NEW CLAUSE (Proposed 15th November).— (Special Provisions where Employer liable to Pay Wages during Sickness.)

HC Deb 16 November 1911 vol 31 cc532-650

(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 re muneration 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 period 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:—

1. (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;
2. (b) The employed rate shall be reduced by two pence (or where the employed contributor is a woman, one penny halfpenny);
3. (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;
4. (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 534 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;
5. (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;
6. (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 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 withdrawal 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.]

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)

I will address my observations on this Clause to the manner in which it affects three very important interests—agricultural labourers, domestic servants, and clerks. On the general position I may point out that there are two special and exceptional classes of employés with whom we have got to deal under the Insurance Bill, whose conditions of employment differ materially from the general conditions of the Bill. We have got those who have wages and medical attendance during sickness within a limit, and those who have wages without medical attendance. There are one or two observations which are common to the three interests which I have already mentioned. The first is that the law at the present moment is very indeterminate as to employers' liability. It is assumed that in these three cases the employer is responsible for curing and maintaining during sickness; but, as I shall point out, the law is very undecided and vague on this point, and therefore there is nothing in the nature of a complete legal guarantee in these cases. The second point is that when you come to the practice, which is often much more generous than the law, it is dependent largely on the character and, more especially, on the means of the employer. Therefore, there is no security at all for these classes, and there is no security for any provision during illness of these classes. And the third point is that where there is a complete breakdown or any protracted illness there is no provision at all in any one of these three cases. Therefore, what we have got to do is, first of all, to introduce security where the law is at present indefinite, and to supplement the present provision where it is insufficient.

I will take these three classes separately. First, there is the agricultural labourer. We had a long discussion, lasting for some hours, and led off by the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. C. Bathurst), upon the problem of file agricultural labourer. He then made some suggestions as to the lines to be adopted, and these are, more or less, the lines in this provision. You have, first of all, the Scotch case. The Scotch case, as put to me by a deputation of Scottish agriculturists, is that the labourer enjoys there comparatively high wages. He gets about £1 a week and a cottage. I am only putting the case as it was put to me. There is no board and no lodging, and, by the custom of that part of the country, where the labourer falls ill there is an implied guarantee in his contract of service that he shall get full wages for six weeks. I discovered by subsequent investigation that the custom, which is an undoubted custom established by decisions of Courts of Law, is only applicable to parts of Scotland. I have received from farmers in other parts of Scotland protests against assuming that that is universal in Scotland. Therefore I must assume that it is purely a partially Scottish custom. In those districts in which it does undoubtedly obtain the agricultural labourer needs provision for permanent disability where the illness lasts beyond the six weeks and goes on week after week, month after month, and year after year. There is no provision in the custom for cases of that kind. Therefore the first thing you have got to do is to supplement the provision of that admirable custom by making provision for a permanent breakdown. The second case is, there is no provision in that custom for medical attendance, and therefore you have got to supply that. Then there is no provision for maternity benefit, and no provision for the treatment of a consumptive labourer or the consumptive wife and children of the labourer. Those are the respects in which the Scottish custom must be supplemented by Act of Parliament. I come to another class of agricultural labourer, perhaps not the class with which the hon. Member for Wiltshire knows best, but that to which I am more accustomed in the West. This agricultural labourer serves for six or twelve months, and he is paid so much for his period of service. The employer's liability there is very indeterminate. It depends entirely on conditions which are not very satisfactory. The servant under those conditions may be dismissed if, from sickness or other cause, he becomes for an unreasonable time, or permanently, unable to perform his duties.

4.0 P.M.

The question what is an unreasonable time depends on the views which the employer may take for the time being, but it is perfectly clear that the condition of the agricultural labourer under these terms is not a very secure one. With regard to medical attendance, it is very doubtful whether the farmer is responsible for it. All I can say is, that some years ago, when there was an inquiry into the condition of the agricultural labourers, some farmers said they were responsible and other farmers said they did not consider they were responsible. In those circumstances it would be very difficult to establish anything in the nature of a custom. The farmer, whatever he is liable for, will only be liable for it to the end of the six-months. He will certainly not be liable for a permanent breakdown. In this case the labourer needs to know exactly where he is, whether there is any provision for his sickness, whether there is provision for the whole of the sickness, and, if there is not, that this Bill should make that provision. He also requires medical attendance; he certainly requires some provision for a permanent breakdown and disability; he requires the maternity allowance, and also the provision which is made in this measure for consumption, for himself and his family. Now I come to the class which I believe to be the most numerous class of agricultural labourers, although probably the Member for Wiltshire could inform me on this subject—those who are paid by weekly wage. In their case there is no liability on the part of the employer to pay them anything during sickness. I asked farmers from his county, where the labourers were paid by the week, what happened if the labourer fell ill, and would the wages be paid? They said certainly not, and I am not sure that they did not say that if the men fell ill in mid-week they would only be paid for half the week. That means that in the vast majority of cases there is no legal provision for sickness for the agricultural labourer. The fact that the agricultural labourer insures in a greater degree than any other class in the kingdom, proves that he himself feels that some provision is needed in his case, that the present law does not satisfy his demand, and not only that, but that the present practice is not satisfactory to him. He feels that he cannot depend on the charity of the farmer, or the landlord, or anyone else, and, therefore, he must insure himself in a friendly society in order to get some guarantee that during his weeks of sickness he will have provision made for himself and his family. That class of agricultural labourer is the most numerous. He stands in need of full benefit. I go to the second class, the clerks.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

The shop assistants.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

In their case, again, the liability of the employers is very doubtful, but I will come to that class later. As a matter of fact, the same law, so I am informed, applies to them all, that a servant may be dismissed if from sickness or other cause he becomes for an unreasonable time, or permanently unable to perform his duties. What is a reasonable time? In the case of clerks, the class with which I am dealing, it depends entirely upon the class of business he is engaged in. An employer might say, "Well, I cannot do without a clerk for a week; my business cannot go on, and therefore I am bound to find another clerk as a substitute." And you cannot find substitutes readily, because men will not leave a position in which the conditions are good unless they are guaranteed something in the nature of a permanency. An employer might consider a very short illness indeed would justify his dismissing a clerk. At any rate, the only point I wish to make is this; the position of the clerk under the law is a very insecure one. There is no guarantee that he will get his wages for any definite period of illness. That is the position. I am told that, after all, the best employers do not treat their clerks in that way. It is perfectly true that is so. Still, the conduct of the best employers, the best citizens, is not the test of the needs of legislation. On the other hand, the practice of the best citizens of the State gives generally the best ideas for legislation to aim at, and what we want is to aim at putting the clerk into the position which he is in when he is employed by a good firm. That is all we want to do. What do the clerks need? They need, first of all, security for their position during the days of illness. They have not got it now. They have only got that security when they serve a good employer. But in a very large number of cases that is not the case, and we have got to provide for them.

We want to supplement that position by some kind of provision for a protracted illness. An employer may pay the wages for weeks, but he could not do so if the clerk permanently breaks down. It may be that the employer cannot afford to keep the clerk permanently unemployed. He may not be able to do it. There are many clerks on the market now who are out of employment because of physical unfitness, and who are without any provision at all, though very often consumptive. There is practically no provision for those cases now, and we feel that in this Bill provision ought to be made, because there is no more hopeless class of the community than, the low-waged clerk, for whom no provision is made, either by the law of the land or by means of voluntary effort. That he ought to be dealt with is undoubted, and, above all, the consumptives should have medical attendance. I come to another class, a very much debated class at this moment—the domestic servant; but first, the lion. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) asked me with reference to the in-door and out-door shop assistants—those who live in and those who live out. If they live out they are more or less in the position of the clerk; if they live in, they are generally in the position either of the workman or of the domestic servant who lives on the premises and gets board and lodging. Therefore, the same general observations apply to them as well. There is no provision for permanent disability, and the provision for sickness is not a secure one. It is dependent really on the will of the master, and, therefore, is extremely unsatisfactory. In the better class of shops they keep a medical man to look after the employés, doing that at very considerable expense. Some of the best places in London, and elsewhere, employ a medical man; but it depends upon the master. There is no legal liability in the matter at all beyond what I have already quoted. I come to the domestic servants, who have been the subject of a good deal of discussion, and there has been a great deal of indignation with regard to the obligation to "lick stamps." I have had a great number of letters on the subject. I had a letter the other day from an indignant lady. She wrote:— I am a Liberal, and my husband also is a Liberal, but I will not lick stamps for either you or anybody else. There was the usual postscript:— P.S.:—My two maids say the same thing. I observed that she had stamped the letter to me and no doubt she uses more stamps for her correspondence in one week than would be used in a whole year in respect of her servant. After all, not merely will the House of Commons see that provision is made, but I am perfectly certain that all masters and mistresses will accept the obligations of the law and will carry them out if it is proved there is a real need. That is what I would really like to have considered. It is too readily thought that there is in law a provision for sick persons, and that the master or mistress is legally responsible for giving them medical attendance, for seeing their wages are paid, and generally attending to them until they are cured. That is not the law at all. There is no legal liability beyond the liability I have already quoted. There is a very important work on the subject—I believe it is a standard work—"The Law of Master and Servant." Here I find it stated that the right of the servant to wages during temporary sickness is not quite clear. It is laid down by this authority that a servant may be dismissed if suffering from sickness for an unreasonable time, and is unfit for work. That is a very precarious position for domestic servants to occupy. It is really not dependent upon the law; it depends upon the particular judge they go before, because the law is so vague that he determines upon the facts. But it is dependent more than anything else upon the particular master they are serving; that is really the fact of the matter. This has been argued as if all domestic servants were serving well-to-do employers in large houses, with ample accommodation, and with plenty of means to employ substitutes for servants who are ill. There are 800,000 families in this country with servants. Of these 60 per cent. have only one servant; that is, 480,000 families have only one servant; 20 per cent. have two servants, that is, 160,000 families; and one-fifth of the whole have three servants, or more on the average; but the majority of the servants are employed in houses where there is only one servant.

The Committee will see what that means. Even lodging houses, where the occupants are not poor, the mistress cannot keep a sick servant, not because she has not got the means, but because she has not got the accommodation; she has not got the time for nursing and for attendance; and in the vast majority of cases the servants in houses in that position are not suited for sick nursing. Therefore, in those cases, if the disease is an infectious one, they are at once removed to a hospital. If the illness is likely to be a protracted one, in the large majority of cases an arrangement is made. It is not that the mistress is not willing to keep the servant, quite the reverse; it is because it is quite impossible for the servant to get fair play under the sort of conditions that obtain. It is really only in cases of illness likely to be overcome after a few days' attendance that they would be retained on the premises and attended by a doctor. Of course, in the case of a high-class mistress, her care for her servants is not determined by the limits of her house, and even though moved outside the servant is cared for afterwards. But I am dealing with the legal position as it is at the present moment. There are hundreds of thousands of servants who are engaged under conditions where the mistress cannot afford to keep them. There are hundreds of thousands of people who cannot afford the luxury of a medical consultation. I should really like the Committee to give fair and unprejudiced consideration to this question of the domestic servants. There is a good deal of prejudice about it, and I respectfully ask the Committee to brush it all aside and consider the case on its merits. What is the position now? There is no provision for servants who break down, and this is a very serious consideration. We have to consider their very conditions of employment. Their hours of labour, I believe, are longer than the hours of labour of the workpeople of this country. They seem never to end. These domestic servants do not have the same opportunity to enjoy the open air and relaxation under conditions which would recoup their strength. They work very often in areas below ground, where the rooms are close, and where there is no proper ventilation, and, in consequence, there are more anæmic diseases that come from bad air and lack of treatment amongst them than in any other part of the country, and they are very often consumptive. Servants go on week after week in spite of those diseases, and when the breakdown conies, it is a serious prolonged illness. The law as it stands is completely inadequate to deal with cases of that kind. It is not the usually quoted case of kind mistresses who look after their servants for a few days or weeks that we have got to look at, but the whole body of the servant girls of the Kingdom, and see what their condition is when it comes to real illness. I have got here a very interesting letter sent to me by three servants, and I think it is well worth reading to the House, as it puts the case well. It is:—

"Dear Sir,

"We hope you will do your very best to bring the Insurance Bill to pass for the sake of domestic servants who have no homes, as they so often get run down from overwork and the worry of mistresses. Servants are very little thought of when they become ill, which is often the case through their being shut in so much. We do sincerely hope that it will be in your power to get it passed for the sake of domestic servants.

"Yours obediently,

"THREE SERVANTS."

That puts the case very clearly, very simply and, I think, very well. We come to the question of medical attendance. It is true that if a servant falls ill during the time of her service, the employer is bound to send his doctor but that does not quite meet the case. It is really only when the illness becomes a rather serious one that it is forced on the attention of the household and that medical attendance is brought in. If medical attendance were sure, if she could command medical attendance as a matter of right without having to pay the bill, what would result would be that the moment she began to feel ill she could consult her own medical officer, who would be able to save her from a serious illness, which is very much better than getting a doctor for her when she has broken down. The experience of Germany is very valuable in this respect.

I invite the special attention of the Committee to what happened in Germany, because there they went through more or less the same process which we are invited to pass through now on this question. In Germany they omitted the domestic servants from sickness provision in the original insurance law for the same reasons exactly as we are invited to leave them out here. They were told there is ample provision in the Imperial Civil Code. Let me point out that the Imperial Civil Code in Germany made a much more definite provision for servants than the law of the land here. There the employer was bound to give medical attendance during sickness up to six weeks before insurance was ever introduced. In addition to that there were partial statutory provisions in various States for servant girls. Then they said, "It is quite clear sickness is provided for, and therefore we will only provide for permanent invalidity." They had a provision in their Bill for permanent invalidity—and not a very substantial one. What has happened? It has completely broken down for the very reasons which I have pointed out. It was found that the law was quite inadequate, and when there was insurance for everybody else, in Germany it became more obvious and patent than ever, the contrast was so great. Before you had insurance provision, and when you had hundreds and thousands and millions of other men and women in the same predicament shifting for themselves and the law practically taking no note of them, then the condition of the servant girls was not apparent.

But in Germany, when everybody else was provided for, and when the poor servant girl went home and had no medical attendance and no one to care for her, and no money out of the insurance fund, while others were receiving something under the law, it became an obvious scandal. What was the result? Last year, not merely with the common consent, but by the common demand of everybody, they inserted a provision in the insurance law of Germany which gives the servant girl exactly the same position for sickness and medical attendance as is given to every other class in the community. That is what has happened after twenty years' experience in Germany. Let us profit by that experience, and not make the mistake of omitting them altogether. In Germany the stamp represents a coin of the realm which is a little heavier than the one we have here. In Germany, where the servant is paid £15 per year, the employers have to pay 3d., and the servants pay 4¾d. If the wages are higher, then the amount is higher both for the employer and for the servant. Here I need hardly point out we are not making that demand at all. What is needed in this case? If the employer cares to undertake legal liability in that case we shall only provide over and above that, if they will undertake absolute and certain legal liability. I come now to the provisions of this Clause. The first object of the Clause is to convert uncertainty into certainty and insecurity into security. Where there is a definite custom and where there is an assured legal liability we accept that and build upon the basis of that, and then supplement it. Where there is any doubt about it, then we give the employer the option either of assuming legal liability or of paying full insurance. That means that all these classes, agricultural labourers, shop assistants, clerks, and domestic servants, about whose legal position there is a good deal of uncertainty, will at any rate have an assured position and provision made for them in days of illness.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

May I ask whether the full remuneration means full wages?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

was understood to indicate assent.

Mr. C. BATHURST

Does it not mean more in the case of the agricultural labourer?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

If the hon. Gentleman means board and lodging, that is part of the remuneration, and the same thing applies to domestic servants. After all, board and lodging is a very essential part of the remuneration in those cases. The old figure was 8s., but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that 10s. is a much better figure.

Mr. C. BATHURST

In the case of an agricultural labourer whose remuneration includes perquisites do you include them?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Yes, say a cottage comes in. That is what I mean by full remuneration. I am including what is given in return for service. If the employer prefers not to undertake any liability at all, then he pays the full contribution, which in the case of a domestic servant or female shop assistant or female worker will be 3d. The contribution of the employed will be 4d. in the case of the male and 3d. in the case of the female. The Clause says if the employer chooses to undertake the legal liability for six weeks, which is the Scottish method and that of the German Imperial Civil Code, that is six weeks' liability for full remuneration at full wages, then there is a deduction made of 1½d. from the aggregate contribution of employer and employed, a ½d. will be deducted in the case of the female from the employer's contribution, and 1d. from the contribution of the employed. In the case of the male, there is a deduction of 2d.—1d. from the employer and 1d. from the employed. How does that work? If the farmer accepts legal liability for the agricultural labourer, then instead of paying 3d., he will pay 2d., and the agricultural labourer, instead of paying 4d. will pay 3d. The same thing applies to the case of the clerk or the shop assistant. When you come to the case of the domestic servant, the employer, instead of paying 3d., will pay 2½d., and the servant will pay 2d. Let us assume for a moment that the employer accepts legal liability for six weeks full wages. What would happen then, and what would the servant or cleric or labourer get if they were ill after expiration of that six weeks. They would come straight on the fund in the seventh week as if they had already been on it for six weeks, and they would receive 10s. for the remaining twenty weeks of the full twenty-six weeks. During the whole time of their illness they are entitled to medical attendance, maternity benefit, and the sanatorium benefit. If at the end of six months they are still ill, then they come on permanent invalidity and get 5s. a week during the whole period of their illness. There is a case which has not been specially dealt with, namely, that of the fixed definite contract of six months. Supposing an agricultural labourer falls ill a month before the end of his contract. It is perfectly clear that the farmer in that case cannot undertake to pay his wages for six weeks. Under this provision he would pay full wages to the end of the term—that is, a month—and the labourer would then come on the fund as if it were the seventh week. If the employer has undertaken the liability now it would be an advantage to him to continue it, as it would make no difference to him; he would not undertake any additional liability. But supposing the employer says, "I will not undertake the liability; I am not doing it now, and I do not think it would be worth my while." In that case he will have to pay full contributions, just like anybody else, and the employé would get the full benefit of the fund.

I shall be happy to answer any questions, as no doubt there will have been many gaps in my statement. I have given only a broad outline of the scheme. What we want above all to secure by means of this new Clause is that these various classes should have the full benefit of their own contributions, they should have the full benefit of their legal rights to begin with, and that those legal rights, whatever they are, should be supplemented by the insurance provision. It gives every class, every agricultural labourer, every shop assistant, and every domestic servant the full benefit of his or her own contributions. Above all, it gives them security and certainty where they have none now. It makes provision for permanent invalidity where there is no provision of the kind, or practically none, at present. It will have this advantage for every humane mistress. She will know that when she can no longer retain the services of a domestic servant the girl will not be cast into the workhouse at all. That will be a real advantage to every woman who has the slightest concern for the people associated with her in her household work. It has this pecuniary advantage, that whereas now the mistress is bound to provide medical attendance, she can, if she likes, allow the girl to provide her own medical attendance and the payments will be made by the club. That is an enormous advantage, especially for householders with small means, because the medical bill for a servant may run up to a considerable item. The mistress may, if she is so disposed, send her own doctor along, or make arrangements with her own doctor, and yet the society will pay for it. I think this will be found an enormous boon to the whole of these classes of the community. It puts them in an infinitely better position than they were ever in before. It has been found in Germany by the experience of twenty years that no other scheme is likely to work with fairness and justice, and I implore the Committee at this stage not to take any steps that will deprive these numerous classes of the great boon which an Amendment of this kind will provide for them.

Mr. FORSTER

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made an interesting speech about an exceedingly difficult problem—a problem which has engaged the attention of the Government for many days and weeks, a problem which has engaged the attention of those Members of the Opposition who have taken part in the discussion of this Bill for certainly no less a period, a problem to which they have given all the abilities they possess, a problem in the solution of which they have endeavoured to confer upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government all the advantages of their brains and ability and all the advantages which they have been able to collect. I should have thought that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was dealing with this Clause, above all other questions connected with the Bill, he would have gone out of his way to pay a tribute to the assistance which has been freely given by Members of the Opposition. I speak with some deep feeling upon this question, for we were, made the subject of an attack a few weeks ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke at Whitefield's Tabernacle. He there declared that he had endeavoured to make this a non-party measure. He referred to the invitation which he had held out to Members of the Opposition to confer and collaborate with him, to use their best endeavours in conjunction with him to improve the Bill, and to make it a good measure. If the Committee will bear with me for a single moment I want to allude to this matter while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is present to answer. I wish to read one extract from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which has caused me very great indignation. It is as follows:— I said to them 'Come and help me, Appoint two, three or four of your own men to meet me at the Treasury to consider the Bill, to see how you would like to alter it. Bring your men and we will have a free and frank interchange of opinion. If you can devise something better I am willing that you should propose it in the House of Commons, and I will agree to it so that you will get the credit.' What more could mortal man do? If my offer had been accepted, and I had made it once, twice, three times, we could have had a Bill commanding the votes of all parties. They refused. They rejected it—

Mr. SHERWELL

On a point of Order. I wish to ask whether, if the discussion takes the form in which the hon. Member for Sevenoaks is now indulging, it will be open to Members on this side to follow the same line.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am not at all objecting to the hon. Gentleman following this line, but I ask whether, if he is allowed to do so, I shall be in a position to reply by stating what the attitude of the Opposition has been. I very much regret it, but I shall have to do it.

The CHAIRMAN

It is certainly not my intention to allow anything of a general nature referring to matters outside the Committee. But I took it that the hon. Member was leading up to some point dealing with the particular Clause now under discussion. It must be strictly confined to that.

Mr. FORSTER

I stated at the beginning of my remarks that they had especial reference to this particular Clause above all others in the Bill. The speech proceeds:— They preferred going to the fields, to the forests, to the Press, to misrepresent and malign it, to whisper calumnies about it, to stop us getting it through without standing up against it. No offer of the kind has ever been made before by a Minister. We asked them to assist us, to see how we could save the wretched in the land, and they would have nothing to do with it. Anyone who heard or read those burning words must have come to the conclusion that the Members of the Opposition who are taking part in the discussion of this Bill were arrant humbugs, that all their professions of goodwill were false, and that all their efforts to improve the Bill were not genuine. They rejected, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, his offer to come and confer. What are the facts? On 10th July, at the invitation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. A. Chamberlain), and myself met the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not indeed at the Treasury, but in his room behind the Speaker's Chair. For something like an hour we conferred upon this difficult problem. If we parted company without having reached a solution, it was owing to the innate difficulty of the question involved, and not owing to any lack of effort or goodwill. I remember that when we came together with the Chancellor of the Exchequer out of his room we found my hon. Friend the Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) moving an Amendment which would have taken the agricultural labourers out of the Bill, and it was largely in consequence of the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, frankly given and frankly accepted, that he was doing his best to meet the difficulty of the agricultural labourer that I ventured to suggest to my hon. Friend that he should not press his motion to a Division, but should wait and see what both parties in this House could do to find a solution of the problem.

