CLAUSE 19.—(Special Provisions for Employers' Superannuation Funds, etc.)

HC Deb 27 October 1911 vol 30 cc426-63

(1) Where a society consists of persons entitled to rights in a superannuation fund or any similar fund established by an employer or a number of employers for the benefit of workmen employed by him or them, the society may be approved—

1. (a) notwithstanding that it does not satisfy the conditions laid down by this part of this Act as to numbers;
2. (b) if the employer is responsible for the solvency of the fund, or is liable to pay part of, or to make contributions towards, any benefits payable out of the fund similar to those conferred by this part of this Act greater in amount or value than the employer's contributions payable by him under this part of this Act, notwithstanding that he is entitled to representation on the committee or other body administering the fund, to an extent not exceeding one quarter of the total number of the body.

(2) Where, by reason of any such society becoming an approved society, it is necessary to make any alteration in the existing rules or constitution of the fund, a scheme for the purpose may be submitted for the approval of the Insurance Commissioners.

(3) Where such a scheme has been approved by the Insurance Commissioners, the Act or deed constituting the fund shall have effect subject to the provisions of the scheme, but the Insurance Commissioners shall not approve of any such scheme unless they are satisfied that the members of the society have been given an opportunity of voting thereon, and that the scheme makes proper provision for safeguarding existing rights and interests.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)

The first Amendment on the Order Paper, that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester (Mr. Baldwin) is not in order. It proposes to leave out Sub-section (1) and to insert words which are already largely in the Clause. Any new matter, of course, to be proposed to be inserted, can be moved. The hon. Member for Brentford's Amendment comes next.

Mr. BUTCHER

I beg to move, on behalf of my hon. Friend, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "superannuation" ["entitled to rights in a superannuation fund"], and to insert instead thereof the word "provident."

I should like to have a ruling as to whether the word in the Clause is intended to cover cases of pension funds which are sometimes slightly different from superannuation funds. For instance, on the North-Eastern Railway Company there is a superannuation fund for certain servants of the company, and there is also a pension fund for the wage-earning servants of the company. If not, I think I should, after the word "superannuation," move to add the words "pension or provident."

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)

If the word does not cover what we desire, I think it ought to be amended. My intention was, after the other few Amendments had been disposed of, rather to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brentford, and to insert "provident" instead of "superannuation," as that would cover everything.

Mr. BUTCHER

May I suggest "pension or other provident fund"? Then the words of the Clause would be "superannuation, pension, or other provident fund." I do not want to alter the words more than necessary.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I will not go into a legal argument with the hon. and learned Gentleman, but it seems to me that that would make the word "pension" more important, whereas, as a matter of fact, it is the provident fund that we lay stress upon. But if the hon. and learned Member would be satisfied with "provident" for the moment I will consider on the Report stage whether that will cover the case.

Mr. BUTCHER

I accept what the right hon. Gentleman suggests on the understanding that we are to consider the matter on the Report stage.

Mr. WARDLE

I object to the word "superannuation" here, and the kind of fund that is meant by "superannuation" is quite different from that that is spoken of as a "provident" fund. I do not think the word can well cover the two. There is a distinct difference between superannuation funds so far as railway companies are concerned. A superannuation fund of a railway company is not a provident fund in the ordinary sense of the word. While it is true that it deals with invalidity it does not deal with sickness at all. I should like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered really the whole position as between superannuation and provident funds for purposes like this, and in the light of the Report which was issued from the Board of Trade by the Committee that was appointed? There is a distinct difference between the two funds. There is also a distinct difference between the methods in which the railway companies deal with these funds. It seems to me that you cannot cover the whole of them by leaving out the word "superannuation" and inserting the word "provident." For my part, if the superannuation funds are to have the rights of the rights of an approved society—I am not quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman has considered that point—they ought to come in under their own name, and not that of a provident society.

Mr. NEWMAN

I wish to mention the case of the Small Arms Factory. I do not know whether I am in order in bringing the matter before the Committee now, but I do not like this Clause to be put through without making my protest.

Mr. FORSTER

It is the thing that matters, not the name. I cannot say whether the funds I have in my mind are superannuation, pension, or provident funds, or what their name is. But I want to call attention to a particular kind of fund—let it be called what it may—that I want to be protected by the Bill—that established by the South Metropolitan Gas Company and similar funds throughout the county. I do not care twopence whether they are called superannuation or pension funds. Let us have regard to what the fund is, and not what it is called. If my hon. Friend thinks that does not meet the case let us find other words, but let us not rule out funds because they would not come under some particular description.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I should have thought the offer I made covers what my hon. Friend desires. If he does not think so of course he is perfectly right to divide against them. It is a question of legal interpretation; if the words do not mean the same thing I shall see to it later. I say "superannuation" or "pension" is not as comprehensive as "provident," and if put in before it may limit the word "provident." When I saw this Amendment on the Paper I came to the conclusion, and was so advised, that "provident" was more a comprehensive term and therefore better. If not I shall look into the matter. We are agreed in substance, the only point is as to the words.

Mr. CASSEL

Seeing that we are agreed in substance and that it is merely a question of words, might we not, instead of putting in either the word "superannuation" or "provident," simply say "funds for providing benefits similar to those conferred by this Act?"

Mr. BUTCHER

That obviously would not meet the case. I have in my mind the North-Eastern Superannuation and Pension Fund. The object of that fund is different from that contemplated by the Bill. It is to provide pensions for retired workmen and those who reach the age of sixty-five. I think we should be prepared to accept the Chancellor's assurances that it is his intention to bring in all those societies and that will satisfy me.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. BUTCHER

I now move to leave out the word "superannuation" in order to insert instead thereof the word "provident."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. ROWNTREE

I beg to move, as an Amendment to Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "by an employer or a number of employers." As the Bill stands it talks of funds established by an employer or employers, but many of these funds have been established by the men themselves, and are helped in one way or another by the employer or employers. My object in asking that these words be omitted here is in order to insert them in their proper place later.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. ROWNTREE

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "workmen" ["for the benefit of the workmen employed"], and to insert instead thereof the word "person."

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment is consequential. There are two on the Paper, one standing in the name of the senior Member for York and the other in the name of the junior Member for York, dealing with the same point. I think the form of the junior Member's the better.

Mr. BUTCHER

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "him or them" ["workmen employed by him or them"], and to insert instead thereof the words "one or more employers."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "may" ["the society may be approved"], to insert the words, "on the application of the employer or employers and with the consent of a majority of the members."

This is very important, not only from the point of view of the employer but also of the fund. Take the Metropolitan Water Board, they have an enormous fund, and I do not think it would be quite fair for a bare majority of persons employed to convert the fund into an approved society. It is even more important from the point of view of the members of the fund. I think the consent of a bare majority is not sufficient to say whether the fund should be converted. In the majority of cases the employés bare the whole cost of administering these funds. The reserves as a rule bear interest at between three and four per cent. In large railway companies the interest on their reserves is about four per cent. on their debenture stock, and in the case of the London County Council and the Metropolitan Water Board it is about 3½ per cent.; and if a fund becomes an approved society in future the reserves will only earn about three per cent. I think, therefore, this is a reasonable Amendment.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)

I think there is no difference between the Bill as it stands in this matter and the Amendment of the hon. Member. As the Bill stands application must come from the society. The hon. Member wants the application to come from the employer or employers with the approval of the majority of the society. The hon. Member will see that the application by the society must be an application with the approval of the majority of the members of the society. The society consists of the employer or employers and its members. The hon. Member asks that the application should be by the employer or employers and the majority of the members. That is really the same thing as the society itself. The society will be governed by the majority, and therefore I think the hon. Member will see that it is not necessary to insert this Amendment.

