§ (1) Any society, that is to say, any body of persons, corporate or unincorporate 58 (not being a branch of another such body), registered or established under any Act of Parliament, which gives such security as is required to be given under this Part of this Act, and otherwise complies with the requirements of this Act relating to approved societies, may be approved by the Insurance Commissioners, and if so approved shall be an approved society for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
§ (2) No society shall receive the approval of the Insurance Commissioners unless it satisfies the following conditions:—
- (i) It must have at least ten thousand members, being insured persons;
- (ii) It must be precluded by its constitution from distributing any of its funds otherwise than by way of benefits (whether benefits under this Act or not) amongst its members;
- (iii) Its affairs must be subject to the absolute control of its members;
- (iv) Its constitution must provide for the election of all its committees, representatives, and officers by its members.
§ (3) A society may apply for approval at any time before or after the commencement of this Act, and a society with less than ten thousand members being insured 59 persons which otherwise fulfils the requirements of this Section may be approved by the Insurance Commissioners conditionally upon its having the requisite number of such members within such time as the Insurance Commissioners may allow.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI desire to move to report Progress, not with a view of causing a very long discussion, but in order that the Committee on resuming, may know exactly where they stand. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself asked leave to move to report Progress before the House left the discussion of the Bill in August, in order that he might, as I think he called it, "take stock" of the situation. I do not desire, though I recall that precedent, to go nearly so far as the right hon. Gentleman went on that occasion. I do not think it would be desirable at this moment probably, or under present circumstances, that we should enter upon a general stock-taking of the whole position, nor indeed do I think that that is the way in which our deliberations can best be helped. But we are aware that during the recess, and especially during the later portion of it, the right hon. Gentleman has been very busy with interviews and negotiations, and he has indicated to various bodies and in different ways that very material alterations are to be made in the Bill. I think it will be admitted on all sides of the House that it is extremely difficult for anyone, to gather from these scattered sources of information, and these often imperfect accounts of intentions what exactly the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman are, or what is the Bill which we are now going to be asked to discuss. It is not the Bill which is printed. It is some other proposal.
All that I wish at this point on the general question to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that I hope he will table with the least possible delay the important series of Amendments which he has adumbrated; and that he will circulate with them an explanatory memorandum stating what is the effect which each is intended to make in the Bill as it stands, and what the Bill will be if that Amendment is accepted. That is my general appeal. Now I come to the particular matter for which, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I move to report Progress. We are entering upon a clause which deals with approved societies. I think that before we discuss particular Amendments in 60 regard to approved societies that it would be of great assistance to the House, and indeed is a necessity for the proper consideration by the House of the Amendments to which we are coming, that we should have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a clear and definite statement as to what are his present intentions in regard to approved societies. What is to be an approved society? What are the conditions under which approved societies will be admitted? What are the classes of societies which he proposes to include? What changes, if any, must they make in their constitution in order to conform to the terms of the Bill as the right hon. Gentleman is going to amend if? I think I have said enough to show the Chancellor of the Exchequer the character of the information which we think he might give us, and I do not desire to delay these proceedings of the Committee a moment longer than is necessary for the purpose I have indicated. He will see that I have asked for two things: an immediate and definite statement as to a particular point and a particular clause, and a promise of much more general, but equally definite information in a printed form at the earliest possible moment as to the other great changes which we are making in the Bill.
The CHAIRMANBefore I put that Question to the Committee I think I ought to remind the Committee of the ruling which I gave on the last day on which we discussed this Bill, when a similar Motion was put from the Chair. In order to defend the Committee for the future, I felt compelled to protest against the extent to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion travelled on the Motion to report Progress. In so far as the right hon. Gentleman has asked for Papers as to the introduction of some Amendments, I think he is entitled to the information asked for. For that purpose, therefore, I put the Question to the Committee, "That I do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)I certainly do not complain of the very reasonable demand of the right hon. Gentleman, but as I only received notice a few minutes ago I am not quite prepared to deal with the question. I think it would be better that I should make a full and complete statement upon the matter, and I would infinitely prefer if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to renew his Motion after we have disposed of the one 61 or two Amendments—not very important—on Sub-section (1). If he would not mind renewing his Motion when we get to Sub-section (2) on the question of approval and the condition upon which the Commissioners will insist before they approve a society, I shall be prepared to make a full statement. I am not quite prepared now, as I only received notice a minute ago.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI think we are entitled on this Motion to have some statement which will relieve us from intervention on what may be supposed to be of purely British concern by knowing when the Amendments affecting Ireland will be placed on the Paper. The position of the right hon. Gentleman, as I understand it, is that he is in communication with certain sections of the Irish people. Of that I make no complaint whatever. But what the general body of Irishmen, be they Conservative or Liberal, are entitled to know before we reach Clause 59 is, what are the Amendments in regard to Ireland which the Government propose. When shall we learn what are the purposes and intentions of the Government as regards Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman must know, in regard to one point only, which has raised great alarm, that we are anxious that a society, purely sectarian in its character, and having a purely political object, shall not be endowed at the hands of the British Government. I intend to move an Amendment myself upon that subject, and I wish to know whether this Bill is going to be an endowment for a particular secret society in Ireland, or whether the Bill will be confined to really bonâ fide benefits to friendly societies in which Irishmen, irrespective of religion, can take part?
The CHAIRMANI am afraid the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be out of order if he begins to reply to questions of that kind. As regards putting down certain Amendments, it is quite within his purview to reply.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think, on the whole, I should not enter into the second part of the question of the hon. and learned Member. In regard to the question of Amendments on the Irish Clause, I agree that those Amendments ought to be down in time. It is rather a long way off, but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that there will be ample time for his purpose when the time limit appears.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIf I may I shall adopt the suggestion of the Chancellor and withdraw my Motion now with the intention of proposing it again at the point he suggests.
§ Motion to report Progress, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "Registered or established under any Act of Parliament."
These words were unnecessary, perhaps they were unfortunate in the Bill as drawn, and I contend now after the Amendments have been promised us they are less fortunate still, and perhaps even more unnecessary. What are the societies which are to come within the definition "Registered or established under any Act of Parliament." No doubt the large friendly societies are registered under the Friendly Societies Acts, and that gives them an absolutely legal status; it enables them to take advantage of the facilities of the Act, and to hold their property under certain trustees by whom suits can be brought, and against whom actions can be brought. There are other classes of societies established under Acts of Parliament. I think I am right in saying that in a good many cases where large numbers of workmen are employed large corporations have embodied the purposes of the Friendly Societies Acts by means of adopting what I may call the Companies Acts system. We also have a number of cases in which by means of special Acts of Parliament societies have been brought into being such as the Special Provision in Railway Acts, to enable what are really friendly societies among railway employés to have facilities which otherwise would not belong to them. All these are large societies, and all these would come within the meaning of the words "Registered or established under any Act of Parliament." But the Chancellor has indicated that he is not going to adhere to the limit 10,000; he has indicated that he is anxious to give the advantage of the Bill to a great number of other and smaller societies. He has indicated that in the very last Amendments he has issued and to which he has attached a memorandum that in certain cases county and local societies may be grouped.
There are a number of societies, if I am correctly informed, which could not if these words remain in the section take advantage of the Act. That applies, I think, 63 more particularly to the country districts, but there are a number of them, and also distributing societies who are not registered at the present time or established under any Act of Parliament.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI do not follow the hon. Gentleman's interruption, which I have no doubt was intended courteously, but I do not appreciate it.
§ Mr. BOOTHI simply wished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to explain why they are not registered.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI am afraid the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate my argument, nor does it matter in the slightest degree why they are registered. The fact remains that a large number of societies are not registered for some reason, good, bad, or indifferent. I need not debate the reason why, and I need not trouble to answer the question. It is enough for me to know that there are large numbers of societies that are not registered. I know the hon. Gentleman represents, or is credited with representing, in the interests of a great number of what are called collecting societies, and he may know the reason why a large number of the smaller societies have not registered or established themselves under any Act of Parliament. Be that as it may, I am pleading for a large number of small deposit societies and the like, scattered throughout the country, whose interests are being brought to the notice of the Committee, and in whose interest considerable modifications are now going to be made in the Bill. If we are to have a system of grouping together county and local societies, is there any ground at all for saying that these societies should first of all go through the process of registering themselves and establishing themselves under any Act of Parliament.
If I read the Bill aright, and it is quite true that one only has a portion of the scheme now in the Bill, it is surely in this very Clause made a condition that these societies will have to satisfy a number of conditions which must be fulfilled before the societies can take advantage of the Bill. I am contending it is an unnecessary qualification to impose upon them to insist that they shall register themselves under an Act of Parliament such as the Friendly Societies Act or to establish and incorporate themselves under the Companies Act or other Act before they get 64 the advantage of this Bill. The conditions therefore to be imposed upon them are quite sufficient. Statements have to be exacted from them, and their positions fully ascertained by those conditions in the other Sub-sections in the Bill. I contend that these words which I propose to leave out when they were originally put into the Bill, were unreasonable conditions to impose upon the smaller societies, and ought now no longer to remain in the Bill. We are really imposing upon these societies conditions which they are not at the present moment compelled to fulfil. They may be necessary when considering under the Bill large societies of not less than 10,000 members, but when the facilities are to be opened more widely to smaller societies, I contend these words ought to be deleted from the Bill, and it is on these grounds I move my Amendment.