That is not all. That is not the only assistance that we have endeavoured to give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Very soon after this Bill was introduced—I think it is common knowledge—some of us formed ourselves into a committee for the purpose of studying the Bill, and, indeed, the whole question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, because he has referred to the fact. He extended his offer to the members of our committee. When the Bill was introduced we endeavoured to secure the best actuarial advice that we could secure. We were lucky enough to secure the services of Mr. Watson, whom the right hon. Gentleman has described as the most eminent authority on friendly society insurance and work in the country; indeed, in the world. On 15th September Mr. Watson wrote to me to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had asked him to go to the Treasury to advise the right hon. Gentleman upon the points dealt with in this particular Clause. Mr. Watson, in his reply, pointed out that the Unionist party had a prior claim upon his services. The Chancellor then expressed the hope that Mr. Watson would write to me in the hope that his services would be made available. As soon as I heard from Mr. Watson I wrote back at once, giving him the fullest possible permission to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I did so on the ground contained in my letter to Mr. Watson, that, if this Bill was to become law, it was our bounden duty to assist in every possible way to make it work, and to remove all difficulties. With these two instances of our good-will living in his memory, with the report of the actuary actually bulging from his pocket, the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to a place of worship and pours upon our heads the full torrent of his eloquent invective, maligns us, whispers calumnies about us, and holds us up to obloquy.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

After you had gone to the by-elections!

Mr. FORSTER

I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer owes us an apology, and if in that complex character there is a spark of generous feeling that apology will be forthcoming as soon as I sit down. I pass over that to the few observations that I have to make in reference to this Clause itself. As I said in the beginning of my remarks, the problem is one of extreme difficulty. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer put the difficulties before the Committee very fairly and very fully. He pointed out what is perfectly true, that there is in most parts of the country no legal liability on the part of employers to pay their employés during sickness, and to do what many of them have done for many years past, take every possible care of them until they are cured. He proposes in this particular Clause to vary the general provisions of the Act, and to give an option to the employer to treat his servants differently. We are not arguing here whether domestic servants are to be included in, or excluded from, the provisions of the Act. They are brought in under the general provisions of the Bill, and all we can in this Clause fairly do is to argue and see whether or not the option which the Clause proposes to give the employer is an option likely to be exercised, and to be of any real value.

So far as I can form an estimate I am bound to say there is no great possibility that any employers who are not at the present practically bound by custom to give the six weeks' full pay in a case of sickness are likely to avail themselves of the provisions of this Clause. After all, we have to remember that it is principally a matter of business. If you can show an employer that he can insure against the liability which he will incur in undertaking six weeks' full pay for something less than a penny a week in the case of men, and perhaps a halfpenny in the case of women, then, indeed, you offer him some inducement to undertake the risk which, I am afraid, he will be very reluctant to do under the Clause as it stands. There is one provision in Sub-section (3) which, to my mind, will make the employer hesitate to undertake this liability. The employer shall be liable to pay full remuneration.…during any period or periods not exceeding six weeks.…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. What does that mean? As I understand it, it means this: Supposing a servant is under notice to quit—his employer having given him a month's notice. In the course of the month the servant develops, say an attack of rheumatism. He is ill for the first fortnight, and he then leaves the service of his employer, and the employer has to go on paying him full wages for a full month after the man has left! There may be some necessity for putting that provision in the Clause, although I do not quite see what the necessity is at the moment. I am quite certain the effect of it will be that employers will be reluctant to expose themselves to the risk of having such a charge placed upon them in return for a mere saving of a penny or halfpenny per week. I am afraid that in itself would prevent many employers from taking advantage of this option which the Bill proposes to give.

There is a point upon which I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to enlighten us. I notice that the language in Sub-section (3), when it is dealing with the question of suffering from disease or disablement is quite different from the language in Clause 8, Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), which provides the sickness benefit. In Sub-section (3) the employer is liable to pay full remuneration for the period during which a person may be suffering from any disease or disablement. I think that in order to bring this into conformity with the wording of paragraph (c) the wording "period of disease or disablement" ought to mean any period during which any person is unfit to provide his own maintenance owing to some specific disease or by bodily or mental disablement. I do not think, as a matter of drafting, it would do to have one form of words in Clause 8 and another form of words in this Clause, which enables employers to exercise an option. What you really want to do is to cover the same ground in both cases. You do not want to make an employer liable for full wages in cases where a man would not be entitled to benefits under the Bill. I think the Chancellor will probably meet that point when he has had time to think it over. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Wilton Division and another hon. Member raised the question as to what is meant by full remuneration. Full remuneration I take to include—the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it did include—such things as the difference between the actual and economic rent which a man would pay for his cottage, and also all allowances such as milk, firing, meal, and other things which are customarily given to agricultural labourers.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "Yes, all these will be included in the term remuneration, and the value of them will have to be estimated." Who is going to estimate them? I can only suppose that this will be another duty cast upon the Insurance Commissioners, and I should suppose, roughly, that it will be done by a series of tables, and we shall be told that where the agricultural labourer pays 2s. for his cottage he ought to pay 4s., and, therefore, the 2s. is to be added to his wages. Unless that is going to be done in a rough and ready way it is going to involve a great deal of valuation. It is going to involve a considerable amount of work on the part of the authorities, and I am pretty certain that it will cause a very great amount of dissatisfaction in the minds of the agricultural labourers themselves. Look at the Clauses as a whole—I am not going to touch upon the financial provisions. I did glance at the kindred financial provisions in the case of the Irish Clause yesterday. I do not think it is necessary to re-cover the ground, but I think, so far as we can see, the actual benefits which this Clause gives are about as wide as they can be given if you stick to the Parliamentary forms of benefit which the Bill provides. I ventured to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the conversation to which I have referred, that I thought it would be far better to take these persons out of the Bill and deal with the matter in a wholly different way. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to shake his head. We have endeavoured since this Bill was started to formulate alternative proposals.

5.0 P.M.

When our Amendments appeared upon the Paper, when we made an effort to secure the consideration of those Amendments at the hands of the Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that this meant an alternative proposal, and if we wanted to put forward alternative proposals we ought to have had moved a reasoned Amendment to the Second Reading, and I suppose have pressed it to a Division? We tried at different times to bring our alternative proposals within the limit of the Financial Resolutions, under the narrowing and restricting influence of which we have to conduct our debate. Every time we have failed because we were told it involved some redistribution of the amount of money involved. That is the reason that we have been unable to bring our alternative proposals before the Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say, "Then, if you could not bring them before the Committee, why did you not bring them to me and talk them over?" Well, it has taken a very considerable time to formulate alternative proposals. These things cannot be done in a hurry. They have to be based on careful actuarial calculations, and I defy anybody to sit down and formulate a scheme dealing with something like four millions of people, as this Clause would effect; I defy anybody to do that under a very considerable time. We have done what we could to suggest an alternative proposal, and the outcome of the examination which many of us have given to this question was contained in a pamphlet of which the right hon. Gentleman is very well aware.

I agree with the writer of that pamphlet that the form of insurance given to this class of persons by the Bill is not the particular form of insurance that they would prefer to have, and I believe with him that we should do better if we were, with the money at our command—the contributions of the employer, the contributions of the employé, and the conributions of the State—to give a scheme of pensions which will meet the very case to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred in his speech—a pension providing maintenance during the period of disablement, and a pension on an adequate scale when they had to leave service owing to old age. I believe that would have been a better way of dealing with the particular class of individuals than is suggested in the Clause under our discussion. At the same time, if you will not accept that, if the Committee stick closely to the scheme in the Bill and to the modifications suggested in this new Clause, I am bound in all fairness to say that the scheme which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed is an improvement on the scheme which was originally introduced, and so far as it is an improvement it ought to receive the support of the Committee.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I would not have intervened now had it not been for the observations the hon. Gentleman made at the beginning of his speech. He began on a very stormy note, though at the latter part of his speech he was quite sane enough. I felt really like a man who had passed from a cyclone into the doldrums. I cannot understand the outburst. I never expected to be hit without being prepared to parry the blow. I have been sitting at the same table for weeks discussing business with him, and after a lot of quiet businesslike discussion of affairs he suddenly jumps up and hits me on the head—purely about something which happened six weeks ago. He has been very quiet, he has been reasonable, he has been practicable, and he has even on occasions been amiable; but the whole time be has borne this appearance there was a volcano swelling up in his brain. Well, I admire his self-restraint. Why was all this not said to me some weeks ago; it seems so curious, so irrelevant and so inexplicable. I have had that speech flung at my head repeatedly, but that was immediately after I came back, and I was quite prepared for it. What on earth is it all about? Is it because I said leadership?

Mr. FORSTER

I could not get it into order before.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

All I say is that the hon. Gentleman, who is not lacking in Parliamentary experience, might have done exactly what his colleagues did. They all in their turn managed to bring it into order, and I think the hon. Gentleman might have done so.

Mr. FORSTER

I was ruled out of order three or four times.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Then the hon. Gentleman was too late. Why did not he have a cut in when it was in order? Now, what is it all about? It is because I said that I had made an offer to the Opposition to come and discuss this Bill with me Clause by Clause; that I would put at their disposal the whole of the documents and all the officials and the actuaries at our command. I said, "Why do you not come and discuss this thing with me; we will try and fashion a Bill together." That offer was rejected. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, it was not accepted; what is the difference between the two? I made the offer, let the hon. Gentleman refer me to a single passage showing that that offer was accepted. It was never accepted. The point is whether it was or was not accepted.

Mr. FORSTER

I say it was not accepted, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will turn to the speech which was made by my right hon. Friend the then Leader of the Opposition he will see that while the Leader of the Opposition said he could not appoint a party committee to meet the right hon. Gentleman, individual Members of the Opposition were prepared to meet him.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

All I can say is that the offer made by the Government was never accepted. I have never refused to meet any individual either of the Opposition or of the Labour party or of the Irish party, and certainly not of my own party, but the offer which was made by the Government that they should come and discuss this matter with me has never been accepted. What does the right hon. Gentleman say? He says that, "Upon one occasion I entered your room with the Leader of the Opposition, and discussed this matter." The hon. Gentleman complains that I did not acknowledge it. I referred to it then a few minutes afterwards, and I said I was working upon suggestions made by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. FORSTER

Why did you not say that at the Tabernacle?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

What I said at the Tabernacle is absolutely true. I repeated it here, and I will repeat it now. What I said at the Tabernacle was that I made an offer to the Opposition which they rejected, and I say so now.

An. HON. MEMBER

It is a question of opinion.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

It is not a question of opinion. It is a question of fact.

An HON. MEMBER

No, it is not.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

If it is not a question of fact what in Heaven's name is it. It is a question of fact surely whether the offer I made to the Opposition was accepted or not. I say it was not. Everybody in this House knows perfectly well what was meant by that offer. It was not meant that an individual Member of the Opposition should come and see me. That is what happens every day in this House. Members of the Opposition come to Ministers and discuss Bills. There is no need for me to make an offer of that description. The offer was an offer of a peculiar character which I said was never made before by a Minister, it was that the Opposition should take part in the modelling of the Bill, and that for this purpose they should enter into a conference on the subject. It may have been a bad offer, or it may have been a good one, but it was made and was rejected. Not only do I stand by the statement of fact I made in the Tabernacle, but I stand on the comments I made there. It is one of the regrettable things in the public life of the country that the offer was rejected. There are many questions which could be settled by both parties if they are in agreement on the principle of the Bill. If such an offer had been made by a Minister when I sat in Opposition, if he had said will you appoint a Committee for the purpose of discussing this Bill, I would not have been guilty of such folly as not to have taken part in it. I should certainly have done my best. If it had been a contentious measure—if the Opposition had said, "We will have nothing to do with it, the principle is bad, and we are fighting it," I could have understood, but I cannot understand this refusal.

I took them at their word when they said they agreed with the principle of the Bill. I accepted the statement they made in this House that they believed in its object, that they accepted the principle, and that all they wanted to do was to improve it. I believed they were bonâ fide in making that statement, and upon that statement I invited them to a conference to fashion it. They never accepted the offer. The hon. Gentleman says the Leader of the Opposition entered my room on one occasion to discuss one particular point. I came back to this House and I said so within an hour after the Leader of the Opposition left my room. Nobody could have made a more full acknowledgment than I did. Has any Minister in charge of a Bill made a fuller acknowledgment to the Opposition? The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) came to me and helped with patience and hard work—I believe it must have given him a good deal of expense—on the soldiers and sailors Clause. Who would have admitted that more fully than I did. I got an idea from the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. Bathurst) on a very difficult question, the grouping of small societies. I had not acknowledged the idea in my first speech, and I got up again purposely to acknowledge that I was indebted to the hon. Gentleman for that idea. When I came to the question of the settlement of the married women problem, I acknowledged, not merely that hon. Members had assisted me, but I named a gentleman outside who I believe is on a Conservative journal, and I named the hon. Gentleman for Durham, who is in this House. Nobody could have given more acknowledgment than that. Yet the hon. Gentleman talks about not having a spark of generosity. I am not claiming generosity, I am only claiming that at any rate it is not right to say I have not fairly acknowledged assistance. I again ask the hon. Gentle man to say I had not done so. I made my acknowledgment to Mr. Kemp repeatedly. I say he has repeatedly given me assistance, and that I only believe he wanted to fashion a Bill. When I say that an offer was made to the Opposition that was not accepted, I stand by every syllable. I regret this has been introduced, but I say emphatically, and in all sincerity, that I do regret from the bottom of my heart that the Opposition did not allow us to set up this precedent. It is what I suggested when I was in opposition—I suggested it more than once—and the moment I had an opportunity as Minister of the Crown to bring in an uncontentious measure it was the first thing I proposed. It would have been an invaluable precedent. The best brains are not the monopoly of any party. The best experience is not the monopoly of any party. There is no party in this House can bring in a Bill which would not be better for the assistance it could get from the intelligence, the information, and the experience of an opposite party. I wish that assurance had been given in the field and the forest, and that is a sort of Celtic expression confined to outside the House. I said there was a great deal of difference between the attitude of the Opposition inside and outside the House. Does the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks mean to say that his attitude upon this question is represented by some of the Press outside when they try—

The CHAIRMAN

I think the right hon. Gentleman is going beyond the point to which I limited the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, who connected what he said with something that happened in regard to negotiations over this Clause. I think the right hon. Gentleman is now going into matters outside the scope of this Clause, and I do not want the area of the controversy of this question widened.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Of course, I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I was only dealing with a charge made against me, for which an apology was demanded, that I was bringing charges outside this House that I was not prepared to make inside the House. I have not brought those charges here because I do not meet with the treatment here that I meet with outside. The treatment I meet with in the House of Commons is like the treatment I receive from the hon. Member for Colchester, who has made a real, genuine endeavour to improve the Bill. But that is not the treatment I am accustomed to outside. Talking about whispered calumnies, I had to correct one only last night, an obvious one, and not one that was merely whispered. The only thing that was wrong was the whispering. There is a great difference between the attitude of hon. Members here and on the platform, where attacks of the most ferocious character are made.

Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE

Were these whispered calumnies made in telegrams at the by-elections?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

No telegrams of any sort were sent before the by-elections; they were sent before the campaign began, and this was owing to a deputation I received, not only from South Somerset, but from Taunton. The hon. Member does not mean to say that I secured the return of the hon. Member for Taunton. I am only allowed to deal with the particular points raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and I shall confine myself to that. I repeat everything I said at the Tabernacle. I again repeat the conclusion I came to that I think it was one of the most deplorable things in the public life of this country that a precedent, which would have been invaluable in the settlement of a question of the gravest moment in regard to which there is no difference of principle between the parties, was not set that would have enabled us to settle those questions by some sort of consultation and co-operation between both parties in the House.

Mr. LYTTELTON

If the right hon. Gentleman said what he has said now at the Tabernacle—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has done"]—I think the case would have been very different. [HON. MEMBERS: "Word for word."] If the right hon. Gentleman imagines that the words quoted by my hon. Friend from the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman at the Tabernacle contained a full expression of what really occurred, then I envy the right hon. Gentleman the accuracy of his memory and his belief. It is perfectly idle to say at a meeting where the right hon. Gentleman had no one present who could contradict him.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

There were Members of Parliament there who had sat all through the Committee stage of this Bill, which is more than the right hon. Gentleman has done.

Mr. LYTTELTON

I am talking about the facts revealed by my right hon. Friend, which throw an entirely different light upon the matter. Let me remind the Committee what the right hon. Gentleman said when speaking of the Opposition. He first complained of the rejection of his offer by the Opposition, and then in the same paragraph in which he had spoken of that rejection he said that we preferred to go outside maligning and whispering calumnies—

Mr. LEIF JONES

I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is in order in going into a general discussion of the attitude taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Tabernacle? If the right hon. Gentleman is allowed to pursue this matter, which you confined into the narrow limits of the subjects relating to this Clause, are those who were at the Tabernacle and have followed the controversy to be allowed to extend this Debate to the limits we should like to carry it in dealing with the general conduct of the Opposition in relation to the Insurance Bill.

The CHAIRMAN

I certainly do not intend to allow this controversy to develop. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks connected his remarks with some negotiations which had taken place with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject matter of this Clause, and in reply I allowed the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with that matter. I shall not, however, allow other hon. Members on either side to go beyond that point.

Mr. LYTTELTON

I will content myself with one single observation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer complained that the Opposition had rejected a pro- posal, without disclosing to his audience that upon the 10th July the Conference took place, which has been alluded to by my hon. Friend, between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member for Sevenoaks and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. Although the right hon. Gentleman was professing to censure the Opposition, he concealed from that meeting at the Tabernacle the fact that the actuary retained by the Opposition was freely handed over to the right hon. Gentleman, and I say that a man, speaking before an audience of that kind and professing to give a true account—

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE intervened.

The CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's does not give way.

Mr. LYTTELTON

If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will wait till I have finished my sentence I will give way.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I only want a correct statement of the facts.

Mr. LYTTELTON

Then you must wait until I have finished. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to an audience, incompetent to check him, a censorious account of what took place if he omitted to state what took place on the 10th July and on the 15th December. Whether he intended or not, I do say that the right hon. Gentleman did not convey a fair, accurate and honest account of what took place to that meeting.

Mr. C. BATHURST

It is somewhat difficult in this disturbed atmosphere to return to the subject matter of this Clause, which is one of about sixteen which have to be discussed before 10.30 this evening. Under these circumstances it seems to me desirable to return at the earliest possible moment to a discussion of these Clauses or justice will not be done to them. Whatever may be the temptations to refer to the Tabernacle and to other discourses, I am not going to give way to that temptation. I may, perhaps, remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that on the 10th July a discussion took place in this House relating to the terms under which the agricultural labourers should come within the scheme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that that Debate was sufficiently prolonged. I would remind him that the bulk of those who desired to speak on that particular subject on this side of the House were wholly unable to do so in consequence of his assurance that he would endeavour to meet our grievance by putting down a certain Clause, and that Clause we are now discussing. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that this Clause is to some extent an alternative to the proposals we made on that occasion. We cannot accept this Clause in any sense as an alternative to the principle we put forward, and it is not fair in the interests of the agricultural community generally that a flat rate of contribution of employer and employed should apply to those engaged in agricultural operations.

In every other country where a national insurance scheme exists, including Germany, there is differential treatment in the case of the agricultural community in contrast with those engaged in other industries. I want to pass to the terms of this particular Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already indicated that, in the case of the Scottish agricultural labourer, there is something in the nature of a legal liability to pay for six weeks during illness the full wage to which the employé would, under other circumstances, be entitled. I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman would have to go back to 1790 in order to find any legal authority to support him in the contention that there is a legal obligation on the agricultural employer in Scotland to make these payments during the first six weeks of illness. I think that is a very shallow basis on which to rest the contention that there is such an obligation. Even in Scotland, where this custom does exist, or, at any rate, where it exists over a large area, there is nothing in the terms of this particular Clause which would bind the employer to take advantage of it, either for his own benefit, if there is any, or for the benefit of the person he employs. The Insurance Commissioners, as the Clause is framed, can specify any particular classes of employment where such a practice is supposed to exist, but even when they have specified those classes of employment, there is no obligation upon the employer to adopt this alternative system, unless he gives notice to the Insurance Commissioners that he intends to do so.

Judging by the action which the Scotch Chamber of Agriculture has already, in a most decisive way, taken on this particular subject, there is no indication whatever that even a Scotch agricultural employer is going to make use of this Clause so far as it may be deemed to affect the labourers he employs. But, whatever may be the case with regard to the Scotch employer, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman there is no likelihood at all that the English farmer will adopt this Clause as an alternative to the somewhat onerous, although, I admit, somewhat less onerous, provisions made in the Bill. I may refer the Committee, perhaps, to Sub-section (7) of this Clause. It is only where the employers wish to avail themselves—that is the expression—of the provisions of this Section that it is left to them, if they choose, to apply to the Insurance Commissioners, who, after ascertaining the views of the persons so employed, may, if they think fit, make a special order extending the provisions of the Section to the case of such applicants.

There have been many meetings of farmers in different parts of England during the past few weeks, and the unanimous opinion of all those meetings is that there is nothing in this Clause to afford any inducement to the agricultural employers in England to take advantage of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to the Scottish system under which full wages are paid for six weeks to a farm servant who suffers from illness, but he has not referred to a similar though not identical custom which exists in the extreme north of England. There is in Northumberland, Durham, and parts of Yorkshire a custom by which the employer pays full wages to his servants as a condition of their employment not for six weeks only, but for as long as they are ill. That is a system which carries the Scotch practice very much further. Those farmers, if this Clause is in any sense forced upon them, will drop their existing practice altogether, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that would be very much to the detriment of the labourers they employ. Whatever may happen in Scotland, I am afraid in the north of England, where a somewhat similar custom is found to exist, this Clause is not likely to be made use of.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer describes the terms of employment of agricultural labourers in various parts of England. I am not quite sure I am well acquainted with the system he described as existing in the West—by which I assume he means Wales—under which the labourer has long-term employment for six or twelve months, but does not receive anything in the nature of medical benefit at the hands of his employer. I am rather inclined to think that even in Wales, where the labourer lives in, such benefit is in many cases given by the employer. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to me as regards the greater part of England to help him with information. The agricultural labourer is employed by the week or the day. He is not employed for long periods, and, in the few cases where such long-term hiring does exist, it is, as a rule, confined to what I may call the higher or more experienced class of workmen upon the farm, such as those occupied in the positions of horsekeepers, carters, shepherds, or cow-men. In such cases very often long-term employment does exist, but with those exceptions, taking England throughout, the bulk of the labourers are employed by the week or by the day. That being so, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree this Clause does not apply, and is not likely to be made to apply to the case of the farmer and his labourer in most parts of England.

