectors. The defined powers which are given are stringent enough, and I view with the greatest apprehension any giving to the inspectors the additional powers referred to in this paragraph (d). I do not know what the Government have in mind under this special Sub-clause, but I submit that the power definitely given is quite sufficient. Besides the definite powers of these inspectors which are held over every householder by this Section, there ought not to be an addition to those very wide definite powers. The actual effect of it no one is able to see.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I should have thought, having regard to what has just passed, that it would not be necessary to suggest the leaving out of this paragraph (d). It is essential in a Bill of this kind that we should make the provisions as elastic as possible. I agree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that it is desirable to have some words that would not leave the inspector quite free to inflict wanton annoyance on any persons under this Clause. I will consider that point, for it is a perfectly reasonable view to put forward. But we do want this paragraph in order to meet any point not otherwise met. It really is needful for the purpose of making the Act elastic, and it is necessary for carrying this Act into effect.
  Mr. FORSTER: We quite recognise that there must be some elasticity, and as soon as the point is made clear that these inspectors shall not have complete power to inflict annoyance upon people I think perhaps we need not press this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move to add at the end of the Clause a new Sub-section:
  "(5) Every inspector shall be furnished with a prescribed certificate of his appoint-
  456
  ment and on applying for admission to any premises for the purposes of this Act shall if so required produce the said certificate to the occupier."
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have not considered these words, but I accept them in substance.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. LANSBURY: This Clause is one which, under a contributory scheme, is more or less necessary, but I am surprised that the House should be so empty when Clauses such as these are going through. Even if it is necessary to have inspection I am very doubtful whether it is necessary to give the inspectors the wide powers that the Sections of this Clause give them. Under the Factory Acts the factory inspector goes round and makes investigations, but I have never yet known him to be in the position to call upon a workman or an employer to sign any document in his presence or to do anything of the kind referred to in these Sections. It seems to me this is a beginning of a scheme which must inevitably end in the workmen of the country being numbered and having dossier which he must produce when necessary. I look upon the whole of this business of inspection and State control of these societies from that point of view. I am not a lawyer, but I am very doubtful if there is any Act of Parliament on the Statute Book giving an individual man power such as is given under this Bill without any appeal to any court or authority other than themselves. I know the argument is that if you have an Act of Parliament you must have power to carry it out. Fifteen millions of people are to be insured, and I do not yet know what is to be the number of the men and women detectives necessary, but my real objection to this proposal is that I look upon it, together with some provisions in the unemployment part, as the beginning of a system identical with the German system by which every workman will be numbered.
  The House of Commons before sanctioning a provision of this kind ought to discuss it and give it full consideration. We are dealing with a measure concerning millions of people who are to be controlled by inspectors responsible to no one and whom no one can bring to book.