§ Mr. BOOTHThe object of my intervention, as the hon. and learned Gentleman quite rightly thought, was meant to be friendly. I was anxious to know whether the hon. Gentleman could give to the Committee any reason which I have not been able to find, why there are societies unregistered. So far as my examination has gone, the reason is chiefly because of the nature of their business, or of their conduct of affairs, or the places in which they meet, or the way in which they control their investments. Because of these things they cannot comply with the very simple and very easy terms of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Some of these societies lend money to their members, some distribute their funds in beanfeasts and in parties and so on, and not wishing to comply with the very simple rules of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, they know that they can get through as they like. Further, their officials need not be responsible to their members in the same way as they would if they had established rules.
What does registration mean? It means adopting a definite constitution, rules and a scale of benefits which have to be submitted to the registrar. I urge that this issue should not be complicated, and I appeal to hon. Members opposite as well as on this side of the House, who are anxious to form groups of the smaller societies that this work should not be made more difficult by having to deal with people whose objects are so strange that no one else would like to combine with them. If they are perfectly sound societies they can register when this Bill 65 gets through and even long before it comes into operation. If they are sound in their management there is no difficulty whatever in the Bill. I would remind the Committee that this is not an Amendment which we would expect from a champion of law and order or from a distinguished member of the legal profession. The object surely of asking these small societies to go to the Registrar of Friendly Societies is because he would stand by them as a friendly counsellor. They would avoid large legal expenses and the complications of company law. The Registrar of Friendly Societies invariably considers himself their friend and counsellor, and makes suggestions for their good guidance. What can be the reason they have not done so before? If they are ignorant of it this Bill will speedily tell them that there is a friend to whom they may have access. I am certain it will be a very beneficial experience for them, but if you put them on an equality with those you have registered or complied with the Acts of Parliament I feel that you will be only adding a great deal of inconvenience and difficulty. I am sure I am voicing the views of the great friendly societies and the large dividing societies and deposit societies in urging the Committee that while there should be equality of treatment, at any rate it should only be for bonâ fide concerns that have taken the trouble to register. I know of no reason why any of these societies that are genuine and bonâ fide should not register. In these circumstances it seems to me a very simple but very necessary thing to say that the Bill contemplates such societies as are registered under Act of Parliament.
§ Mr. CASSELThe speech of the hon. Gentleman who just sat down really shows that he does not quite appreciate the effect of the Bill as it will be if this Amendment is passed. It is perfectly true that now there are a large number of societies which have not registered. It may be due in numerous cases to the fact that they wished to escape the restrictions which the Friendly Societies Act places upon them. In other cases it may be due to ignorance, but, whatever the cause, we have now to consider what will be their position under the Bill, because even if they will not register they will be under all the conditions which the Bill imposes upon them. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I am surprised that any hon. Member questions that. I Submit they will be subject if they want to become approved societies, whether registered or not, under 66 any other Act, the Friendly Societies Act or the Companies Act, to the conditions which the Bill imposes. The only point is this. Are they to be subject to register, both when they become approved societies under this Act and also to register under the Companies Act and the Friendly Societies Act as well? I think it will be quite sufficient safeguard to bring them under the conditions of approved societies under this Act, and therefore, having confronted them with all the conditions that this Act imposes, they should not be compelled to adopt the conditions of some other Act as well, because under this Act they would be liable to all the provisions with regard to the valuation of their funds, to all the provisions which prevent them spending their funds upon any other purposes than the purposes of this Act; they would be liable to all the provisions with regard to having their rules approved by the Insurance Commissioners, and are you going to say that, in addition to all these, they shall have to comply with the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act as well? That is the whole point. All they will have to do, even with those words in, will be to form themselves into a limited company, and then they can escape the provision of the Friendly Societies Acts. Is it not absurd to make it a necessity that you should register under the Companies Act with a capital of seven farthings? Any society which is not bonâ fide could get out of these words by simply registering with a capital of seven farthings. Therefore it is a nugatory provision if it is intended to impose any further restrictions than those imposed under this Act. This is quite unnecessary and very inconvenient. A great many employers have superannuation funds, and they are not registered under any Act of Parliament. In order to become approved societies every superannuation fund will have to become registered as a limited company or a friendly society. If "society" has to have this meaning, it is the same meaning as in Section 19, and it follows that every employer's superannuation fund will have to be registered either as a friendly society or as a limited company, and what benefit you will get from that I fail to see. I should like to ask whether it would be possible for any society under this Act to register as a friendly society at all? In order to register as a friendly society the contributions must be voluntary. The Friendly Societies Act provides that it is an absolute condition that the contributions shall 67 be voluntary; that is provided for by one of the Sections of the Act. Certainly there may be great difficulty in a society which wishes to carry on business under this Act registering under the Friendly Societies Act at all. The main point on which I support my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is that you will be imposing a wholly unnecessary and useless burden by this provision upon a number of societies and upon a number of employers' superannuation funds which are perfectly fit to come in under this Bill, and in regard to which adequate safeguards and checks are imposed by the provisions of the Bill itself. If these provisions are not sufficient and adequate, then the proper remedy is to strengthen those provisions and safeguards, and not put in an illusory provision which can be evaded by registering under the Companies Act with a capital of seven farthings.
§ Sir GEORGE DOUGHTYI support this Amendment, and I will place before the Committee the specific case of the Royal Provident Society, which is registered under Royal Charter. It is under no Act of Parliament. It was a society formed out of a large sum of money at the disposal of King Edward many years ago. There are 16,000 fishermen in that society. As the Act now stands, they will not be able to become an approved society, and they will be prevented from admission within the folds of an approved society. Therefore I think it will be much wiser if these words are left out, because this particular society, and a number of others, will not be able to become approved societies should they desire to do so.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)The question which has been raised in this discussion has been occupying our thoughts after having observed the Amendments on the Paper, and more especially having regard to what has taken place with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the Amendments proposed by the Government. I would like to say it seems to me there is a way in which we can meet the views of my hon. Friend behind me and the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Amendment. What we desire to do, and what the Government have in mind, is to preserve some constitution in these societies which will ensure, at any rate, that they are sound so far as we can, by regulating the provision under which they are put forward. In regard to the larger societies, 68 or, at any rate, the majority of them, they come under the statutes which regulate them, or else they are established under the Friendly Societies Acts, or one or other of the kindred Acts, and there is no difficulty with regard to them. It does occur to me that there may be a difficulty with regard to the smaller societies, although I do not think from what we know that the difficulty is quite as serious as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite seems to think. A number of them are now registered, and I have no doubt that a larger number still will register before the Act is in force, and there is nothing to prevent societies registering after the Act comes into force. Nevertheless I do feel that there may be smaller societies which have an objection to registration which have not registered and do not desire to register. Very often I think it is a sentimental objection, but it exists, and what I suggest and intend to propose is to make it clear in an Amendment which I will propose if this Amendment is negatived.
My proposal is that there shall be a right given to societies, notwithstanding that they are not registered, to form their constitution in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Insurance Commissioners for that purpose. The object of that is this: you have cleared out of the way by the words I will assume that are left in by this Amendment and by your Friendly Societies Act or large societies; you have dealt with these points, and you have allowed them to come in as approved societies. Everything that is registered can come in. What we want to deal with is the objection of some smaller societies to registration so long as they really have a constitution formed in accordance with regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners. We shall be quite satisfied they are not to go through the form of registering under any of those Acts, but will be entitled to come in as approved societies. In that case we meet the objection raised by the hon. Member for Pontefract, and we have also met the objection raised by the Mover of this Amendment. I will now deal with the question raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Grimsby. The case mentioned was not present to the minds of the framers of the Bill when the measure was drafted, and they did not contemplate that there might be societies constituted under Royal Charter. It is quite right that the societies to which the hon. Baronet has referred should be included. I therefore propose, if this Amendment is negatived 69 or withdrawn, to do what I have indicated, and move an Amendment to insert after the words, "registered or established under any Act of Parliament," the following words, "or by Royal Charter, or if not so registered or established, having a constitution which is in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Insurance Commissioners." I submit to the Committee that the insertion of those words will meet the points which have been raised.
§ Mr. FORSTERIt seems to me that the suggestion put forward by the Attorney-General will probably meet the views of my hon. and learned Friend behind me. After all, it seems to me that the words of the Attorney-General attain the object which we have in view. What they have in view is the removal of the words "registered or established under any Act of Parliament." That would give an opportunity to any society of becoming an approved society so long as the Insurance Commissioners were willing to give their approval. It seems to me that the words suggested by the Attorney-General cover the same ground.
§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTI agree with what the learned Attorney-General has said with reference to the smaller societies, but I am not quite so satisfied that his proposed Amendment exactly meets the case. So far as my views are concerned, if you omit the words, "having so registered," I shall be very pleased. What virtue is there in a mere registration of a society as such under any Act of Parliament? It is not as if a friendly society was specified, or as if there was a suggestion that it should be under the Friendly Societies Acts. I know a number of industrial provident societies registered for a wholly different purpose, and that is no guarantee that those societies are either solvent for this purpose or fit to carry out the purposes for which this Bill was introduced. I suggest that although the Attorney-General's Amendment will be quite satisfactory to me, I prefer the omission of the words "having so registered." As long as the society requires registration as one of the conditions, I suggest that the purport of this particular Clause may be defeated by the registration of the society not intended as an insurance society and yet turned into an approved society for the purpose of this Bill.