Mr. WARDLE

There is another objection and it is the application having to come from the employer or the employers. I think it should come through the secretary of the society in the ordinary way.

Mr. FORSTER

I agree with the hon. Member who spoke last. In many cases the employer has made himself responsible for the solvency of these societies and my hon. Friend wishes to have the consent both of the employer and employed to the transaction. I want to have the consent of both parties as well, but I would rather the application should be made by the society and sent to the employer rather than by the employer and sent to the society. The proposal here is that the persons constituting the society may, on application, and under certain conditions, become an approved society. Where an application is made by the society supported by the employer I want power given to the Insurance Commissioners to exempt the society from the operation of this rule. If I cannot raise the question here I would like to move a new Sub-section at the end of the Clause. I will indicate the case I have in view. It is the case of the superannuation fund which I referred to a moment ago, established by the South Metropolitan Gas Company. They sent a deputation to interview me—I do not know whether they have seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and they were able to make out a case to me which I think is unanswerable. I do not know whether or not I ought to reserve what I have to say upon that until a later stage of the Clause, but I propose to take any opportunity that offers itself of raising the point and pressing it strongly upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The CHAIRMAN

It would not be in order here. The only point here is whether the Bill already provides for such action. The provision that application should come from the governors of the fund is sufficient to cover the case. This is only a slight additional point, namely, "on the application of the employer or employers and with the consent of a majority of the members."

Mr. FORSTER

I think what is suggested would be more satisfactory, and I would suggest that my hon. Friend should withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight asked me to look after his Amendment. I understand it is not in order, but I also handed in an Amendment which covers the point and which is not printed on the White Paper. My Amendment was to add in place of paragraph (a):— Provided that its rules or constitution definitely provide that the membership of such society shall not be a condition of employment. I think those words are better than the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

That is already on the Paper.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member will notice that there is a star against his name and the Amendment is on the Paper. I am proposing to call first of all upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to leave out paragraph (a), and then I will deal with the Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Derby and the hon. Member for Stockport, which, of course, will take precedence, having been on the Paper longer.

Mr. LEES SMITH

I understand you have ruled out my Amendment, which is intended to apply not generally but simply to these special funds.

The CHAIRMAN

I did not rule out the hon. Member's Amendment, but I stated my opinion that I thought it was covered by the provision of absolute control in Clause 18. If the hon. Member wishes to show that it is not covered that is a matter for the Government to deal with. Does the hon. Member desire to move?

Mr. LEES SMITH

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "approved" ["the society may be approved"], to insert the words, "Provided that its constitution provides that the election of all the committees, representatives, and officers elected by the workmen shall be by ballot."

This Amendment is intended to secure the workmen against any possibility of undue pressure. The women's trade organisations are strongly of opinion that in the case of societies consisting of girls the voting may not be free if it takes place under the eye of the employer or the forewomen.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Our notion was that this point was covered by the provision made yesterday for complete control. It is true that you can choose this or any other system which commends itself to the Insurance Commissioners. My hon. Friend wishes to make the position absolutely clear in the case of workers that the voting is to be by ballot. Voting by ballot is not always easy to accomplish, and it is difficult to set up a ballot in some scattered, outlying districts. If the hon. Member will move any words which will allow the Insurance Commissioners to make arrangements in a case of that kind I do not object to the principle of election by ballot if it is so desired. I can understand that it is desirable in certain cases. In the cases mentioned there may be reasons why the workers should have a free choice. I should be prepared to accept the Amendment subject to any words being introduced later on that will govern exceptional cases. You cannot lay down that there must be a ballot in a small, country, wayside station, because it would cost so much. All those cases have to be taken into account, but I will accept these words subject to regulations by the Insurance Commissioners.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

Before this Amendment is finally dealt with ought not the Committee to remember what they are asked to do? They are asked to impose conditions upon these funds which are different from the ordinary approved societies. The idea is democratic management of the State section, and surely, therefore, it ought to be left for the rules to be made by the members themselves whether they will have a ballot or some other form of voting. As it stands, the Chancellor is going to throw still more on to the regulations to be made by the Insurance Commissioners, and, if for no other reason, I shall oppose it, because it is still further fettering the liberty of the individual and allowing the central authority to dictate how they shall carry on their business. There seems to me no special cause for them having a different method of voting from the ordinary approved society. If you introduce the ballot into this Clause, you ought to introduce it into the 18th Clause relating to approved societies. It seems to me far better to let the members of the fund say how they will carry out their voting and not have the Insurance Commissioners meddling in their management more than it is possible to avoid.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

You are dealing with a society where the employer takes a part in the management, and we have to guard against any undue influence. The object of the Amendment is not to interfere with the management, but rather to give the rank and file of the membership liberty to make rules free from intimidation. Those who have had experience of these societies know perfectly well that even the presence of an employer or a foreman does tend to influence the men, and it is because we believe this is a peculiarly exceptional circumstance that we think the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be accepted.

Mr. BUTCHER

I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider this matter. It is most important the men should be allowed to manage their funds. In every case I have come across they have themselves carefully drawn up rules, and they have the power of altering their rules free from the interference of any employer. The men belonging to the North-Eastern Railway Pension Fund have drawn up their rules. There are 19,000 members, and they have the power to alter the rules in any way they think fit without going to their employers at all. It would be a very serious inroad upon the democratic constitution of this fund if we were to give a discretion to the Insurance Commissioners to interfere with them. How would these large bodies of men, after having provided a particular method of electing their officers and committee of management, like to be told by the Insurance Commissioners that they did not know their business and that they would prescribe for them a new set of rules? It is a most undemocratic proposition, and, mark you, it is not merely the committee of management for the purposes of the fund under this Bill that will be dealt with, but also the committee of management of the pension fund, which has nothing to do with this Bill at all. It does not appear reasonable to me that when the men have selected their mode of electing their committee to manage their pension fund the Insurance Commissioners should come in and say, "Because you are going to get additional benefits under this Act, you must alter your mode of electing your committee of management." I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not accede to the Amendment in the form in which it is put. If there are men who wish their committee of management to be selected by ballot, by all means let them have it, but they can do that by their own rules. Therefore, in the interests of the men and the right of liberty of election by the men, I hope this will not be accepted.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The hon. and learned Member seems to me to be trying to show that voting by ballot is antidemocratic. He says he wants full liberty for the men. That is exactly what my hon. Friend wants. He wants to guarantee that they shall have full liberty. I am not suggesting, and I do not think my hon. Friend is suggesting, there is any undue influence, but there is at times a suspicion of it, and we get rid of that suspicion by this means. It is far better in the interests of the employers and the foremen that it should be known it is the free, unfettered choice of the men. The men may think the foreman does not represent their views, but it would be very awkward for them to vote against him. The foreman would be in the position of knowing how the men voted, and if he subsequently had any cause of complaint against a man that man might be under the impression he was dismissed or degraded because he had voted against him. It is not a good thing for the foreman himself that he should be in that position. It is infinitely better he should have no knowledge of the way the men vote. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) asked why we should introduce here what we have not introduced in the State scheme. There is not the same suspicion of undue influence in the case of the State scheme. It is a totally different case. These are cases where the men ought to be protected against any possibility of undue influence, and I think my hon. Friend has really pointed out a respect in which the Bill ought to be strengthened. I am sure the employers would not object. They would infinitely prefer that the men should exercise their own choice in their own way.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

