HC Deb 27 October 1911 vol 30 cc467-97

(1) Every approved society, being a society with branches, shall make proper provision by rules to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners—

  1. (a) for the government of the society and its branches;
  2. (b) for the determination of disputes arising between the society and any branch thereof, or between one such branch and another;
  3. (c) for the administration of benefits by the branches as respects insured persona who are members of such branches;
    4. 468
  4. (d) for the keeping of proper books of account by the branches in any case where separate accounts are usually kept by those branches;
  5. (e) for depriving of or suspending from the right of administering benefits under this part of this Act any branch which is guilty of maladministration of those benefits, and for providing in such a case for their administration by the society or otherwise.

(2) Every approved society whose affairs are managed by delegates, or by whose rules voting by proxy or by post is permitted, or which distributes benefits amongst members residing at a greater distance from its head office or principal place of business than three miles if such place of business is situate in London or a borough or urban district, or ten miles if such place of business is situate in a rural district, must, in every locality in which there are ordinarily resident one thousand of its members being insured persons, establish a local committee for the purpose of administering benefits, so that as far as practicable there shall be one such local committee at least for every thousand members of the society who are insured persons.

(3) Subject to regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners, every approved society must, in every locality distant more than three miles from its nearest office in which there are ordinarily resident not less than two hundred and fifty of its members being insured persons, on the written requisition of not less than fifty of such members, establish a local committee in respect of such locality.

(4) Proper provision shall be made by rule to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners for the election of local committees established under this Section by the members of the society residing in the locality for which such committees are appointed, and for the proper management of such committees and the government thereof by the society.

(5) Every approved society and every branch thereof, and every such local committee as aforesaid, shall comply with any regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners as to the place in which meetings are to be held, and those regulations may provide for the use for such meetings, with or without payment, of any offices or other buildings belonging to or under the management of a local authority.

Mr. CASSEL

I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (1).

I am pleased to see the Government are going so far to assist us in viscerating this obnoxious Clause as to accept Amendments to leave out Sub-sections (2), (3), and 4. I hope they will also agree to omit Subsection (1), which is perhaps the most obnoxious of all. We have been told the friendly societies are to continue as great democratic bodies. If this Sub-section were to remain in they would be robbed of the last vestige of democratic character. They would become nothing but subject to the bureaucratic dictation of the Insurance Commissioners. The Commissioners, under this Clause, are given power practically to draw up the rules for these societies. If this Sub-section passed into law it would not lie any longer with the societies to draw up their own rules. There would not be a single one of their rules about which the Insurance Commissioners could not legitimately say, "This does not satisfy us." They might find as the result of experience that certain kinds of rules have proved more satisfactory than others. They could then go to any society which applies for registration and say, "The rules which you present we do not consider as satisfactory for the government of your society," and there is no authority in the land which could interfere in that absolute power of dictation as to what the rules should be, as regards the government of a society and its branches, and as regards the termination of disputes.

Some societies may like to have disputes settled in one way and others in another way, but it would under this Clause rest entirely with the Insurance Commissioners to say whether they considered it satisfactory or not. I say that the societies ought to be able to determine for themselves how they would like to settle disputes. Then again, with regard to the administration of benefits, the rules must be satisfactory to the Commissioners. As to the keeping of proper books of account, that part of it I do not object to, but it is unnecessary, because it is covered by Clause 28, which provides for that, and similarly with regard to Sub-section (e). Are the societies in future to be able to frame their own rules, or are they to be framed by the Insurance Commissioners. If they are to have the power of framing their own rules, then this Clause either ought to go or to be considerably modified. If the Government can suggest any modification which makes the powers of the Commissioners less stringent, I am perfectly willing to consider that as an alternative to my Amendment, but as the Clause stands it gives the Commissioners power of saying with regard to any single rule "we do not consider it satisfactory, and therefore you must alter it. If you do not, none of your members will have the benefits of the Act."

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has seriously exaggerated the effect of this. What does it mean? You have got ten millions of people coming in. I have no doubt there will be a good many new societies started; at any rate, there will be a good many new sections of old societies. They must have fresh rules, and somebody has got to approve them. Who is it? At present it is the Registrar of Friendly Societies. What is proposed here is that where you have got rules for the administration of funds under this Act the Insurance Commissioners shall approve those rules.

Mr. CASSEL

The Registrar of Friendly Societies cannot refuse to approve rules if they deal with certain matters specifically set out in the Act.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