§ Mr. CASSELI should like to ask the Attorney-General how he meets the case 70 of an employer who has a superannuation fund? Generally they are not registered. Would the Attorney-General in that case either require registration or approval of any constitution of the society by the Insurance Commissioners? The other point I would like to call attention to is whether there will not be some difficulty in registering as a friendly society a society formed for the purpose of carrying on business under this Act, having regard to the fact that the contributions are not voluntary, and that friendly societies are confined to societies whose contributions are voluntary.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSPerhaps I might answer the questions put by the hon. and learned Gentleman. If the society is constituted without at any rate such registration as would commend itself to the Insurance Commissioners, or would bring the society within the regulations prescribed by the Commissioners, it would have to amend its constitution so as to come within them. It must also be borne in mind that the Commissioners must deal with this matter under the Act. They will have the conditions before them, and, of course, when they have to settle whether a society is an approved society or not they will have to consider all the conditions. I do not think there will be any difficulty with regard to the other question, but in order that there should be no difficulty in the case of any society which should desire to be registered hereafter, it might conform at once, and would conform inasmuch as it was a friendly society, with the regulations to be prescribed by the Insurance Commissioners. There would, therefore, be no difficulty. It could either register as a friendly society or it could come in under the regulations to be prescribed. Provided always you have got the regulations of the Insurance Commissioners as a mimimum standard, I do not think there is any real difficulty.
§ Viscount WOLMERDo we understand that the words "not being a branch of another such body" are to be omitted?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSNo.
§ Mr. POLLOCKAfter the explanation and suggestion made by the Attorney-General, I do not desire to press the Amendment to a Division. I have no desire to allow all societies to come in without having any sort of control at all. I do not intend to introduce what I may call amorphous societies, but I want the 71 door to be as open as possible. It seems to me the suggestion of the Attorney-General will meet the case, and, under those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINBefore the Amendment is withdrawn, may I ask the Attorney-General to consider a little further how the Clause will read if these words are adopted? I do not think there is now much division of opinion, in substance, between the two sides of the House, between my hon. Friend and those who support him and the-Attorney-General, but I admit I do not quite understand why the Attorney-General adopts such a cumbrous method of giving effect to what is everybody's wish. Surely the words which my hon. Friend proposes to omit become wholly immaterial? As the Clause was drawn, a society must be registered or established under an Act of Parliament as one of the conditions of being an approved society, and it must in addition to that give such security and so forth, as stated on the next page of the Bill. Now you say, whether it be registered or not, if it gives that security it shall come in. You remove the condition that it need be registered or established under an Act of Parliament, and you admit a society which is neither one nor the other. The governing condition is the giving of the security required on the next page of the Bill.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThat is not the effect of the Amendment. The Amendment, of course, does not touch any of the subsequent conditions, which are conditions precedent to registration as an approved society. All it does is to open the door wider so as the admit societies which otherwise could not come in. If we only had the words at present in the Bill, a number of societies, which are neither registered nor come under an Act of Parliament, but which might be quite willing to give the security and conform with the other conditions, would be excluded from the provisions of the Bill, and in order to meet that we have said that so long as their constitution is framed in accordance with regulations framed by the Insurance Commissioners we will then admit them, always providing, of course, they conform to the other prescribed conditions.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe Attorney-General has not appreciated my point, though I think I have appreciated his. What he said does not contradict 72 what I intended to say. As the Bill was drawn, you had two sets of conditions: the prior condition that the society was to be registered or established under an Act of Parliament, and the subsequent condition embodied on the next page of the Bill—that they should give such security as is required under this Act, and otherwise comply with the requirements of this Act relating to approved societies. Both those conditions had to be fulfilled before they could become approved societies. Now the Attorney-General agrees to give up the first or prior condition, and it is no longer necessary a society should be registered or embodied under an Act of Parliament in order to become an approved society, but it is still necessary you should fulfil the other condition. I submit, therefore, that to carry out what is now the common purpose of the Committee, it is not necessary to have these words "Registered or established under any Act of Parliament" in the Bill. It is not going to admit every society which is registered or established, and it is not going to exclude every society which is not registered or established. Under the proposed Amendment of the Attorney-General those words become mere surplusage and immaterial. I would not press the matter if it did not make the Clause extraordinary cumbrous. My right hon. Friend, to whom I have read it over, observed to me privately that it was not Addisonian. I doubt whether it is even legal. At least it is so complicated that I do urge upon the Attorney-General, if he can shorten the Clause and simplify its language without altering its effect, he will be wise to do so. Just let me read again what the Clause is with this Amendment:
Any society, that is to say, any body of persons, corporate or unincorporate (not being a branch of another such body), registered or established under any Act of Parliament or by Royal Charter, or, if not so registered or established, having a constitution which is in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Insurance Commissioners which gives such security as is required," etc.Is it legal language? It is certainly not English to say the words apply to "any society" which precede them by some half dozen lines and have no reference to the conjunction immediately preceding. Surely they would be read as referring to the constitution and not to "any society" at the beginning of the Clause. At any rate, no school teacher in any school in the 73 country would allow a pupil to send up an essay couched in such language as the Attorney-General proposes to put into the Bill. I submit the language is not only cumbrous but absolutely unnecessary. It would be much simpler to adopt the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and not put in the previous definition, leaving the definition on page 17, which will, under the proposal of the Attorney-General, be, in fact, the governing condition.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDI sympathise with the first statement of the hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment (Mr. Pollock), and especially with that of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Sir G. Doughty), with reference to a society established by Royal Charter, and I quite agree cases of that description ought to be admitted, but I think the Attorney-General has gone much too far in the words he has suggested. Earlier in the evening we heard a suggestion that it might be possible under the Bill, even as it stands, without this broad Amendment as now proposed by the Attorney-General, for certain political organisations to become registered, and I understood we were going to propose Amendments that would make that almost impossible. The Amendment proposed by the Attorney-General would, as a matter of fact, enable the Tariff Reform League, or the Free Trade Union, or any other political organisation in the country that chose between now and the Bill becoming law to give proper security and draw up a constitution satisfactory to the Commissioners. They need not be registered under the Friendly Societies Acts, and they need have no connection with the Trade Union Movement. There is no description whatever for them except bodies of men collected together for any purpose whatever. So long as they are prepared to do that, they can become approved societies. The hon. Member opposite feared lest certain political organisations in Ireland should be subsidised under this Act. If this Amendment becomes part of the Bill, it is a moral certainty any mortal society may become an approved society. The Amendment would make registration under the Friendly Societies Acts or the Trade Union Act which we considered a safeguard unnecessary. I have been surprised to hear legal gentlemen say registration is of no use at all, and that registration with regard to friendly societies, so far as it gives protection to the members, is just so much wastepaper. As 74 a matter of fact, it is the only protection members of these societies have. It is quite right to bring in societies which have established positions by law or by charter or by usage, and which are neither registered under the Friendly Societies Acts nor the Trade Union Act, but under the Attorney-General's proposed words the Tariff Reform League might within the next few months establish itself in such a way as to become an approved society. I am not a lawyer, but indeed I think I could do much better than that.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYThe hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) has really expressed an opinion which I should hardly like to express myself. I would far rather postpone the discussion to the Clause dealing with Ireland, but this question is so large that if we are driven to a discussion on this Clause we shall, of course, have to engage in it. I should like to ask you if you can give us any assurance that we reserve our rights on the Clause dealing with Ireland, and that we shall not be prejudiced, but shall be enabled on that Clause to raise the larger questions which have just been raised by the Attorney-General. He has undoubtedly greatly enlarged the facilities for becoming an approved society. But what alarms me is this. If you turn to another Clause you will find that the Commissioners who are to give the approval are to be gentlemen residing solely in London. They are, I presume, to be innocent English gentlemen, and, according to Clause 41, "as soon as may be after the passing of this Act there shall be constituted for the purposes of this part of this Act Commissioners (to be called the Insurance Commissioners) with a central office in London and with such branch offices as the Treasury may think fit." It will depend on the view of these gentlemen in London whether a state of things which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent has suggested might have effect. We have no objection whatever to seeing this passed for England, and indeed in some respects for Ireland, but the evil which I foresee—a feeling which is entertained also by the Member for Stoke—is that an illegitimate use might be made of this Act and State money might be diverted into illegitimate and improper channels. It may be that the money would be given to a particular society, one feature of which might prevent many persons from joining, and that 75 would result in the minority in the district having simply to depend on Post Office benefits. But I only rose for the purpose of asking whether, if we deferred the expression of our views until we reached the Amendment relating to Ireland, it would disable us on a later Clause raising questions specially concerning Ireland which we desire to raise, although it might appear we had allowed the opportunity of doing so go by?
The CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to put that question to me a few minutes ago, and I have been able in consequence to look at Clause 59 applying to Ireland. Clearly it would be in order on that Clause to move an Amendment such as I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman has in his mind applicable to Ireland. Of course, questions concerning the Bill as a whole appertain to the Clause now under consideration, but there are various other special provisions for Ireland, and it would not be out of order to propose an Amendment such as he has referred to. At this stage I should remind the Committee we are not yet discussing the Amendment of the Attorney-General. The Amendment now before the Committee is only whether the words "registered or established under any Act of Parliament" should or should not stand part of the Clause. It would be much more convenient to defer the other point until it has been decided whether these words are to be inserted.
§ Sir A. CRIPPSI should very much object personally to having these words "registered or established under any Act of Parliament" withdrawn, and I think friendly societies would take a like attitude. Therefore, I shall oppose the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend if it is pressed to a Division. On the other hand, I think the explanation given by the Attorney-General is an admirable one. It meets the difficulty. If I may so suggest it would not be out of order to add after "registered or established under any Act of Parliament" the words "or constituted in accordance therewith." I think that would serve the purpose and it would make the language of the Clause perfectly clear to everyone. I am strongly in favour of the position taken up by the Attorney-General. I think we must have the protection of the words "registered or established under any Act of Parliament."