  457
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer of course in leaving out domestic servants relieved one big section of the community from the formidable inquisition that will be carried on under this Bil. I think he had no more right to except them than anybody else, and if it is right that a master or a mistress may employ a servant without insuring them, it is equally right that the ordinary employer should be free to act in the same manner. At any rate, I intend to register my vote against this Clause, because I believe it is the beginning of the German system of registering each man and woman and finally making them carry about with them a record of everything they have done. I am opposed to that system. I thought at one time it might be a good thing, but I think now, after giving it considerable thought, it is not, and I am quite certain that working men and women outside have no idea where these provisions in the Bill are going to land them.
  Mr. FELL: This Clause should not be passed without the fullest investigation and discussion. The suggestion that houses should be inspected has been abandoned—that was too monstrous to stand.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It was never proposed.
  Mr. FELL: I am only going by the Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman is going by a journal which is a notorious disseminator of false news. If he reads the Bill he will see it is not proposed.
  Mr. FELL: I am not going by any journal. I made a few notes upon this Clause when I heard that it was coming on.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Will the hon. Gentleman read the Clause?
  Mr. FELL: Yes.
  "to enter at all reasonable times any premises or place where he has reason able grounds for supposing that any employed contributors or workmen"—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Go on!
  Mr. FELL: "in an insured trade"—I quite agree, but an employed contributor would mean servants. However that is abandoned, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to think it applies only to workmen. Does it not apply to every
  458
  clerk in London? Is every counting house and bank to be inspected by a man in uniform or not? Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest clerks should be interviewed as to what their salaries are, what commission they earn in bringing in business and things of that sort? I suggest that it is a most inquisitorial thing which would never be allowed in any other country to say that a clerk must be examined, either privately or in the presence of witnesses, as to what he receives when, as in many cases, they are paid partly by commission on business which they bring in. It would be a most harassing business to apply these conditions to the City of London and to our large provincial towns. It was never intended that these inquiries should apply to such things. I intended to move an Amendment exempting counting houses and offices from this Clause. This means prying into the business of the whole of the country in an entirely unnecessary way. These provisions may be all very well for a factory, but to inspect counting houses and interview clerks as to whether they are contributors, or as to whether their salaries are too high to make them contributors, is something we have never yet stood in this country, and I am doubtful whether people will stand it now. We may hear of cases where the inspector has arrived at a place and the employer will say, "Well, we are all going out. I am going out; I am not going to see the inspectors; I have made my return, and if they do not believe me let them enforce this Clause against me. I made my return the same as I do any other returns, but to say my office boy is going to be interviewed to know whether he is insured, and whether the clerks are receiving £150 a year, that is a thing which was never contemplated by this Bill." I shall join with my hon. Friend in opposing the whole of these inspection Clauses. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) when he said this would lead to every workman having to keep papers. We shall end in every man having to keep in a book every engagement he has been in, with his character from every previous master. That is what this will lead up to, and a man will not be able to get a situation or place unless he produces these papers, and the whole thing looked through as to what he has done in his previous life. It might be very useful in case we had universal conscription, but to apply these conditions to private employés is not right, and I shall vote against this Clause.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER: I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley with regard to the effect of this particular Clause upon which I do not wish to give a silent vote. A good deal has been said about each man having a secret dossier. A great many things are said and done in the name of individual liberty which have no connection with real liberty, and I see nothing whatever in this Clause which any employer of labour or any workman need object to. These inspectors are going to go round when necessary to the works where a man is employed to find out, I suppose, amongst other things, whether the whole of the men come within the scope of the Bill, whether their contributions are being paid, and such other things as are necessary for the inspector to find out. There is no liberty lost in that case. To-day we inspect all kinds of places. You send your inspectors into the business man's premises to see that he is keeping within the regulations of the Factory Acts. You send your shop inspectors to business premises to see whether the Shop Hours Act is being carried out. In all our municipalities you have inspectors connected with elementary education and sanitary law, and I ask is it possible to carry out the provisions of this Bill without a system of inspection? I am quite willing to go into the Lobby in support of this Clause.
  Mr. CASSEL: I wish to protest against the attack which has been made upon the hon. Member for Yarmouth by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the ground that he had misinterpreted the Bill as it originally stood, and that he had been misled by a journal which is notorious for its inaccuracy. May I say that on this occasion that journal was absolutely accurate with regard to its interpretation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Bill, and the writer in that journal knew the provisions of the Bill better than the right hon. Gentleman knows them himself. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had studied the provisions of his own Clause more carefully, he would have seen that the inspector has a right to enter premises if he has reasonable grounds for supposing that there are either employed contributors or workmen in the insured trades. Employed contributors would certainly include a servant, and it would entitle an inspector to enter any house in which he had reason to believe a butler, housemaid, or footman was employed. My hon. Friend was perfectly right in saying that the Bill as it
  460
  stood would have given power to any in spector to go into any part of any private house throughout the United Kingdom and there examine the servants and the masters and mistresses with regard to the provisions of this Bill being complied with. The best evidence of this is the Chancellor's own Amendment, because if he had already got a true interpretation of his Bill and believed that there was no right to enter a dwelling house, why did he pro pose an Amendment to exempt that case? He introduced that Amendment because it was recognised that the Bill as drafted did apply to dwelling houses. I rose to speak not so much on the Clause, but in order to protest against the absolutely unwarranted attack made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). It is perfectly true we have got inspectors, and we are going to have more and more of them, and eventually we shall have more inspectors than inspected. The mere fact that we have a large number of inspectors for other objects is not a sufficient defence for this proposal. I agree that some kind of inspection is necessary, but the only point is whether this Clause does not really go further than the necessities of the case would warrant. It is an innovation to be able to send inspectors into any bank or counting house. I know that dwelling houses are going to be exempt, and it would have been a tremendous innovation for an inspector to be able to go into any dining room or drawing room—
  Mr. POINTER: Do they keep the servants in the dining room or the drawing room?
  Mr. CASSEL: I shall not take any notice of the hon. Member's interruption, because it shows that he has not appreciated the purpose of this Clause. Counting houses, business premises, or any bank can be entered by these inspectors. I do not propose to vote against this Clause because I think some kind of inspection is necessary, but I do think these provisions are particularly harsh, and although the Government are going to introduce some mitigating provisions on the Report stage I think they are going further in the way of inspection than anything we have done before.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not accept the interpretation which the hon. and learned Gentleman has placed upon this Clause. In order to support his own interpretation he puts into the Sub-section