It is not a question of the employer. I object to the Insurance Commissioners being imported into the management of these societies. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say he would accept the Amendment subject to some additional words he was going to put in, leaving it to the decision of the Insurance Commissioners as to whether the voting should be by ballot.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am sorry the hon. Member misunderstood me. On the contrary, what I said was it must be left to the Insurance Commissioners to make regulations so as to meet the case of scattered areas where it would be difficult to set up the ballot. I never suggested the Insurance Commisioners should have any control at all with regard to the arrangements. I do suggest that where you have five or six country wayside stations with probably only seven men to vote it would be very difficult to set up a ballot box at each station. All I suggested was that probably it would require a little regulation in that respect. It did not enter my head that the Commissioners should decide whether there should or should not be a ballot. On the contrary, I am accepting frankly and fully the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I simply suggest that if it should be necessary to make provision for exceptional cases, they should decide as to the best method of carrying it out.

Mr. FORSTER

I certainly share the misunderstanding in the mind of my hon. and learned Friend. It merely arose, as misunderstandings will often arise. We gathered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Commissioners would have the deciding voice as to whether or not a ballot should take place. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] It is no use saying "No, no"; that is the impression we gathered. I think, however, the right hon. Gentleman's statement removes to a large extent the objection of my hon. and learned Friend, and certainly a great deal of the objection which I entertained. I have no objection to the ballot, but I felt very strongly that the intrusion of the Insurance Commissioners, as I thought, into the matter, and giving them the deciding voice, was not right. If either the employers or the men are not satisfied with the conduct of the business of their funds, the withholding of the consent of either of them would be fatal to any application to become approved under the Bill; and therefore, if these superannuation funds are to be brought under the Bill as approved societies, they can only be so brought by mutual consent, both of employers and employed.

Mr. BUTCHER

I would suggest an addition to the Amendment which would certainly meet my views and possibly those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is to add the words, "If a majority of the workmen so desire," so that if a majority of the workmen desire that the vote should be taken by ballot, they can do it. I cannot myself see any objection to that. You would have a meeting of the society and take a vote upon this question of having all votes by ballot. If the existing rules provide for a ballot there is no question at all, but supposing the existing rules do not provide for voting by ballot, then they can call a meeting to vote upon the question, aye or no, whether the vote for electing a committee is in future to be taken by ballot; and, if the majority of the meeting decide that the vote in future shall be by ballot then it shall be so. That, to my mind, gives the workmen entire control in the matter. If they say "yes," the ballot follows, and if they say "no," I see no reason for coercing them. I would therefore like to move, at the end of the Amendment, to put, "If a majority of the workmen, in general meeting assembled, so desire."

The CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member desires to add further words afterwards, there is nothing to prevent that being done.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will reconsider the question before this vote is taken. The proposal is that the workmen at a sort of general assembly should decide the question. What does that mean? I do not know how many hundred thousand workmen there are on the London and North-Western Railway.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

Eighty-eight thousand.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Eighty-eight thousand. Well, that will do. The suggestion is that you should have a meeting of eighty-eight thousand people in Crewe, say, from all parts of the line; that in the meantime the traffic is stopped, and that you should declare a general strike for three days.

Mr. BUTCHER

I do not want to prevent these awful pictures being drawn, but I want to point out that it is perfectly ridiculous, because meetings of these societies constantly take place in accordance with the rules. It involves no general strike, no calling out of the military. The meeting takes place in accordance with the rules, and the meetings I refer to could take place with perfect ease.

The CHAIRMAN

We have not got this matter before the Committee. I think if it is desired to move it it should technically come as an Amendment to the Amendment. Does the hon. Gentleman wish me to put to the Committee the words he just now read.

Mr. BUTCHER

I think, perhaps, it is better you should put the Amendment as it stands.

The CHAIRMAN

It might affect the votes of some hon. Members upon the first proposal whether the addition was made to it or not. Will the hon. and learned Member move his words as an addition to the Amendment?

Mr. BUTCHER

I beg to move as an Amendment to the Amendment that these words be added: "If a majority of the workmen voting in the manner prescribed by the rules of the society so desire."

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am very glad the general assembly is gone, at any rate. We have now got something that is very vague, but it is practically the same thing. The hon. and learned Member says it is very easily done; but how? If you call a meeting of all the railway workers only a certain number go there. It is only a proportion—one, two, or three per cent.—who go, and you are getting the views only of those workmen who, first of all, can afford the expense to go up, and, secondly, get the assent of their foremen to go. That makes a very great difference. I do not suggest that foremen would only allow those people to go who were favourites of theirs, but there is always that suspicion attached to a case of that kind. A general meeting is practically an impossible thing, as I have pointed out. It was a ludicrous picture, because it is the only possible picture which will enable you to get a vote of the whole of the members. I cannot imagine why the hon. Member spoke against the Amendment for a ballot. I should like to get at the real reason.

Mr. BUTCHER

I did not.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Then why should he press his Amendment?

Mr. BUTCHER

Because I want the men to say what they wish themselves.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

But how will they say it?

Mr. BUTCHER

I have explained that they have already laid down rules as to how they shall vote. With those rules they are perfectly content. If they are not, they can alter them. I want the men to have power to vote as they like.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The hon. and learned Gentleman says they can alter the rules. But how? By ballot? Are they going to alter them as he explained to us? He said their method now is by a meeting. That is a perfect farce. I should like to know how. He tells me that it is their general rule at present. How is it their present rule? He has never yet pointed out to the Committee why he objects to the ballot. That does get the real views of the workmen, whereas this Amendment might not.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Original Amendment agreed to.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (a). The reason for this is that the 10,000 limit was omitted yesterday, and this is therefore unnecessary.

Mr. CASSEL

Will the point of numbers arise when the new Clause comes to be considered. The new Clause does provide that there must be a certain number. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give us an assurance now that when the new Clause comes to be considered, which provides that an approved society is to have at least 5,000 members—

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the new Clause, he will see there is a special exemption.

Mr. CASSEL

I was coming to that point. The special exemption makes it dependent absolutely on the will of the Insurance Commissioners. They may say in the case of one society that they do not consider that particular society a good one and they will not exempt it, but in the case of another society they may grant exemption. What I want to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to is, that if this Amendment is accepted and the new Clause passed as it is, it will be discretionary for the Insurance Commissioners to exempt or not from the limit of numbers in the case of these societies. I am not going to vote against this particular Amendment, but I raise the point now in order that it may be open when the question arises on the new Clause. I think the proper way of dealing with it will be to provide in the new Clause that these societies shall be absolutely exempt, but not at the discretion of the Insurance Commissioners.

Mr. WATT

The question of numbers is involved in this Amendment. Shall I be in order in referring to the differentiation in numbers of approved societies in the different countries? We had very little satisfaction from the Under-Secretary for the Home Department yesterday.