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI want it to be clear that existing friendly societies that are registered will not have to submit their rules and regulations to the Insurance Committee. I want to reserve the alternative.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. BEAUCHAMPI beg to move, after the words "established under any Act of Parliament," to insert the words "or by Royal Charter."
May I explain that this Amendment is intended to deal particularly with the case of the Royal Provident Society for Free Fishermen, which was not originally a friendly society, and was not incorporated by Act of Parliament. I have put down the Amendment in order that that society may not be excluded.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI accept that Amendment.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI now beg to move after the words "by Royal Charter" to insert the words "or if not so registered or established, having a constitution which is in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Insurance Commissioners." I do not profess for one moment that these are perfect words, but I do say that they make quite plain what is intended by the suggestion which I made, and I hope it will meet the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I agree in regard to all these drafting Amendments it is always desirable, when we come to the Report stage, to have power to insert words in order to make the Clause read better, and I shall be quite prepared to bear in mind the suggestions not only of the hon. and learned Member opposite, but also that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, that I should try to make it more like an Addisonian essay.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI understand that this would be a convenient point for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement which he has promised, and I therefore beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI am afraid I shall not be strictly in order, except with 77 the consent of the House, in making my statement, as I shall have to run over a good deal of material with regard to Subsection (2) and Sub-section (3). But I do not see how it is possible for me to make the statement without including one or two of the alterations which it is proposed to make in those particular Sub-sections. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to know what the position is with reference to approved societies in so far as Clause 18 is concerned. There are matters which are in dispute between various societies, but the criticism is directed against the scheme as a whole, and we have to accommodate the various differences between them. I do not propose to refer to these as far as they relate to subsequent Sections. That would open a very wide field for discussion. I shall, therefore, with the assent of the House, refer to two or three of the main alterations which it is proposed to make in Clause 18 in consequence of the conferences which have been held during the Recess, and also in consequence of the pledges given to the House before the Recess. First, we propose to leave out the words "gives such security as is required to be given under this part of this Act and otherwise." That was promised earlier in the Session in consequence of certain criticisms from the Labour benches. Hon. Members on those benches were rather afraid that large sums of money would have to be deposited with the Insurance Commissioners by way of security, and that their funds would be locked up with the Government before they would be allowed to become approved societies under Clause 18. It was then suggested there might be other methods of giving security. For instance, the friendly societies might choose to pay benefits in advance and then send in the Bill to the Insurance Commissioners. It is clear that in cases like that no security would be required. The other suggestion was that trade unions or other approved societies might estimate for the amount required for benefits in the coming quarter or half year. A society might say, for instance, that it would require a cheque for £2,000 to enable it to pay benefits for the next six months. They would send to the Insurance Commissioners for that amount and that body would ask for some form of security in respect of the sum, which might be in the form of a bond from the officers of the society guaranteeing that the amount sent by the Insurance Commissioners would be distributed in benefits and not be done away with in any 78 other way. We propose to eliminate the words I have quoted, and to make it perfectly clear that these alternatives will be open to any approved society which chooses to administer its fund in that particular way. That disposes of that Amendment. I think the next series of Amendment will be on Sub-section (2)—Sub-section (1) to which the hon. Member for the Sevenoaks Division referred, with regard to numbers. That has not arisen out of anything I have said, because I indicated very clearly that it was the intention of the Government first of all to leave out Sub-section (1) and to move a new Clause which would permit of the grouping of small societies. There have been two criticisms of Subsection (2), paragraph (i). First there is the criticism from the friendly societies, that the number of 10,000 is too high; their suggestion is that it should be 5,000. [An HON. MEMBER: TWO thousand.] Two thousand was defeated at the Friendly Societies Conference by a vast majority.
§ Sir A. CRIPPSWere there any small societies represented at that conference?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI only refer to the Friendly Societies Conference. I think very likely they were not adequately represented by any means, otherwise I cannot conceive of their voting for 5,000. Then there was the trade unions suggestion, that the small unions should be affiliated. I am not sure that they would not prefer 10,000 to 5,000—at any rate that is the suggestion which has come to me. I propose at this stage to leave out Sub-section (2), paragraph (i), altogether, and then there will be an Amendment to the effect indicated in August. Since then an Amendment has been drafted and has been circulated among Members of the House, and I think among the small societies—at any rate it has been published in the Press some weeks ago. I have been asked to receive a deputation from the small societies. The difficulty has been really to get the small societies to respond to any invitation upon the subject or to express any opinion upon it. I should very much like to have met some kind of representation of them to discuss the matter, but it has been quite impossible to get them to come together. I agree it is very difficult to bring them together. There are about 6,000 of these societies. There is no federation of small societies, and that is very unfortunate, but I think it will be found, subject to one or two Amendments, that the suggestion which the Government 79 propose to submit to the Committee will be found on the whole to be satisfactory. I shall be able to adduce very strong reasons why small societies should be pressed to federate—at any rate within the county area—and when I submit to the Committee figures showing the financial position of these small societies, the Committee will be convinced that it is in the interests of these small soceties that there should be a more powerful grouping to prevent societies being absolutely broken, either through excessive illness in a district, or, what happens very often, through unemployment. However, I do not propose arguing that at this stage.
The first serious Amendment will be the elimination of Sub-section (2), paragraph (i), and the insertion of a new Sub-section dealing with small societies. Perhaps I ought, before I quit small societies, to make another statement. I think we shall have to alter the Amendment we circulated in one respect. There are some societies which would not care to come within the county group; take the societies which have been mentioned by the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy)—the denominational societies. There are a good many of them. The hon. Member seemed to imagine they are only found in Ireland, but they are by no means confined to Ireland. Some of the very best societies are denominational societies, and I can well imagine the Church of England, or the Catholic, or the Wesleyan society, and there are a good many of them, preferring rather to group with societies of a similar character in other counties. I think, if they prefer not to come into the county group, but to group themselves with kindred societies in other counties, they ought to be permitted to do so. Therefore, I have put down an Amendment to make it possible for small societies of that character to group themselves with societies of a kindred character without the county area.
I come to the question of collecting societies. It was supposed at first that the Bill as drafted rather gave a monopoly to the affiliated orders—the great friendly society brotherhood—and that by the terms of the Clause the other societies—and there are a good many of them—dividing societies, Holloways societies, deposit societies, collecting societies, industrial insurance societies, and also trade unions—should be excluded. That certainly was not the intention of the framers of the Bill. We have made it clear from 80 Amendments already placed on the Paper before the House rose for the Recess, that all these societies could come in provided they conformed to the conditions of the Bill, so far as relates to administration under the Bill. There is no intention of interfering with the business of these societies outside the adminstration of the sums raised under the Bill. In most of these societies there are huge funds not raised under this Bill, but raised voluntarily for other purposes, some for death benefits, some for division at stated periods, and some for trade union purposes. It is not proposed to interfere in the slightest degree with the business of these societies outside the money raised under the Bill. So long as they comply with the provisions of the measure for the administration of that fund, it is no concern of this Bill or of the Insurance Commissioners how they conduct their business outside it. We have upon the Paper Amendments which make that quite clear. Then the friendly societies raised an objection to this Amendment, and difficulties have arisen owing to the fact that they were very suspicious, owing to the admission into the Bill of these societies at all. Amongst the conditions which the Edinburgh Conference demanded was the insertion in the Bill of a provision which would have excluded these societies altogether. We had an important conference at the Treasury, at which all these societies were represented—the great friendly society orders, the Holloway societies, the collecting societies, the industrial insurance societies, and the trade unions. We had a long discussion, and I am sure the friendly societies, although I can hardly say that they welcome the admission of these other societies into the Bill, are not going to protest any longer.
The CHAIRMANI am very sorry to have to interfere, but it does seem to me that the right hon. Gentleman is going to argue the merits of subsequent proposals instead of merely giving information, which I understood was the proper object of the Motion to report Progress.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI am afraid I could not explain what the Amendment even means without just stating that one fact. If I merely read out this legal document without stating to the Committee what it really means, I am afraid it would not convey very much to them.
The CHAIRMANThe right hon. Gentleman could explain when he came 81 to it. I am anxious to save the time of the Committee and not to have the same thing twice over.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWhat the Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to do is really for the convenience of the Committee. Of course you may say you have the Rules of the House to consider and not alone its convenience, but we are in a very peculiar position. Owing to the Recess the Government have not had an opportunity of putting down the Amendments, at any rate for many weeks. I do not know whether they are in a position to put all their Amendments on the Paper, or that they can be printed to-morrow. We know there are great changes contemplated, and to ask us to proceed to discuss the Clause without knowing what is the mind of the Government with regard to their Clause would be very inconvenient.