We are asked to regard this Clause as in some sense an alternative to the proposal we made on July 10th last, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer must himself admit, from the actuarial reports furnished to the House with this Clause, that the proposed reductions in the weekly contributions simply represent the actuarial equivalent which the employer under this Clause would have to pay. If that is so, it stands to reason this cannot be any alternative to the scheme for which we asked, and under which the premium payments would be lower than those prescribed by the Bill. The reduction made is only the actuarial equivalent of what the employer under this Clause would have to pay, and it cannot be suggested as any alternative to a proposal under which a lower premium payment would be made both by the employer and the employed. I fear, if this Clause is adopted, it will not operate to the advantage of the labourer himself. The tendency would be for the farmer to employ young men to the exclusion of older men and to accept men whose health was beyond all doubt rather than those for whom he might incur the obligation of paying for their first six weeks of illness. That cannot be to the advantage of the agricultural labourer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer very truly said that most agricultural labourers do not now depend upon the charity of the farmer or of the land- lord. There is nothing more to the credit of these men than that fact. It is the whole origin and basis of the friendly society movement that the farm labourer, who was the originator of friendly societies in this country, would not accept the charity of his employer or of his landlord under these circumstances. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may remember that the great affiliated orders were by no means the first friendly societies in this country. The first friendly societies in this country were the village friendly societies, and, if they, by the way, are not actuarialy sound to-day, it is owing to a lack of actuarial knowledge over one hundred years ago as to what was necessary in order to make such societies solvent. We have reason to pride ourselves, and we have reason to applaud the agricultural labourer, on the fact that in England, at any rate, he has preferred to remain absolutely independent and self-supporting so far as the provision for his sickness is concerned.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has alluded to the somewhat unfortunate condition in which the agricultural labourer finds himself. I am entirely at one with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The agricultural labourer is the most pathetic figure in the community at the present time. I am not at all sure, however, you are going to improve his condition by throwing upon him or upon his employer a burden which we say neither of them ought to bear. I do not want to be led off into other channels, but, if you were to increase the area of land in this country under wheat by one-third, you would do infinitely more good to the agricultural labourer and his employer than by any of the provisions of this Bill; and I, for one, believe it is possible for a Government to do it.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

When there was a greater area in this country under wheat, the wages of the agricultural labourer were at the very lowest.

Mr. C. BATHURST

Proportionately the wages of the artisans were lower still as compared with their wages to-day. At any rate, the wage of the agricultural labourer as compared with the cost of living has not increased in the same degree as that of the artisan. If the burden is an unfair one so far as the agricultural industry is concerned, it does not remedy the condition of the agricultural labourer, and it does not alleviate his lot under this Bill to throw an additional burden upon his employer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must admit the profits to be made out of the agricultural industry to-day are miserably small compared with those to be made out of the other great industries of the country. Therefore, nothing is to be gained by a system of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The position we took up when we brought this matter before the House was this. There is no convincing argument at present as against our contention that in common fairness the agricultural community, both as to the employer and the employed, should contribute a lower rate of premium than those engaged in other industries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his reply to my Amendment on 10th July, suggested that owing to his higher health standard, the agricultural labourer lived to an older age—it is the one argument repeated in the country, and I consider it my business to discuss it this afternoon—and his rate of sickness compared with that of those in other employments is greater at the later stages of his life. I am prepared frankly to accept that, but it does not apply up to the age of seventy, at which age the benefits under this Bill cease. I am prepared to accept the statement of the actuary of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, which is published in support of the actuarial fairness of this Clause. Mr. Alfred Watson says:— It is the fact, that the persons likely to take this form of insurance are above the general average in health and will be in more or less continuous employment, leading in ordinary circumstances to the payment of a greater amount of contribution than that assumed in the general average calculation; and conversely where certain contributions are relinquished, to the loss of a greater amount than that brought out by the general average. Further, the sick pay relinquished against the contribution given up will be less than the amount brought into the calculation. He then goes on to say:— On the other hand, the length of life will be greater than the average of the whole community, since, for example, the rate of mortality amongst agriculturists is fully twenty-five per cent. below the general average at all ages under seventy, and this will result in an abnormal survivorship to the later ages where the claims are heaviest. I believe that to be absolutely true, but it is in no way relevant to this particular Bill. I have figures from the chief actuary of one of the great affiliated orders, and I find that under the head of percentage of actual weeks' sickness claimed and expected in the Manchester Unity, the experience is from 1866 to 1870. This applies to the particular Clause before the Committee. During the six months—unfortunately they did not divide it into periods of six weeks—but during the second six months illness in ages from sixty-five upwards to the time of death it was found that in agricultural occupations ninety-two was the number of weeks' sickness from which the agricultural labourers suffered and ninety-six in other occupations. As regards the second twelve months, and this shows the necessity for making provision for disablement, from sixty-five and upwards the number of weeks' sickness was ninety-four in the case of the agricultural group, while in other occupations it was ninety-six. The same proportions are to be found in the tables for twenty-four months' sickness and upwards. I find this, that from sixty-five to seventy-four years of age, under what I may call the country life group, the agricultural labourer and the village shopkeeper, the figures are 135 to 139, as compared with 142 for other occupations.

As the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the agricultural labourer is not able to show so good a standard of health, I will ask him to refer to the valuable tables of the Manchester Unity, which show that that allegation is quite without foundation. I want to point out a much stronger argument in favour of giving the agricultural classes preferential treatment. These benefits consist not merely of sickness benefit, which the agricultural labourer will enjoy, but they include disablement benefit, which the agricultural labourer is not likely to enjoy to the same extent as those engaged in other employments. It will also include the sanatorium benefit, which is not a kind of benefit that those who live in the country and have plenty of fresh air are likely to require to the same extent as those who reside in overcrowded towns. In addition to that, provision is made in the Bill, first of all, for a very high reserve value. There is a margin in the Bill of 11 per cent., which is to meet unforeseen eventualities. I say that that margin is absolutely unnecessary in the case of an agricultural population. The Manchester Unity and the Ancient Order of Foresters both provide a basis on which the valuation is founded, and, as the result of their experience in connection with the agricultural population, no such margin has been found to be necessary. Therefore I submit it is not necessary under the Government scheme. In addition to that the reserve value is put at 1 5–9d. We feel very strongly that in the case of an agricultural labourer such a reserve value is wholly unnecessary. I do not think it is disputed that the agricultural population, taken by themselves, were entitled to something considerably less than 1½d. out of the joint contribution of 7d. provided by employer and employed.

What prospect is there of employers adopting this alternative Clause? The employer is to pay only 10s. He has to pay the labourer his full wage. If we take the average wage of the agricultural labourer at 15s.—on the whole, it is more than that, but if we take it as a minimum of 15s. then the 10s., according to the actuaries' report, is equivalent to an abatement of 3d. per week. If that is so, then you are only taking 1d. of the agricultural employer's contribution, and you are making him, in return, pay an abatement of 1d. to provide payments to the extent of 3d. per week. This new Clause is intended to refer to various classes other than farmers and their servants. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted, when this matter was previously under discussion in this House, that, in addition to agricultural labourers, it would apply to seamen. I understand, however, that a new Clause is to be put in dealing with their case. It was also to apply to clerks and to domestic servants, but it will only apply to domestic servants if the employer chooses to make application to the Insurance Commissioners with the approval of all his employés, asking that it shall take the place of the provisions of the Bill. I rather doubt whether employers and servants will join in making such an application.

It is also intended to apply to hospital nurses. In reference to that point, it has been pointed out that that will include medical benefits which will not, in the case of hospital nurses, be required. I think that is a case which should receive special and sympathetic attention at the hands of the Committee. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that hospital nurses will be likely to avail themselves of the provisions of this Clause? I should like to get an answer from the Government on this point. I do not wish to take up the time of the House, but I do desire to say, in a perfectly frank manner, on behalf both of agricultural employers and their servants, that this alternative Clause is not, in their opinion, any improvement on the provisions of the Bill, and that the provisions of the Bill, bearing in mind the better standard of health of the labourer, notwithstanding the small wages he receives and the small profit his employer earns, are not satisfactory to the agricultural population. I think these provisions should either be taken out of the Bill altogether or that the men should be allowed some substantial reduction in the rate of payment, so that they may not have to make a payment out of their small wages for the sickness of those who are employed in better remunerated industries in our towns.

I do not know whether it is too late to make an appeal to the Government on this question. I have done my best, in spite of what has been said from Tabernacle platforms, to assist the Government in shaping this Bill in the interests of the classes I represent. I think the Bill fails to satisfy both the labourers and their masters. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks has suggested that if the present basis of the Bill is retained with regard to the agricultural population, it might be of some advantage to the employers if they could enjoy an earlier pension—say, at the age of 65. I have another suggestion to make, and that is that provision should be made alternatively by this Bill on the Report stage, under which it shall be possible to have allocated to the agricultural population the benefit of the surplus which will accumulate as a result of their better health, where they are grouped together, as distinct from those employed in other industries, and that this surplus shall be allocated, not in their case to increased benefits, which they do not want, but to a reduction of the rate of premium payments, which they do want, and which I ask the House to allow to them.

6.0 P.M.

Sir J. SPEAR

I wish to support as strongly as I can the appeal made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Bathurst) to make some alteration in the direction he has indicated. The very fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put before us an alternative scheme is evidence that he realises that the contributions falling upon both employers and employés in the agricultural districts would be a very serious tax on both. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested the alternative as being some relief to the difficulties of their position. While fully admitting the Chancellor of the Exchequer's desire, I venture to say the alternative scheme will have an injurious effect rather than otherwise on both employer and employé in the rural districts. As one who has loyally supported some parts of the Bill, I regret to say that as it now stands it will aggravate the evil of unemployment, and also the movement of the rural population from the country districts into the towns. I know, and every practical agriculturist knows, that it is extremely difficult for the tiller of the soil to make sufficient to enable him to pay his employés as good wages as he would otherwise gladly do. Therefore I regret that the contribution from the employer in the rural districts demanded by this Bill will tend to induce him to employ less and to pay even greatly reduced wages. That is a thing we should all greatly regret. I hope, therefore, that even yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way clear to make a smaller demand on the small agricultural employer and on the agricultural labourer than is made by the Bill. That would be regarded as a just concession, and it would reduce a great deal of the opposition now felt by agriculturists and agricultural labourers towards the Bill as it stands.

It is of the first importance that we should endeavour to secure more people living in the rural districts, therefore the moderation of the demands made on the farmer and the labouring classes will tend to the cordial working of the measure in the rural districts. It is not that we want any partiality shown to agriculturists or even to agricultural labourers; we contend that the position of the industry and the small return for labour to both one and the other, and the healthy nature of the occupation creates a less heavy demand in the way of sick benefits than in many other cases. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see if he cannot even now, in the case of agricultural labourers and other employés whose wages are low, not insist upon a flat rate, but that he will meet them with a reduced rate and a smaller contribution.

Mr. HICKS BEACH

I should like to support the contention put forward by the last two speakers as regards this Clause. If it is meant to meet the case of the agricultural labourer, we on this side of the Committee who represent agricultural constituencies will not be doing our duty to our Constituents if we accepted it as a just settlement of the claim they have put forward. Even if it were satisfactory regarding the diminution of payment on behalf of the employer and employed, it would be quite unacceptable because it is impracticable for use in the Midlands and the South of England In the first place, the Insurance Commissioners may decide what class of employment is to come under this Clause. It entirely depends upon them whether agriculture is one of the kinds of employment to come in. If they do decide that it is to come in, any employer who wishes to avail himself of this Clause has to make an application to the Insurance Commissioners, and the Commissioners have to consult not only the person employed, but all his employés. This will be a very lengthy proceeding. The employer if he takes the liability for any of his employés has to incur the liability for the whole of his employés.

What will happen in the case of the employer of casual labour? There is a large amount of casual labour done in the agricultural districts. There is a certain number of men employed every day on the farms, but at various times of the year, particularly at hay time and harvest and swede digging and mangel pulling, a large number of men are employed from day to day or for a day or two on piece-work. If the farmer desires to come under this Clause for the workmen he engages all the year round, he is bound to come under it for the people he employs casually. Suppose he employs men for three or four days, and on the fourth day a man suddenly falls ill with rheumatism and ceases his work and goes sick. That man may be ill for five or six weeks, he may not live anywhere near the actual farm, but may come from a considerable distance. If he is ill he will naturally try to get to his own home. The farmer will be liable to pay that man full remuneration for six weeks, and he will have considerable difficulty in tracking that man to his home and paying him the remuneration. There is another difficulty. You will have farmers on neighbouring farms, some of them making use of this Clause and their next-door neighbour not making use of it, or you may have farmers in one part of the county making use of it, and those in another part not making use of it. That will lead to a great deal of confusion if a labourer changes from one farm to another. In one year he will pay 4d. a week, and at the next place he goes to he will pay 3d. a week, while perhaps in the next year he will pay 4d. again. All that kind of thing tends to create differences between the employer and the employés, and as an agricultural labourer as a rule is not of a very high class of intelligence he is apt to think that the employer under whom he pays the 4d. is robbing him of 1d., while the other under whom he pays 3d. is treating him very fairly.

In the South of England this Clause will not be satisfactory to either employer or employed. Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to send me a copy of his original Amendment to this Clause, I have taken the opportunity of meeting as many farmers as I could in my neighbourhood, and they are unanimous in saying that the Clause is unworkable so far as they are concerned. I do not think the Clause is satisfactory from the point of view of the labourer, particularly where a contract is made for six months' service. I will not refer to Scotland or the North of England, because I do not know enough about them. If a contract is made for six months' service, the employer is liable for the first six weeks' sickness during the six months, but if the sickness occurs at the end of the period of employment the employer is only liable for that portion of sickness which comes within the six months. If a farmer employs a labourer from Lady Day to Michaelmas, and the labourer falls ill the week before Michaelmas, the farmer is only liable for that week. What happens to the man? Under this Clause he is not entitled to get from the society the first six weeks of the twenty-six weeks' sickness benefit; he can only get one week. If he falls ill one day before the contract expires he only gets one day's benefit, and he is not to get five or six weeks' sick pay which he would otherwise get under the provisions of the Clause. That is not fair to the man himself, and I very much doubt whether the shrewd Scottish labourer would accept such conditions.

I wish to press once more the argument put forward so clearly by the hon. Member for South Wilts (Mr. C. Bathurst), that from the actuarial knowledge he has obtained it is clear that the argricultural labourers and their employers are paying bigger premiums under this Bill than they will actually receive in the way of benefit, and, judging from their standard of health and the average amount of sickness in the agricultural population as compared with other classes, I think it is obvious that they ought to pay less per week in premium, both employer and employed, or else that they should be entitled to receive some larger benefit than those living in towns and earning higher wages. I hope that before the Report stage is reached the Government may do something to meet the case of agriculturists living in the country, which I believe is a really hard one, and is not receiving fair and just treatment under this Bill.

There is also the question of domestic servants and hospital nurses. I will beg the Committee to consider whether it is not better to drop domestic servants out of the Bill altogether. I believe domestic servants do not wish to come under the terms of the Bill at all. It is the custom of almost every household in the country not only to feed their servants when they are ill, but also to give them medical benefits. I can hardly conceive that the majority of servants want to pay 3d. a week under this Clause, or 4d. a week if this Clause is not taken advantage of, in order to pay for benefits they actually receive at the present time for nothing. If, as has been suggested, something could be done which would give domestic servants some kind of pensions if they fell permanently sick or disabled, there might be some very good reason for charging them a weekly premium, but if not, it does not appear to me to be fair either to domestic servants or still more to those hospital nurses, part of whose ordinary remuneration is to receive not only the best food and clothing but the very highest medical skill. I hope this new Clause is not the final decision of the Government, and that they will give the matter some further consideration before Report stage.

Sir ALFRED CRIPPS

Under the flat rate system the agricultural labourer is called upon to pay more than he ought to, and will undoubtedly get less than the proportionate benefit. I think the tax, which I call odious and iniquitous, which is put upon the agricultural labourer is made worse because you make the farmer the tax-collector, and when you come to the question of the farming industry, I think the result of that will be to put an undue burden upon an industry which will hardly bear it, and it will undoubtedly tend to further unemployment in our agricultural districts. I do not think anyone could say a word in its favour, at any rate, anyone who has any special connection with agricultural districts. Now as regards the alternative, in the first place it could not affect at all the great mass of agricultural districts in the Midlands and the West of England. In Clause 1 the special order only applies to any classes of employment in which the custom prevails. No such custom prevails, as far as I know, in any part of the agricultural districts either in the south or west. Of course, where the farmer or owner, as a matter of fact, does pay a charge of this kind for the agricultural labourer, which many of us have always done in the past, it does not amount to a custom prevailing. This Clause is really a fraud, so far as the great mass of agricultural labourers is concerned, because it cannot, and will not, apply to them, as regards Sub-section (1), at all. The only other way in which it could possibly be made to apply is under Sub-section (7). It can only apply under Sub-section (7) if the employer desires to apply it, and if the persons employed are of the same view, and if the proposal is sanctioned by the Insurance Commissioners. Is it ever likely, really, that you will get a concurrence of conditions of that kind? The agricultural labourer has no power whatever under Sub-section (7). However hard he may feel this odious and iniquitous tax presses upon him in respect of which he pays too much and gets too little, he has no power whatever to set in motion the machinery of Sub-section (7). Whether the employer may do it is a different matter. You ought not to place the interests of the labourer at the discretion of his employer. You ought not to place the interests of any artisans at the discretion of their employers in a matter of this kind. I have come to the conclusion that if the employer acts in accordance with his financial interests, he would not put in force Sub-section (7), and if he does not wish to put it in force, there is not an agricultural labourer in the south or west or the Midlands of England who could possibly, under any circumstances, have the advantage of this alternative proposal. Under these circumstances what is the good of discussing it? I should like to know whether there is any answer to the charge I am making that, except on the initiative of the employer, no agricultural labourer can get the benefit of this alternative proposal except where the custom prevails, and it is perfectly well known that over the greater part of agricultural England, no such custom does prevail at present. I protest on behalf of the agriculturists, whom I represent, that this is a wholly inadequate proposal, and is unjust and unfair. It will not be applicable to the parties who are really injured, who will, after all, be left to the proposals of the Bill, which are admitted to be unfair and unjust.

Mr. MOUNT

As representing an agricultural constituency I should like to add what weight I can to the protest which has already been made. It is perfectly clear, from the introduction of this Clause, that a grievance is recognised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the part of the agricultural labourer. This Clause was introduced as the result of the Debate which we had on 10th July. If we are to have a Clause which is to meet that grievance it ought to be a real attempt to solve it and not the sham solution which we have. I do not think anyone who knows anything at all about the conditions of agriculture in the South of England could for a moment suppose that any farmer will take advantage of this Clause, if it is an advantage. Let me put the way in which I think it will strike farmers. They will ask, "What is it I have to pay? What do I pay? One penny a week; 4s. 4d. a year. What is the liability which I undertake? It is a liability, taking wages at 15s. a week, of £4 10s. for every man I employ." Is it likely that any farmer will accept a liability such as that under this Clause. There is further, to my mind, this very grave blot on these proposals, that if the farmer undertakes the liability which is imposed on him under this Clause, he himself will be the observer to see whether or not a man is fit to come back to work. I cannot imagine a more unpleasant task than for a farmer, who really suspects a man to be malingering, to have to go and force that man back to work and take him off the sick list. I wish to add my protest to those which have already been made against the sham help which is supposed to be given toy this Clause.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I should like to ask the Government whether they cannot consider the proposals made by the hon. Member (Mr. Forster) in regard to the alternative scheme. Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer really solved the difficulty in regard to these people in the best way? The case of women who become insured under the Bill is really almost more acute than any other. I believe the large majority of women who are to be insured under the Bill will come under the operation of the Clause. The Government actuaries estimate that the maximum number of women under the scheme in 1912 will be about 4,666,000. According to the Census of 1901, there were over 2,000,000 women engaged in domestic service, and probably by 1912 this figure would work out at about 2,500,000. There were also, according to the Census of 1901, about 70,000 nurses, and probably nearly 1,000,000 female shop assistants and members of other smaller trades. That is to say, by 1912 you will probably have at least 3,000,000 women, out of the 4,666,000 entering the scheme, who will come under the operation of this Clause. In other words, about two-thirds of the women entering the scheme of the Bill will come under the provisions of the new proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there will be a vast number of men who will also come under the operation of the Clause. A very large number of these people are already amply provided for under the terms of their occupation by their employers. What these people really want is an annuity to bridge the gap between the cessation of their work and the commencement of the old age pensions when they reach the age of seventy. The only thing that is really offered them under the Bill, apart from sanatorium and medical benefits and maternity, is a miserable 5s. a week when they are crippled or disabled and unable to earn a farthing. I believe in fact—the phrase was coined by the hon. Member (Mr. Worthington-Evans)—it is really a bedridden benefit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could perfectly well offer to all these people the benefit they really want without any extra cost to the Exchequer at all.

Under this new Clause, although the contributions of the employer and the employé are going to be less, the State is not going to save a halfpenny, because it is still going to contribute as though sickness benefit were payable to these people under the Bill. If that is so, it would be a great deal better to use it in providing the annuity or pension that these people really want the most—one that will bridge them over that period between ceasing their work and obtaining the old age pension. No doubt it will be said, "Why not let the Clause go through, and if it is found later on that it does not work properly we can then possibly entertain some other scheme?" But I really do not see why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be so anxious to hurry this Clause through so rapidly. He always seems to be in a tremendous hurry over his good deeds. He is always afraid of giving the Recording Angel time to write them down. If this Clause goes through as it is at present proposed, it will be almost impracticable to make an alternative scheme, because in the meantime the terms of practically every kind of employment under the Clause will have been altered to meet the requirements of the Bill. Take the clerical and the domestic employments. Take the clerk whose employer prefers to stand outside the Clause and remain under the main portion of the Bill. His wages naturally will be knocked off through sickness, whilst in another case of an exactly similar employment wages will still be paid, and a totally different system adopted. If it is ever desired to modify this Clause in the future, there will be an enormous complication arising from the fact that some of these persons will be under the main portion of the Bill and some under the separate Clauses. It is quite clear that it will be comparatively easy if an alternative is framed to introduce a new scheme giving a proper annuity to those who now come under the Clause, but it will be enormously difficult to give in future a new alternative to those who have decided to come under the main Clauses of the Bill. I really do not see why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not instruct the Insurance Commissioners to set about without any delay the preparation of an alternative scheme for all these people, and if, instead of deducting 2d. or 1½d., as the case may be, as regards a man or a woman, the full contributions continue as under the main portion of the Bill, the annuities will be sufficient to meet the larger cost. I am quite certain that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consult the actuaries he could bring about this alternative and construct it without any cost to the Exchequer. I believe that by doing this he would earn the gratitude of a very large and deserving class of the community.