The CHAIRMAN

That does not arise here.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (1), leave out paragraph (b), the words "(b) if the employer is responsible for the solvency of the fund, or is liable to pay part of, or to make contributions towards, any benefits payable out of the fund similar to those conferred by this part of this Act greater in amount or value than the employer's contributions payable by him under this part of this Act."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

In Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), leave out the word "he" ["notwithstanding that he is entitled to representation"] and insert instead thereof the words "the employer."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

1.0 P.M.

Mr. ROWNTREE

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), to leave out the word "fund" ["body administering the fund"] and to insert instead thereof the word "society." I think it is clear that this is a better word.

Mr. BUTCHER

May I suggest to my hon. Friend that the word "fund" is right, because in some cases the employer is entitled to some representation on the committee administering the fund. He will not be entitled to any representation on the committee administering the benefit fund under this Act at all.

Mr. ROWNTREE

I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), to insert the words, "if the employer, in addition to the employer's contributions payable by him under this part of this Act, is responsible for the solvency of the fund or for the benefits payable there out or is liable to pay a substantial part of, or to make substantial contributions to, or substantially to supplement, the benefits payable out of the fund.

Provided that no such society as aforesaid shall be approved unless by its constitution it is prohibited so far as concerns the benefits under this Part of this Act from refusing to allow a member to transfer to another approved society and from refusing to allow a member who is discharged from or leaves the employment of the employer and is unable to obtain admission to another approved society on account of the state of his health to continue a member."

Mr. BUTCHER

I only desire to say that I am grateful to the Government for having brought forward this Amendment in this form. It seems to me that the case of railway companies and other societies ought to be met. I am all the more grateful because it is substantially in the same form as the Amendment down in my own name.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I beg to move to add at the end of the proposed Amendment the words, "Provided also that its rules or constitution definitely provide that membership of such society should not be a condition of employment."

If we put a Clause in the Bill providing that an employer shall not make it a condition of employment that the employé should join a particular approved society that will not be within the scope of insurance, but it is perfectly clear that in an Insurance Bill you can enact as a condition of the approval of a society that the condition shall be put in. Under Section 1 of the Shop Clubs Act, 1902, it is already an offence for an employer to make it a condition of employment that a workman shall discontinue his membership of any society, or that any workman should not become a member of any friendly society other than a shop club or thrift club. That is already provided by the Shop Clubs Act, 1902. But I want to make it perfectly clear that there shall be set out on the face of the rules of any society to be approved under the Bill a distinct proviso that membership of the society is not to be made conditional as a condition of employment by the employer in whose works the society is formed. I have submitted the language of my proposed Amendment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment in any form whatever which will really carry out the object I have, which is, I am sure, the same as that of the hon. Member (Mr. J. H. Thomas), to prevent any employer making it a condition of employment that a workman should join this particular approved society. I think the Law Officers would be compelled to say that you cannot alter the general law relating to shop clubs in an Insurance Act. I have the approval of a prominent lawyer who sits on the other side of the House. I think there is no doubt whatever that that is the case. I should be quite willing to put a Clause altering the general law into this Bill if it were possible, but it would be outside the scope, and the Chair very rightly rules it out. All we can do, therefore, is to go as far as possible in that direction by making it a condition of approval for approved societies that the society shall contain in its rules, for every man to see who joins it, a rule providing that the employer shall not make it a condition of employment that a man shall join a particular society. I think that object will be carried out by my Amendment. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who are advising him suggest any other form of Amendment I am quite willing to meet their views.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

I am not certain whether the words even now proposed meet the particular point that we on these benches have in view. The position briefly is this. At present practically every railway company in the country has connected with its service, pension and superannuation funds, and in the majority of cases the companies make it a condition of service that the employés must join them. I myself was a member of a friendly society before I joined the railway service. On the very day that the railway company made me a fireman it was a condition before they registered me that I had to become a member of their mutual friendly society, the entrance fee of which was £1, and the contribution 1s. 4d. a week.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

At what date did the hon. Member enter the service? Was it before or after 1902?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

That does not touch the point in the least. This has been in operation since 1882 to my knowledge. The railway companies make it a condition of service. It is not a question of the rules of the society. It is not a question of members determining what the rules or what the benefits shall be, but it is purely a question of the railway companies themselves saying, "Unless you join our particular society we shall not employ you. That is the position in a nutshell, and the result is that there are many men to-day who have previously made provision, by joining a provident society, which is ample for them, but before the railway company will employ them it says, "No, you must join our society." That is not the worst. Notwithstanding the fact that he has already made provision, and that they have compelled him to join, in many cases, when he leaves the service, he is not allowed to take with him the contributions that he has paid. So that there shall be no mistake, here is an official circular issued by the London and North-Western Railway Company. They insisted on their dining saloon staff joining a particular society. It is quite immaterial what the name of the society is, but it is connected with the railway. Some time after they decided, without consulting the men, that they would not enforce, that condition, and they issued this circular to the staff.— It has been decided to cancel the regulations requiring the staff in the dining saloon department to join the provident and pension society, and to allow those of the present members who desire to do so to withdraw. No member withdrawing, however, will be entitled to any return in respect of premiums already paid. Members on all sides of the House, no matter whether employers or employed, will readily agree with me that that is an unfair condition. There is one typical illustration of where they exacted the whole of the premium, and when I myself, after years of service, resigned engine-driving to become a Member of Parliament, they did not even allow me to take with me all the contributions that they had exacted from me. I have agreed from the first time that I saw this Bill that it would unduly affect these railway clubs, as we term them, and I felt that it would be a hardship unless some provision could be made that these clubs should get the benefit of this particular Bill. But concurrently with that I submit that before they should be allowed to have that benefit, before they should have an opportunity of enjoying the State grant no employer in the future ought to make it a condition of membership that a man shall belong to that particular society. If the words proposed by the hon. Member are intended to meet the point I have just raised, I am willing to accept them. We press our point seriously in the interest of the great mass of the railway men of this country. We press it also in the interest of the friendly societies. I am not sure that the Amendment of the hon. Member does meet the point, but having stated my view I hope the Committee generally will agree that there is a hard case in this matter which ought to be met.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

That is exactly the case I have in view. I have heard of employers compelling men to join a particular shop club. I quite agree that this form of Amendment will not meet exactly the wish of the hon. Member opposite, but it does so as nearly as you can get it in the Insurance Bill.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I do not like the form of words proposed by my hon. and learned Friend, and I think it is possible that we might find a better form. These are the words I suggest: "Provided also that no such society shall be approved if the employer makes membership of such society a condition of employment." Will the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment and accept these words?