The CHAIRMANI am quite agreeable as far as giving information is concerned, but if I allow argument in favour of a particular course, I shall have to allow other people to argue against it. Giving information is perfectly in order.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEBy way of information I should like to inform the Committee as to the two points which were raised and which are incorporated in these Amendments. There are two points which are raised by the friendly societies, and I am glad to say that the collecting and other societies are prepared to accept them. One was that if these societies came in they should come in upon the basis, first of all, of making no profit out of this section of their business, and that the whole of the money should be distributed in benefits and in management of this section. That was accepted by all these societies, without exception. That is the first thing, and the Amendments on the Paper will deal with that. Paragraph 2 will deal with that. There will be alterations in that paragraph which will make it absolutely clear that no profit can be made by any of these societies out of the money which is raised under the Bill, which must all go in benefits and cost of management of that fund. I come to the alterations in paragraphs (iii.) and (iv.). We propose to substitute for (iii.) and (iv.) an Amendment to make it quite clear that there must be complete and genuine self-government, but at the same time that there must be elasticity in the methods of self-government. You should not force upon a society any particular method of self-government of management by its members 82 so long as the Insurance Commissioners are satisfied that the method which is suggested would be a guarantee of genuine and bonâ fide management by its, own members. Therefore, it was proposed that these societies that are now governed by a system of delegates should be governed by the delegate system in the future, subject to alteration at the request of members themselves. For those who are not governed by delegates, such as the Holloway society, they should be governed by some method to ensure complete and effective self-government, and that method should be submitted to the Commissioners, if they apply for admission to the scheme. These are the words we propose to substitute for (iii.) and (iv.). Instead of paragraphs (iii.) and (iv.) there will be these words:—
Its constitution must provide to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners for its affairs being subject to the absolute control of its members, being insured persons, or, if the rules of the society so provides, of its members whether insured persons or not, including provision for the election and removal of the committee of management or other governing body of the society, in the case of a society whose affairs are managed by delegates elected by members, by such delegates, and in other cases in such manner as will secure absolute control by its members.That is the alteration which has been agreed upon by the representatives of all these societies. I may just explain that the reason why we include here those who are not members is that, whether trade unions, friendly societies, or deposit or collecting societies, the managing body is very often made up of people who certainly would not come within the definition of insured persons under the Bill because they are not employed persons in the ordinary sense of the term. That is what we propose to do in the way of alterations to Clause 18. I am afraid I cannot go outside Clause 18. There are other points which we have agreed upon, and I should like, if it were possible by the rules of the House, to state what these are, but I have the fear of the Chair before my eyes, and I am afraid I cannot do it. But these are the Amendments under Clause 18. They carry out the agreement arrived at between the various societies who were represented at the conference last week, and I confidently submit that they are of a character which will commend themselves to the Committee as a whole.
§ Mr. FORSTERThe thanks of the Committee are due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the statement which he has just made. I think both he and the Committee will realise the difficulty in which they are placed in discussing the Clause without the actual words of the Amendment before us, and without having had an opportunity of thoroughly weighing their effects. I rather regret that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to take an opportunity before the House met to circulate these Amendments, as he found an opportunity of circulating other proposed Amendments relating to this Clause. He has reminded us that, in accordance with a pledge, or at any rate with an expression of his intention, when the House last considered this Bill last August that he has framed an Amendment dealing with the formation of what he calls a county pool—a county association. He intimated tonight that that has had to take the form of a new Clause. I wonder what opportunities we are going to have of discussing the new Clause which he has given us notice of, because we know that the subsequent stages of this Bill are going to be subjected to some drastic guillotine Resolution. I should imagine that in that Resolution there will be a very compact compartment, in which we shall have to deal with new Clauses. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer moves to omit the first paragraph of Sub-section (2) I shall put in a plea that we may deal here with the limit of membership of any approved society, because we can naturally have no assurance when we are dealing with a Bill under the guillotine that we shall have any opportunity whatever of discussing in detail any of these new Clauses.
My right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) suggests that we might ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the propriety, or at any rate the convenience, of not going beyond the end of Sub-section (1) to-night. I think the Committee will realise that we should not lose very much by doing that, because I honestly do not think our discussion would be of any value unless we have some opportunity of reflecting upon the Amendments of which the right hon. Gentleman has given us notice. I naturally am very reluctant to give up any opportunity that presents itself of discussing this Bill, because we realise that our opportunities will be limited in future. If I thought the remaining hours of this evening were of real value I should be the last man in the world to suggest that we should 84 give them up. I should like to say one word with reference to the inclusion of the collecting and dividing societies within this Clause; but I am not altogether sure that I should be in order. Perhaps I can express what I wish to say in a single sentence. I have always felt that where you are dealing with a question of insurance on a universal and compulsory basis you should not confine the business of insurance to any one form of society. I quite agree that it is essential that the constitution of all societies should be subjected to certain definite limits, but within those limits equal opportunity ought to be given to all societies.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Gentleman has made a suggestion that the Government should report Progress before we come to Sub-section (2). That means that we should begin the discussion tomorrow on the number of members of small societies. I think it is desirable that we should get a good discussion at a time when Members will have an opportunity of considering all the Government Amendments. I cannot resist that proposal, therefore, when we have got through Subsection (1) I shall move to report Progress.
§ Motion to report Progress, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words, "gives such security as is required to be given under this part of this Act and otherwise."—[Mr. Worthington-Evans].
§ Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "may" ["may be approved by the Insurance Commissioners"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
The object of this Amendment is that any society which has fulfilled the conditions laid down by the Act shall be approved. That is the whole effect of it, and I think it might be accepted. If these conditions are fulfilled no society shall be shut out because of some other reason.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI am sorry the Government cannot accept this Amendment. It would introduce a far more drastic change than the hon. Member really has in his mind. It is much more serious. The effect of introducing the word "shall" would remove all elasticity and make it absolutely rigid, and also enable questions to be raised which certainly would not be desired with reference to the action of the Insurance Commissioners, the whole 85 point being, under this, that the Insurance Commissioners shall have a discretion which, of course, must be exercised reasonably and not capriciously. The very point raised by the hon. Member for Stoke which I answered to-day would come in under this particular provision. What is intended is that action by them shall not be merely ministerial, but shall be administrative and quasi-judicial, and therefore that they will have to consider matters which come before them, and which might arise in the exercise of their discretion. I am quite sure if the hon. Member considers it from that point of view he will appreciate the object of the Government in putting in these words, I suggest that he should withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. CASSELI agree with what the Attorney-General said. It gives the Insurance Commissioners a very wide discretion indeed, which the Attorney-General says is quasi-judicial. For instance, the question might arise whether a political society might be admitted or not. If that very wide discretion is given, I think we ought to have some assurance from the Attorney-General that he will accept a later Amendment allowing some appeal from the Commissioners, for without it they would certainly have very wide and arbitrary powers. Under the Friendly Societies Acts, there is an appeal from the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and this is a much wider discretion than the Registrar of Friendly Societies has. Supposing a particular society comes before them, say a political society, it would be a very difficult matter for the Insurance Commissioners to decide whether that political society should be admitted at all. That would raise big and wide questions, and to leave every question of that character to them without giving any opportunity for appeal at all would be, I venture to think, to give them power which they would not welcome. It would be one which would be dangerous, unless there is opportunity for appeal such as is given at present to a friendly society.
§ Mr. BOOTHI have been identifying myself with this Amendment, and particularly with one which deals with approved sections. This Amendment deals with approved societies, and I do not think that you, Mr. Chairman, would be inclined to allow me to refer to the Amendment in the more modified form if the House decided on the main question. The point is rather an important one, and if we got an indication from the Front Bench as to 86 the character and qualifications—I do not want much detail—of the Commissioners, and an assurance that they will be men of a high stamp, I think we might be content. There is a great deal of uneasiness on the part of many in respect of the provision that the door is to be closed as regards appeal from the decisions of the Insurance Commissioners. It might open up a wide field of litigation if you were to grant an appeal, and that might undermine the power of the Insurance Commissioners themselves. You might get a higher stamp of men if you placed the responsibility upon them. But I think we are entitled to raise this question of appeal. I think we are entitled to some expression on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these men will be sufficient in character and qualification and that we can repose our confidence in them.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment, because it would involve interference with the discretion of the Insurance Commissioners, and it would almost transfer the administration from them to the Courts. I cannot imagine anything which would be more disastrous to the efficiency of the scheme than that there should be such opportunity for litigation. Every society that was dissatisfied with a decision of the Commissioners would instantly resort to the Courts for a mandamus, saying, "Here we have actually complied with all the conditions." There is no doubt at all as to what the Act is to do. Of course, all good societies will be welcome, and it will be the interest of the Government and the Commissioners that every really strong society should come in; but there will be all sorts of bogus societies, and others which work for other purposes and for selfish ends. They may be able to say, "Have we not complied with all the conditions?" and they would go to the Courts, which would look at the technical side of the matter. They could not in the same degree and in the same way look at the business side of it and exercise the discretion which the Commissioners would exercise. The Courts could interfere if the Commissioners were capricious. I am not so sure that the Swansea case is not a case in point.
§ Mr. CASSELHear, hear.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. and learned Member concurs in that. There the Court came to the conclusion that, although the local authority apparently on 87 the face of it acted within their power, still it was a capricious exercise of it. The same thing would apply here if the Court came to the conclusion that the Commissioners had overridden their powers. If you insert the word "shall," it makes all the difference between bringing in the Courts instantly to interfere in the administration, and that would be the very worst thing in the world. The hon. Member mentioned the case of political societies. I do not see how you can exclude political societies. Take the case of Holloway societies. They are very good societies. In Gloucestershire they are run very largely on political lines.