  461
  a word which is not there, and he uses the word "either" instead of "any." The word "either" is not in the Clause at all.
  Mr. CASSEL: It has the same meaning.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been a little more accurate if he had not used a word which was not there.
  Mr. CASSEL: The right hon. Gentleman says I have been misquoting the Clause. I was giving my interpretation of the effect of the Clause, and whether the word "either" is in or not does not make the slightest difference.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman says what he meant was not that the word "either" was there, but that it came to the same thing. I should have thought it made a very great difference as to whether you had the words "either employed contributor or workman," or whether you take the words of the Clause, "any employed contributor or workman in an insured trade." The intention of the Government was that it should be confined to employed contributors or workmen in an insured trade, and the moment our attention was called to the fact that the Clause might conceivably permit the inspection of private dwelling-houses we made that intention perfectly clear by putting down an Amendment to exclude private dwelling-houses. My complaint is not against the hon. Member, but against the paper referred to that they never called the attention of their readers to the fact that this Amendment had been put down making it perfectly clear what was the intention of the Government. I do not see how you can carry out any Act of this kind without some sort of inspection, and, if you have inspection of shops and factories, I do not see why on earth you should not have the same inspection of counting houses for the purposes of carrying out an Act of Parliament! I cannot imagine why those in counting houses should be immune from the same kind of inspection to which shopkeepers are subjected at the present time. Why should it be an insult to a banker to be subjected to the same kind of inspection—whether he is carrying out the law that a shopkeeper is under at the present time. It is the same kind of principle. If the hon. Member can point out any way whereby we can secure the enforcement of the law without some method of inspection, I shall be very glad to consider any proposal of that kind he makes.
  Mr. PETO: I desire to raise quite a different point. I am not prepared to admit that anything like the kind of inspection provided for by this Clause is necessary, but I want to ask this: Under Paragraph (c) there are powers taken
  "to examine, either alone or in the presence of any other person, as he thinks fit, with respect to any matters under this Act, every person whom he finds in any such premises or place, or whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be or to have been an employed contributor or workman in an insured trade, and to require every such person to be so examined, and to sign a declaration of the truth of the matters in respect of which he is so examined;"
  One of the insured trades is shipbuilding, and there will be intricate questions to be settled as to what extent auxiliary trades ought to be included in the general trade of shipbuilding. These examinations will undoubtedly occupy an enormous amount of time and cause considerable interruption of business. I want to know whether the men who are to be examined are to lose several hours, perhaps one, two, or three days when the examinations take place, or whether the employer is to bear the whole loss of the time occupied by those in their employment giving evidence on the premises to satisfy the inspector on the various intricate points to be raised. I had an Amendment down, but unfortunately I was not in my place raising the question whether it was not reasonable it should be made perfectly clear that the time lost by workmen carrying out the provisions of this Clause should be neither paid for by the workman in loss of wages nor by the employer in loss of time, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give me some satisfaction on that point. If he cannot, I shall regard the provisions of the Clause as so unjust that I shall have to join the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury).
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I want to ask a question on paragraphs (a) and (c). I am sorry I was not here to move an Amendment cutting out the words "employed contributors or," because I do not think it is at all clear whether paragraph (a) is to apply merely to an insured trade or whether it is also to apply to an employed contributor who does not happen to be in a particular trade but who is insured. It seems to me it is quite easy to read the paragraph so as to include

  463
  employed contributors outside an insured trade as well as workmen in an insured trade under the Bill. I am quite sure that members of friendly societies do not in the least realise, if it is the case, that ordinary members of approved societies under the Bill are, according to this Clause, going to be under inspection. I have talked to a great many of them, and I have talked to one or two leaders of the Manchester Unity, and they have been under the impression up to now that this merely refers to employed contributors in an insured trade. If it really does include employed contributors outside an insured trade, I should feel bound to divide against the Clause.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It certainly applies to every one.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: There is certainly one class of person to whom this Clause ought not to apply, and who are not specifically excluded. I refer to the teachers
  and head teachers in secondary schools. I am sorry they are not, as elementary school teachers, exempted.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have an Amendment down to meet their case.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: It must be clear, apart from any Amendment, it would cause very serious interference with discipline if the head teacher downwards were examined, possibly in the presence of the children, in order to obtain this information. I venture to hope, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised an Amendment, that, as the secondary teachers feel very strongly about this Bill, that Amendment will have the effect of exempting them altogether from this Clause.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 30.

  Division No. 388.]

  AYES.

  [8.45 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Johnson, W.

  Adamson, William

  Doris, William

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Anderson, A.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Joyce, Michael

  Armitage, R.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Keating, M.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Esmonds, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Kelly, Edward

  Barlow, Sir John Emmot (Somerset)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Kemp, Sir George

  Barnes, G. N.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Kilbride, Denis

  Benn, W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)

  Ferens, T. R.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lardner, James Carrige Ruche

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Law, Hugh A (Donegal, West)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Boland, John Pius

  Furness, Stephen

  Leach, Charles

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Bowerman, C. W.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Lynch, A. A.