Mr. W. F. ROCH

There are one or two points I wish to ask enlightenment upon in regard entirely to the position of agricultural labourers. In the districts I know best there are two classes who are very often to be found working under the same employer. The first class are the labourers who live in cottages, who go to work on a farm, and who generally when sick have not their wages continued by the employer. The other class, working under the same employer, live in the house of the farmer. They are generally single men; they are not paid by weekly wages, but are paid by the year, and in case of sickness their wages are generally continued. I wish to ask whether in the event of this Clause becoming operative the effect will be to sterotype the conditions of insurance and employment. Will they be so stereotyped as to apply to both classes of labourers to whom I refer? The second point on which I desire information is whether, when this scheme becomes stereotyped, it must apply to the whole locality. That is to say, must it be applicable to every farmer within a locality, whether it is the practice to continue wages during sickness as a general rule or not. There is a third point which in one way is very similar, because it deals with the question whether the practice is to be stereotyped. In the smaller country towns there are often branch shops of big firms, such as Messrs. W. H. Smith and Son, and the conditions of employment generally provide for continuing full wages during sickness. There are some smaller shopkeepers, and in connection with their conditions that practice does not obtain. I wish to know whether this custom will be stereotyped for all, or whether it is not to come into operation at all.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

There are two points as to which I wish an answer from the right hon. Gentleman. I wish to say, as so many hon. Members on this side have already said, that the charges on the agricultural labourers are too high. There is a great deal of grumbling against this Bill in the part of the country I come from. It is almost entirely an agricultural district. It is perhaps the healthiest in the United Kingdom. Not only the agricultural labourers, but the greater part of the population in that district, do feel that they are paying too high or that others are paying too low. They feel that they are being used to make up for people in unhealthy employments. The first question I wish to ask is whether an employer can have the option to accept the reduced scale for any of his servants without being compelled to do so for all of his servants in the same class of employment. The other point, I think, has been omitted, probably by overlook, from this Clause. The question I wish to ask is: Where the employé is receiving any wages—whether full or less—from the employer, or under a policy of insurance effected by the employer for injuries under the Workmen's Compensation Act, will the employer only be bound to contribute such additional sum as shall bring the employé's wages up to the amount of his usual wages?

Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS

The scheme outlined in this Clause seems to me to be extremely good. The fear I have is that it is not sufficiently equitable from the point of view of the farmer to render it probable that it will be often put into operation. I think it is highly desirable that something of this kind should be in operation to bring about goodwill between employer and employed. The first thing I wish to point out is that it can only be put in operation at the instance of the employer, so that if you make it too hard for the employer I am afraid he will not put it in operation at all. Sub-section (2) of the new Clause provides that the employer can put it in operation, and Sub-sections (7), (8), (9), and (10) deal with the applications to be made by the employer. Therefore it is he who has to take the initiative throughout. It is an extremely favourable scheme to the employé. The first thing that strikes me is this: Wherever his wages exceed what as an insured person he would be entitled to, he is to get the whole amount of his wages. The Committee will remember that under Clause 9 of the Bill, if his remuneration as an insured person exceeds two-thirds of his wages, he is to lose the other third. "Lose" is perhaps not the right word, but the other third is to be given in some indeterminate form at some other period. Here under this Clause he gets the whole, and therefore it is obviously to his advantage that the scheme should be put into operation. The scheme being so obviously to the advantage of the insured, is it quite fair that the insured's contribution is to be reduced to the same as that of the employer? I am afraid the employer will say, "I am to bear for six weeks the whole onus that ought to fall on the society, and I ask, therefore, on what principle of commonsense is my contribution to be reduced only to the same amount as that of the employé?" I would ask the Government if they cannot make the scheme more attractive to the employer. Could they not see their way to have the employer's contribution reduced in a larger proportion, because the onus is being borne by him? Although that is what happens, the reductions are equal. I think it very often will be the fact that the employed people will like to have this scheme, but as the proposal stands at present it is only the employer who can apply it. Should not the Commissioners have power at the instance of the employed to put the scheme into operation?

Mr. BUTCHER

I want to say a word or two in regard to the position of domestic servants who, I understand, number about two millions. As I understand, the original grievance of domestic servants under the Bill was that while it was customary for many employers to keep their servants while ill at full wages, yet no sickness benefit was to be paid to a servant unless he or she was turned out of doors. Now, the way in which it is thought to remedy that grievance is this: It is said that if the employer will undertake legal liability to keep the servant for six weeks, then the contributions of the master and servant will be reduced by 1d. That is the only way they can get their contributions reduced. What I am afraid of is that the legal liability sought to be imposed is the most they will undertake. What is the result to the servant? The servant will lose the benefit of the custom under which he was kept in sickness, and there will be no legal or moral obligation to keep them longer than six weeks. They will have to pay their full 3d., and they will be unable to get any benefit for it. Let us see what is the exact liability put on the employer. The employer has to pay full remuneration to his servant during any period not exceeding six weeks in one year. I would like to know what would happen under the Clause supposing a servant falls ill or becomes disabled for a week, and then gives notice to his employer and leaves his occupation. Later in the year he becomes disabled for five weeks. Will the first employer have to pay full wages during the subsequent five weeks? I am inclined to think that, under the Bill, he would have to pay the full remuneration during the five weeks, notwithstanding that such servant may have left his employment for some time. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell me whether that is intended. It does not appear clear in the Bill. If it is so, all I can say is that this is a liability which masters or mistresses would be very unlikely to undertake.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The hon. Member is putting a case of a domestic servant who is ill for a week and then recovers before leaving the service and falls ill at a subsequent date after quitting the service?

Mr. BUTCHER

Yes.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The employer would not be liable.

Mr. BUTCHER

That is satisfactory to the employer if that is so; but I do not think it is quite clear. Take the case of disablement now. Supposing a servant gets disablement from disease for one week and then becomes well enough to do employment, and a month or so later leaves the employment, and afterwards becomes disabled again from the same cause which produced the first disablement, would the employer whose service the servant has left be liable for the five weeks' second disablement? I should like to know exactly what the meaning of these words is. It seems to me quite certain, according to the wording of the Clause as it stands, that the master would be liable. Is it likely that a master or a mistress would accept a liability of that sort? Because you have got to take the case not only of those who are well disposed towards their servants, but the case of the very large number of employers who are not inclined to make any great concession to their servants. Therefore, the real question is the liability sought to be imposed on them in return for the relief from the penny contribution. The Clause as it stands, I am afraid, would prevent a great number of masters and mistresses entering into this organisation, and in that way prevent servants from getting the benefit of the Bill.

Mr. HAMERSLEY

In this Clause there is a proposal as to the health of the agricultural labourer. As has been pointed out, the agricultural labourer has no benefit under this Clause unless the employer requires that the Clause be brought into effect for the class of employment in which these men work. I wish to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I do not suppose there is any farmer in the Midland counties, or certainly in the county to which I belong, who does not employ among his labourers a number of men who are not fit or able to do a regular day's work. They are old men, very many of them over seventy. Under this Clause they will all come under the class of employés, so that if the employer were to ask the Commissioners to bring this Clause into effect in his case he would also bring in all these men, who cannot do a regular day's work, and whose employment is of the very greatest value to them, because unless they get that employment and are paid for it, they would probably not be able to live in the villages and would have to go on the poor rate. I mention this so that the Chancellor may consider it, because the employers would be prevented from bringing this Clause into effect if all those cases had to be included. I would suggest, therefore, that the Clause should apply to the individual, rather than to the class of employés. An employer may say: "In regard to certain men in my employment I am perfectly willing to contract to keep them in case of sickness," and there may be some in whose case it would be advisable for him to do it; but, on the other hand, if he has also to contract for all men in his employment, including those who are infirm and cannot do a full day's work, then, naturally, he will not do it at all. Therefore the Clause would be absolutely inoperative and not worth our discussing it. An old man who cannot do any regular work would therefore fall out of employment. Under this Clause he would have to be maintained. No employer could possibly undertake the burden. This would render the Clause inoperative, which we were led to believe would be introduced to meet our objections with regard to making provision for agricultural labourers under this Act. In my opinion the Clause would be practically valueless if this defect is not remedied. I do not think that the Chancellor will deny for a moment that, on an average, you find three or four men on every farm of any size, who would come under the category I have described. For these reasons I earnestly ask him if he wishes to make this Clause of some value to the agricultural labourer, to alter the wording so as to make it applicable to the individual and not to the class.

Mr. CAVE

I think we all feel that in the case of domestic servants who are a very large class indeed, this whole Bill will become extremely burdensome, both to the servant and to the employer, and we would all like to make the most of it in the interests of that class if the tax is to be imposed. I wish to express my entire agreement with the proposal made earlier in the Debate, that in the case of the domestic servant, what you want is not a provision for medical or sickness benefit during employment. What is really wanted is a provision for a pension at some earlier age than that at which a person is now entitled. It has been asked, and with great force, how often we have seen a domestic servant of sixty. Nearly all these people by that time expect to have finished their employment in service and have retired, not always on account of disablement, but in most cases for other reasons, and I think it would be a great benefit to this class if the Committee could see their way to give to these people an option either to come in under the Bill for the whole series of benefits—sickness, medical, sanatorium, etc., or accept instead of it a pension which was of equivalent value, commencing on their retiring from work. It would be an immense boon to these people and the thing which, of all others, they would like to have. It is that for which they would like to pay their money, and if only there were time—it is a great pity there is not more time—to give to this matter a little more careful consideration than it has received, I think the great majority of us would be of opinion that an option of that kind should be given.

I feel strongly that that is a wise and intelligible view, and I wish it were still possible to give effect to it. Another point I wish to enforce is this. Under this Clause the option is given to the employer and not to the employed. Therefore it is very important, unless the whole thing is to be a dead letter and a sham, to consider whether it will pay the employer or not to make this application. Under Sub-section (3), if the employer avails himself of this Clause, he must, during six weeks, pay full remuneration to the employé, whether in his service or not. To begin with, "full remuneration" is a very difficult term to construe. I am quite sure that difficult points will arise out of it. It is not always easy to say in compensation cases what is to be included in full remuneration, and I see a prospect of litigation under that Clause, which does not appeal to me at all, but may appeal to some of my hon. and learned Friends. Apart from that, I would like to know exactly what "disease" means. Is there any definition of "disease"? Will any disease commenced during the employment, and continued during the six weeks or during the remainder of the six weeks afterwards, entitle the servant to full remuneration? If so, that is a very burdensome matter indeed for the employer. Take the case, for instance, of an employed person who becomes subject to some disease of a slight character during employment. He then leaves the employment; the disease continues, and he is employed at full wages by somebody else. Would that person have double wages, wages from the old employer, because the disease commenced during the employment, and wages from the new employer, because the disease is not such as to prevent wages being earned? If that is so, it leads to very serious consequences. Take the case of accidents which give rise to disease. A person injured by an accident leaves his employment and gets full compensation under another Statute. Is that person to have, not only full compensation, but full wages, although loss of wages may have been taken into account in assessing compensation? That is a very curious state of things, and might produce results very burdensome on the employer. I doubt whether this Sub-section has been fully thought out, and whether these matters have been considered. If I am right in my view this Clause will give so little benefit to the employer that it is very likely that in a great number of cases the employer will not desire to avail himself of it. If that is so, I think that my hon. Friend is obviously right in saying that, as the employé has no option at all and cannot bring this Clause into operation, therefore, for the whole class of these people, servants and so on, it is by no means clear that they will get the benefit at all. There is this further contingency. The Commissioners themselves on being applied to may decline to apply it. They have a discretion to apply it or not. They might say to-morrow, after the Act passed, "We do not think it ought to be applied to agricultural labourers or servants at all," and then there is an end of the Clause.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. O'SHEE

(who was indistinctly heard): Some of the difficulty as regards the operation of this Act arises from the fact that we have eliminated medical benefit from it in regard to Ireland. One of the consequences of this elimination is that under the Clause as it at present stands Ireland will lose rather heavily by its operation. The Clause says the weekly contributions payable by the employer shall be reduced by 1d., and the actuarial calculation is that the value of the undertaking to be given by the employer as to the remuneration for six weeks in money and in cash is equivalent to 2d. a week for the man, and 1½d. for the woman. Paragraph (c) of Subsection (4) is as follows:— 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. But on referring to the Schedule, the Committee will find that the 1d. cannot come off in the case of Ireland, because rue contributor only finds ½d., by reason of the fact that he does not pay in Ireland for medical benefit. The result is with regard to all persons whose wages do not exceed 2s. a day in Ireland, only 1½d. comes off the employer and the employed, though the actuaries have estimated that the value of the undertaking given by the employer is equivalent to 2d. In other words, if the employer in Ireland employing persons not exceeding 2s. per day gives this undertaking, he and his employés do not get what you say is the value of his undertaking, 2d. per week, but they only get 1½d. In the case of women the same thing applies. This affects a very large number of people in Ireland; at least, I hope it may affect a large number of these people, because I trust that the contribution of 1d. per week out of the money provided by Parliament may inure to the benefit of a great many people in Ireland. The elimination of the medical benefit in Ireland may result in great loss to that country unless the Clause is amended, because it is quite clear in all these cases where the contributor only pays ½d., so long as you retain Sub-section (c) of paragraph (4), specifying that the contribution payable by the employer shall be reduced by 1d., you cannot reduce the contribution of the employé by 1d., because he only pays a ½d. That has been overlooked in connection with this Section, and the result of the elimination of medical benefit in Ireland may be a great loss to that country unless the Clause is amended. The Clause affects the poorest class of persons in Ireland, and the matter ought to be dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir PHILIP MAGNUS

I am not in a position to speak as regards farm labourers, but almost everybody has had experience of domestic servants, and of masters and mistresses. I have made some inquiry, and from what I have heard, I think there is a general disposition on the part of domestic servants to be relieved of the necessity of coming within the provisions of this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech he made this afternoon, appealed very strongly on behalf of domestic servants generally. He said there were 800,000 families employing domestic servants, and that of that 800,000, there were 480,000 families who employed only one servant. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has always recognised that the domestic servants have some legitimate grievance with respect to the provisions of the Insurance Bill, and he has introduced this alternative Clause to relieve that grievance to some extent. What I fear is that the class of domestic servants and that the class of employers will not take advantage of the alternative Clause, and that consequently it will be of little or no good whatever, and personally, I believe it would be very much better to leave the domestic servant altogether out of the Bill. Let us take the case to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred. Can you suppose for one moment that any of these 480,000 families will assume of themselves the responsibility involved in this alternative Clause of the Bill and accept the legal liability that it involves? I do not think for one moment it can be assumed that persons of the poorer class with only one servant will take upon themselves the legal liability which this Clause involves.

If you take, on the other hand, masters and mistresses of the better class who look after and take care, as we know they do, of their own servants, supplying the medical treatment whenever required, and paying the charges during that illness, is it not again unlikely that the masters or mistresses will assume the heavy responsibility which certainly comes under Sub-section (3) of this Clause, instead of giving voluntary help as necessity arises." It certainly seems to me that the alternative is of no good whatever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has frequently referred to the operation of insurance in Germany, but, as a matter of fact, in Germany, when the servant is taken ill, it is not the custom to retain her in the family, nor is it the custom to send her to any home; it is invariably the case that the servant goes at once to the hospital, and the workpeople and the domestic servants of Germany consider they have a real right to be treated, as they are well treated, in the hospitals, because the hospitals are largely supported out of the insurance funds. That is not the case in this country. I may say once more, and I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not mind my saying it, that there is no analogy really existing between the conditions under which the insurance of the workpeople operates in Germany and what is intended to operate under this Bill. The conditions are altogether different, and anyone who knows anything about insurance in Germany will at once see that any analogy such as is suggested between the conditions in that country and those which obtain under the Bill, does not exist. I would like to express my own absolute agreement with the criticisms and suggestions made from this side of the House. Domestic servants have a real grievance. As has been pointed out, what they require is not so much some arrangement by which they may have medical treatment, but what they do need very much indeed is a pension when they retire from service. That is the one great benefit that servants desire. I think it is a great pity that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of putting on the Table this Clause, which will be quite inoperative, did not introduce some Clause by means of which pensions might have been given to servants when they retire. As regards domestic servants, no master or mistress in any grade of society will be likely to take advantage of this Clause.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman)

There is one general criticism that has been made about this Clause which I think is based on misapprehension. A number of Members, some representing agricultural constituencies, and some, like the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, representing constituencies not agricultural, have protested that this particular Clause is of no use to their particular grievance. I am rather surprised, and I do not know how to account for it, that a very little echo of the Debate which took place on 10th July last has come back to us in this discussion. Hon Gentlemen will remember that on the 10th July the specific case and grievance was pointed out and emphasised essentially by members representing constituencies north of the border. This Clause represents a definite attempt to meet the case which they put forward, and that was outlined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that Debate, when he freely acknowledged that the plan of it or the conception of it had come from a suggestion by the late Leader of the Opposition, who was familiar with the conditions in those districts, and which was then accepted by the House in principle though not in detail as going a long way towards meeting the particular objections. I think the Noble Lord the Member for West Perth is the only hon. Gentleman who has spoken from north of the border in this Debate.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE made an observation which was inaudible.

Mr. MASTERMAN

It is no real criticism of this Clause for Members who represent agricultural constituencies where the condition which was present in constituencies like West Perth does not prevail to say it is no use.

Sir F. BANBURY made a remark which was inaudible.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I shall deal in a moment with the question of the agricultural districts in the south counties, and with which I have some familiarity. What was the request made by the Committee, almost unanimously, from among those who represented those constituencies on both sides to the Government? It was that where the legal obligations was undertaken that there the servant and the master together should be relieved of the actuarial value of the 10s. per week which would otherwise be given. In response to that appeal we calculated the actuarial value, as shown by the White Paper, and we have relieved, in the greatest exactness we could obtain, the master and the servant from that amount. It is perfectly true to say, as I think the hon. and learned Member for Kingston said, that the whole choice of the matter is at present put on the master; but surely I need hardly remind him of a statement made earlier in the Debate by another hon. Gentleman on his side, that even when he is relieved of this amount, there is no doubt at all—and it is well to be quite plain—that the master will be taking a greater obligation than if this system were not in operation at all. Surely it is right that the master should have the choice as to whether he will take that obligation or not, as to whether the servant should not fall back on the ordinary 10s. The servant, in a great majority of cases, will get a good deal more than the equivalent of 10s. per week.

I come to the question of south country villages. Hon. Gentlemen are perfectly entitled to assert that in the great bulk of those south country villages the present system will continue. The present system is that the labourer provides himself when he is ill for the doctor and for sick maintenance, unless there is some quite irrelevant charity, such as I have no doubt the hon. Baronet exerts on his own estate, and which will not be affected by the Bill one way or the other. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, in the districts where what I may call the Scottish custom prevails, the friendly societies are weakest because the labourers are provided for. In the districts where they are not provided for in that way the friendly societies are stronger than in any other district in the country. If you take generally the rural district of southern England from the north of Devonshire to part of the Midlands you will find in the villages there a stronger representation of friendly societies than in any other similar population in the United Kingdom. That question opens a debate which was in part raised in the last almost despairing protest of the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst), and in part by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bucks (Sir A. Cripps), concerning the whole question of the agricultural labourer. We have debated that subject again and again, and I have spoken several times from this place on it. I do not know that I have anything new or very fruitful to offer on it. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bucks, in the mildest and most courteous fashion, uses very strong adjectives concerning the position of the agricultural labourer under this Bill. He talks about the odious and iniquitous tax laid upon the agricultural labourer, and from which he conceives that the agricultural labourer will obtain very little benefit indeed. Is it necessary for me once more to point out that every farthing contributed by the agricultural labourer supplemented by every farthing contributed by the farmer or landlord, who is his employer, and the two-ninths of any benefits which may be given by the State can remain as he pleases entirely to be used by the agricultural labourer, for the benefit of the agricultural labourers, and for the benefit of no other one in the universe but the agricultural labourer.

The hon. Member for Wiltshire, in a former Debate on this subject, criticised a statement of mine, and said his demand for a reduced payment, if the Agricultural Labourers' Society or branch was proved to be solvent, would be very much less operative in his mind if the agricultural labourer, on the other hand, could produce additional benefits which were suitable to his class and condition. Among the benefits he mentioned was payment for sickness from the first day of the malady. I pointed out to him that that was already possible in the agricultural labourers' societies, and that immediately the agricultural labourers could show by the scarcity of sickness among his class that he could give through his society additional benefit, and that one of the first benefits he could give was payment from the first day of illness. The hon. Gentleman very handsomely acknowledged he had made a mistake, and that was so. The hon. Member for Wiltshire again to-day made another appeal. He said his opposition to the proposals, so far as they affected the south country agricultural labourer, would be very much mitigated if it were possible for the agricultural labourer, instead of obtaining medical benefit or sickness benefit, which he thinks he will never require, could obtain a pension at an earlier age than seventy, or an additional pension after seventy. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Schedule of additional benefit, showing that we have clearly pointed out to the agricultural societies if they can show that their rate of sickness is less than the normal, and if they can show a surplus due to that fact, then one of the additional benefits we specifically put in is the increase of old age pensions after the age of seventy, or giving an old age pension before seventy. I should hope under those circumstances, and considering that the fullest possibility as allowed either to the agricultural society singly, or agricultural societies merged in a county pool, to use the profits of the various affiliated orders in the agricultural districts at least so far as something more than half the surplus is concerned, and considering that the fullest additional benefit is allowed to the agricultural labourer for the payment he makes, and for his employer's payment, and for the two-ninths of every benefit given by the State, and I should have thought that we might have heard the last about odious and iniquitous taxes on the agricultural labourer. In connection with labourers and servants, my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. W. Roch), and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Hicks Beach), asked in case of this new Clause being put into operation by order of the Insurance Commissioners, either for special cases or special localities, whether every employer belonging to the class or to the locality would be compelled to adopt it.

Mr. HICKS BEACH

That is not my question.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I will answer first what I took to be questions. The Insurance Commissioners may, and, of course, may is not very much different from shall in connection with the Clause dealt with in this Debate, identify certain classes or localities where there is a custom prevailing under which the employers support the employé in times of sickness, No employer is compelled to come in under these conditions. But even after the class of farm servants on an annual tenure is scheduled, any employer who does not want to come in can still fall back on the general provisions of the Bill, and pay his 4d., and let the employé draw the normal 10s. a week from the friendly society. The second question was, supposing an employer comes in, does he necessarily come in for all his employés? Not if those employés belong to different classes in regard to tenure of employment or occupation. What we were compelled to assert was this. Take a simpler case than that of the farm servant, namely, that of a clerk. In the case of a business firm employing clerks all under the same conditions of employment, and all engaged in the same general work, we could not, in connection with a national fund, allow the employer to pick and choose amongst those employés, and say that John Jones should receive a greater advantage and that John Smith should not. Hon. Members will agree that that would be very undesirable. But the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Hicks Beach) put a different case, that in which you are dealing on the one hand with casual agricultural labour and on the other with permanent agricultural labour. Certainly under the provisions of this Clause and the powers given to the Insurance Commissioners it will be perfectly possible for an employer to say that his permanent farm hands may come under this provision, while his temporary farm hands, if they are insured persons, shall come under the normal provision of the normal employé.

Mr. ROCH

Take the case of two permanent agricultural labourers who are under terms of employment, one living in the house and paid a fixed sum per year, and the other equally permanent paid by the week and living in a cottage. Would those cases be bound to be stereotyped?

Mr. MASTERMAN

Certainly not. Where there are distinctions as to conditions of employment a different system may be established, but where the conditions of employment are similar we cannot allow a differentiation between different employés.

Mr. CAVE

The case put by the hon. Member opposite was that of persons employed in the same class of employment, but under different conditions. As I read the Bill, you could not differentiate between the two.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I should be very reluctant to engage in a controversy of interpretation with the hon. and learned Gentleman. If, in his opinion, such a differentiation as my hon. Friend suggests would not be a differentiation of class of employment, I promise that the Government will meet the point. I speak with full authority when I say that that is the intention of the Government, and we thought that that was within the scope of the definition of the words "class of employment." Perhaps later on, if an Amendment is moved, we shall be able to make it perfectly clear.