§ Mr. HICKS BEACHThere is a very large number of Liberals among the Conservatives, and a very large number of Conservatives among the Liberals.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat shows that they are really friendly societies. Nominally they are political organisations. Their very names indicate that. Undoubtedly there are very admirable sectarian and denominational societies. I do not see how you can possibly exclude them if they comply with the conditions in other respects. They are societies formed in order to promote a particular set of ideas, and you cannot exclude them. Therefore, I do not think there is any question at all of excluding societies on account of religion or politics. I am sure the Courts would say it was a capricious exercise of authority if the Insurance Commissioners did that. I implore the Committee not to bind the Insurance Commissioners hand and foot in the way proposed. If you enabled any body of men to go to the Courts straight away and ask for a mandamus it would be the very worst thing that could possibly be done for the proper administration of the Act. I think the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) said that we should secure an able and independent body of Commissioners. If we do that I think the more discretion you give them under the terms of this Clause the better. I again appeal to my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment. If the Amendment were adopted he would find that this Act of Parliament would be administered in the Law Court, and that is the very worst place to administer anything.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI do not know whether the Government have considered subsequent Amendments which 88 propose to give the right of appeal. I do not think the Committee desire that there should be undue interference by the Law Courts or otherwise with the Insurance Commissioners, but you are giving very wide powers to the Commissioners. It is conceivable that they might make a mistake, however good their standing or their intentions. Therefore it seems to me but reasonable that you should reserve some power of appeal in the event of a mistake occurring. If the Government would say that they are going to accept an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Brentford Division (Mr. Nield), it seems to me that that would meet the case.
§ Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESAfter hearing the Attorney-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think the adoption of this Amendment would mean that it would be a source of money going to lawyers. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1) to insert the words, "Provided that where any society establishes for the purposes of this part of this Act a separate section consisting of insured persons, whether with or without honorary members not being insured persons, and so constituted as to comply with the requirements of this Act relating to approved societies, such separate section may be approved by the Insurance Commissioners, and if so approved shall be an approved society, and the provisions of this part of this Act relating to approved societies shall apply only to such separate section of the society."
I have already explained that this Amendment is in order to enable societies that have got business which is not quite on all fours with the business under the Bill, to set up sections for the purposes of the Bill, whether Holloway societies or trade unions. They would be able to conduct their business in their own way without interference, and at the same time to set up a section under the Bill which would be subject to the rules and regulations made under the measure.
§ Mr. BARNESI was unfortunately not here this afternoon when the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained this particular addition to the Clause. I may not understand it thoroughly, but at present I am inclined to vote against it, because it would set up a condition of things in 89 which democratic societies—friendly societies and trade unions—will be at a disadvantage as compared with what may be called "capitalist societies." Let me illustrate my meaning. Under this proviso any society, no matter what, could set up a separate section. There are societies that can within their powers, legal or otherwise, do that, but there are some that cannot. A trade union cannot incur the expense of setting up a separate section so far as I know. At all events, they have not got the money to do so. But you cannot compare a trade union or a friendly society, in the ordinary acceptation of these terms, with the Prudential Society or societies of that kind which have been so active in the past few weeks to identify themselves with this Bill. It seems to me that any of these societies can set up a separate section and use their immense reserve funds in doing so. Having set up a section, it seems to me that they would be at a very great advantage as compared with a trade union or a friendly society, in the ordinary sense of the words, because their men are on the doorsteps of working people every week. Therefore they would have an advantage over a trade union that only sees its members once a fortnight, or a friendly society that only sees its members now and then. Before voting for this proviso, I want an assurance that it will not work in the particular manner of enabling capitalist societies to set up sections easier because they have more money than friendly societies or trade unions.
8.0 P.M.
Another point of which I am just reminded. Honorary members of many of these societies are people who are fairly well off, and in many cases they are run by people who are very well off, as a consequence of the large profits they make. If a separate section is set up by the Prudential there is nothing to prevent a director of the Prudential, if he is elected, from really being the controller of this particular section, and we may take it that the necessary steps will be taken to get them elected for that purpose. If that is possible under this proviso it is impossible for me, and I think for my hon. Friends on these benches, to vote for it with the same assurance that it could not possibly be done if the proviso is adopted.
§ Mr. J. WARDI have a somewhat similar criticism to make, though it is not quite on the same lines, as that of the hon. Member for Blackfriars. I do not see any 90 reason why trade unions and friendly societies could not set up independent sections for the purpose of conducting this Bill, just as easily as anybody else can, unless you suppose that we are going to admit that we have not got as much energy or ability as they have to do it. I think, on the other hand, that we ought to be able, if it comes to competition, to stand fairly well in the swim, so to speak, with the other organisations. I am not concerned, therefore, about the setting up of these separate sections at all. In fact I think it is an advantage to everybody concerned. When, however, it comes to another proposition which the hon. Member for Blackfriars has dealt with I am entirely at one with him. We should know how these sections are going to be managed if you allow honorary members. I could understand, for instance, the officers of the ordinary societies taking part in the management of the distinct sections provided they were elected to do so by the members of that section.
I quite understand that it would be in fact an interference with the organisation of the trade unions themselves to insist that they must be insured persons. Ever since the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in sending me a cheque each quarter, I cannot be an insured person under this Act. Up to then I could, and I can quite understand, therefore, that the whole of the trade union organisation would be interfered with if it were laid down definitely that no one but an insured person must take any part whatever, whether appointed by members or not, in the management of these sections, because every trade union official who has got more than £160 per year would practically be shut out by the other sections of the Bill from being an insured person. Therefore that is not my contention. But I do say this, after the suggestion made by the Chancellor just now, societies are managed by delegates. Delegates may be appointed to attend meetings, and if a number of honorary members of different branches were sent as delegates we can quite imagine a conference of these different sections being absolutely manipulated by the honorary members. Therefore, while I agree with the Chancellor's suggestion, at the same time I can see as well as the hon. Member for Blackfriars extreme danger in this unlimited authority or power of the honorary member, and I was wondering whether the Chancellor had reconsidered the situation which I am suggesting.
91 Suppose, for instance, men of influence get into a local branch as honorary members, they have only paid a certain sum of money. Sometimes you can join by paying £5 or something less, and then you are a honorary member of that society for the remainder of your life. I can imagine it is most likely that these people would be people of influence in the locality and might attend the branch and might use their influence for the purpose of being elected as delegates, and instead of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's idea being carried out that only the members should rule and manage these societies, you might have a section and a body of outside persons absolutely controlling the whole affair. You will see, therefore, the danger in these words, "with or without honorary members." I do not share the fear that we cannot form sections to conduct this Act, but I do fear the insidious interference of managers of these sections who do not belong to the working classes or the sections of the people that this Act is established to benefit, but an entirely different section of the community that only manages to get in just under the term "honorary members."
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThis Amendment is criticised on two grounds. The first is with regard to the right to set up separate sections. I should have thought that it was very desirable for a trade union to possess this right. I agree with my hon. Friend, the Member for Stoke, that a trade union stands just as much in need of this particular addition as any industrial insurance society or any political society or Holloway society, because a great many trade unions who have no benefit at all might like to come in under this Bill. In fact I know that some of them are very anxious, and are thinking of making arrangements to do so. I also agree with my hon. Friend that these great industrial insurance companies have no right to use their reserve fund in the manner which he indicates. It is one of the provisions that they should not use their reserve funds for that purpose and they cannot use any other fund for the purpose of doing anything which is not germane to the business which they are now conducting. Therefore, the only funds they could use would be the funds in the Bill, and those we should certainly take very good care they should not use for the purpose of setting up separate sections and fighting trade unions.
§ Mr. J. SAMUELIf they cannot use their reserve or life funds and cannot spend the money which is going to be voted under this Bill, where are they going to get the money from?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThey are just in the same position as any other society. The expense of forming the society is part of the necessary expenses, but that is not what my hon. Friend is referring to. He is referring to the spending of enormous sums of money for the securing of members. That is a different thing from the necessary essential expense of forming the society. That is not what my hon. Friend complained of, because in the starting of any society you must spend a certain amount of money which no society can avoid spending. In addition to that I have no doubt at all that there would be this inducement for every society and its officials to increase their numbers, that the expense of the officials must necessarily have some regard to the number of people whose affairs they administer. For instance, a trade union official might increase the number of members from 100 to 1,000. The cost of management which the Insurance Commissioners allow is so much per head, and the payment that is made for the local management of 100 members must necessarily be less than if he made those members 1,000. But that, on the other hand, is an inducement which is equal in every society. The collecting society or the Prudential Society has no advantage there over the trade union or other friendly societies, because the payment is so much which will have to be made in proportion to the number of members, the cost of management.
Therefore I know my hon. Friend will see that there is no real danger in that respect, and that there is nothing in the present powers that will enable them to do what is feared. On the other hand the sum allowed for the management will be just the same for every society. I come to the question of honorary members. I do not see how any society can conduct its business unless it allows honorary members to come in. Take the great trade unions of this country. Their leaders are in the main men who will not be insured persons under the Act. My hon. Friend pointed that out, and very properly admitted this. Are they to be ruled out of the management of such an important branch? If they are, I cannot conceive anything more disastrous to the best interests concerned. You want to have men of great experience who have been all 93 their lives running the organisation. Take the friendly societies. I have met a great many of the leaders of the great friendly societies. They are men of very wide experience and singular ability. Unless you allow honorary members all these experienced members would be ruled out in future. You must allow them to come in as honorary members, in order to allow them to retain the present manager.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThey may be members of their own societies and managing that branch of the business, but unless you allow the honorary member they could not touch the Government scheme. That is exactly what I wanted to point out to my hon. Friend. If you rule out honorary members it is only insured persons who can take part in the management.