  Brace, William

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Gill, A. H.

  McGhee, Richard

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Goldstone, Frank

  M'Callum, John M.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gulland, John William

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hackett, J.

  Martin, Joseph

  Clough, William

  Hancock, J. G.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Meagher, Michael

  Dompton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Dondon, Thomas Joseph

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Molloy, M.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hayward, Evan

  Mooney, John J.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Cullinan, John

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Muldoon, John

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hinds, John

  Munro, R.

  Davies, E. William (Eiflon)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hudson, Walter

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Devlin, Joseph

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Dillon, John

  John, Edward Thomas

  Nuttall, Harry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Wadsworth, John

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Robinson, Sidney

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  O'Grady, James

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Webb, H.

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, J. (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Whitehouse, John Howard

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

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Sheehy, David

  Wiles, Thomas

  Pointer, Joseph

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Smyth, Thomas F.

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

  Radford, George Heynes

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

  Reddy, M.

  Summers, James Woolley

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Sutton, John E.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Richards, Thomas

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. G. Howard.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  NOES.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Crean, Eugene

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Gretton, John

  Swift, Rigby

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hodge, John

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Jowett, F. W.

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

  Campion, W. R.

  Lansbury, George

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Cassel, Felix

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Fell and Mr. Peto.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 87.—(Short Title and Commencement.)
  This Act may be cited as the National Insurance Act, 1911, and shall, save as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, come into operation on the first day of May, 1912.
  Mr. PETO: I beg to move, after the word "and" ["and shall"], to insert the words "the provisions contained in Part I. of this Act."
  The purpose of this Amendment is to limit the date at which the Bill will come into operation as an Act of Parliament. There is a consequential Amendment at the end to the effect that "the provisions contained in Part II. of this Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirteen." My object in putting down these Amendments is to delay the operation of the Act as far as the unemployed section is concerned by one year, in order to obviate committing what, I think, would be undoubtedly a very great injustice in the case of all contracts for works—building contracts and engineering contracts—entered into, the tenders for which were made without any provision or allowance whatever for the payment of the unemployment contribution on the part of the employer. At first sight the Committee may think that
  466
  this is a comparatively small matter. But the trades included are eminently trades in which great contracts are entered into, some of them extending over one or two years, or more. On these an enormous number of men are employed, and it is perfectly obvious that, if no provision whatever is made for the extra 2½d. per week on the wage of every employé, it must make a material difference to the financial result of the contract. This is not a question of imposing any burden on industry. It is simply a plain question whether it is just and right on the part of the Government to introduce a Bill into this House and to pass it through with the rapidity with which this Bill is being got through, so that it shall come into operation at a date when it will vitally affect contracts which have already been entered into between one subject and another in this country. It seems to me that if there is any hardship in postponing the operation of the unemployment Clauses it must be infinitely less than the injustice which would be done if the Bill were allowed to come into operation, as far as this particular part is concerned, on 1st May, 1912. I think, at any rate, the postponement is the lesser evil of the two, if it is an evil at all. I may point this out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Undoubtedly a Bill of this magnitude,

  467
  consisting of three parts and of all these Schedules, will take an enormous amount of study on the part of the millions of people who will come under its operation. I do not think it would be any disadvantage, from the point of view of the employed persons themselves, if they had a year given to them to digest Part I. before they were compelled to swallow Part II. I think it would tend to the smooth working of the Act, and it would be easier to arrange for the choosing of the best men to fill the new posts under this Bill than if you had only the brief period of five or six months in which to select a large number of new State officials. I believe it would be for the benefit of the country and for the benefit of good government to divide the measure, so far as the date of its coming into operation is concerned, into two parts. Let the country get accustomed to it, and let the uninsured persons get thoroughly accustomed to what they have to do in regard to sickness insurance, before they have to go into the questions raised by the Unemployment Clauses.
  Mr. FORSTER: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to accept an Amendment postponing the date of the commencement of the whole Act to such a period as will meet the objection of my hon. Friend with regard to Part II. There are a number of Amendments proposing that the operation of the Act shall begin on 1st January, 1913. That is the date my hon. Friend suggests for the commencement of Part II. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in an earlier Debate that he would have to postpone the commencement of the Act from 1st May next until some later date, which he was not able to specify at the moment. If he were able now to say that he would postpone the commencement of the Act until 1st January, 1913, it would meet some of the objections my hon. Friend takes to the Clause. It would give the country as a whole more time to understand the Bill, and it would give the societies and the Insurance Commissioners more time in which to frame their schemes, and, on the whole, I think it would make for the smooth working of the Act.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I could not accept this Amendment postponing Part II. until 1st January, 1913, for a reason which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will
  468
  recognise to be a very forcible one. It is very important that provision for unemployment should be built up during the time that trade is comparatively good. One never knows how long trade will remain in its present prosperous condition. There are cycles in trade, and ups and downs in business in the history of every country, and it is almost impossible to predict when the up grade will come to an end and when the down grade will begin. At any rate, it is far better that we should begin at once to build up the fund for unemployment as against the day when the fund will be required, and when it will probably have to stand a much heavier strain than it would in the time of comparative prosperity. I agree with the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster), that it may be well to consider a further postponement from May of the whole Bill, but I hope he will not press me to postpone it so far as January, 1913. It is a question entirely of the time that will be needed to make arrangements. I am advised it will be possible to do it by July of next year, but I am taking a little further time to consider the matter, and by the time we reach the Report stage I hope to put down an Amendment on the subject.
  Mr. PETO: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer accept an Amendment on Part II. excepting existing contracts?
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: We have to consider two important matters. One is that, assuming that a scheme like this is to receive the sanction of Parliament, everybody would like it to come into operation as soon as it conveniently can, because, if we have a good thing, the sooner it comes into operation the better. What is to be said against that is that this Bill, divided as it is in two parts, one dealing with the compulsory national insurance and the other with unemployment, will undoubtedly cause a very considerable dislocation of existing arrangements. There are vast interests in the country who require to alter to a very large extent the arrangements that they have now got, so as to meet the provisions of the Bill. Personally, I think it might have been possible to have got the insurance portion of these arrangements—I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that respect—completed by the 1st July. But I believe that would be all that could possibly be done. I am in touch with a variety of people who are interested in