Mr. HICKS BEACH

Before leaving the agricultural labourer, would the hon. Gentleman deal with the case of the man with a fixed term of engagement who falls ill during the last week of that engagement and thereby loses five weeks' pay?

Mr. MASTERMAN

The hon. Member means that he loses five weeks' sick pay. He does so, but without that the scheme would not be actuarialy sound. The relief gained by the fund is the taking over by the employer of six weeks' sickness. The actuarial calculations gives six weeks' sickness during the year. If in these circumstances we also placed on the employer the giving of an extra six weeks' sickness, the fund would not be actuarialy sound as regards the relationship of the labourer with the approved society. Therefore, in connection with sickness, which may last twenty-six weeks under these conditions, there is no alternative to the full amount of 10s. a week being paid for only twenty weeks. But it is a somewhat hypothetical condition, and I do not think that in practice it would be a very severe grievance, considering that by the employer taking over this obligation he would be giving during those six weeks' sickness very much greater benefits than the man would obtain if he was merely receiving the benefits from the approved society.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

The hon. Gentleman has not replied to my question with regard to employers' liability.

Mr. MASTERMAN

Perhaps that point may be raised later on. With regard to domestic servants, there also the discussion has followed very much the same course as the discussion on the agricultural labourer. Our scheme has been criticised on the ground that it does not fully meet the case of the domestic servant, and alternative suggestions have been proposed by which an entirely different scheme should be applied. I think the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) would agree thus far, that where the case arises in which people comparatively wealthy in this world's goods have determined in the past and are determined in the future to give full sickness benefit to their domestic servants while those servants are employed, in so far as the scheme relieves them from the additional payment—a halfpenny in the case of the employer and a penny in the case of the servant—it is an act of justice to them for their charity and kind-heartedness. I would submit that in all the discussions concerning domestic servants which I have heard this afternoon, and very liberally heard outside the House, far too much emphasis has been laid upon the condition of domestic servants in a certain limited class of society. I am very familiar, through my residence in the poorer districts of London, with the lot of domestic servants in its normal condition, which is not that of the limited class of society to which I have referred. Although it would be foolish on my part to bring any charge against the ordinary poor employer of one general servant, who has a sufficiently hard job to make both ends meet as it is, it would be equally foolish if the Committee were to assume that in every such case full medical and sickness benefit for twenty-six weeks is or could be given under any circumstances by these people. I have known large numbers of domestic servants who have been compelled to return to their residences in the poorer quarters of London from the positions they have held as general servants among people with small incomes, because when they fell ill their employers, with the best will in the world, could not keep them.

So far from our not having a grievance in this matter, and therefore meddling with a problem which we might have left alone, there is a very pressing problem quite apart from the question whether permanent invalidity or permanent pensions of some sort should not be given to domestic servants who are lucky enough to reside in the houses of the wealthy classes, and who form a small minority. Nor need I point to the experience of friendly societies in this matter, as exhibited by the choice in their records between superannuation benefit which could be chosen and medical and sickness benefit, which is an alternative. Many of the great friendly societies have done all they could to encourage that kind of superannuation benefit which is advocated by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and they have found in almost every case that the first choice is for medical and sickness benefit, the possibility of the need of which is a depressing and haunting fear with so many of these people. In the great majority of cases people only insure for superannuation benefit after they have already insured for sickness and medical benefit. Nor in criticism of this alternative need I point out at any length the very great advantage of getting domestic servants into approved societies under these conditions in connection with our new Clauses providing for the insurance of women. Although it is quite true, as has been said, that no one knows many domestic servants over the age of sixty, it is not entirely true that that knowledge is absent because all the domestic servants have broken down. It is also true that domestic servants provide a very satisfactory marrying class, and if these servants still remain in the insurance scheme while they are domestic servants they can immediately, and without any of the complicated manipulation that would be necessary if they were receiving no benefit as normally insured persons, pass into the voluntarily insured scheme, and so maintain their position as members of approved societies. We greatly hope that the domestic servant class, distinguished as they are above all others for thrift and a recognition of the necessity for this provision, will automatically, when they marry, pass into the voluntary insurance class, and so remain without any payment in respect of extra reserve value which they would have to pay if they came in later on in life.

It is not true to say, as has been said over and over again, with what justification I am unable to understand, that this scheme takes the money of domestic servants and spends it among other classes of the community. A large number of domestic servants at the present time certainly can pass through a period of a few days' illness without incurring expenditure, but I should not be exaggerating if I said that the majority of domestic servants if they were ill for many weeks would be compelled to go to hospitals or to go home, and, in any case, so far as medical attendance is concerned, to provide it for themselves. That necessity in future will be removed. Nor is it true to say, as it has been said outside, although I am glad it has not been said inside this afternoon, that by our scheme no advantage is given to the employer of domestic servants. It has often been a pretty tough job for many a small middle-class family, when the servant has been ill, to provide medical attendance and not to turn the servant away. The employer will now be relieved of both these difficulties. I take my own case, that of a poor middle-class family. I pay a heavy bill to my doctor for my domestic servants, 7s. 6d. each visit. This I shall be very glad to be relieved from, when, as I hope by the passage of this Bill, my servants become members of an approved society. They will then get as good doctoring—and by right—from their contributions instead of from a precarious channel. I think that as soon as the people who are employers, especially of servants in what I may call the suburbs of the city and in lodging houses, realise that this system of insurance relieves them of a liability which they have freely taken up to now, and that any kind of misfortune befalling their servants will be taken from them in future, they will be more prepared to readily accept it.

At any rate this new Clause, as part of the general scheme of the Bill in regard to domestic servants, does undoubtedly provide an advantage for those who are determined, whilst not possessing the fullest capacity, that their servants shall be given full wages during the time they are ill. They will be relieved for a halfpenny—that is part of the actuarial value of the 10s. per week. The servant will be relieved of a penny, and that pennyworth of actuarial value will be a present from the master to the servant. I do not think we could have gone further than the six weeks without leaving the Clause open to criticism from those who may be called upon to pay the full amount. I believe the six weeks—and the Chancellor and myself have taken a considerable amount of opinion upon this point—I believe the six weeks given is not only a satisfactory equivalent for the actuarial value of the whole fund, but also represents in a very large number of cases about the amount that you are going to spend after the servant has been five or six weeks ill. Then, in a very large number of these poorer cases, it is quite impossible for the family to keep that servant any longer, and under present conditions she is sent to her own home. Under the new scheme we shall have the additional satisfaction that not only will the servant be kept for these six weeks on full wages, but that when perhaps a reluctant master or mistress, finding she does not recover, is compelled to send her away, she will receive 7s. 6d. for the first period, and 5s. a week during the remainder of the specified time she is disabled.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I feel sure that all of those who really want to make this Bill a businesslike and workable measure, which will really bring within its scope those who need it, will have listened with regret to the speech of the hon. Gentleman. I do not propose to detain the Committee very long, but I propose to run through, briefly, the points upon which he touched. He addressed the Committee in starting by saying that controversy was absent about this Clause. I have listened to the Debate from first to last, and I think, without exception, every speech has condemned the Clause. It is quite true that controversy was absent! The Government have offered us this Clause, and we have got to see for whom they have offered it; to meet what cases they have offered it; and how far they have met these cases. It has been offered, as the right hon. Gentleman said in answer to the suggestion that was brought before his notice, purely in connection with the Scottish labourers. For myself I believe the Clause will meet their case. It is also offered by the Government to deal with the case of the English agricultural labourers. Their case, in my opinion, is not in the least met. I will show why later on. It has also been offered in order to meet the case of the domestic servant, the clerk, and those classes who by the terms of their contract are already provided for with medical benefits or sickness benefits, or in some cases with both.

In regard to the Scottish labourers, my own experience does not extend sufficiently far to enable me to say whether or not it docs meet their case. But my hon. Friend the Noble Lord who has spoken from this side of the House, and who is familiar with them appeared to think that it did meet their case. In regard to the English agricultural labourer, the hon. Gentleman, in answering criticisms which have come from this side of the House, simply said: "Oh, they will be left to their societies." They will, it is true, be left to their societies in one sense, but instead of being left to the societies at the rate for which their societies have been able to give them their benefits, namely, at the lower rate than the rest of the community, they are to be put on exactly the same basis as the rest of the community. No allowance is to be made whatever in consideration of their better health. The Clause has been absolutely riddled by criticism, by those who know what is likely to happen. Everyone has agreed in condemning this Clause as an alternative which is not in the least likely to be adopted by agriculturists.

We are thus thrown back on the objections which the Government have realised in the first instance, or they would not at all have made this offer of an alternative Clause. The hon. Member when he comes to that says: "Oh, well, I have nothing new to say about the point." He discreetly avoided arguing questions of fairness or unfairness. When he comes to the question of the pensions which have been suggested as an alternative benefit, he points to the Bill, and says: "This additional benefit is not an alternative benefit; the agricultural labourer will get it through his own society." That was not the suggestion. The suggestion was that it should be offered to him as an optional alternative benefit instead of his having to pay for sickness benefit and medical benefits under this Bill. The hon. Member then was asked one or two questions as to the case of various classes of employment carried on by the same employer—where, for instance, the agriculturist or farmer has two classes of employés in his employment, those that are living in and those that are living out. In this matter the hon. Gentleman says: "Oh, no, that will be all right, that case will be met, because one class can be selected and the other left." So far as I can read this new Clause, that is not provided for at all. What apparently may be done is that the Insurance Commissioners "may," by a special order, select a class, but this Committee has no assurance whatever that that case will in fact be met. My hon. Friend behind me raised another point, which the hon. Gentleman did not endeavour to answer at all. It is a very, very serious one, and if there is an answer to it I am sure the Committee would like to know what it is. I refer to the case where, in agriculture, a large number of men are employed where there are old men, let us say over sixty-five, over the age which the State allows them to insure. Those labourers may be of either class already described, living in want. This Clause compels the employer to insure all his employés—all his labourers or none. In that case the farmer or agriculturist is bound to take the old men, bound to give a contract in reference to the old men as well as the young men, and, therefore, bound to take on a liability for six weeks' full pay, a liability which the State itself has refused to take on under this Insurance Bill. The hon. Gentleman skated round that point. He did not really meet it in any sense at all.

What is going to be the result of this? Either those old men are going to find it much more difficult to remain in employment, if the farmer wishes to take advantage of this Clause, or else the employment given to these old men will prevent the farmer from taking advantage of this Clause, if he thinks it is an advantage to him to do so. Because he is not in the least likely to take on what is practically an unlimited liability, and a liability which the State itself has refused to take on. The same remark applies to the case of clerks. An employer, as the hon. Gentle man admitted, would have to insure all his clerks or none! He could not pick and choose between them. The same argument as before applies exactly: that all the older clerks will either be a bar to the employer exercising the option, so that the option will not be exercised, or else he will be taking on a liability which the State has refused to take on. I say that any Clause that has those results cannot be a satisfactory alternative for grievances which the Government set out to meet. With regard to domestic servants, what was the hon. Member's argument? It was that the halfpenny which the employer is now going to be let off was an act of justice given in respect to past charity—

Mr. MASTERMAN

No, future!

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

The hon. Gentleman meant future. I will accept future. It is to be a reward for future charity. That is a curious sort of reward. Acording to the actuary's report it is a reward which takes the form of giving to the employer the right to take on a greater liability than exists under the Act already. The reward is to double the liability of the employer—to take off the ½d., and give him 1½d. or 2d. worth of liability. It is a strange Clause that requires an argument of that sort from so able an hon. Gentleman as the Under-Secretary who is trying to support this Clause—this strange Clause. Unless there are better arguments in support of it than that, I really commiserate with the hon. Gentleman, because no arguments have been adduced for the support of this Clause that are likely in the least to make an employer adopt it. If he does adopt it he lets himself in for liability. If he does not adopt it he makes his servants suffer. Yes, he makes his servants suffer, because a totally unnecessary deduction will be made from his servants' wages, a deduction that he does not desire, as his past conduct shows; and the reward that is given is the alternative of additional liability.

8.0 P.M.

The hon. Gentleman really was reduced to this: He agreed that perhaps in the larger households this Clause would not have much value for the employer or the servants. But he said that in smaller households there were hard cases, and he resented what, he said, had been said either in or out of the House that he was meddling with the problem. I do not in the least object to the Government meddling with the problem. What I do object to is his Government muddling the problem, and muddling those who are already provided for by their employers in order to make good the hard cases which exist in totally different circumstances. Then the hon. Gentleman was not fair to the alternative that had been suggested. He said that the alternative of superannuation benefit was not an alternative which was generally found popular. He said that sickness benefit was always preferred, and it was not until sickness benefit had been obtained that superannuation benefit was lessened. In this case there can be less risk in giving an alternative, because it has never been put higher than the suggestion that the alternative should be an option, not compulsorily, but an option first for those whom we on this side of the House think are unfairly treated. The hon. Gentleman may say the option is not a very valuable one, and say that he does not expect many people would exercise it. If he does think so there should be little difficulty in the Government accepting it. I think it is a very valuable option and that it meets a class of case which is not met under the Bill. The Bill goes some way towards preventing the superannuation clerk from making some provision for himself, because it prevents money coming to him which would otherwise be available to provide benefits for him. I regard this as a matter of real importance, because there are three to four million people at least whose cases it is intended to meet and which it lamentably fails to meet in my view. The alternative might be given, and time would show whether we were right that the alternative is a valuable one which ought to be given. The right hon. Gentleman also resented another statement, which he said had been made inside the House. He said it was not true that the scheme took from the agriculturist and the servant money and spent it upon others. If anybody made that statement exactly in those words it is a crude statement and it wants a certain degree of elaboration before I should be prepared to defend it, but with a degree of elaboration I am quite prepared to defend it, except in the case of deposit contributors. If an agriculturist becomes a member of a society it all depends upon, the society, and nothing the Government can do can prevent the money being spent amongst others with worse lives.

If the society is limited to agriculturists, if the selection is very carefully arranged so that no one except agriculturists are connected with it, no one shares in the money except agriculturists, except in half-balance class in grouped societies. It does not depend on the individual insured person or the individual society who takes that. It depends upon a set of circumstances neither can control. It depends upon what class of county they are in. If they are in an agricultural district county in which a mining industry is carried on you might easily get miners with a great deal heavier sickness. I think that is quite probable in some counties in Wales. At any rate, nothing the Government can do can prevent that happening. It will very likely happen, and I should, with those qualifications, have no difficulty in proving the assertion of the hon. Member. I cannot help thinking the Committee must feel that it is extraordinarily unsatisfactory that only one out of the three classes for which this Clause is invented is in part dealt with by it. The Scotch agricultural labourer may be helped by it, the English agricultural labourer, in my view, will not be helped by it, clerks will not be helped by it, and the servants will not be helped by it. If that is not a lamentable failure with regard to a very large portion of the population, it is difficult to say what else it is. I presume that with a Government majority this Clause will go through. I therefore make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman as regards one portion of it. He will observe from it that 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. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when discussing soldiers and sailors the other day the Government refused to allow a similar provision with respect to them. I like that provision. I do not want it withdrawn from the agriculturists, but I also want it extended to soldiers and sailors. The argument then advanced was that under the framework of the Bill contributions were always payable so long as wages were payable, and it was said the soldiers would get some wages while they were in hospital, and that it was impossible to meet the soldier's case. The right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind in the case of the agriculturist, how much more ready should he be to meet the soldiers and the sailors, who will not get full wages because part of it is stopped while they are in hospital!

Mr. O'SHEE

The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the point I raised as regards Ireland.

The CHAIRMAN

I have allowed the hon. Member to put his point in the form of a question, but he cannot discuss it.

Mr. O'SHEE

If the right hon. Gentleman would make some explanation on the point I refer to I would be glad to hear it.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The hon. Gentleman has overlooked one Sub-section. It does not deal with the 9s. a week person, so far as I can see. There is no ½d. in the case except in the 9s. scheme.

Mr. O'SHEE

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, he is quite wrong. I have the statistics before me. There is no provision in Ireland with regard to the 9s. a week.

The CHAIRMAN

This must come up on the Irish Clause.

Mr. O'SHEE

I am raising the question of the allocation of the 1½d. and the 2d. between the employer and the employé. What they object to is Sub-clause (b) and Sub-clause (c). Sub-clause (b) says that the employés rate should be reduced by 2d. in the case of a man and by 1½d. in the case of a woman; and Sub-clause (c) allocates that. I am objecting to the allocation because it may work unfairly to Ireland. Generally speaking, apart from the case of Ireland altogether, I do not think that allocation will encourage employers and domestic servants to take advantage of the Clause at all. The result will be that the full rate will be paid, and that the domestic servant will not get the benefit I am most anxious they should get. They will not get the benefit of the six weeks' full wages which they would get if the employers were encouraged to come under this Clause by getting a larger proportion of the 1½d. I say the employer should have at least 1d. of the reduction instead of ½d., and the employé should not have allocated more than ½d. That allocation specially affects Ireland, because here there is only ½d. to be contributed by the employé when the wages do not exceed 2s. a day, whether the employé is a man or a woman.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I will consider that point.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) of the new Clause, to leave out the word "may" ["the insurance Commissioners may from time to time"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I do not think there is any real necessity for this Amendment. There ought to be some discretion left to the Insurance Commissioners in deciding cases more or less on the border line.

Mr. BUTCHER

The Insurance Commissioners may entirely ignore the class of persons this Amendment is intended to meet. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says they want to have some discretion left to the Insurance Commissioners so that they may not make orders in all cases, but there is nothing to say they shall make orders in all cases.

Mr. C. BATHURST

Although I do not think this is to be useful to the agricultural population, I do think it will be a great boon to domestic servants and nurses in infirmaries. I see no reason why the Chancellor, of the Exchequer should not agree to the Amendment.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I cannot imagine why the Insurance Commissioners should refuse. They will exercise their discretion, and I think they are the best judges in the matter. It will not save any money to the Treasury, and they will exercise their duties impartially. I have always protested against anything which encourages litigation in these matters, and if there is anything in the nature of a demand that the Commissioners must put certain classes in it is sure to lead to litigation. I want a certain number of business men to administer this provision in a broad way. I think the Amendment will cause any amount of disputes, and I cannot accept it.

Mr. C. BATHURST

Surely if they are not to take the initiative they ought, to point the way and show what classes they intend to take.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The Commissioners will indicate that, and it is to their interest to get as many persons as possible within the scope of the Bill. What I object to is getting inserted a word which is only a high road to litigation. There is one lawyer present, and I can see an eager anticipation in his face of what would happen in a Bill of this kind. I should have thought the Workmen's Compensation Act would in itself be a warning to any House of Commons not to bring the lawyers too freely into an Act of Parliament. I prefer to see this Bill administered by the Commissioners, for that is in the interests of all the persons concerned. When a man has to appeal, it is the very worst thing he can do, for it takes him away from his ordinary business. It is not in the interests of the man himself or the employer or anybody, except the lawyers, and you should not encourage litigation in this way.

Mr. POLLOCK

I desire to answer the eagerness of my face which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to. I have been endeavouring to understand what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying, and perhaps he will allow me to say that I think what he has said is an extremely bad argument on his part. He says that he wishes to avoid litigation, and so do we. The right hon. Gentleman has also referred to the Workmen's Compensation Act. Now there could not be a better illustration of not attending to the advice of lawyers in this House than the case quoted, because if that Act had been more clearly drawn the unfortunate mass of litigation which has ensued might easily have been avoided. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself to bear me out when I say that he knows as well as I do that the efforts of lawyers are directed to preventing litigation. By this proposal you leave the matter doubtful as to whether the Commissioners will bring forward a special scheme or not. The purpose the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in view is to make it definite and certain that he is granting something under this Clause and giving an alternative scheme. We want to have that safeguarded, and if we have the word "shall" we impose a duty upon the Commissioners which cannot be gainsaid, which cannot be doubted or litigated, and which leaves the whole matter free from any litigation in the Law Courts. I desire to point out to the Attorney-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if the Amendment is accepted you once and for all prevent any possible litigation, by inserting the word "shall" we make the proposal clear, and no litigation can be instituted. Here is a very definite promise by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he intends to fulfil. If you leave this Clause in the form of "may" you might have an application made to the Courts to say circumstances have arisen which would justify an application for a mandamus to require the Commissioners to make a scheme. Leave it "shall," and the Commissioners may be trusted to do their duty. It is because I believe the word "shall" is so definite, and carries out the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I am prepared to say this Amendment ought to be accepted.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I take the hon. and learned Member at his word, but I cannot quite accept his suggestion, because it is an invitation to the Courts to come in.

Mr. POLLOCK

We all want to avoid that.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I will accept the word "shall," together with the words of the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow. The Clause will then read: "(1) The Insurance Commissioners shall from time to time make special orders specifying any classes of employment in which a custom is shown to their satisfaction to prevail."

Mr. POLLOCK

I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow me to pay a tribute to the lawyers who sit on his side of the House.

Mr. BUTCHER

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for this confession which seems to meet the case. The difficulty has arisen where "may" has been put in where "shall" ought to have been inserted. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has seen the necessity of putting in the word "shall." I wish to enter a strong protest against the general doctrines enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in objecting to this Amendment. It is a most dangerous view which has been acted upon in this Bill and other Bills brought forward by the Government in which they deliberately deprive subjects of the privilege of having their rights decided by a court of law instead of by a Department of the Government, and hand over their interests to a Department of the Government. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer pays any attention to the views of his own side he would know that the present Master of the Rolls, who is a Liberal, made the strongest protest against this method for the handing over the rights and liberties of the subjects to Government Departments. He showed great evils and injustices had arisen that way, and the only way to protect their interests was to leave it to the Courts of Law. I desire to protest against the doctrine enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that you ought to stuff your Bills full of appeals to irresponsible departmental authorities and thus oust the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law. I think it is a most unsound principle.

Question, "That the word 'may' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) of the proposed Amendment leave out the word "prevails" ["in which a custom prevails"], and insert instead thereof the words, "is shown to their satisfaction to prevail."

In Sub-section (2), at the end, add the words,

"Nothing in this Section shall relieve any employer of legal liability to pay wages during sickness to any person employed by him in accordance with any established custom."

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."

Mr. BUTCHER

I want to put a question of some importance to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I want to know whether it can be said that in the case of domestic servants a custom prevails whereby during illness they receive remuneration. There is a practice among many employers to pay their domestic servants in case of illness, but are the words of the Clause wide enough to include them. Would not the word "custom" be interpreted to apply to the main practice of employers. A custom has somewhat of a legal meaning. It is something which has prevailed for some time, and is fairly universal. Could it be said that as between masters and servants there is a custom sufficiently universal to justify the Commissioners proceeding under this Clause. If there is not a custom there is certainly a practice, and I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider between this and Report whether he could introduce words to meet the case of domestic servants.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

As a matter of fact, the very point raised by the hon. and learned Member was considered this morning, and we came to the conclusion the Clause would include domestic servants, but we will consider it still further between this and the Report stage, and if it is necessary to introduce some such words as the hon. and learned Member suggests, we will certainly do so.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)

I beg to move that the following new Clause (to be inserted after Clause 40) be read a second time.