§ Mr. HODGEThe general secretaries of trade unions do not manage. They have not a vote. They are only secretaries. The executive committee are the people who manage.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGELet us take the friendly societies. Does my hon. Friend mean to rule out these men who are now managing the affairs of the societies because they will not be insured persons? This is an agreed Amendment between the friendly societies and I understood the trade unions as well. At any rate I am certain as to the friendly societies. Not only that, but they say that unless you allow friendly societies to elect honorary members for the purposes of this scheme not one of us will take any part at all in managing the fund. Take the secretary of the trade union. Is he to have no part at all in the management of the affairs?
§ Mr. W. THORNEwas understood to say: I certainly take that course if qualified to serve.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDEvery paid official who has an income of over £160 a year must be an honorary member of the society before he can be a paid official.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe point is that you make an honorary member for this purpose in order that he may be allowed to take part in the management of this section of the society. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is not a single 94 one of the leaders of friendly societies who could take any part in the management of this fund unless you allowed them in as honorary members. You ought to allow those high officials, who have all this experience behind them, and who have the confidence of their societies, to come in as honorary members for the management of the fund, and they ought not to be ruled out.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat does not arise here; it arises, rather, on the Clause which I read out earlier in the course of the discussion in reference to self-government. As a matter of fact, I shall have a good deal to say in favour of the principle of ruling out so far as voting is concerned. But the question here is whether a society should be allowed to avail itself of the experience of a man who is not an insured member, and whether a society should be able to enjoy the service of a member with over £160 a year. Are men of great experience, who are interested in these societies, and who are not paid for their services at all, to be ruled out altogether? If they were to be ruled out it would lead to a very bad state of things, from my point of view. My hon. Friend below the Gangway referred to the delegate system. Some members of the Conference in regard to the question of election of delegates proposed that a ballot should be taken, and they said that under a ballot neither the officials nor these gentlemen could possibly influence large masses of people. That is why I introduced the Amendment which I read this afternoon in regard to an alternative method of self-government. I hope after the explanation I have given that my hon. Friend will be satisfied to allow this Amendment to go through. It will be quite impossible for the friendly societies and trade unions between them to cope with the 10,000,000 of people who are outside, and who are to be brought in in the course of a few months. It is in the interests of everybody that we should have societies of all kinds, so long as the self-government is genuine, and is bonâ fide in the interests of everybody.
§ Mr. J. WARDAm I to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer favours the idea that the honorary member should not have a vote?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEYes.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI warmly welcome this Amendment in the true interests of the Holloway societies, a large number of which exist in the counties of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. But I rise to ask whether there is any limitation to the meaning of "society" as used in this Amendment. It is clear that in the original Clause the word "society" is sufficiently defined to restrict it to societies carrying on, or intended in future to carry on, insurance business. The whole of this discussion, so far, has had relation to societies like trade unions, and it refers to societies which are now really doing insurance business. But I wish to know whether the Amendment will include bodies like agricultural co-operative societies, and also the large number of distributive co-operative societies which are worked under the Co-operative Wholesale Society. Those societies are very much on the increase; they do no sort of insurance work at the present time, but I am quite sure that both in Ireland and elsewhere, particularly in the case of small-holders' and allotment-holders' societies there will be considerable attractiveness in the Clause as amended, if they will be able to form a section and so effect mutual insurance under the provisions of this Act. I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Amendment is framed to include the admission of such societies.
§ Mr. J. SAMUELThis is really a very important matter. A very large number of societies, and I may say also companies, have this subject under consideration, and I think we ought to have some definite understanding from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to how this matter is to proceed. If I understood his answer aright with regard to insurance companies if they undertake to form approved societies under this Bill they will not be permitted to use any of their funds, and some of them have very large accumulated funds which are termed live funds, for the purpose of forming societies. In the second place, I understand that they will not be allowed to spend any of their capital for this purpose. What I want to know is whether it is the intention or whether they will be permitted to divert any of their premium income received in any one particular year towards the cost of forming those approved societies, because, in my opinion, to allow the premium income to be diverted is practically equal to allowing the other sum to be expended, as in some 96 of the societies the premium income amounts to some millions per year, and goes towards providing reserves for future liabilities. Some societies as my hon. Friend knows do not pay dividends. They cannot afford to do so because of the cost of administration. I want to put this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I really think if I may say so that it is a matter which requires very grave consideration In fact we are bringing in under this Amendment or under this Clause a very large number of societies, and, in my opinion, the whole work will have hereafter to be undone. I think, if I may say so, with all due deference to my hon. Friend, that those societies and the approved societies to work the distribution of these benefits should have branches in every entity where you have sufficient population, because of this reason that you have an enormous amount of migration from one place to another. If a man belongs to the Oddfellows or the Foresters he can be transferred from one district to a new district to which he is going to live. I think there ought to be similar advantages for a man if he belongs to an approved society, and that if he removes, say, from Gloucestershire to Northumberland, that there should be a society to which he can be transferred. I find, under Clause 25, that the only provision for transfer is where a man is rejected by a society or where a man voluntarily retires. Therefore, I think, that whatever company or whatever society undertakes to form an approved society must become a costly one if it is going to work it in the proper sense or in the sense that the affiliated societies at present form their branches.
My second point is this. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that where a trade union society does not at the present time give benefits that it can become, or in other words, form, a separate section. Is it the intention of the Bill that every approved society must give in some way or another corresponding benefits to those of the friendly society at present. I think that is very essential, because I feel that it is most important that every man should have the opportunity, or if a man is an insured person, that when this Bill becomes an Act, that that man should join some society where he can get additional benefits in addition to what he can get under the Bill. If he joins the Oddfellows or the Foresters he can get double insurance, and therefore 97 I hold that it is most essential that every approved society shall give benefits similar to those of the existing friendly societies, and that that would be a great advantage to the insured person. Is it the intention under the Bill, or will the Commissioners insist, that trade union and other approved societies shall give such benefits, or are they going to become distributors of the benefits without insurance or giving additional benefits to the insured persons. I think those matters should be cleared up. They are now being considered by a large number of societies or companies, and if they have to give benefits in addition to the distribution of those benefits then it becomes a very serious matter to them. If they do not give benefits it becomes a very easy matter for them to form approved societies of members to become insured under this Bill, and to distribute the benefits under this Bill, which will be less costly.
§ Mr. NIELDSpeaking just now with regard to industrial companies using their funds for any purpose, I should like to know whether the restriction applies equally to trade union societies, and if they will be obliged to rely entirely on the funds they create, and not have recourse to any existing fund of the trade union.
§ Mr. W. THORNEI desire to ask two questions. Take the case of my own society, and assuming we start a new society under this particular section, should I be allowed to become one of the managers, assuming I was duly elected? My second point is I understand that none of the societies can use any of their balances for the purpose of promoting any of the sections of this scheme. Will individual Members be allowed to pay contributions, because if they do I can imagine some wealthy person belonging to the "Pru," being honorary members, being able to use balances from their societies. Will that be allowed, because, if so, I can see that the balances from some of the wealthy societies can be used through individual honorary members.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI am not quite sure that I follow the last point. There is nothing, of course, to prevent any individual, whether he is a member of the "Pru," or any other society, as an individual spending his money on anything. I will answer the other point. My hon. Friend wished to know, in connection with 98 his own society, which is a very good test case, where they have no sick benefits at all now, whether he would be allowed, if chosen by his society, to be elected on the committee of management. Not unless this Amendment were carried. One of the objects of the Amendment is to enable those who, like my hon. Friend, have the confidence of their societies, and have managed big concerns for them up to the present, to take part in the management in the future. Otherwise we should have to find somebody who is an insured person, earning not more than £3 a week, and is an employed person, for the committee of management, and my hon. Friend would take no part or lot in the management of the concern. I propose that officials and leaders like himself shall in future, if they are chosen by their society, be allowed to take part in its management. My hon. Friend also asked whether, supposing his society wanted to come in merely for the purpose of administering this part of the Bill, they would be allowed to do so. Not if my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel) gets his way.
§ Mr. J. SAMUELI was simply asking for information.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEUnder the Bill as it stands a trade union which is not giving benefits at the present moment, if it likes to come in to administer the benefits, can do so. I thought my hon. Friend suggested that they must undertake to distribute additional benefits as well.
§ Mr. J. SAMUELNo.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat is not necessary, but I have no doubt that once they have started they will add other benefits, and that members may like to pay additional sums to increase their benefits toy 5s. or 10s. I met the engineers at Bradford, and they told me that 3s. a week invalidity was not good enough for them, and that therefore they insured through their trade union for an additional benefit. That has been one of the results of the insurance law of Germany. It has encouraged members to go in for additional benefits, because the State scheme was not adequate. My hon. Friend (Mr. J. Samuel) asked with regard to transfers from one district to another. That is a very important point. Every facility ought to be given to enable a man who is a member of a trade union or an affiliated society in one district to transfer his membership to a kindred society in another district if he removes from one district to 99 another. The provision we have made is that the amount should be fixed by the actuaries according to the age of the man to enable him to transfer his membership to another society. Therefore, the answer to my hon. Friend is in the affirmative. The hon. Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) wanted to know whether trade unions could use their accumulated funds. The same question applies to friendly societies and to the great insurance societies. It depends upon their constitution. I should not have thought that it would be possible for them to do so, because their constitutions were framed without having this Bill in contemplation. There is nothing in the Bill which enables them to do it, and that is the only concern I have with it. I cannot prevent societies being formed if they can get shareholders to subscribe money for the purpose and setting up anything that is legitimate. But there is nothing in this Bill which enables them to do so.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEQuite so. They should be put on the same footing as any other society with accumulated funds. If the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) will read the remarkable report of the trade union actuary he will find in regard to his own society that one effect of this Bill will be to add to its accumulated funds something like £200,000. The same thing applies to all those societies which give unemployment or sick benefits. I think it is perfectly right, as the hon. Member for Ealing suggests, that all the societies should be on the same footing and not allowed to use their great accumulated reserves merely for the purpose of fighting each other. At any rate, if it is done they will be all on the same footing in that respect. The hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) wanted to know whether the terms of the Amendment were so wide as to enable the societies to which he referred to come in. Certainly that was the object, and that is the effect of the Amendment. They will certainly come in.