  469
  the putting into operation of the insurance part of this Bill. These people tell me that they will have a great many alterations to make and a great deal of new machinery to put into operation, but I should have thought that it would be possible to get it done by 1st July. Amongst other things it must be remembered that there is a large number of societies which are carrying on business of this class who have been making an effort to do two things: first of all altering a large portion of their existing arrangements in order to comply with the general scope of the Bill, and, secondly, large numbers of them would be endeavouring to raise their members to whatever may be the prescribed limit; and it is essential in order to prevent dislocation of business that this should be done in a proper way, and that these large interested parties should have an opportunity of doing it properly. I believe it is possible that it may be done by the 1st July. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is much better able to form an opinion on that subject than I am, and I think we might very comfortably leave it in his hands to make inquiries and satisfy himself that these things can be done and the machinery perfected by the date at which he proposes, on Report, that the insurance portion of the Bill should come into operation.
  But there is another point. With regard to the Unemployment Clauses, if a legislative remedy is really arrived at, every one will join at once and say, let us endeavour to bring that into operation as soon as possible. What is the position? We have been told by the Mover of the Amendment, and it is perfectly true, that there are vast contracts and sub-contracts at present in course of being carried out for the supply of material for great works running into enormous figures. Immediately this Bill comes into operation it will make a distinct difference in the terms and conditions upon which that business can be done, and it is obvious that if by Statute you impose conditions which alter the circumstances under which people have taken contracts and sub-contracts, you are apt to do a great injustice to the parties concerned. This principle has always been safeguarded by Parliament where duties are imposed on articles which have not been previously taxed, or where the rates of duties have been increased or altered, because in all these cases, such as the alteration of the Sugar Duties, it is provided that the amount of the duty should
  470
  be added on to the price of existing contracts. We cannot do anything of that sort with regard to the Unemployment Clauses of this Bill. We cannot impose on the person for whom the work is being done, or the person who is doing the work, any statutory modifications of the conditions under which the contract has been taken, and therefore it is clear that if we are not to do an injustice to considerable bodies of people we ought not to put these Unemployment Clauses into operation until such a date as it would be reasonable to suppose that, at all events, the bulk of existing contracts had run off. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would listen sympathetically to the suggestion that the unemployment Clauses should come into operation about three months later than the insurance Clauses, that is to say about the 1st October or the end of the year, which would give an opportunity for all these existing contracts to have been substantially complied with, we should have the satisfaction of knowing that in introducing a great measure of this kind we were, at all events in these two directions, not causing an incidental injustice. I shall be pleased if the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to make it 1st July with regard to insurance, and the end of the year or some intermediate date with regard to unemployment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, to leave out the word "May" ["on the first day of May"], and to insert instead thereof the word "January."
  I do not move this in any captious spirit and it will not in the least endanger the Bill. The hon. Member (Mr. Peto) used some extremely strong arguments in favour of the postponement of Part II., but his arguments apply a little more strongly to the postponement of Part I. After all, every approved society will have to go in for a certain amount of reorganisation and a great many will have practically to reconstruct themselves from top to bottom. I should think the right hon. Gentleman might take into his serious consideration whether it would not be as well to give six or eight months extra time to this very elaborate and complicated work which will have to be done by every single society which becomes an approved society under the Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope the hon. Gentleman, for the reasons I have already indicated, will not press the Amendment at this stage. I should certainly have to