Special provisions as to the Mercantile Marine.

In the application of this Part of this Act to masters, seamen, and apprentices to the sea service and the sea fishing service the following provisions shall have effect:—

1. (1) Neither sickness benefit nor disablement benefit shall be paid to a master, seaman, or apprentice suffering from any disease or disablement in respect of any period during which the owner of the ship is under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment or otherwise, liable to defray 606 the expense of the necessary surgical and medical advice and attendance and medicine, and of his maintenance, but for the purpose of calculating the rate and duration of sickness benefit such benefit shall be deemed to have been paid from the commencement of the disease or disablement until the determination, of such liability as aforesaid, and he shall not be entitled to medical benefit during such period;
2. (2) In the case of masters, seamen, and apprentices serving on a foreign-going ship or a ship engaged in regular trade on foreign stations, the employed rate and the employer's contributions shall each be reduced by one penny a week, and every four weekly contributions paid in any calendar year by a master, seaman, or apprentice whilst serving on such a ship shall, for the purposes of determining the number of contributions to be paid by him in that year and for the purposes of calculating arrears, be treated as five such contributions;

Provided that—

1. (a) nothing in this provision shall affect the number of employer's-contributions to be paid in respect of such a master, seaman, or apprentice, but no employer's contributions payable in respect of any week in respect of which no contribution is payable by the master, seaman, or apprentice shall be taken into account in reckoning the amount of his arrears;
2. (b) there shall be credited to the approved society of which the master, seaman, or apprentice is a member, or if he is a deposit contributor to his account in the Post Office fund, a sum equal to two-fifths of the amount of the contributions actually paid in respect of him, and an equal sum shall be treated as having been expended on sickness benefit and the proper proportion there-of shall accordingly be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament;

(3) A master, seamen, or apprentice who is neither domiciled nor has a place of residence in the United Kingdom shall not be deemed to be employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act, but the employer shall be liable to pay the same contributions in respect of him as would otherwise have been payable by him as employer's contributions, except in cases where the ship is engaged in regular trade on foreign stations;

(4) The Board of Trade shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, cause a society to be formed, to be called the Seamen's National Insurance Society, of which any masters, seamen, and apprentices to the sea service and the sea-fishing service who are employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act shall be entitled to become members, but nothing in this Section shall prevent any such person joining another approved society instead of the society so formed;

(5) The affairs of the Seamen's National Insurance Society shall be managed by a committee constituted in accordance with a scheme to be prepared by the Board of Trade with the approval of the Insurance Commissioners, comprising representatives of the Board of Trade, of shipowners, and of members of the society in equal proportions, and the society shall, notwithstanding anything in this Part of this Act, become an approved society;

(6) All contributions paid by employers in respect of masters, seamen, or apprentices who are neither domiciled nor have a place of residence in the United Kingdom, and consequently deemed not to be employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act, shall be credited to the Seamen's National Insurance Society;

(7) In addition to medical, sanatorium, sickness, disablement, and maternity benefits, members of the Seamen's National Insurance Society shall be entitled to such other benefits as may be provided under a scheme to be prepared by the committee of management, with the approval of the Board of Trade and the Insurance Commissioners, and such other benefits shall include pensions for masters and seamen with long sea service, and the scheme may provide for preference being given to masters and seamen who have served in foreign-going ships or ships engaged in foreign trade over those who have served in the coasting and home trade ships, and such preference may be proportionate to the length of time spent in the first-mentioned service. Provided that, in the case of the transfer of a member of the society to another approved society, the transfer value payable in respect of him shall be calculated with reference to the liabilities of the society for benefits other than such pensions as aforesaid;

(8) The rules of the Seamen's National Insurance Society shall provide for allowing a member who leaves the sea service and is unable to obtain admission to another approved society on account of the state of his health to continue a member of the Seamen's National Insurance Society for the purposes of this Part of this Act, and the rules of that society may provide that a member of the society who has fulfilled the conditions entitling him to such pension as aforesaid shall not be deprived of his right to the pension by reason only that he ceases to be a member of the society at the time when the pension first becomes payable or at any subsequent time;

(9) Where a master, seaman, or apprentice is at the commencement of this Act a member of a society which becomes an approved society he may, if that society and the Seamen's National Insurance Society so agree, continue to be a member of the first-mentioned society for the purposes of benefits under this Part of this Act other than pension, and becomes a member of the last-mentioned society for the purposes of pension only, and in such case the balance of the contributions payable in respect of him (after deducting the sums to be retained by the Insurance Commissioners towards discharging their liabilities in respect of reserve values) shall be divided between the two societies in such proportion as they may agree;

(10) Expressions in this Section have the same meaning as in the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1907, and the expression "ship engaged in regular trade on foreign stations" means a ship engaged regularly in trade between ports outside the British Islands when trading between such ports, but for the purposes of this provision a ship shall not be deemed not to be engaged in such a trade by reason only that she puts into a port in the United Kingdom for the purpose of survey or repair.

This Clause is one to make special provision with regard to the mercantile marine. The Committee will understand there are special causes necessitating a modified proposal with regard to the mercantile marine. The proposal embodied in the new Clause is the outcome of a considerable amount of discussion between the employers and the employed, and it represents substantially the assent of the employed and the shipowners. The shipowners were represented throughout these discussions by Sir Norman Hill, who certainly rendered valuable services in this connection, giving up his time and thought to the matter, and in every way doing his best to make this a workable scheme in order that the men of the mercantile marine should get special benefits under this Clause. The sailors in the mercantile marine stand in a very special category as regards their sickness, remuneration during sickness, the arrangements for their treatment during sickness, and the provision of medical benefits. Parliament has passed at various times Merchant Shipping Acts which have imposed on the shipowners obligations with regard to seamen of a much more onerous character than have been imposed upon employers with regard to any other class of workman, and the burdens are by no means light in this connection. Supposing a seaman ships on a vessel, is away on a long voyage for many months, and is taken ill during part of that voyage, all the time he is on board that vessel he has to be kept by the shipowner, he has to receive full wages, and full medical attendance, and he therefore enjoys special advantages as compared with any other class of persons who have to earn their living. Moreover, if he is discharged at the port provision has to be made by the shipowner for shipping him home and for paying, him off at a port under the Government supervision. Here, again, the sailor has a special advantage.

If you gave the sailor the ordinary medical and sickness benefit provided under the Bill, you would not really be giving him the equivalent for his money. The injustice of it would be you would not be giving him as much for his money as you would be giving to any other class of employed contributors under the Bill. It therefore became necessary to consider what scheme could be adopted by the Government which would meet the special causes of difference between the sailor and other employed contributors, and what we could do in order to make the scheme work fairly and justly for him. The result is embodied in what, no doubt, is rather a long Clause, but I think I can put the substance of it in a few sentences. The first condition which was asked for by both employers and men was that there should be a separate seamen's insurance society, with a separate seamen's insurance fund. That is to say, whatever was contributed by the seamen who chose to belong to a benefit society, the contributions paid by the employer and the seaman were to be contributed to that particular fund which was to be applied only for the benefit of seamen. Generally speaking, there are comparatively few seamen who are members of friendly societies; they do not as a rule belong to such organisations. So far as we have been able to ascertain it is quite clear that very few of them join these societies, and if they have the benefit of the special fund the result under this scheme would be that everything that goes into the fund will be used for the benefit of the men who belong to the mercantile marine. They will have this further advantage, that where the contribution will have to be made, as it will have to be made under the scheme, by the shipowner and not by the employed person, under circumstances which I will presently explain, that contribution which comes from the employer for that purpose will ultimately go into the seamen's fund and be applied generally for the benefit of that fund.

The reason of the distinction is this. In considering how to apply this fund we have to take into account the large number of seamen who are foreigners, who are not domiciled in this country, but who are merely trading on British ships. With regard to them, it must be obvious to the Committee that there is a difficulty as to their position, and, in the end, we came to the conclusion that the only way in which we could possibly deal with them was to leave them out and not to exact any contribution from them. But in order that there should be no preference given by shipowners to foreign seamen, we have provided that the shipowner shall not receive any immunity, and that he shall pay the contribution just the same. The shipowner is agreeable to that, and the contribution will go to swell the fund, from which no doubt there is great hope that great advantage will accrue to seamen in the mercantile marine. Further, we have considered this. In view of the special provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts a seaman will not get the advantage of the ordinary sickness or medical benefit, and although he may have to pay he will never receive the 10s. benefit because he will be receiving his full remuneration and medical attendance the whole time. Therefore it becomes necessary to make some allowance so that he may not be called upon to pay for something which he will not receive under the Act of Parliament. The shipowner, too, is already under an obligation to attend to this man, and therefore he will not be called upon to make a contribution in respect of him. It has been calculated that that represents an equivalent to 2d. off the contribution, that is 1d. from each side, and the way we have dealt with that is by allowing the seaman to pay his contribution for the maximum of forty-two weeks each year, and if he does that he does not get into arrear. With regard to the employer it is somewhat different. He pays one penny less. He pays 2d. instead of 3d. for every seaman he employs, and he pays it for the fifty-two weeks. There is the difficulty that sailors are nearly always away from home, and, by reason of their occupation, unable to manage their own affairs, and the consequence is if you apply to them conditions which are satisfactory so far as ordinary members of societies are concerned they do not work equally well in regard to the seamen.

After considerable discussion it has been agreed between masters and men that the best way of dealing with these matters will be to have a committee of management composed of representatives of the Board of Trade and of masters and men in equal proportions, and they shall be allowed to deal entirely with their own fund. The result of this would be that in the ordinary course, taking into account more particularly the additional contributions which the employer has to make for a number of men who will never receive benefits and who themselves are not contributors, the funds will get a considerable accretion, and there will also be additional benefits to be given out to the service. This money, which is to be applied as additional benefits, will include pensions for masters and seamen who have had long sea service, and the scheme will provide a preference for masters and seamen who have been trained in British foreign-going ships over those who have served merely in the coasting and home service. That is absolutely essential for the purposes of the scheme. There is undoubtedly a considerable difference between the service of the coasting and home trade, and the service of the foreign trade or foreign-going ships. The provision that is made with regard to that is, that there will be a scheme which will have to be put forward, and in that way it is hoped that pensions may be given—always assuming, of course, that the committee of management comes to the conclusion that it is desirable to do so on the conditions that they may lay down—and in that way men may be encouraged to continue in the mercantile marine and to serve to the benefit of the mercantile marine and of the shipping trade. They will receive the full advantage of it. The only advantage the employer will receive, if the hopes are fulfilled in regard to this scheme and this society and Seamen's Fund, is that there will be a great encouragement to men to remain in the service of the mercantile marine, and therefore the shipowner will have more men at hand, particularly men from this country who will be ready to continue to serve in foreign-going vessels and foreign-going trade. That is the benefit he can hope to derive from it, apart altogether from the advantage of providing for the men, not only as regards pensions, but as regards the other benefits subject to the conditions of difference which arise because of the Merchant Shipping Acts.

There are also provisions made that a person, if he is a member of an approved society, can, if he likes, remain a member of an approved society other than the Seaman's National Insurance Fund. He may continue to be a member of that society for the purpose of receiving the benefits under Part I. of the Act, and he may also be a member of the Seamen's Society for the purpose of a pension. The only point that is left open is, that there must be an agreement between the two societies as to the proportion of the contributions to be divided between them. I do not think any difficulty will arise in regard to that because naturally a friendly society, other than this National Insurance Society, would desire, if it can, to keep or to attract the sailor who wished to join, and equally the sailor may want to get the benefit of the pension fund, and of the advantages which come under it, and consequently he may join the one for ordinary benefits, and the other for the pension scheme upon terms as to the division of contribution mutually agreed between them.

Mr. J. WARD

What happens if the seaman after a few years at sea, wants to return to inland life or occupation?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

There is a provision in regard to that. It all depends whether he has fulfilled the conditions with regard to the pension. Supposing he has served for a number of years, whatever it may be, entitling him to a pension at a future date, if he then ceases to be a member of this society, and became a member of an ordinary approved society for workmen, the result would be that he is not to be deprived of his right to a pension which is payable to him in future. There is a special provision for that in Sub-section (8). I do not profess to have gone exhaustively into the matter, because it is a complicated question, but I have outlined to the Committee what the proposals are, and why it is we have had recourse to a different scheme for the sailors.

I venture to remind the Committee that this scheme which we are now proposing has the advantage of being one which is approved by those who represented the mercantile marine at a conference. Mr. Havelock Wilson was there from the first moment of the discussion, and Sir Norman Hill was there representing the owners. The result is that we have gone through this scheme step by step in great detail. We have had an actuarial report upon it, and a memorandum has been circulated explaining the Clause and giving the actuarial calculations which have been made, so that anyone who wants to can go into further detail as to how the scheme will work out. I submit this Clause as an improvement on the Bill as it stood, which brought seamen in under conditions which did not appear to us, upon further consideration, to be just to them; and it will commend itself to the Committee upon the ground that it will encourage men of the United Kingdom to continue as sailors in the mercantile marine, another special advantage being that it prevents the 3d. being given to seamen employed on British ships who are foreigners. In these circumstances I submit to the Committee that the Clause should be accepted.

Sir G. DOUGHTY

I think the Committee are indebted to the Attorney-General for the very lucid explanation he has given of a very difficult technical question; but I think the Committee should understand that by this Clause we are making a new departure under the Insurance Bill. We are by this Clause establishing a National Insurance Society outside the Bill as it at present stands. That, in my opinion, is a matter which should receive more consideration than it is possible for it to receive under the present conditions of time for the passing of this Bill. May I also say that we are going for the first time to place outside the National Insurance scheme a scheme for the insurance of seamen, which will not be under, in all respects, the same conditions as those approved societies which will be embraced within the national scheme. I very nearly approve all the Attorney-General has said. I think that this scheme, as drawn, so far as it goes, is an excellent proposal, and if I had any criticism to make at all it would be this, that the Government have been a little unfair to other interests which they are including in this scheme by not consulting them when these negotiations were proceeding between the Treasury and other interests in the country. It is a fact that the Liverpool Shipowners Association have been consulted, and, with the exception of Mr. Havelock Wilson, they are the only people who have been consulted in regard to this question, although no fewer than 300,000 men are represented under this proposal. The Liverpool Shipowners Association is by far the largest association of shipowners in the world and it was through their initiative that these proposals were first considered, and this scheme, as drawn, is the scheme of the Liverpool Shipowners Association, and it is propounded from beginning to end to serve the interests of the men in that association. This scheme was submitted to the Treasury by the Liverpool Shipowners Association, who have drawn it in their interest—I do not complain of that—and it will serve their interests as it stands to-day very much better than it will serve any other section of the mercantile marine. In the foreign section of that association there are 129,000 men. In the home trades there are about 34,000 men, and amongst the fishermen there are 32,000 men. They, with the Lascars and the foreigners, together make up a total of 270,000 men, and under the Bill they have to pay a sum of £420,000 a year or more, but as it now stands they will not pay more than £350,000 a year; so that it is clear that someone is going to gain £70,000 a year by this transaction. I will not say the scheme is not proper in that respect, but who is going to get the £70,000 a year? The Liverpool Shipowners Association—the gentlemen who are in the foreign section of it. In his wisdom the Chancellor has accpted their scheme, and it means that the foreign section of the association are going to pay on 127,000 men 2d. instead of 3d., and the men are going to pay 3d. instead of 4d., or, in other words, they are going to pay 4d. for forty-two weeks, instead of 3d. for fifty-two weeks. I think it is a wise suggestion that they should pay in that way, because they pay when they are employed, and they are covered when they are not employed. But that is the position, and that is why this scheme has been brought forward. I think on these lines they have been looking after their own business remarkably well.

9.0 P.M.

I now come back to our complaint again. Why were not the fishermen's societies or interests considered when this scheme was before these Committees? Surely they should have had the same right to express their opinion on behalf of those who were employed in that great industry. Thirty-two thousand fishermen are brought into the scheme and they have never been consulted or asked whether they desired to come into it, or whether they have any reason to ask for the same concessions as have been given to the foreign section of the Liverpool Shipowners' Association. I agree that the Attorney-General has made out a good case for this reduction in the charge. He says that under the Merchant Shipping Acts of 1894 and 1906 obligations are placed upon the shipowners in regard to medical service to their men which is a considerable burden upon that industry. Therefore, it is just and right that they should have some relief from the charge which this Bill will impose upon them. I am not finding any fault with that at all. I believe the concession is a fair and proper one. But I want to bring before the right hon. Gentleman's mind another class of men who have the same obligation and the same legal charge that the Shipowners' Association has, namely, fishermen. Whatever burden the Merchant Shipping Act imposes upon the mercantile marine, it imposes upon every British steam trawler. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to point out in what sense the law of it differs. The Merchant Shipping Act applies just as much to a British steam trawler as to a British trader or tramp, and they have the same obligations and the same charges to meet. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had known more about the difficulties and expenses under the Merchant Shipping Act thrown upon, the great steam shipping industry of this country, he would have been glad to say that they should be placed in exactly the same position as the foreign section represented at Liverpool, and what we are asking is that our fishermen should be relieved from a certain proportion of their burden just as you are going to relieve these British firms from Liverpool.

I want to try to convince the Attorney-General that what I say is right. He may not know that large ships go from several fishing ports in this country to Iceland and to Faroe and to the White Sea, and are away a month or five weeks, or in some cases two months at a time, and during the time that they are at sea the owner has to provide all the medical attention necessary for the whole crew. He has to provide the medicine chest. If any man is taken ill he has to go to the nearest port and put him ashore. He has to find medical attention for him, to pay all the charge attendant thereto, and pay his wages all the time he is there, and when he is well again he has to bring him back at his own cost to the port where he was first articled. All these charges the British fishing industry have to bear in regard to their steam trawlers, and therefore we claim that we should be treated just the same as you are treating the British seamen out of Liverpool, and if you do not place them in the same category—and I have an Amendment later on asking you to do so—you are penalising our men and treating them unjustly, and you are giving a preference to the British seamen from Liverpool. I hope I have made it clear that we have a very strong case, and we ask, in regard to these 32,000 men, that you will give them the same relief in regard to charges that you are going to give to the seaman who sails from Liverpool.

There is another reason why I claim that we are more entitled, if possible, than the rich mercantile marine representatives in the ports of Liverpool and London to some release from the burdens of this Bill, and it is this: Whatever may be the result of the working of this Bill in other trades, there is no doubt whatever that the charge will fall, not upon the consumer but upon the producer. This industry is an exceptional one in respect that what is caught and taken from the sea by our fishermen is sold by auction every morning, and the price of the article they have to sell is governed by the question of supply and demand, and they cannot pass on the cost of this Bill to the consumer. For that reason I claim that we ought to have special consideration at the hands of the Government, because this industry will be particularly penalised in respect that both the men and the owners will have among them to bear the total burden which this Bill will impose upon their industry. There is another reason why I would like the Attorney-General to pay some attention to our claim, and it is this, that so far as the fishermen are concerned, at least they are among the healthiest of our race. They are not weaklings, because the weaklings go to the wall. They are strong, hale and really healthy men. Although in the returns which have been provided they do not appear in the first class, the reason for that is the number of accidents which occur in that particular industry. It is their misfortune, but it is nevertheless a fact that owing to the difficulties of the calling there are a great many accidents in that particular industry. But the whole of these accidents are covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act, and therefore there is no charge whatever upon the proposed insurance scheme. If you were to withdraw from the figures which have been produced in regard to health those accidents covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act, I am certain you would find that there is not another set of men so healthy as those fishermen. Because they are a healthy race of men and because of the peculiarities of the trade itself, whatever is charged by the Insurance Bill must be charged on the trade directly. We have now a burden under the Merchant Shipping Act to carry. Every part of the charge for medical attendance and medical matters in your insurance scheme is a charge under that Act.

For these reasons I say we are entitled to the same remission as you have agreed voluntarily to give to the shipowners of Liverpool. I therefore ask, in the interest of the fishermen—there is no more worthy class of men in this country—that the Government should see to it, that by accepting the Amendment standing in my name, they shall place these men in the same position as the Liverpool seamen. I ask the Attorney-General to give the same consideration to our men as he has given to the Liverpool men. Under this scheme we are going to establish a new society, and that society, so far as its rules and constitution are concerned, is to be set up by the Board of Trade. I ask the Attorney-General to see to it, since there will be 32,000 fishermen included in it, that they shall have some representation on the committee itself. I wish him to see to it also that their societies may become affiliated in this insurance society. I am sure the Labour Members will quite understand what I am driving at in the matter. The fishermen are not in large numbers in societies anywhere. I suppose in the port of Grimsby the fishermen's society represents less than 1,000 men, and therefore you can understand that it would be very difficult for them indeed to become members of an affiliated society. But if you are establishing a new society, with a national constitution, it seems to me that there should be no difficulty in providing that the various fishermen's societies should have power to affiliate under the National Seamen's Society, and by that means get the full advantage of being societies recognised under the Insurance Bill. I think I have made my points clear. It is a very important matter.

Mr. J. WARD

I understood from the hon. Member that he had an Amendment on the Paper.

Sir G. DOUGHTY

In reply to the hon. Member, may I say that these Clauses appeared on the Paper this morning, and that I put my Amendment down this evening. It is in the hands of the Chairman. This is really a much more important matter for the fishermen than many Members in this House may think. What other chance are we to have of bringing their grievances before the House? At half-past Ten to-night the guillotine is going to fall, and this will be the last opportunity that, great body of working-men will have of submitting their grievances or of stating their case. I only ask justice for them, and that they shall be given the same privileges as are being given to this body in Liverpool who have rich men to represent them.

Mr. HOLT

The hon. Member has harped a great deal on the seamen of Liverpool. Is it suggested that the Liverpool men are going to be treated differently from the Cardiff men or the Glasgow men?

Sir G. DOUGHTY

Yes, it is suggested for this reason. A large proportion of foreign-going ships are represented by the Liverpool Shipowners Association. I think the members of that association have been very wise in influencing the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this way. I do not say they are wrong. What I say is that they have got concessions which we want. I contend that their case is a sound one. I have read the report made by their people on the question. They have made a strong case because they have shown that they pay the sums of money at the present time, and that they have a right to some remission of these sums. All I say is that as they have got these advantages our fishermen, being under the same Act of Parliament, namely, the Merchant Shipping Act, have a right to claim that the same advantages should be given to them. If we get them from the Attorney-General. I shall be very glad to support the Government scheme. I hope the Attorney-General will accept the Amendment.

Sir EDWARD BEAUCHAMP

In the new Clause I think the Government have met very fairly the shipowners and the men who are employed in the foreign trades, but I certainly wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Sir G. Doughty) in his appeal to the Government to extend the same consideration to the fishermen as has been given to those engaged in the foreign trade. As has been said, they are an entirely deserving body of men. The trade is carried on under peculiar conditions, and they have a great many difficulties with which to contend. For instance, the deep sea fishermen are more or less a sea-going trade, and for many weeks in the year they are compelled to be out of employment. Yet, in order to obtain the full benefits of the Act, they have to contribute even during the weeks in which they are unemployed, and the probability is they will also have to contribute the employer's quota as well. However, I do think that a good claim has been made out on behalf of the fishermen, and I hope that the Government will extend consideration to them.