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment, but I am not quite sure that the words suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get over the questions which might arise in the courts. The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting as a condition of the approval of a particular society that an employer should abstain from doing something. I am not sure that the condition is one which can be imposed, and if it is done, I think it would probably lead to-trouble in the law courts. I do not want this Amendment, which is a very important one, to have a flaw in it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is importing a condition as regards the approval of a society which is not dependent on the society, but which is dependent on the action of an employer outside the society. If the right hon. Gentleman will take the responsibility for the form of his Amendment, I will accept it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: At the end of the proposed Amendment add the words "Provided also that no such society shall be approved if the employer makes membership of such society a condition of employment."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON

I beg to move, to insert at the end of paragraph (b)— (2) A member of a society which has been approved under this section on the termination of the employment in respect of which he has become a member of that society may subject to the consent of the Insurance Commissioners be required to transfer his membership to that society in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act. This Amendment provides that an approved society should be able with the consent of the Insurance Commissioners to transfer a member if they think it advisable to do so. It is rather unfair that a society which has become an approved society should be obliged to retain a member who has ceased to live in the locality. A member of a London society might go voluntarily to Newcastle for higher wages. You cannot set up local committees to look after these people. How could they be supervised in regard to questions of malingering and arrears? I think it would be in the interest of the fund that these people should be transferred to other societies. The Commissioners would have to consider each case on its merits, and no transfer would be allowed without their consent.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I realise the object which the hon. Gentleman has in view. I sympathise with him, but I rather think the words do not quite carry out the purpose. If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw this Amendment, I will consider the point. I do not care to accept the Amendment in this form.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

Before it is withdrawn I may be allowed to refer to the object of the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already provided that a man who cannot join another society should be entitled to remain on the fund. If he can join another, he ought to be enabled to go. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer find and move some words which will enable him to be transferred? I agree that these are not the best words.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept the promise that I will see words are introduced for carrying out the object.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (2) leave out the words "by reason of" and insert the words "for the purpose of enabling."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Leave out the word "becoming" and insert the words "to become."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Amendment proposed: Leave out the word "fund," and insert instead thereof the word "society."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

Before this Amendment is put I would like to know what is becoming an approved society? Is the State section becoming an approved society, or the whole superannuation fund under this Clause as it now is?

Mr. McKENNA

The State section.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

So any other benefits which may be part of the same society are not part of the same fund for the purpose of approval.

Mr. BUTCHER

With reference to the Clause as to the election of the committee of management by ballot, I would like to know if that applies only to the State section, and not to the committee of management of the fund itself?

Mr. McKENNA

You have a fund with which the State has no concern. You have a second fund with which the State is concerned. The rule governing that is that the Committee of that fund must be an approved society. You may have the same body of managers for both societies. In that case both societies will be elected by ballot.

Mr. BUTCHER

I am very glad of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the Clause as to electing the committee of management by ballot will only apply to the committee of management of the State fund, and does not interfere with the committee of management of the fund itself.

The CHAIRMAN

I do not see how that arises on the Motion before us.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments were: In Sub-section (1), after the word "fund," insert the words "which it is not competent for the society under its existing constitution to make."

In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "fund," and insert instead thereof the word "society."

Mr. LEES SMITH

I beg to move after the word "voting" to insert the words "by ballot."

This provides that the members will be free from undue interference when they are deciding the original main question as to whether they will accept the scheme at all.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) has handed in an Amendment at the end of the Clause which I have not had time to study. Therefore I cannot give a definite ruling as to whether it should come at the end or not. Perhaps the hon. Member will explain his Amendment and the Government will give me their assistance as to whether it is pertinent to this Clause, and whether these powers do not already exist.

Mr. FORSTER

The Sub-section which I have handed in raises a question to which I have alluded very briefly in an earlier part of our discussion. I am very sorry that I have had to give such short notice of it, but I thought I could have raised it on an Amendment at a later stage, and I found I could not. The Sub-section which I propose is: The Insurance Commissioners may on the application of a majority of members of the society supported by the employer or employers exempt from the operation of this part of the Act any society which might be approved under this Section, and this part of the Act shall not apply to such society or to any member of such society. I move that in order to raise the case of workmen and employers who are partners in firms which give benefits that the workmen prefer to the benefits given by the Bill for the subscriptions or contributions which are lower than have to be paid under the Bill. If we take a concrete case it will enable the Committee to judge more clearly what I mean. I will take the case of the companies to which I have already alluded, the South Suburban Gas Company and the South Metropolitan Gas Company, who have funds of this kind. Deputations from these companies have come to see me and laid their case before me. They say that the present contribution is a sum which is lower than the sum they would have to contribute under the Bill. The employer guarantees the solvency of the fund and manages the fund free of expense. The benefits that the workmen derive are better in some respects than the benefits which the Bill will confer, that is to say, the payment during temporary sickness is larger than the payment under the Bill. It is only fair to say that the payment on account of disability under their fund is less than the payment under the Bill. I think that there is a time limit upon it. Of course there is no time limit upon the disability benefit under the Bill, but the men pointed out to me that their rate of continuous sickness is extremely low, and they would prefer to have the benefits which they have secured by their present contribution out of their own fund, and they asked me to do what I could to get them exempted from the operation to this Bill altogether. I pointed out to them, and they were quite alive to the fact, that supposing they were taken out of the operation of the Bill and a man wished to change his employment he would be in a difficulty. They said they are quite alive to that point and are prepared to meet it, and that if they are taken out of the operation of the Bill they ought to create their own transfer values, so that if any of their men seek to join another society they may take his place. In other words, he would have to become a new member and would have to pay a rate for his age. They say they are willing to create these transfer values, and they say they can do that by means of bringing the contribution which they now pay up to the level of the contribution which would be demanded of them by this Bill.

Now look at it from the employer's point of view. The employer guarantees the solvency of the fund and manages the fund free of expense to the working man and to the public servants. The employers I think have worked out that it costs them I think just under or just over 2d. per week per man. The employer is also willing to bring up his contribution, and neither of the parties to this fund want to save their own pockets from the point of view of contributions. The employer is willing to bring up his contribution to the same charge as would be placed upon him under the Bill. By means of that there would be created a fund out of which the transfer values could be fully secured, and out of which there would be made valuable contributions to sanatorium benefits and so forth. They point out to me that 20 per cent. of the present members are fifty years of age and upwards. Under their present scheme these men get 12s. a week in case of temporary sickness, and under the Bill they would only get 7s., falling to 5s. The men naturally take a gloomy view of the prospect which lies before them. All they ask is that if they can satisfy the Insurance Commissioners that the benefits of their present scheme are greater, are more satisfactory than the benefits to be conferred upon them by the Bill, they may be allowed to contract out of the Bill altogether. That is not an unreasonable demand.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member handed to me this Amendment, and I told him that it would require consideration. When we reached this I had not had a moment to give that consideration. I do not complain in the least. I have now had time to consider the question, and it seems to me we really must be taken to have already settled the question of contracting out. For instance, on the first Clause we had an Amendment to leave out "shall" and insert "may." It was a similar point which was raised. The Committee decided to retain "shall" in the Bill. We have been discussing the Clause all the time on the assumption that employés and workmen's societies are to be included in the Bill. It is evident that it will be quite inconsistent with our previous decision to go on to consider at this stage whether certain groups should be left out absolutely from the Bill.

Mr. CASSEL

I do not wish in the least to controvert the proposition which you are laying down, Sir, but if this Amendment is ruled out does your ruling necessarily involve that a similar Amendment arising on Part II. of Schedule 1, providing for exemptions, would be out of order? When we were discussing "shall" and "may" it was said that special cases of exemption, such as the South Metropolitan Gas Company, could be dealt with when we came to deal with Part II. of Schedule 1. For instance, one class of employed exempt are teachers, and I understood that such cases as the Metropolitan Gas Company would be considered under the Schedule. I am not controverting your ruling, Sir, as to whether it is out of order now, but your decision seemed to go so far as to say that all these exemptions were already swept away, and I wish to know whether, under your ruling, we will be at liberty to deal with special exemptions?

The CHAIRMAN

Anything I have said applies only to Part I. of the Bill.