  471
  resist it. I am in consultation with the authorities as to the difficulties they have to encounter and the time which they must take in order to adjust the conditions of their societies to the new conditions under the Bill. That is the reason why I withdrew my Amendment. I am not in a position to suggest an alternative date at present. I have withdrawn my own, and I could not accept the hon. Gentleman's for the same reason. I hope he will not press the Committee to come to a decision at this stage.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I desire to join with the hon. Member (Mr. G. Locker-Lamp-son) in making a very strong appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should indicate to us some later date than he has hitherto mentioned for the commencement of the Act. In addition to the societies which have been referred to there are the Holloway societies, which will have to recast their constitution entirely. In addition to that there are a large number of slate clubs throughout the South of England, all of which will not be admitted under this Bill as approved societies, and their members will have to consider what line they will take in order to bring themselves under the provisions of the Bill. This includes a very large number of agricultural labourers. The agricultural classes do not move very fast in these matters. They are a somewhat sporadic population, and they will require an enormous amount of organisation before they will be put in a position to derive full benefit from such an Act of Parliament as this. The right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he is prepared to postpone the commencement from May to July. As regards the class in which I am mainly interested, that will afford no relief whatever to them in the matter of organising their societies, whether themselves joining approved societies or, what is even more important in the country districts, grouping their own village societies within the county group. Between these two months these men are mainly employed in harvesting operations. They have no time whatever to consider such matters as these, and unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give them some of the autumn and winter months for consideration I am sure very serious injustice will be done to the agricultural population. I most sincerely and, without in any way being captious, make a very strong appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in justice to
  472
  the agricultural population, to postpone this for at least a year from the end of this year in order to give full time to enable them to put themselves in the best possible position to derive benefits under the Bill.
  Mr. BARNES: I am sure the Amendment is not put forward in any captions spirit. At the same time I hope it will be withdrawn so that the Chancellor may consider the whole matter without the Amendment being negatived. It would be very damaging to the unemployed part to defer it for any considerable time. Probably before very long we shall have our streets filled with unemployed once more, and shall be in the throes of an unemployed agitation, and it is necessary to get the unemployed part well under way before we are overtaken by that period. Therefore, I should like the unemployed part to come in as speedily as possible consistent with the argument of the hon. Member (Mr. Watson Rutherford). In regard to Part I., I think there is good ground for a little delay. I should not object to some months' delay. Most of us have to dovetail the machinery of our organisation to fit in with Part I. a much more difficult job than to dovetail Part II. Part II. is comparatively simple, but Part I. will involve a considerable amount of adjustment in our societies. We cannot very well alter our rules in a hurry. As a matter of fact all the societies that I have in my mind will probably convene delegate meetings for next Whitsun. It is almost impossible for them to-do so before then, much as they might desire to do it. The different societies have to call meetings, take votes, see their members, put forward projects for the alteration of their rules, and so on, and I believe they cannot hold their delegate meetings before Whitsun. That will be well into May. As the Bill now stands 1st May, 1912, is the date, and if that were passed, this measure would probably have become an Act, and would be in operation before we could adjust our societies in the way of bringing about the changed conditions which must be brought about. For my own part I am quite content with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has all these things in his mind. He will no doubt be conferring with the people who are concerned in these matters before the Bill finally becomes an Act, and I am quite sure that he will endeavour to fit in the date to suit the convenience of those who are coming under the Act. Therefore I