§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTThat was not my point. It is apparent that the Holloway societies can come in, because they are insuring societies to-day. I asked about non-insuring societies.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI remember. Any society of that character, if it complies with the conditions of the Bill, will be entitled to come in. The object of this 100 Amendment is to put all these societies on a perfect equality provided they comply with the conditions. Dividing societies would not be allowed to divide money raised under this Bill. That must be distributed in benefits according to the Bill. But they can carry on the dividing business outside the Bill; we do not propose to interfere with that at all.
§ Mr. BARNESI am not at all satisfied that this Amendment is necessary or right in view of what we have been led to believe was to be the main principle of the administration of the Bill. I can see the difficulties, and, not being a lawyer, I must take the statement from the Front Bench as correct that as the Bill stands our trade union officials would be barred from the work of administration. But there are ways of getting over that difficulty apart from this Amendment. I submit that the Amendment entirely alters the character of the administration of the scheme.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe officials could certainly not be paid out of the funds of the union. We have allowed something like four shillings for management. That includes payment for officials, and I should have thought it was very desirable from the trade union point of view that that money should not go to benefit members.
§ Mr. BARNESI quite agree; but surely the Bill could have made provision for the payment of persons other than honorary members. There are ways and means which ought to be known to the legal advisers of the Crown other than the particular solution proposed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the society of which I am a member is going to gain £200,000 by this Bill, and he quoted the trade union actuary as his authority for the statement. That is a very bold assumption. The actuary said that my society would gain that amount of money over a number of years, during which the liabilities in respect to our present members are to be fulfilled, provided that 80,000 become members of the approved society for the purpose. If this Amendment is carried, care will be taken that we never get those 80,000 members. The Prudential agents will be on the doorstep every Monday morning, as they are in millions of homes throughout the length and breadth of this country, armed as they will be by money provided for them, if not collectively by the Prudential and the Victoria, by individuals connected with these societies. Those agents will 101 have an enormous advantage over trade unions and friendly societies. I say again that it seems to me that if this Amendment is carried, it is going to alter entirely the character of the administration of this scheme. We were told when the Bill was introduced that the scheme was to be managed by the democratic organisations, by the trade unions, and by the friendly societies. We were induced to vote for the scheme having contributions as one of its features because of that statement. Now, having got us to vote for the contributions, we are going to be asked—or it seems to me so—to rule out, at all events if not to rule out practically to shut out, the trade unions and friendly societies, and to bring in these capitalist organisations which will very largely adminster the scheme. If anybody challenges a division, I shall certainly go into the Lobby against the Motion.
§ Mr. BOOTHI want to assure my hon. friends that the people principally interested are not capitalistic organisations, but the National Deposit, the Holloway, and the dividing societies. The capitalistic organisations can take care of themselves, but the societies to which I have referred, the National Deposit, the Holloway, and the great dividing societies are excellent organisations. I did not wish to intervene in this Debate, but I have been specially urged to look after this Clause on behalf of those respective bodies of men. A hon. Member has challenged me with regard to this matter. Well, the bulk of the meetings to which I have gone at Portsmouth, Bristol, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Liverpool, and so on, were not under insurance auspices, but were got up by these democratic organisations, the dividing societies, the Holloway, and the National Deposit Societies. They provided the chairmen and paid the whole of the expenses, except my own railway fare, which I found myself. They make an appeal not only that they should come in but they make an appeal that their trusted leaders, men who very often have been workmen and who have got into a little way of business, should be allowed to remain officers. They want them to remain as honorary members where they are not benefit members, just as trade unions like to keep hold of members even after they have become Members of Parliament at £400 a year, because they believe that they still have proper sympathies. I think it will be a calamity if we framed any legislation in 102 this House which debarred these gentlemen from taking part in the societies as they desire. Therefore I do appeal to the House, and I say that this Amendment has nothing whatever to do with capitalism. It has to do with thrift, and with thrift organisations, including trade unions.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSOn a point of Order. The Amendment standing in my name is somewhat similar to that of the Noble Lord the Member for Hornsey (Earl Ronaldshay). I beg to submit that it is entirely in order, for it raises the point as to whether an appeal may be made to the High Court from the Insurance Commissioners. This is a point which has been casually mentioned in this Debate to-night, but certainly has not been decided by the House. There are three alternative courses. The Commissioners "shall" without an appeal register any society that comes before them. Secondly, they "may" in their entire discretion register a society. The third course is that they "may" so register a society in their discretion, subject to an appeal to the High Court. I venture to submit that this Amendment has certainly not been disposed of because it raised a third alternative course, which is not either of the two alternative courses "may" or "shall."
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move, to add after Sub-section (1),
(2) In the event of the Insurance Commissioners refusing to grant approval to any society or section of any society under the provisions of this Section, such society or section of such society may apply to the High Court of Justice for an order that the Insurance Commissioners shall show reasonable cause for such refusal, and, in the event of such cause not being shown, the approval shall be granted.
I will say what I have got to say very shortly, because I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not accept this Amendment. I therefore move it more as a matter of protest. I quite understand the Chancellor's position, but I move this Amendment by way of protest against the constant attempts of the Government to keep the subject from having recourse to a court of law. We are going to establish Insurance Commissioners who are going, under this Bill, to have it entirely in their hands to say whether or not all these different 103 societies—trade unions and friendly societies, dividing societies, collecting societies and others—shall be admitted to the privileges of this Bill and shall become approved societies. I do not want to suggest anything whatever against the Insurance Commissioners. In the first place, we do not in the least know who they are going to be. We are asked to give them a completely blank cheque. Suppose some society comes before them, complying, as it thinks, with the provisions which are going to be laid down in this Clause, and without any reason or cause assigned the Insurance Commissioners simply say, "We do not approve." It may be that this society, a small society or a big one, asks the Insurance Commissioners, "Why do you not approve? Why may we not become an approved society?" They say, "We give you no reason."
These societies will say, "Surely you ought to tell us what is wrong about our rules and constitution, and why we cannot become approved societies." Are the Commissioners to be allowed to say, "We will give you no reason; we simply say we do not approve you, and there is to be no appeal to anybody." Surely that is not a position in which this Committee should place any body of people. The right hon. Gentleman is so opposed to appeal that we all know that two years ago, when we suggested various appeals to the Courts in connection with his celebrated Budget, they were all ruled out by him so far as he could do so. The Swansea case has been mentioned, and we all know that many attempts were made to appeal to the Courts of Law in that case; but there were very great difficulties indeed in the way of proving that the position of the Swansea Corporation was not in accordance with law. The party I have the honour to act with succeeded in getting that case through the Courts of Law. We want the right of appeal in this instance, and I cannot suggest any tribunal better than the High Courts. I do not mind to what tribunals the appeal is so long as there is some appeal for those societies which are not approved in order that they may have their cases re-heard. I put this point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is to day under the Friendly Societies Acts an exactly similar right to appeal from the Registrar of the High Courts. If a society desires to register, and if the registrar, who is practically in the position that these Insurance Commissioners will be in, says, "I will not approve you as a 104 friendly society," there is an appeal from the registrar. Why should there not be a similar appeal from the Insurance Commissioners as from the registrar? I quite recognise there is difficulty in getting the Chancellor to accept this Amendment, because the desire of the Government has shown in the last few years to act by administrative action and to prevent the citizens of this country, having the right of appeal to the Courts of Law. I move this Amendment as a protest against the repeated decisions of this Government to prevent access by His Majesty's subjects to the Courts of Law.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI regret that the hon. Gentleman has thought fit to move this Amendment, because we had substantially the same Amendment moved and discussed before, when the same arguments were used. The ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman has not enabled him to invent one single fresh argument in its favour. It could not be debated at all only that we consented to the withdrawal of the other Amendment. If we had refused to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn and had negatived it, this Amendment could not have been moved again. The Swansea case has been mentioned, but the Swansea case only proves that the Courts can interfere if there is what they regard as an oppressive interference with the rights of the subject, and what was done in that case could be done here. I cannot repeat arguments I have used before in reply to arguments already advanced from the benches opposite. I hope now the hon. Member has made his protest he will see his way to withdraw this Amendment, and the moment he does so I shall move a Motion to report Progress, which I hope will be accepted unanimously.
§ Mr. FORSTERI think the case my hon. Friend has made is a substantial one. The Courts can interfere with greater freedom when a body of men refuse to carry out the powers cast upon them. This Amendment contemplates the circumstances of a body like the Insurance Commissioners having full discretion to approve of a society or not, and all it asks is that if they refuse to approve a society that an appeal for their decision should be given. Of course, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he refuses to accept it I am afraid there is no more to be said.
§ Amendment negatived.
105§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress, to sit again to-morrow, (Wednesday).
§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of this day, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
§ Adjourned accordingly at Seven minutes after Nine o'clock.