With regard to the position of the fishermen after the establishment of the new insurance society I am not sure how they come in. They are entitled to become members of this society. Ninety per cent. of them are already insured in friendly societies, and I want to know what benefits they are going to get if they leave their old benefit societies and join this new national insurance society. There are benefits to be given to the people who join these new societies. One of them is that they are to receive a pension, and preference is to be given to those who had been in foreign-going ships. Afterwards, if there is a surplus, I understand that those engaged in the coasting and home trade are to come in and get a pension also. In paragraph (4) the sea fishing is particularly mentioned, and in paragraph (7), which deals with the question of pensioning, the fishing trade is not mentioned. What I want to know is whether it is governed by the words "coasting and home trade." In those circumstances, if the fisherman joins the national society he will be entitled, together with those engaged in the coasting and home trade, to a pension of the same amount of money as is granted to others, beyond those engaged in the foreign trade. That is a question to which I particularly want an answer, because on the answer will depend Whether it is worth the while of the fishermen to join the societies.

Sir GILBERT PARKER

I think that the Attorney-General must have been greatly impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Sir G. Doughty). I do not accuse the Government of any neglect whatever. I think it likely that the case of the fishermen was not represented adequately to them while this new Clause was under consideration, but I think that the case made by my hon. Friend was a very powerful one. He showed that the fishing trade was unlike the home and coasting trade, that the fishermen go to sea and, perhaps, are away for three weeks or a month, and that during that time the same responsibilities are upon the owners of the fishing fleet as are upon the owners of foreign-going ships. Responsibilities on the owners of foreign-going ships are very heavy. The obligations under the Act of 1S94 are extremely onerous, and always press very heavily on the owners of those ships. My hon. Friend did not protest against any concessions being given to them; on the contrary, he approved of them. But he asked why the fishing service, which stands on very much the same footing as the foreign-going ships, are not provided for. I think my hon. Friend has the right to ask everyone who represents the foreign-going trade to support his appeal.

Unless there are reasons which I have not heard, it would be a dog-in-the-manger policy for the foreign-going ships to receive those concessions and deny them to the trade which my hon. Friend very worthily represents. I trust the Attorney-General will find it possible to include those 32,000 fishermen or those who send out those 32,000 fishermen, and are responsible for them under the other scheme for sickness and for all those benefits that are due under the 1894 Act. I sincerely hope that the Attorney-General will be able to grant this concession. The cost to the Government will be very little. It will affect the finance of the Bill very slightly. At the same time it will give great satisfaction to a very large body of men, and will do justice to the owners of trawlers, who are just as much entitled to consideration as the owners of foreign-going ships. I hope the Committee will understand that I am not making any charge against the Government with regard to the concession to foreign-going ships, but I am making an appeal for this service, which stands apart from the ordinary coasting service and the home service, and has characteristics similar to those of the foreign-going service. I appeal to the Attorney-General to grant this concession or else make it clear to the Committee that the reasons for refusing are such as every just and fair man will agree are proper reasons.

The CHAIRMAN

Perhaps I had better point out to the Committee that the point before us now raises questions which are raised on Amendments that have been handed in, and perhaps it would be for the benefit of the discussion if we can deal with those Amendments.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

It will be much better if you pass the Clause as far as it goes and then discuss the special points which have been raised during the course of the Debate. I would ask if I might move some drafting Amendments in Clause 8 which involve only the alteration of two or three words?

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY

If the right hon. Gentleman moves an Amendment to Sub-section (8), will it preclude an Amendment which I have to move on Sub-section (7)?

The CHAIRMAN

It is suggested that the Attorney-General shall move a drafting Amendment, and then that I should propose the question for the Second Reading of the Clause.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (8), leave out the word "ceases" ["by reason only that it ceases"], and insert instead thereof the words, "has ceased."—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]

Sir G. DOUGHTY

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "stations" ["on foreign stations, the employed rate"], to insert the words, "and fishermen engaged in the sea fishing service."

The object of this is to put fishermen in exactly the same position as British seamen. I have explained that they have the same obligations under the Merchant Shipping Act in the eyes of the law as any other British seaman, and therefore I ask, with very great respect, that this Amendment should be allowed.

Mr. WALTER REA

Although my own interests are not representative of the fishing industry, and are not identical with those of the hon. Gentleman opposite, yet, to avoid misapprehension, I may state that my personal interest as a shipowner is also on his side, and not on the side, as has been stated, of the Liverpool steamship owners. The real reason why there is this differentiation as to liability resting on the two classes of shipowners is that their responsibilities are entirely different. Both classes are responsible for the maintenance of the sick seamen, for the payment of his wages, for medical attendance, and for his return home during the time he is on the ship. In the case of the trawler, the man is returned home within a few days, though it is possible that the time might run, as the hon. Member opposite suggested, for so long a period as perhaps three weeks. Compare that with the case of the liner. An Australian liner may return to an English port only twice in the year, and during the whole of that time the owner must bear the responsibility of the maintenance of the seamen—a liability which has to be compared with the liabilities of the owner of a small coasting steamer or trawler before you can arrive at what is an equitable distribution.

Sir G. PARKER

Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that an Australian liner only comes to an English port twice a year?

Mr. WALTER REA

Some of them only come twice a year. I am taking the extreme case of a liner which only comes twice in the year, and during that long period the owner is under full liability, whereas in the case of the coasting steamer or the trawler the period is only a few days.

Sir G. DOUGHTY

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the North Sea the ships are away for as long as six or eight weeks?

Mr. WALTER REA

I quite admit that. I was taking an extreme case, which can be graduated down, I have no doubt, until it overlaps the case of trawler or coasting steamer, in whose case the time may run up to six or eight weeks, as compared with a period, in the case of a liner or deep-sea trader, running up to a year. The responsibility on a deep-sea shipowner, it will be seen, is very much heavier than in the case of the owner of the coasting steamer or trawler.

Sir G. DOUGHTY

And their profits are much larger?

Mr. WALTER REA

That is a matter I am quite prepared to argue with the hon. Member outside the House. The point is what is a fair distribution as between the two? My hon. Friend must bear in mind that Sub-section (7) also places responsibility on the shipowner in connection with the deep-sea trade whereby he has to pay a certain contribution in regard to foreign seamen—seamen who are not deemed to be employed within the meaning of this part of the Act—and therefore they are contributing something which is not contributed by the trawlers. I hold no brief for the deep-sea shipowners. Though my hon. Friend opposite calls me the representative of the Liverpool steamship owners, which I am not, I may be allowed to tell him that this scheme has been approved by all the shipowners in the country, and was not put forward to the Government by the Liverpool Steam Shipowners' Association, but by a very different body, the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee, representing the whole of the shipowners of the country, and by no means the deep-sea shipowners alone.

Sir G. PARKER

They did very well.

Mr. WALTER REA

I am not prepared to argue whether they have done well or not. I am arguing in favour of a great scheme for all shipowners, and I may say, not as a deep-sea shipowner, I wish to see it put into force for the benefit of the seamen of this country. I only rose to correct the misapprehension as to one point which was made in reference to the Liverpool Steamship Owners, and to say, as one not concerned in that trade, that I welcome this scheme as making for the good of seafaring men. I wish to make the greatest efforts in behalf of our sailors, in order that we may procure British sailors instead of foreign sailors, whom we employ against our will. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carefully consider the proposal to include representatives of fishermen upon this Committee which is to manage the new society, for they have a very considerable claim to representation as well as the deep-sea shipowners. On that point I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY

I entirely endorse the patriotic sentiments of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Walter Rea) in regard to the desire of shipowners to employ an increasing number of British instead of foreign seamen; but I greatly regret that the hon. Gentleman did not address himself more closely to the argument and deal specifically with the point raised by my hon. Friend the member for Grimsby. This Clause proposes to give preferential treatment to the deep-sea seamen and their employers, but excludes from that preferential treatment 32,000 fishermen who are engaged round our coasts. I am not sure how far it excludes the seamen and shipowners in the home trade, but whether that is included or excluded those fishermen are excluded. The Amendment is that at a practically nominal cost the seamen shall have and the trawl owners shall have the benefit of this reduction in contribution and the preferential treatment as regards benefits. There is not only a preference given to foreign-going seamen in regard to contribution but also in regard to pensions. I for one fail to see why a British subject who is engaged in the very dangerous occupation of fishing round our coasts should not have as favourable treatment as the British sailor who is engaged in foreign-going ships. The very men on whose behalf my hon. Friend is pleading are the men from whom are drawn the crews of the lifeboats who have as much claim on the patriotic consideration of the Government as any engaged in the mercantile marine. [Mr. Lloyd George: "Hear, hear."] Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to include the fishermen not only with regard to this exemption, but that he will also accept an Amendment to give the same treatment to the fishermen with regard to pensions as is to be given to the foreign-going sailors. I think my hon. Friend has made an impression on the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am very sorry I was not here when my hon. Friend put this case. It is a very interesting proposition, and one which everybody in the House must approach, at any rate, sympathetically. The only question is whether it can be done as a purely business proposition. Let us examine it from that point of view. Anybody looking at Subsection (2) will see that the finance of this is based upon the assumption that a very considerable proportion of the burden which is ordinarily placed upon the funds in respect of other employers is undertaken by the owner of the ship in respect of foreign-going vessels. It is a very exceptional trade or business in that respect. As to domestic servants, clerks, or agricultural labourers no one has suggested that the responsibility on their employers extends beyond a few weeks at the outside. But the owner of a ship may have a man on his hands for weeks or months. I heard of a case the other day where a sailor was taken ill the day after he left port on a foreign-going vessel. He had to be taken round from one foreign port to another, and I do not know how many weeks or months elapsed before he was brought back, the whole charge falling upon the owners for medical attendance, wages and maintenance. He did not give a single day's service during the whole time he was on board the ship. That is the sort of liability which the owner of the ship undertakes in respect of the crew.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY

There is a corresponding case where a fisherman was injured on a trawler which has had to go into port with the man, losing its voyage for the sake of humanity.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I will come to that point. I want to lay down the actuarial basis of this Clause. The limits of the trade are not confined to the coast of Great Britain, and you could not extend the benefits to those cases because in two or three days the sailor would be put ashore, and there would be no liability. Otherwise, there would be such a draft on the scheme that you could not give benefits to the foreign-going ship. We had very careful actuarial calculations. They were taken by Sir Norman Hill on behalf of the shipowners, and were inspected by us on behalf of the Government. The hon. Gentleman made the suggestion that we should extend these benefits to the fishermen. Is he certain that actuarialy the fund could carry benefits of this kind for 30,000 fishermen. I could not accept responsibility for putting it into the Bill without having some sort of actuarial guarantee on the subject.

Sir G. DOUGHTY

Last night we put before the Attorney-General what the owner has to pay under the Act, and it represents a very considerable sum. May I also say that a person who left our port not long ago and went to fish to Iceland was taken ill almost as soon as he left. He had to be put ashore there for some weeks, and of course the owner had to pay all the charges and the man's wages until he came back. That is a parallel case to the one given of the foreign-going ship. It should be remembered that the amount of capital represented in foreign-going ships is very different from the amount of capital represented in steam trawlers, and that they cannot earn anything like the same amount of money.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I do not think the latter point affects the case when you come to deal with the mercantile marine. The foreign-going service could not bear this unless it had ships which go away for months and months, and may have undertaken the whole burden of sickness in regard to sailors, and a considerable number of them, for months at a time. I would not presume to speak about the fishing industry, especially as the hon. Baronet knows all about it; but, subject to his correction, I would say that it is rather the exception than the rule to have anything of that sort in a fishing fleet. It is not a question merely of dealing with the trawlers in a particular town; it is a question of 32,000 in the service all through the country. I will state exactly what my position is. If the hon. Member gathered all the statistics together and brought me a very careful actuarial computation of what the thing was worth, and what they could afford to give, I would be delighted if I could do something in the case. I do not know that it is too late now. Therefore, I invite him, first of all, to secure his own actuarial advice, and to give me the facts and detailed figures, and I also will see what I can do. Full information must be given, or I may have figures which are not sufficiently exhaustive to enable an actuary to append his signature to a report. If the hon. Baronet does that quickly, I will undertake to do what I can to get some sort of actuarial computation as to what the thing is worth, and I shall be only too delighted if anything can be done. It might be necessary to ask hon. Members opposite to consent to the recommittal of the Bill for that particular purpose, but that could be done even after the Report stage and before the Third Reading. I could not accept the responsibility of putting fishermen on the same terms as the foreign-going sailors without some actuarial justification for doing so; otherwise we might be guaranteeing the fishermen something which there was no money to meet. We know now when we give a statutory guarantee of this kind that the sailors will get their cash—that is, so far as human computation can possibly anticipate what may happen. But if we simply undertook a responsibility which would lead to insolvency, it would not be to the credit of my hon. Friend or of the Government or of the House of Commons. Therefore I suggest that, having made the best case that could be made under the circumstances, he should be satisfied with the undertaking I have given.

Mr. HOLT

The hon. Baronet in his speech harped on the word "Liverpool" in a way that was not fair, because there is no suggestion in this Clause that any person trading out of Liverpool should be treated differently from a trader from any other port.

Sir G. DOUGHTY

I am very sorry if I did anything in any sense unfair to Liverpool, as that is the last thing I should wish to do.

Mr. HOLT

I am very much obliged for that statement. Speaking as a Liverpool and a foreign trade shipowner, I entirely concur in what has fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is purely a question of actuarial calculation. If the hon. Baronet can show that his fishermen are actuarialy in the same position as our sailors, we are perfectly satisfied that they should be put on the same footing. It is not a question of ourselves at all in this matter; it is the benefit that will accrue to our sailors. We object to the hon. Baronet giving grants to his fishermen at the expense of our sailors; but if he can show actuarialy that his friends are in the same position as our friends, we are perfectly satisfied that they should be treated on the same basis. That is all we ask. I understand that a suggestion has already been made with regard to any fishing boat that can show that it has been away for four-fifths of the year, which is the test applied to the foreign trader. Nobody will object to including any given fisherman on those lines.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is satisfactory so far as it goes, but I do not think he quite did the hon. Baronet justice. He asked him for his actuarial reports. This is a new Clause. I am not sure whether it was put down yesterday or the day before, but it was quite impossible for anybody representing the interests referred to by the hon. Baronet to have prepared actuarial reports or to have brought actuarial evidence in time for the Committee. It is time a strong protest was made against the course the Government have taken.

The CHAIRMAN

I do not think that that is in order. We are now on an Amendment to the Clause. We have passed the Second Reading.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I was endeavouring to show that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was now offering to do something which is within the Amendment. He invited the hon. Baronet to bring actuarial figures in order that he might consider the case put forward in the same way that he has considered that of foreign-going vessels—I do not want to particularise Liverpool—largely on the advice of Sir Norman Hill, who is a recognised authority on the subject. I was suggesting that it was not quite fair of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the hon. Baronet ought to bring actuarial figures in support of his case, and I was going on to suggest that it was the Government's duty to have considered such a case as the hon. Baronet brought forward. The case is within the knowledge of the whole kingdom; it does not require much special knowledge to know that there are such people as those for whom the hon. Baronet pleaded. It is the duty of the Government to have this information, and, instead of asking the hon. Baronet for it, to place it at the disposal of the Committee. To say that the Government will consider the matter between now and the Report stage goes some way to meet us. On the other hand, the Government have at their command actuaries and much skilled advice on shipping matters, and it seems to me that they ought to be able to produce this evidence and place it at the disposal of the Committee. However, in view of his promise to consider the matter, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not necessarily wait for information and actuarial reports which it may be impossible for a private Member to give him, at any rate without a great deal of expenditure and loss of time, but will, on his own account use the information which is at the command of the Government to get out the reports and figures necessary, and present them to the House in the form of a White Paper.

Sir G. DOUGHTY

I am obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his sympathetic reply. I can quite understand that it is impossible to consider every section of the people in a great question such as this. May I say, however, that the average amount of time that the fisherman is at sea is forty-two out of the fifty-two weeks. Therefore, if I establish that position, according to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, we shall be able to claim this concession that has been given to Liverpool. However, I promise the Chancellor that so far as I can I will get out the figures which he desires. I cannot promise him an actuarial statement, because I am not an actuary myself, and I am afraid amongst the fishermen generally there are not many actuaries.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

There are sea lawyers!

Sir G. DOUGHTY

We will try honestly to bring before the right hon. Gentleman the figures bearing upon the case, and also the weeks and days of service that these men are at sea, and on which they cannot be a charge on the insurance fund; also the other points which may lie in our favour in the matter of this concession.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. J. WARD

Before this Amendment is withdrawn, I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take another side of the question under consideration when he is deciding whether he will recommit this Bill for the purpose of dealing with this problem. The hon. Baronet the Member for Grimsby has given us the average number of weeks that the fishermen are at sea. I have not the slightest objection to exceptions being made in a case of seamen, whether fishermen or otherwise, who are at sea for forty-two weeks in the year, but as a man engaged in public work I know for a fact that around Lowestoft and the northern and eastern coast of England, as; well as the southern coast, the men who are termed fishermen very often go on to public works, and work there for months. They only go to sea as fishermen at some special time of the year. It would be most grossly unfair if these men who properly only act as fishermen for three months or so were to have an exception made in their case. They work as navvies or as labourers in the building trade in the locality, and escape the responsibilities that other men have to perform who are regularly employed in the business. They very often own to the fact that they not only get a good harvest of fish, but a good harvest of money during the two or three months that they happen to be at sea. They will then come and work for less wages than the proper rate in the locality, and place the regular occupants of the industries at a very serious disadvantage. Therefore, I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to convince the hon. Baronet that he must not be too extensive in his interpretation of what are called fishermen. Otherwise there is going to be done a positive injury to some of the other trades that come under the Insurance Bill.

Mr. ESSLEMONT

I am sorry that I have not had the pleasure to listening to the whole speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Grimsby, but, speaking for myself. I think that perhaps he has put the case of the fishermen a little too high. I think that the Attorney-General, whom we met last night and with whom we discussed this matter, will admit that we made out a case for consideration. The part owner cannot avoid the obligations that press upon him in connection with the Merchant Shipping Act. Again, on the part of the men it is impossible for them to enjoy the same benefit from the Act as those who are engaged on the land. I hope the Chancellor will give a sympathetic consideration to our question, and at least give the same concession as suggested to other owners of these vessels and the men engaged in them.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

There was one question on which I desired to ask the hon. Baronet to get an answer for the Government. I want to know the ports of call of the vessels engaged. While they may be out forty-two weeks in the year, if they are cruising around home ports, then they can drop their sick men. That is the difference between the foreign and the home services. Information on that point is very essential. As to what the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said, a Government Department cannot give all information. There is no information that I know in any Government Department to enable us to get the full particulars which the hon. Baronet has made it his business to supply us with. Information of that kind is essential from an actuarial point of view. Fresh facts were brought to our notice last night by the hon. Baronet, by the hon. Member behind me, and others. We then promised to consider these fresh facts. If still further information can be given I shall only be too happy to consider it.

Mr. BARNES

Just one question before the Amendment is withdrawn. I would like to ask the Chancellor—I think I am right in saying it—as to whether engineers are included in the provision for seamen?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Yes.

Mr. GRETTON

The fishing business, which is pursued from various ports of the coast, is not all pursued in the same way. There are large fishing vessels which go to sea and remain at sea as a matter of custom, and in the ordinary employment, for weeks at a time. The fish caught are brought into port by carriers. Now these vessels are, I think, essentially sea-going vessels and are more foreign-going vessels than that class of liner whose voyage does not last more than a week or eight days. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke has said, there are seasonal fishermen who go out to fish when the fish come off a particular part of the coast, and stay out as long as the fish remains in the neighbourhood. There requires in this matter a little differentiation. But I would like to point out the case of some of the smaller vessels, as, for example, those in a small fishing fleet which works out of one of the Irish ports. These vessels are not owned by rich men, but by men of very moderate means indeed, who work very much on a co-partnership system. These men get a very low wage and take their share of the profits. I should like to put that question for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman.

There is another side to this question which strikes me very forcibly, and that is the great hardship of charging men under the Merchant Shipping Act for what they already get under the terms of that Act. I hope these considerations will be seriously in the minds of the Government, and that they will recognise that, though by far the largest portion of the fishing fleet is of the character the hon. Member for Grimsby describes, there is a very considerable portion of the shipping industry on a different footing, and they will require separate and careful consideration if the Clause is to be moulded in a manner just to all concerned.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir G. DOUGHTY

I wish to ask if they shall have power given to their smaller societies to affiliate to the National Seamen's Society, so that they can get the whole benefits of an approved society?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

That will depend upon their coming into this scheme altogether. If they do come into the scheme there should be power.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY

The Amendment of which I have given notice is consequential on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Grimsby, whose Amendment was withdrawn. The Amendment I have on the Paper relates to the privileges of pension, and the object of it is to give the fishermen and seamen on fishing vessels the same provision with regard to their pension that is given to masters and seamen in foreign-going vessels.

The CHAIRMAN

That is really consequential.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY

Might I point out that the first Amendment was for the reduction of contributions, and that the one I now suggest is for the paying out of the results of those contributions in the form of pensions.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

If I may point out to the hon. Gentleman, that all depends upon whether fishermen are coming in or not. If fishermen are coming in, you must have an alteration.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY

I wish to be sure that there is no misunderstanding between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. If by reason of the actuarial investigation which the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will conduct it is decided that the fishermen should come in upon the same terms as foreign-going sailors, then they would come in under my hon. Friend's Amendment in regard to preferential treatment as to contributions. What I say is that they should equally come in for preferential treatment with regard to pensions.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

That is the whole point.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY

Then it is clear that the one follows the other, and that it will not be necessary for me to move my Amendment.

Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Mr. GRETTON

Does this Clause affecting seamen and fishermen apply also to Ireland, or do the Irish fishermen come under the Irish scheme of contribution dealt with the other night?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The sailor section is a totally different section.

Mr. GRETTON

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Does this apply to the whole of the United Kingdom?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Certainly.

Question proposed, "That the following Clause be read a second time,"

Transactions between the Insurance Commissioners and Societies.