Mr. CASSEL

I was only referring to Part II. of Schedule 1, which relates to Part I. of the Bill, and provides for exemptions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Exceptions."] Yes, exceptions. The first exception has relation to Government employés or employés of municipal authorities who have already got certain funds. One Amendment which personally I should like to move would be to add to municipal authorities statutory authorities who have got similar powers to municipal authorities. I am not objecting to this Amendment being ruled out of order if, when we come to the exceptions under Part II. of Schedule 1, Amendments are not ruled out of order. When we dealt with "shall" and "may" on Clause 1, I think it was clearly understood that special cases like the South Metropolitan Gas Company should be open to discussion when we deal with Part II. of Schedule 1.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

Upon the first Clause I moved an Amendment to exempt certain classes of contributors, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in resisting it, said if we decided it further discussion of exemptions would be prevented. The discussion, he said, could be renewed on the Schedule or new Clauses, and I withdrew my Amendment for the purpose of leaving the discussion open.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

May I point out that Amendments to the Schedule have been put down on the assumption that the hon. Member states?

The CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Member is quite correct, that Part II. of the Schedule is the proper place to raise questions of this kind, bait I do not rule on this Amendment in regard to those questions generally.

Mr. FORSTER

May I explain that I raise the question now lest I should be told, when we come to the Schedule, that I had not taken this opportunity.

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

Mr. BUTCHER

I want to get a statement from the Government as to those societies which have a superannuation fund or other funds. When we come to the committee of management and the benefits under the Act, I think the Committee would be quite right if they insisted that the committee of management should be appointed by ballot of the men. The point about which I want to ask an assurance from the Home Secretary is this, that when this Amendment has been carried providing that by the constitution of the society the committee of management shall be elected by ballot, that that only applies to the committee of management of the benefits under the Act, and it does not apply to the committee of management of the other fund. In other words, that it applies to the State benefits, and not to the benefits between employer and employed.

I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here. He accused me just now that I objected to this Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton because I objected to the ballot. I wanted to tell him, and as I cannot tell him I will tell the Home Secretary in his absence, that that is perfectly unfounded. I can assure the Home Secretary that I am a much better friend of the ballot than the Chancellor himself. I should like him to have a ballot of the people or a referendum, to which I shall not refer further, as it would be out of order, but I am glad to give the Chancellor the assurance that in my opposition to the Amendment I am not objecting to the ballot in any shape or form. I agree it is the right of the workmen to decide in what manner they will select their committee of management of the fund itself, but I do hope that the Home Secretary will be able to tell me that it is not the intention of the Government, by a side wind, as it were, and in a Clause simply and solely providing the conditions under which those societies may become approved 'Societies, to interfere with the mode by which the workmen have already decided by their rules to appoint their committee of management of the fund itself. It might be a very serious matter for the workmen to have a ballot in appointing the committee of management, and might cause great expense. Supposing the society has, as many of them have, 20,000 members situated in different parts of a railway system, the way in which they work now is that they select men in their districts in whom they have confidence to go and represent their views and vote for the committee of management. In that way they get a committee of management which is perfectly satisfactory to the men. If the danger I apprehend is a real one, then it would mean that on every occasion when the society of 20,000 men have to elect an officer, a committee man, or anyone else, they will have to have a ballot over the 20,000 men, which I think would mean a very large cost, and I think would be a very unfair burden to throw on them. I agree that the referendum is excellent in its proper place, but I think that in this connection it would throw a cost on the workmen which they do not want to bear and which I think they ought not to be called on to bear.

Mr. McKENNA

I think I can reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman very shortly. I understand he is stating the case in which there is the same body of management for the funds which come under the provisions of the Bill, and for the funds already in existence, and which do not come under the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. BUTCHER

May or may not.

Mr. McKENNA

Supposing there is the case of one committee of management for both?

Mr. BUTCHER

I want to take the case of one committee of management for both, and also the case where there are two.

Mr. McKENNA

I will take the case of one fund with the committee of management, part of the fund coming under the provision of the Bill, and part not coming under them. In such a case the committee of management under the Bill will be elected by ballot. If, on the contrary, you have in the same service, in a railway company or any private firm, two wholly distinct funds, one being a fund of an approved society under the Bill and the other being a totally distinct fund with a separate body of management dealing with quite separate matters such as superannuation or other benefits not being compulsory benefits laid down by the Bill, in that case it is quite obvious that the fund which relates to the provisions of the Bill would be managed by a committee of management elected by ballot, and the other fund may be administered by a body of management elected as the rules of the society or body might approve. There is no intention to force on any society which does not come under the provisions of the Act, and has got nothing to do with the benefits of the Act, rules other than the rules which they may already have, but if the society comes under the Bill as a recognised approved society, then its body of management under this Clause must be elected by ballot. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that there are occasions when a universal ballot might be an unnecessary expense. He took the case of the appointment of a particular officer, and asked would it be necessary or desirable to put the society to a universal ballot an the selection of a minor officer My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in accepting the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, stated it would require consideration, but on the question of the election of the committee of management that that must undoubtedly be by ballot. Whether or not officers should be elected by ballot he stated would be the subject of further inquiry by the Government, and my right hon. Friend promised to reconsider that particular part of the Amendment on the Report stage. So far as the committee of management is concerned, which is substantially the management, it is quite clear the election will be in every case by ballot.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am very much indebted to the Home Secretary for the very clear explanation he has given on perhaps a rather doubtful point. I hope the Committee will allow me, as it is a very important matter to me, to say one or two words on the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. I happen to be chairman of the Superannuation Committee of the Great Northern Railway Company, and I was afraid, listening to the statements of my hon. Friends below the Gangway, that that superannuation fund, which has nothing whatever to do with sickness, except where a man becomes disabled and is pensioned, but in other instances has nothing to do with sickness, that that might be brought in under management elected by ballot. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that that will not arise—that is, that this fund, which only deals with pensions, will be left in exactly the same position as it is now, unless the managers of the fund go to the Insurance Commissioners to make arrangements with them. We have a sickness fund entirely managed by the men; the directors have nothing to do with it beyond paying a certain contribution. That fund, I presume, can come in if they desire, but even in that case there would be no compulsion on members of that fund to become an approved society. I think the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is very clear. I think I have understood it, and I am much obliged to him as I wanted the point made clear.

Mr. McKENNA

I understand the case put by the hon. Baronet to be one in which there are two distinct funds under two separate bodies of management. In such a case as that, one fund which had no functions at all under this Bill, and would not take advantage of the provisions of Clause 19, would not be an approved society, and therefore would remain under its own management.

Mr. ROWNTREE

There are two points I desire to raise in connection with the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer embodying the following words:— Provided that no such society as aforesaid shall be approved unless by its constitution it is prohibited so far as concerns the benefits under this part of this Act from refusing to allow a member to transfer to another approved society and from refusing to allow a member who is discharged from or leaves the employment of the employer and is unable to obtain admission to another approved society on account of the state of his health to continue a member. I am in warm agreement with the general purport of those words, but two difficulties may possibly arise. First, I would ask the Government to consider whether any time limit should be introduced. A man may join for a week or two and then leave, and I think under the words as they stand there might be some difficulty with regard to his continuance. As to the second point, by the words of the Amendment the privilege of the employer to appoint one-fourth of the committee applies only to societies consisting of persons entitled to rights in the superannuation fund. This Amendment compels the society to retain persons who have left the service of the employer, but such persons will in the vast majority of cases have ceased to have any interest in the superannuation fund. I think, therefore, that words will be needed to make sure that the society can still be approved.