  473
  think it would be far better that the Amendment should be withdrawn, leaving the Chancellor of the Exchequer's hand free.
  Mr. FORSTER: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us an assurance that he only desires to meet the wishes of the friendly societies and other people who will have to perform the difficult work of bringing the Act into operation. He told us that he withdrew his Amendment which postponed the date from 1st May to 1st July because he was persuaded that that period was not long enough for the postponement. I want to make a very strong appeal to him. We want to put the date off until the end of the year, while the right hon. Gentleman does not want to put it off beyond the beginning of July. Can we compromise and make it October? That will give three months more. It will give people longer time to alter their rules, and to make their schemes and arrangements. There is a great deal of truth in what the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division said. It will be Whitsuntide before the societies can arrange to meet. Many of the societies will not be able to meet before Whitsuntide, and they will not have an opportunity before then of really considering the full bearing of the changes which the Act involves. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may be able to meet us to the extent I have suggested.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Speaking as the Chancellor of the Exchequer I would say that, of course, the longer it is postponed the better I ought to be pleased. I will consider October as one of the alternative dates which might be adopted. If you make it January your benefits would begin in July. Well, the summer months is not the time to do that. If you make it October, you will begin the benefits at a time when they are not heavy. When I decided for July I had in view that the benefits would begin to flow in at the beginning of winter. I think the friendly societies have to bear in mind not merely the convenience of the officials of these organisations, though that, of course, must be taken into account; they must also bear in mind the individual members of the societies, and whether they can come into the enjoyment of the arrangements made for them at the beginning of winter. I am not pressing at this moment that July should be the date, but I would rather not make up my mind until I have heard a great deal more from the societies upon
  474
  the subject. I am only making this appeal that they should rather go to some inconvenience in order to let the benefits come in at the beginning of winter. Once it gets on to the summer months, there is not the same call for a fund of this kind. I know the difficulties are great, but there must be on the part of those concerned a desire not to have unnecessary delay. When a Bill of this kind comes into operation exceptional circumstances arise, and in this case the societies have to adapt themselves to them. It is in the interests of the unions to begin business at once as soon as the Act is through. I do ask them to bear in mind the interests of the millions who are coming into the fund, hundreds of thousands of whom will stand in need of this fund. I would ask the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, as well as those who represent the trade unions, to remember that we will endeavour to find a solution which will work satisfactorily to those concerned. The date suggested by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Forster) is one of the alternatives I have myself considered.
  Mr. GRETTON: I think there is a great deal in what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. It seems to me, however, that if his argument was carried to its logical conclusion he would bring the Act into operation either in March next year or in March, 1913. I think, on the whole, it would be advisable not to carry the Amendment to a Division, but I should like to say that, though the right hon. Gentleman is consulting with the great organised societies in this country, he has not been able to consult the smaller societies scattered throughout the country—societies which are not organised, but which, nevertheless, represent a very large number of persons indeed. If their convenience is not seriously considered in this matter they will not be satisfied. It is desirable that they should be able to organise themselves under the scheme of the Bill into county associations, and it is, I understand, intended that they should have an opportunity of availing themselves of such an arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman can only get these matters explained to him by those Members who are in close touch with the question and whose duty it is to urge it upon his attention. In the case of many of the small societies in the country the aspects of the Bill have changed so constantly that the persons who have to undertake the management of these societies are absolutely bewildered. They do not know how

  475
  they stand at the present moment, and they will not know until the Bill passes its Report stage, and they will then have to begin to get actuarial advice. I think on the whole we shall be well advised to leave this matter an open question, and I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to give time upon the Report stage, so that it may come before the consideration of the House.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The smaller the proportion of the Post Office contributors and the larger the number of the general people who join the approved societies the better. If you force this through at an early date you will do so before large numbers of people who would leave the class of Post Office depositors and become incorporated with the approved societies would have an opportunity of doing so. The right hon. Gentleman should give sufficient time not only to the approved societies to reorganise, but also to make a supreme effort up and down the country to have as few Post Office depositors as possible. If the period is too short, it may have the effect of leaving a much larger proportion of the people as Post Office depositors than would be desirable.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to consult the friendly societies, and if possible to postpone this Clause for three months in view of that promise, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE (Proposed 15th November).—Special Provision where Employer liable to pay Wages during Sickness.
  (1) The Insurance Commissioners may from time to time make special orders specifying any classes of employment in which a custom prevails according to which the persons employed receive full remuneration during periods of disease or disablement, and where the custom is confined to certain localities the order shall also specify the localities in which the custom prevails, and, subject to the provisions of this Section, the order may contain such incidental, supplemental, and consequential provisions as appear necessary for adapting the other provisions of this Part of this Act to cases under this Section.
  (2) It shall be lawful for any employer who employs persons in any class of employment specified in any such order, within a locality (if the custom is confined to certain localities) so specified, to give to the Insurance Commissioners the prescribed notice, and thereupon the employer shall, as respects all such persons be subject to the liabilities, and this Part of this Act shall apply in respect of all such persons subject to the modifications, hereinafter mentioned.
  (3) The employer shall be liable to pay full remuneration to every such person during any period or periods not exceeding six weeks in the aggregate in any one year during which such person may be suffering from any disease or disablement commencing while such person is in his employment, notwithstanding that such person may have left his employment before the expiration of that time.
  Provided that if any such person is engaged for a term of not less than six months certain, the employer shall be liable to pay full remuneration during any period of disease or disablement lasting less than six weeks, and for the first six weeks of any period of disease or disablement lasting more than six weeks, notwithstanding that the aggregate exceeds six weeks, but where any such period extends beyond the term of the engagement, he shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of any part thereof after the expiration of such term.
  (4) This Part of this Act shall apply in respect of persons so employed as afore said, subject to the following modifications:—

  (a) Sickness benefit shall not be payable in respect of any period during which full remuneration is payable by the employer under this Section, but, for the purpose of calculating the rate and duration thereof, shall be deemed to have been paid for six weeks before the date as from which it becomes actually payable;

  (b) The employed rate shall be reduced by two pence (or where the employed contributor is a woman, one penny halfpenny);

  (c) The weekly contributions payable by the employer shall be reduced by one penny (or where the employed contributor is a woman, one halfpenny), and the weekly contributions payable by the employed contributor shall be reduced by one penny.