(1) The Insurance Commissioners shall, subject to the approval of the Treasury, make regulations with respect to crediting and debiting to the several societies sums received and paid by the Insurance Commissioners on behalf of or to societies and as to the payments to be made by and to the Commissioners to and by societies, and those regulations shall, amongst other things—

1. (a) provide for crediting to each society the contributions paid by or in respect of the members of the society after deducting the amounts retained thereout for discharging the liabilities of the Insurance Commissioners in respect of reserve values;
2. (b) require the Insurance Commissioners, on carrying any sum to the credit of an approved society in the investment account, to pay over to the society for investment, or, at the request of the society, to retain for investment on behalf of the society, four-sevenths, or, so far as the sums are attributable to women, one-half, of the amount so credited to the society;
3. (c) provide for crediting to each society interest at the prescribed rate, per annum on the sums for the time being standing to the credit of the society in the investment account;
634
4. (d) provide for the discharge of debit balances in such manner as the Insurance Commissioners determine, either by the reduction of the reserve values credited to the society or out of the proceeds of the realisation of securities held by the society or by the Commissioners on behalf of the society, and out of the sums standing to the credit of the society in the investment account proportionately;

Provided that, in the case of any society which gives notice to that effect to the-Insurance Commissioners, no part of the sums carried to credit of the society in the investment account shall be paid over to the society or retained by the Commissioners for investment on its behalf, but the whole amount shall remain to the credit of the society in the investment account, and in such case the regulations made under the foregoing provisions shall apply to the society subject to the prescribed modifications.

(2) Every approved society shall invest any sums paid to the society for investment, and shall for the purpose have power to invest in any securities in which trustees are for the time being by law empowered to invest trust funds, or in any other securities for the time being approved by the Insurance Commissioners.

(3) Where at the request of a society the Insurance Commissioners instead of paying over any sum to the society retain such sum for investment on behalf of the society, they shall invest such sum in accordance with the directions of the-society in any securities in which the-society might have invested it had it been paid over to the society, and shall from time to time vary such investments in accordance with the like directions, and shall pay over to the society all sums received by way of interest or dividend on the investments held by them on behalf of the society.

(4) Every approved society shall apply the sums received by way of interest or dividend on investments held by the society or by the Insurance Commissioners on behalf of the society towards the cost of the benefits under this Part of this Act of the members of the society and the cost of the administration of those benefits, or otherwise, as the Insurance Commissioners may prescribe.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Sir F. BANBURY

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some explanation of the Clause. Why is it that you lay down guidance to the Commissioners as to the regulations that they are to make and then leave it in the power of the Commissioners to make any other regulations they may desire? If it is advisable that the Commissioners should have full power to make what regulations they please, why not say so? Why fill up the Notice Paper with all sorts of Sub-sections which practically have no effect, because the Commissioners are empowered to make any regulations they please with regard to what, after all, is a very important matter. Before giving these great powers to the Insurance Commissioners we ought at least to have their names. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us the other night that in response to a request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks be intended to give the names of the Commissioners. No one will deny that it has always been the custom to give the names of the Commissioners before a Bill of such importance as this leaves the Committee. If we are going to give these extraordinary powers to the Commissioners we ought to know who they are going to be. These Commissioners are not only going to have powers with regard to credit and debit sums, but also full powers in regard to the investment of those sums. The financial part of this Bill has not received the attention which it ought to have received from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am speaking for the moment in a detached sort of way. It is quite true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer told me yesterday that he was in favour of economy, and looks to me to support him on all economical questions connected with this Bill. I now appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to support me on this economical question dealing with the investment of these vast sums of money. Sub-section (2) says this: Every approved society shall invest any sums paid to the society for investment, and shall for the purpose have power to invest in any securities in which the trustees are for the time being by law empowered to invest trust funds. I have no fault to find with those particular words. They enunciate a principle with which I think anyone in the Committee will agree. Then we come to the last line and a-half of the Sub-section, which says, or in any other securities for the time being approved by the Insurance Commissioners. Why go to all this trouble and the expense of all this ink when you might just as well have said, "The money shall be invested in anything of which the Insurance Commissioners approve?" Two or three lines would have done the whole thing, and we should have been in exactly the same position. I do not suggest right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have been endeavouring to delude the House of Commons, but, in the name of everything that is reasonable, why put in all these words if you are going to counteract their effect by saying no matter what we said before, the Commissioners shall do whatever they please?

Mr. POLLOCK

Why does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer trust the friendly societies to invest their moneys in the way they have done in the past? They have been wise in their year, and for the most part have invested well, although they may not have selected trust investments, and have allowed larger investments on particular property than would have been allowed by the Official Trustee. It is a great misfortune not to allow that freedom to the friendly societies. There are a great number of small persons who have been enabled by the opportunities granted to them to make valuable investments of their earnings, and you are taking away from them valuable resources for their enterprise. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer might give this liberty to friendly societies instead of granting a limiting power to the Insurance Commissioners, who, in all probability as a Government Department, would feel themselves bound in this matter by the rules of the Court of Chancery. I hope he will not insist on these hard and fast rules.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The words "or by other securities for the time being approved by the Insurance Commissioners" are intended to widen the area of investment. I do not think the Commissioners would be governed by the rules of the Court of Chancery.

Sir GEORGE TOULMIN

I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if loans from societies to borough councils of under 50,000 inhabitants and other local authorities will be at the discretion of the Insurance Commissioners?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Yes, at their discretion, certainly.

Sir GEORGE TOULMIN

Then I should like to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has considered the effect on the credit of the smaller local authorities if a loan is delayed or refused by the Insurance Commissioners?

Mr. BUTCHER

I feel deeply disappointed at the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is dealing with this matter. It will prevent a good many of the investments which have been made in the past on rates and mortgages, and leaseholds, and although it may be said the Insurance Commissioners may allow such investments, I do not think they will feel they are at liberty to do so.

And, it being Half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 25th October, successively to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, and the Question necessary to dispose of the Clause under consideration.

Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the new Clauses moved by the Government, of which notice had been given.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the following Clause be added to the Bill":—

Pooling Arrangements in the Case of Small Societies.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section all approved societies which at the date of any valuation have less than five thousand insured persons as members shall for the purposes of valuation—

1. (a) if they have joined an association formed under this Section, be associated with the other societies in the same association; and
2. (b) if they have not joined any such association, be grouped together according to the localities in which they carry on business.

(2) Any such societies may, with the consent of the Insurance Commissioners, form for the purposes of this Section an association with a central financial committee, provided that the aggregate number of insured persons who are members of the associated societies is not less than five thousand, and the conditions on which a society shall be entitled to join or having joined to secede from an association shall be such as may be prescribed.

(3) Any such society which has not joined any such association as aforesaid, and which carries on business in any county or county borough, shall, for the purposes of this Section, be grouped with the other unassociated societies carrying on business in the same county or county borough.

(4) The provisions of this Part of this Act as to the application of surpluses of branches of societies with branches shall apply to such associated and grouped societies as if all the societies in any association or group were branches of a single society, subject to the following modifications:—

1. (a) A reference to central financial committee or the local health committee for the county or county borough shall, as the case may require, be substituted for the reference to the central authority of the society;
2. (b) If after applying the sums received from such of the associated or grouped societies as have surpluses in meeting deficiencies of such of those societies as have deficiencies any balance remains in the hands of the central financial committee or the local health committee, the committee shall distribute that balance amongst such of the associated or grouped societies as had surpluses in proportion to the amounts of such surpluses, and the sum so apportioned to a society shall be treated as an addition to the moiety of the disposable surplus retained by the society.

(5) For the purposes of this Section a society shall be deemed to carry on business only in the county or county borough in which its registered office or other principal place of business is situate. Provided that where of the insured persons who are members of a grouped society at the date of any valuation more than one hundred or more than one-sixth reside in some county or county borough other than that in which the registered office or other principal place of business is situate the proper proportion of any surplus or deficiency of the society shall, if application for the purpose is made by any of the local health committees concerned, be apportioned to the local health committee of that other county or county borough, such proportion to be determined, in default of agreement between the local health committees concerned, by the Insurance Commissioners.

(6) The Insurance Commissioners may exempt from this Section any society consisting of persons entitled to rights in a provident or other fund established for the benefit of persons employed by one or more employers, if the employer, in addition to the contributions payable by him under this Part of this Act, is responsible for the solvency of the fund, or for the benefits payable thereout, or is liable to pay a substantial part of, or to make substantial contributions to, or substantially to supplement, the benefits payable out of the fund, and this Section shall not apply to any society to which such an exemption has been granted.

(7) Except so far as relates to the power of refusing to make good in whole or in part a deficiency due to maladministration on the part of any society, nothing in this Section shall be construed as conferring on any central financial committee or local health committee any powers of control over the administration of associated or grouped societies.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the following Clause be added to the Bill."

Protection against Distress and Execution in Certain Cases.

(1) Where the medical practitioner at tending on any insured person in receipt of sickness benefit certifies that the levying of any distress or execution upon any goods or chattels belonging to such insured person and being on premises occupied by him, or the taking of any proceedings in ejectment or for the recovery of any rent or to enforce any judgment in ejectment against such person, would endanger his life, it shall not be lawful during any period named in the certificate for any person to levy any such distress or execution or to take any such proceedings or to enforce any such judgment against the insured person:

Provided that, if any person desirous of levying such distress or execution or taking such proceedings or enforcing such judgment disputes the accuracy of the certificate, he may apply to the registrar of the county court, who, if he is of opinion that the certificate should be cancelled or modified, may make an order cancelling or modifying it, and any such order shall not be subject to appeal.

(2) A certificate granted for the purpose of this Section shall continue in force for one week or such less period as may be named in the certificate, but may be renewed from time to time for any period not exceeding one week, up to but not beyond the expiration of three months from the date of the grant of the original certificate:

Provided that the protection conferred by this Section shall not extend beyond the expiration of one month from such date if on demand being made by the person desirous of levying such distress or execution, or taking such proceedings, or enforcing such judgment proper security is not given for payment of rent thereafter to become due from the insured person or the amount of the judgment debt, as the case may be, and any dispute as to the sufficiency of the security shall be determined by the registrar of the county court.

(3) If any person knowingly levies or attempts to levy any such distress or execution or takes any such proceedings or enforces or attempts to enforce any such judgment in contravention of this Section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the following Clause [to be inserted after Clause. 44] be added to the Bill."

Local Medical Committee.

Where a local medical committee has been formed for any county or county borough, and the Insurance Commissioners are satisfied that such committee is representative of the duly qualified medical practitioners resident in the county or county borough they shall recognise such committee, and where a local medical committee has been so recognised it shall, subject to regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners, be consulted by the local health committee on all general questions affecting the administration of medical benefit, including the arrangements made with medical practitioners giving attendance and treatment to insured persons, and shall perform such other duties, and shall exercise such powers as may be determined by the Insurance Commissioners.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the following Clause [to be inserted after Clause 31] be added to the Bill."

Special Provisions with Regard to Societies Organised according to Districts, etc.

(1) Where a society with branches is so organised that the branches in different geographical areas are grouped together for the purposes of this Section, the branches in any such area may, if and to such extent as the rules of the society so provide, and if the number of members of the branches in the area exceeds five thousand, be treated for the purposes of the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to valuations, surpluses, and deficiencies as if they formed a separate society.

(2) The rules of any society with branches may provide for the branches reinsuring with the society their liabilities in respect of any of the benefits under this Part of this Act, or if the society is so organised as aforesaid for such reinsurance either with the society or with the group.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the following Clause be added to the Bill":—

Power to Extend Sanatorium Benefit to Dependents.

(1) The local health committee for any county or county borough may, if they think fit, extend sanatorium benefit to the dependents of the insured persons resident in the county, any part of the county, or in the county borough, or any class of such dependents, and in such case the arrangements to be made by the committee shall include arrangements for the treatment of such dependents, and the sums available for sanatorium benefit shall be applicable to the purpose.

(2) If in any year the amount available for defraying the expenses of sanatorium benefit is insufficient to meet the estimated expenditure on sanatorium benefit for insured persons and such dependents the local health committee may, through the Insurance Commissioners, transmit to the Treasury and the council of the county or county borough an account showing the estimated expenditure for the purpose and the amount of the sums available for defraying the expenses of sanatorium benefit, and the Treasury and council may sanction such expenditure.

(3) The Treasury and the council of the county or county borough sanctioning such expenditure as aforesaid shall thereupon each be liable to make good, in the case of the Treasury out of moneys pro- vided by Parliament, and in the case of the council of the county or county borough out of the county fund or borough fund or borough rate, as the case may be, one-half of any sums so sanctioned by them and expended by the local health committee on sanatorium benefit for insured persons and their dependents in the course of the year in excess of the amount available for defraying the expenses of the committee on sanatorium benefit.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the following Clause be added to the Bill."

Provision as to Men over Sixty-five at Commencement of Act.

(1) If any person who is over the age of sixty-five and under the age of seventy at the commencement of this Act is employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act, the like contributions shall, until he reaches the age of seventy, be payable by his employer in respect of him as in the case of employed contributors, and the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the payments of contributions and the recovery thereof shall apply accordingly.

(2) For every weekly contribution made by or in respect of such a man there shall be contributed out of moneys provided by Parliament the sum of two pence.

(3) If such a person becomes a member of an approved society for the purposes of this Section all contributions payable in respect of him under this Section (including contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament) shall be credited to the society, and he shall become entitled to such benefits as the society may determine, but no reserve value shall be credited to the society in respect of him and no part of the contributions payable in respect of him shall be retained by the Insurance Commissioners towards the discharge of their liabilities in respect of reserve values.

(4) If such a person does not become a member of an approved society as aforesaid he shall become a deposit contributor, and accordingly all contributions payable in respect of him (including contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament) shall be carried to his credit in the Post Office fund, but the benefits to which he becomes entitled shall be such as may be determined by the local health committee.

(5) No part of the cost of benefits under this Section shall be payable out of moneys provided by Parliament.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the folowing Clause be added to the Bill."

Exclusion from Insurance of Persons under Sixteen.

It shall not be lawful for any person under the age of sixteen to become an insured person, and no such person howsoever employed shall be deemed to be employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the following Clause be added to the Bill."

Power of Councils of Boroughs and Districts to Contribute to Certain Expenditure on Medical and Sanatorium Benefits.

The councils of any borough or urban or rural district may agree with the council of the county in which the borough or district is situate to repay to the latter council the whole or any part of the sums payable by that council in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act towards the excess expenditure on medical or sanatorium benefits so far as such excess is properly attributable to the borough or district, and any sums payable by the council of the borough or district in pursuance of such an agreement shall be payable in the case of a borough out of the borough fund or borough rate, and in any other case as part of the general expenses incurred by the council in the execution of the Public Health Acts.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the following Clause be added to the Bill."

Power of Societies to undertake Business under Part I.

It shall be lawful for any body of persons, corporate or unincorporate, established before the passing of this Act which is desirous of transacting insurance business under this Part of this Act, notwithstanding anything in the provisions of the Acts under which it is established or registered or carried on, or of its memorandum or articles of association, rules, or other instrument governing its constitution or defining its objects, to do all such acts and things (including the establishment of a separate Section as aforesaid) as may be necessary for the purpose of enabling the body to undertake the transaction of such business.

(2) This Section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the following Clause be added to the Bill."

Procedure for Making Special Orders.

(1) Sections eighty and eighty-one of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, relating to the making of regulations under that Act, as set out and adapted in the Tenth Schedule to this Act, shall apply to special orders made under this Part of this Act and the Schedules therein referred to.

(2) Before a special order comes into force it shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during the Session of Parliament, and if either of those Houses before the expiration of those thirty days presents an address to His Majesty against the order or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new order.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the following Clause be added to the Bill."

Powers of the Local Government Board.

(1) The Local Government Board may, for the purposes of their powers and duties under this Part of this Act, hold such local inquiries and investigations as they may think fit, and the Board and their inspectors shall have for the purposes of such an inquiry the same powers as they respectively have for the purposes of an inquiry under the Public Health Acts, and the expenses incurred by the Board in respect of such inquiries and other proceedings under this Part of this Act (including the salary of any inspector or officer of the Board engaged in the inquiry or proceedings, not exceeding three guineas a day) shall be paid by such authorities and persons and out of such funds and rates as the Board may by order direct, and the Board may certify the amount of the expenses so incurred, and any sum so certified and directed by the Board to be paid by the authority or person shall be a debt from that authority or person to the Crown. Provided that this provision shall not apply to inquiries with respect to responsibility for excessive sickness.

(2) Any approval given by the Local Government Board under this Part of this Act may be given for such term, and subject to such conditions, as the Board may think fit, and the Board shall have power to withdraw any approval which they have given.

(3) The Local Government Board may make it a condition of any approval to be given, or grant of money to be made under this Part of this Act, that the Board shall have such powers of inspection as may be agreed.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the following Clause be added to the Bill."

Special Provisions as to Seasonal Trades.

Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners that a trade or business carried on by any employers is of a seasonal nature and subject to periodical fluctuation, and those employers systematically employ persons throughout the year and work short time during the season when the trade or business is depressed, the Insurance Commissioners may make special order decreasing, as respects such persons, the employed rate of the contributions payable by the employers and contributors to such extent and for such period in the year as may be specified in the order, and increasing such rate of contributions to a corresponding extent, and for a corresponding period during the remainder of the year, and the order may contain such incidental, supplemental, and consequential provisions as may appear necessary for adapting the other provisions of this Part of this Act to cases under this Section—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the following Clause [to be inserted after Clause 4], be added to the Bill."

Part Payment of Contributions by the State in the Case of Low Paid Labour.

In the case of employed contributors over the age of twenty-one whose wages or other remuneration do not exceed two shillings a day, and such remuneration does not include the provision of board and lodging by their employer, there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament towards contributions payable in respect of them the sum of one penny per week in manner provided by the Second Schedule to this Act.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the following Clause be added to the Bill."

Special Provisions as to Inmates of Charitable Homes, etc.

(1) Where the managers of any institution carried on for charitable or reformatory purposes prove that the persons who are inmates of and supported by the institution receive benefits and medical attendance when sick, the Insurance Commissioners may grant a certificate of exemption to those managers, and where such a certificate of exemption is granted any such inmates who are employed by the managers of the institution shall not in respect of such employment be deemed to be employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act:

Provided that it shall be a condition of such exemption that the managers shall be liable to pay in respect of any such inmate who, having been an inmate of the institution for more than six months, leaves the institution, the following sums:

1. (a) In the case of a person who at the time of entering the institution below the age of sixteen, such capital sum as will be sufficient to secure him benefits under this Part of this Act at the full rate;
2. (b) In the case of a person who was at the time of entering the institution of the age of sixteen or upwards, and who was at that time an insured person and a member of an approved society, a sum equal to the value of the contributions which, apart from this Section, would have been payable in respect of him during the time he was in the institution, calculated in the prescribed manner.

(2) Every such inmate as aforesaid shall, if he was an insured person before entering the institution, be suspended from benefits whilst he is such an inmate, and if he was at such time a member of an approved society and has been an inmate of the institution for a period exceeding six months the time during which he is in the institution shall be disregarded for the purpose of reckoning arrears.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the following Clause be added to the Bill."

Interpretation.

For the purposes of this Part of this Act—

The expression "branch," in relation to a society, shall not include any branch of the society which is not itself separately registered;

A person whose normal occupation is employment within the meaning of this Part of this Act shall for the purpose of reckoning the number and rate of contributions be deemed to continue to be an employed contributor notwithstanding that he is temporarily unemployed, but if such period of unemployment extends beyond twelve months, he shall not continue to be an employed contributor unless the approved society of which he is a member or, if he is not a member of such a society, the local health committee is satisfied that his unemployment is due to inability to obtain employment, and is not due to any change in his normal occupation;

The suspension of a member of an approved society from benefits under this Part of this Act shall not be deemed to deprive the member of his membership;

The expression "county" means administrative county;

The Scilly Isles shall be deemed to be a county and the council of those Isles the council of a county, but the local health committee for the Scilly Isles shall be constituted in such manner as the Insurance Commissioners prescribe.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the following Clause be added to the Bill."

Joint Committee of Commissioners.

(1) There shall be constituted as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, in accordance with regulations to be made by the Treasury, a joint committee of the several bodies of Commissioners appointed for the purposes of this Part of this Act, consisting of such members of each such body selected in such manner as may be provided by the regulations and of a chairman to be appointed by the Treasury.

(2) The joint committee may make such financial adjustments as may be necessary between the various funds, and shall exercise and perform such powers and duties of the several Commissioners under this Part of this Act as may be provided by such regulations.

(3) Regulations made by the Treasury under this Section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, but if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it, praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the following Clause be added to the Bill."

Establishment of Commissioners for Wales.

(1) For the purpose of carrying this Part of this Act into effect in Wales there shall be constituted, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, Commissioners for Wales (to be called the Welsh Insurance Commissioners) with a central office in such town in Wales as the Treasury may determine, and with such branch offices in Wales as the Treasury may think fit, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners shall be appointed by the Treasury, and may appoint such officers, inspectors, referees, and servants for the purposes aforesaid as the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, subject to the approval of the Treasury, may determine, and the provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to the payment of the salaries and remuneration of the Insurance Commissioners, and the officers, inspectors, referees, and servants appointed by them, and with respect to the payment of the expenses incurred by the Treasury or the Insurance Commissioners in carrying this Part of this Act into effect shall, with the necessary modifications, apply to the payment of the salaries and remuneration of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners and the officers, inspectors, referees, and servants appointed by them and to the payment of expenses incurred by the Treasury or the Welsh Insurance Commissioners in carrying this Part of this Act into effect in Wales, and for the purpose aforesaid the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, and the officers, inspectors, referees, and servants appointed by them shall respectively have all the like powers and duties as are by the foregoing provisions of this Act conferred and imposed on the Insurance Commissioners and the officers, inspectors, referees, and servants appointed by them, and references in those provisions to the Insurance Commissioners shall be construed as references to the Welsh Insurance Commissioners;

(2) All sums received in respect of contributions in Wales under this Part of this Act, and all sums paid out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of benefits under this Part of this Act which are administered in Wales, and the expenses of administration of such benefits shall be paid into a fund to be called the Welsh National Health Insurance Fund, under the control and management of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, and the sums required to meet expenditure properly incurred by approved societies and local health committees for the purposes of the benefits administered by them in Wales, and the administration of such benefits shall be paid out of that fund, and the foregoing provisions of this Act, with respect to the National Health Insurance Fund, shall, with the necessary modifications, apply to the Welsh National Health Insurance Fund accordingly;

(3) Joint regulations to be made by the Insurance Commissioners and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, with the approval of the Treasury, shall provide for the preparation on a uniform basis of the tables to be prepared by the respective Commissioners, and for the making of all necessary adjustments and settlements of accounts in cases of insured persons removing from Wales to England or Scotland or Ireland or from England or Scotland or Ireland to Wales, as the case may be, both as between the National Health Insurance Fund and the Scottish or Irish or Welsh National Insurance Fund and as between approved societies and branches and otherwise in respect of such cases, and for the transfer of sums from one fund or account to another.

(4) For the purposes of this Section Monmouthshire shall be deemed to form part of Wales.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the following Clause be added to the Bill after Clause 86."

Provisions as to Birth Certificates.

Where for the purposes of this Act the age of any person is required to be proved by the production of a Certificate of Birth any person shall, on presenting a written requisition in such form and containing such particulars as may be from time to time prescribed by the Local Government Board and on payment of a fee of six pence, be entitled to obtain a certified copy, under the hand of a registrar or superintendent registrar, of the entry in the register under the Births and Deaths Registration Acts, 1836 to 1901, of the birth of that person, and such form or requisition shall on request be supplied without any charge by every registrar and superintendent registrar of births, deaths, and marriages.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next, 20th November.