2.0 P.M.

Mr. CHARLES BATHURST

Under this Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it appears that the continued insurance of a large body of persons will depend upon the security afforded by the employer's solvency and not, as in other cases, on the security afforded by the State scheme. Under the Amendment as worded, if an employer goes out of business I imagine that his responsibility under this Amendment will continue to exist. But suppose the business ceases to exist and the employer becomes insolvent, the whole security afforded by his undertaking ceases. What then becomes of the men insured under this Clause? There will be no great attraction after, say, the first thirteen or fourteen years to induce ordinary approved societies to accept these men in large bodies, even making due allowance for old age not being taken into consideration. They will have credited to them no accumulations; there will be nothing credited to them except the State contribution, whatever that may be. Have the Government considered what will happen to the persons under this Clause, whose insurance is taken out of the general scheme, if the business comes to an end and the employer is found to be in a condition of insolvency, and unable to afford any security?

Mr. BARNES

On behalf of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hodge), who has a Motion on the Paper, I desire to oppose this Clause altogether. Many of the Amendments which have been discussed have been devoted to securing that the workman shall not be in any way worsened in his employment by membership of these societies, and that the societies shall be subject to democratic control. I believe that all those Amendments will prove to be entirely illusory. Take, for instance, the condition that a man shall not have imposed upon him as a condition of employment membership of one of these shop clubs. It is all very well to put that on paper, but those who have had experience of workshops know that such provisions on paper are absolutely no good when face to face with the facts. Take a shop where there are 200 or 300 men employed and one of these shop clubs exists. There may be a legal prohibition of the kind suggested, but there are such things as foremen in workshops and a sort of atmosphere in which a man must live and work. If there is a shop club, and it is the desire of the employer or foreman that he should be a member of it, the workman very soon finds that if he does not join he is not wanted in that particular shop, and on some plea or another he has to go. No doubt the Amendments have been put forward perfectly sincerely, but I think they will fail in their object. Other Amendments which have been adopted have for their object not only the perpetuation of shop clubs but their encouragement. I am against shop clubs altogether; therefore I oppose this Clause lock, stock, and barrel. It cuts into the principle of the mobility of labour. I make no charge against employers in this respect. Many of them formed shop clubs at a time when there was no provision made for workmen in case of sickness, when possibly trade unionism was in its infancy, and there was no provision of the kind now made by trade unions. But we have passed that stage. Workmen have now formed their own trade unions or friendly societies. Trade unions, in addition to looking after the workmen's interests in an industrial sense, in many cases look after their members in the event of sickness and unemployment. Therefore, any legitimate need for shop clubs that there may have been in times gone by has now very largely disappeared, and is still further diminishing. Apart, however, from those employers which have formed shops clubs from a legitimate desire to help their workmen to tide over special periods of difficulty, there are many other cases of shops clubs which have been formed by employers for the express and deliberate purpose of keeping all their workmen from association with their fellow-workmen in other workshops.

These clubs are formed with the express and deliberate intention of breaking up the solidarity of labour, of interfering with the mobility of labour, of preventing men from shifting freely from one workshop to another, and therefore of preventing the men doing what they may in a case of industrial warfare for the furtherance and protection of their own interests. When workmen are free to join workmen's associations all over the country they can and will do so. For my part I am against all these Amendments, which have for their object not only the perpetuation of the shops clubs which now exist, but the setting up of further shops clubs in the future, as will be the case under this Bill. We as trade unionists could not be otherwise. It will be expected of us outside. I am casting no aspersions on certain employers who perfectly legitimately have set up shops clubs, but as a matter of principle I take this stand, and in order to maintain the right of the men to shift about from place to place freely, unhindered by being locked-up in any particular place by a shops club, to maintain the right of the men to form associations covering not only a few shops but all shops, if necessary, in their particular industries. We as trade unionists are called upon to maintain that right, and to urge that these shops clubs should not be encouraged to break into that right. I have much pleasure in moving that the whole of this Clause should be deleted from the Bill.

Mr. FORSTER

I only want to point out that I should have thought some of the objections which the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken entertains in regard to this Clause might have been removed by the reflection that it is a purely voluntary matter. The Clause does not compel these shops clubs to become approved societies. It is left entirely to the decision of the men themselves. If the men themselves were satisfied enough with the provisions as to make the society to which they now belong an approved society, I should have thought it certainly right that they should have the opportunity of doing so.

Mr. McKENNA

I am bound to say, in reply to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barnes), that whilst I sympathise very much with his arguments as to the desirability of doing everything which would promote the mobility of labour, I really think he has a little misunderstood the purport of this Clause. He rightly says that the shops clubs in themselves do tend to root the men to the employment in which they are engaged. The reason for that is that a member of an existing shops club, if he leaves his employment, loses all the benefit then and in future which he would receive as a member of that club. On that ground my hon. Friend proposes to vote against this Clause. What does the Clause do? So far from the Clause accentuating and extending the evil to which my hon. Friend refers, it goes a great way towards removing it. It compels, as a condition of recognition, that very mobility which my hon. Friend desires.

Mr. BARNES

I say it is illusory.

Mr. McKENNA

Not at all. For the first time it is made a condition of the recognition of an approved society that every member of such society may carry his benefits with him if he wishes to join another society. That is to say, under this Clause the very object which my hon. Friend desires is attained. Under this Clause the workman carries the benefits of the shops club with him. Therefore, my hon. Friend's argument, instead of being an argument against the Clause, is an argument in favour of it. With regard to another point put to me, in the absence of the Attorney-General I rather agree with the hon. Member that the words of the Amendment referred to are a little bit difficult to follow. Let me also say, in answer to the hon. Member opposite, that what the effect of this Clause will be seems to have been overlooked.

The effect of the Clause is to convert existing societies into approved societies at the discretion of the members, notwithstanding that these societies will not conform to the other rules of the Bill-That is to say, notwithstanding the fact that the employer retains special rights in regard to management. In return for these special rights, the employer is bound to make a special contribution over and above his ordinary contribution under the Bill. With that difference, and that difference only, this kind of approved society in every other respect conforms to the ordinary provisions of the Bill. A member of such approved society, if he leaves that society, will carry with him his actuarial reserves. He can join any other society. My hon. Friend says "yes, but supposing he leaves his society and leaves his employer, and does not join another society because he is out of work?" He will then remain a member of his old approved society, the shops club which is now an approved society. But is it right that he should remain for ever a member of such society, although his employer and he himself will be contributing nothing to it? Well, he would not remain for ever a member; he would come under the ordinary regulations governing ordinary members of ordinary approved societies.

After he had been in arrears first of all for thirteen weeks and then for twenty-six weeks, he would drop out of the benefits of membership just as any other member of any ordinary approved society. But he would retain his rights, although he might have been discharged from employment on account of slackness or through no fault of his own. He would retain his ordinary rights to remain a member of that particular approved society just as any other compulsory contributor retains his rights to remain a member of his approved society. These societies when they are recognised as approved societies will in every respect come under the ordinary provisions governing other approved societies, with the exception only in regard to the management and the other exceptions that are contained in this Clause itself. As to the insolvency point, here again the general solvency of an approved society will be secured just as the general solvency, under the Bill, of every other society is secured. The employer will be bound to pay 3d., the workman 4d., and the State 2d., and the ordinary rule governing societies will govern this society. The employer will be personally liable for the solvency of the society, in addition to the ordinary guarantee of having inspection of accounts by the Government actuaries. The employer will also be liable for the solvency of the society in respect of such additional benefits as he promises to give to the society. If the employer fails, that liability will also fail, but the society will not fail in its benefits under the Bill.