  477

  (d) There shall be credited to the approved society of which any such person is a member, or, if he is a deposit contributor, to his account in the Post Office fund, the difference between the amount of contributions at such reduced rate actually paid in respect of him and the amount which would have been paid if those contributions had been at the full rate, and the amount of that difference shall be treated as having been expended on sickness benefit and the proper proportion thereof shall accordingly be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament;

  (e) Contributions shall not be payable in respect of any period of disease or disablement during which full remuneration is payable under this Section if the prescribed notice has been given;

  (f) The rules of an approved society or local health committee as to notices and proof of disease and disablement may extend to periods of disease and disablement during which full remuneration is payable under this Section.

  (5) Where a person on ceasing to be so employed becomes temporarily unemployed, paragraphs (b) and (d) of the last foregoing Sub-section shall continue to apply in respect of him, and sickness benefit shall not be payable in respect of the first six weeks of any period of disease or disablement, commencing after he ceased to be so employed, but for the purpose of calculating the rate and duration thereof shall be deemed to have been paid during those six weeks, and notwithstanding anything in this Part of this Act a disease or disablement shall not for the purposes of sickness benefit be treated as a continuation of a previous disease or disablement unless the medical practitioner attending such person certifies that it in fact is so.
  (6) Where such a person as aforesaid ceases to be employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act, and is entitled to become a voluntary contributor paying contributions at the employed rate, paragraphs (b) and (d) of Sub-section (4) shall, if he becomes a voluntary contributor, continue to apply in respect of him, and sickness benefit shall not be payable in respect of the first six weeks of any period of disease or disablement commencing after he became a voluntary contributor, but, for the purpose of calculating the rate and
  478
  duration thereof, shall be deemed to have been paid during those six weeks, and notwithstanding anything in this Part of this Act a disease or disablement shall not, for the purposes of sickness benefit, be treated as a continuation of a previous disease or disablement unless the medical practitioner attending such person certifies that it in fact is so.
  Provided that if any such person at any time wishes to become an ordinary voluntary contributor, he may become such after the payment of twenty-six weekly contributions at the full rate, or if the society of which he is a member consents after the payment of such less number of such contributions as the society may appoint.
  (7) Where any employers wish to avail themselves of the provisions of this Section as respects the persons employed by them in a class of employment, or in a locality in which no such custom as aforesaid exists, they may apply to the Insurance Commissioners, and the Commissioners, if, after ascertaining the views of the persons so employed, they think fit, may make a special order extending the provisions of this Section as respects the applicants to the class of employment or locality mentioned in the application as if it were a class of employment or locality in which such a custom as aforesaid prevailed.
  (8) Any question as to whether an employer is entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this Section as respects any persons employed by him shall be determined by the local health committee, subject to appeal to the Insurance Commissioners.
  (9) The payment of contributions purporting to be at the reduced rate authorised by this Section as respects any persons employed by an employer in any class of employment, shall be conclusive evidence that he is as respects those persons and all other persons employed by him in the same class of employment in the same locality under the liability imposed by this Section.
  (10) An employer who has given such notice as aforesaid may, by giving three months' previous notice to the local health committee, withdraw his notice as from the commencement of the next calendar year, and in such case as from that date this Section shall cease to apply in respect of the persons employed by him in the class of employment to which the notice of with drawal relates.
  (11) None of the provisions of this Section shall apply as respects any person employed at a rate of remuneration which is less than ten shillings a week.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. FORSTER: I venture to suggest that the Government may agree now to a Motion to report Progress, and that we should commence our discussion of the new Clause to-morrow. A considerable number of my hon. Friends are engaged in a party conference, and cannot be present.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Opposition has, of course, the right either to go on, or, if it is inconvenient to them, they have the right to ask the Government to report Progress. I understand that it is very inconvenient for them to go on. It was generally anticipated that the Irish Clauses would occupy the entire evening, and everything in the past rather justifies that anticipation, but they came to a very rapid conclusion to-day, and we are in a position, therefore, to report Progress now. I therefore move to report Progress.
  Committee report Progress, to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 24th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. LANSBURY: The matter which I propose to bring before the House is one connected with the Home Department. I understand that, as the House is adjourning earlier than was anticipated, the Home Secretary is not present, and I will therefore defer the matter until the Motion for Adjournment to-morrow.
  Adjourned accordingly at Thirty-two minutes after Nine o'clock.