Mr. BATHURST

But surely the maintenance of the society depends mainly upon the financial support promised by the employer.

Mr. McKENNA

Oh, no. It will get its 4d. from the workman, 3d from the employer, 2d. from the State, and the ordinary conditions of inspection will apply to these societies just the same as to other societies.

Mr. BATHURST

My whole point is this. Supposing the employer himself becomes bankrupt the society must necessarily also become impossible of maintenance.

Mr. McKENNA

The society cannot be continued in its then existing form, but the necessary reserve appropriate to the ordinary conditions of ordinary approved societies will be in existence. The Government inspection of the accounts will take care to see that the ordinary reserves are maintained intact, and all the members of the society on the liquidation of the business of the employer will have their ordinary reserves, appropriate to the conditions of ordinary societies, intact, and will be able to carry their reserves to another society.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY

I think the point is perfectly clear. What would happen is that the extra liability of the employer, if he could not carry it out, if he became bankrupt, would disappear; but the ordinary conditions would remain, and the only thing that would be changed would be the management. The society would lose the additional guarantee it had, namely, the guarantee of the employer, but otherwise it would be in the position of any other society. The statement made by the Home Secretary has completely demolished the reasons for opposing this Clause, because the Home Secretary has shown that any workman getting employment where a shops club was in existence and joining that shops club would not be injured in any way if he afterwards left the service of that employer and went to the service of another employer.

Mr. BARNES

From my point of view that does not affect my argument in the least. The employer roots the man in his shop by giving him special advantages over and above any in this Bill. The workman, if he leaves, does not carry these away with him to another workshop. All he will have then is what is provided in the Bill. The employer roots him in the shop by giving him something over and above these.

Sir F. BANBURY

I think the hon. Gentleman has rather shifted his ground. He now says there will be additional benefits accruing to the man in the shops club over and above those contained in the Bill, and that if he leaves he would lose those benefits. That was not the argument that he brought forward first, although there may be something in it. In addition to that this Clause is voluntary, on which account I like it better than a compulsory Clause. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is of the same view. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman something that he seems to have forgotten. Trade unions can become approved societies, and, if that is so, I want to know why trade unions should become approved societies and shops clubs should not. I do not know why the working classes should object to shops clubs becoming approved societies. If trade unions can become approved societies shops clubs should also be able to become approved societies. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. His idea of fairness and mine differ. His idea of fairness is that the advantage should be all on his side and none upon the other. My idea is that both should be treated the same.

Mr. BARNES

The employers' shops clubs can never be democratically controlled whereas the trade unions can.

Sir F. BANBURY

The Amendments moved, which, as I understand them, provided for representation by the men by ballot. If that is so the argument of the hon. Gentleman falls to the ground. The hon. Member, if he will allow me to say so, and I do not say it in any offensive sense, desires that there should be only one body which a man can join, and that is the trade union. He wants to use that as a lever. I shall never be a party to assisting that spirit. The workman, like everybody else, should be free to join any society he likes, and therefore,

if the hon. Gentleman goes to a Division, I shall support the Government against him.

The Committee divided; Ayes, 237; Noes, 27.

Division No. 349.]	AYES.	[2.25 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Acland, Francis Dyke	Goldman, C. S.	Molteno, Percy Alport
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Goldsmith, Frank	Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Alden, Percy	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Mooney, J. J.
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)	Grant, J. A.	Morgan, George Hay
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Anderson, A.	Greig, Colonel J. W.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Griffith, Ellis Jones	Mount, William Arthur
Baird, J. L.	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Munro, R.
Balcarres, Lord	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Hackett, J.	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Barnston, Harry	Haddock, George Bahr	Newdegate, F. A.
Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Newman, John R. P.
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	Newton, Harry Kottingham
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Harris, Henry Percy	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)	Nolan, Joseph
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Bentham, G. J.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Bigland, Alfred	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Boland, John Plus	Haworth, Sir Arthur A.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Booth, Frederick Handel	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Boyton, J.	Helmsley, Viscount	O'Dowd, John
Brady, P. J.	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	O'Malley, William
Bridgeman, William Clive	Henry, Sir Charles S.	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Bryce, J. Annan	Higham, John Sharp	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Burke, E. Havlland-	Hill, Sir Clement L.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hohler, G. Fitzroy	Palmer, Godfrey
Butcher, John George	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)	Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Cameron, Robert	Hughes, S. L.	Perkins, Walter F.
Campion, W. R.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)	Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Cassel, Felix	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Cautley, H. S.	Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Chancellor, H. G.	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)	Pringle, William M. R.
Clancy, John Joseph	Joyce, Michael	Radford, G. H.
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	Joynson-Hicks, William	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Keating, M.	Reddy, Michael
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Kelly, Edward	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Redmond, William (Clare)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	King, J. (Somerset, N.)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Craik, Sir Henry	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Knight, Captain E. A.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Crumley, Patrick	Lamb, Ernest Henry	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)	Lambert, G. (Devon, S. Molton)	Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)	Roe, Sir Thomas
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Leach, Charles	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Devlin, Joseph	Levy, Sir Maurice	Rothschild, Lionel de
Dewar, Sir J. A.	Lloyd, G. A.	Rowlands, James
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Rowntree, Arnold
Dillon, John	Lundon, T.	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Donelan, Captain A.	Lyell, Charles Henry	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Doris, W.	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Sanders, Robert A.
Du Cros, Arthur Philip	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Sanderson, Lancelot
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of	McGhee, Richard	Scanlan, Thomas
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T, J.	Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.
Eyres-Monsell, B. M.	Macpherson, James Ian	Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Falle, Bertram Godfrey	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Sheehy, David
Farrell, James Patrick	M'Callum, John M.	Sherwell, Arthur James
Fell, Arthur	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Shortt, Edward
Ffrench, Peter	M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Field, William	M'Micking, Major Gilbert	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Fitzgibbon, John	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)	Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Malcolm, Ian	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Fleming, Valentine	Marks, Sir George Croydon	Spear, Sir John Ward
Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)	Martin, J.	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Forster, Henry William	Mason, David M. (Coventry)	Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Foster, Philip Staveley	Masterman, C. F. G.	Tennant, Harold John
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd	Meagher, Michael	Terrell, H. (Gloucester)
Gilmour, Captain J.	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Gladstone, W. G. C.	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Glanville, H. J.	Menzles, Sir Walter	Toulmin, Sir George
Verney, Sir Harry	Webb, H.	Yate, Col. C. E.
Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Waring, Walter	Winfrey, Richard	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)	Wolmer, Viscount	Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Watt, Henry A.	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
NOES.
Barnes, George N.	Hancock, J. G.	Pointer, Joseph
Bowerman, C. W.	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Brace, William	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Crooks, William	Hodge, John	Wadsworth, J.
Dawes, J. A.	Johnson, W.	Wilkle, Alexander
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Jowett, F. W.	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Gill, A. H.	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Goldstone, Frank	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Guiney, P.	O'Brien, William (Cork, N. E.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hall, Frederick (Normanton)	O'Grady, James	Mr. J. Parker and Mr. C. Duncan.