It is the same here. What does this Bill do? For the first time it proposes that there shall be a considerable subsidy from the State. In addition to that, it levies 3d a week from the employers compulsorily. There is a sum varying from fifteen to seventeen millions of money a year which is not contributed by the members of these societies, but which is handed over to these societies for the purpose of distribution. Surely the Insurance Commissioners, as representing the Government, or some other body representing the Government, ought to have the power of saying what the rules are under which you distribute those funds. The hon. Gentleman says that, in his judgment, these societies ought to be allowed to frame their own rules without any interference at all. Surely that is not a condition which he can support upon reflection. I think he knows enough about the Bill and is far enough informed to realise that he went too far when he laid down that proposition. After all, the Commissioners can only exercise their control within the limitations already prescribed by the Act. In Clause 18 you have a considerable number of conditions, which are directions to the Commissioners in the framing of the rules. For instance, these rules will provide for self-government, and the self-government must be real. There are all sorts of conditions of that character. The hon. and learned Gentleman thought that the Insurance Commissioners would have absolute power without there being any control over them. Of course they are all subject to the control of Parliament, and if they exercise their powers wrongly, the hon. and learned Gentleman and others will have the power to call the attention of Parliament to the matter. If the hon. and learned Member will look at the conditions I think he will find that they are very desirable indeed. For instance, with regard to keeping of proper books of account, it is of primary importance that there should be rules dealing with that, and who but the Insurance Commissioners, who are responsible to the Government, not only for seeing that the money is properly expended, but that it is properly accounted for, should have the making of those rules. I think we have met the hon. Member very fairly by proposing the omission of Sub-section (2), and I hope he will withdraw his opposition to this Sub-section.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right the societies must necessarily put up with a degree of supervision and control they have not hitherto experienced, and for which there has been no reason to impose it upon them. It seems to me as we get along with this Bill that it becomes apparent that the powers of these Insurance Commissioners are going to be very wide, and are going to touch all kinds of interests, in all sorts of places, and at all sorts of times. It is one more illustration of the extent to which we are now making the life of the country—I am not saying this critically, because it is inevitable in the circumstances of legislation—much more subject to officials. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, and I daresay it has been said in similar circumstances from that bench, that all these officials are not irresponsible people who cannot be touched, but that you can always haul them before the House of Commons. Theoretically I suppose we can.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember what happened this Session when he hauled an official over the coals? When I inquired into the matter he knows what happened.

3.0 P.M.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would dispute the first half of my statement, which was that he held men responsible to the House of Commons theoretically. I had not finished my sentence, and if I had been allowed to do so I do not think there would have been a great deal of difference between us. Theoretically you can hold a man responsible; sometimes you can in practice. You can bring every case which appears on the face of it to be a gross abuse touching large public matters before the House. You can get the attention of the House and you can find an opportunity upon which it is in order to get the attention of the House, but we all know there are minor matters, which very likely would not be approved by the House if they came before them, which very often do not come before the House at all, or, if they do come before the House, do so at such a time that the House gives no attention to them. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one or two questions and to give him notice of another which I presume he would not be ready to answer without notice. What will be the opportunity of the House for reviewing the action of these Commissioners if they should wish to do so? What Minister is it intended should be responsible to the House or what office? The question to which I do not expect an answer now, but to which the Committee ought to have an answer in the course of the next few days, at any rate before we come to Clause 41, which is the enacting Clause establishing the Commissioners whom we have not yet set up. I think it would be in accordance with precedent that when we come to that Clause the Government should be in a position to state who are the gentlemen to whom they propose in the first instance to entrust these powers. It would be perfectly unreasonable to ask for an answer to that question now, but I take the opportunity of giving the Chancellor of the Exchequer notice of it, and I think the Committee ought to have the information before they deal with Clause 41.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I gladly answer the questions put to me by the right hon. Gentleman. There must be at any rate two opportunities of challenging the action of the Insurance Commissioners. One is on the Vote, which will be an annual Vote, for the contribution of the State, and the other will be on the Vote for the salary of the Minister who is in charge. With regard to the last question the right hon. Gentleman put to me, I doubt whether it would be possible for me before we reach Clause 41 to give the names of the Commissioners. I hope to give the House the information before the Bill leaves the House. Obviously the character of the Commissioners is a very vital matter to the success of the scheme, and I am quite certain the right hon. Gentleman will not press us to come to too hasty a decision as to the persons who are to consitute the Commissioners. We will do our best to give any information to the House before the Bill passes from it, but if we fail I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is not in the interests of the public to come to too hasty a conclusion. It is a difficult matter to secure the very best men in a great hurry. That is as far as I can go now.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I think having the information before the Bill leaves the House is not of much use. We really want to know the names of the men at some stage when we can review their powers in the light of the persons who are chosen. That is to say, that what has led to this demand on previous occasions—without making any unfair aspersions on anybody—is that when you are giving great powers to a new body the House likes to be assured before it actually confers those powers that the people first chosen are people who command its respect, and may be safely entrusted with them. I should certainly not press the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Committee stage, but I think that there are precedents for asking him to give the names between the Committee and the Report stage. I was under the impression that some at least of the gentleman had been chosen already.

Sir EDWIN CORNWALL

I have no objection to the Chancellor giving the names of the Commissioners at whatever time he finds it convenient to do so. I only rise to submit my objection to the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) for giving the names of the Commissioners under an Act of Parliament. If we are to discuss legislation having in mind the Commissioners or the persons to be appointed, either now or in the future, it would be a very dangerous thing. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman himself has given that matter full consideration, for after his long experience I should have thought he would be the last Member of the House to suggest it. Surely legislation of this wide character cannot depend on the individuals who are appointed.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

It has always been done.

Sir EDWIN CORNWALL

I do not think it has ever been done before. I have watched legislation outside and inside the House for a good many years, and I have never known the merits of a Government Bill discussed on the question of who should be appointed to any of the offices under the Bill. If that is the case we must consider who are to be the subsequent officials. It is a very dangerous suggestion, although I have no objection to the names being given for any other reason.

Sir F. BANBURY

My recollection is entirely different to that of the hon. Gentleman. It is that we have always during some stage of a Bill, and not at too late a stage, when an important Bill of this kind is before the House and Commissioners are to be chosen, had the names given to us. I cannot give instances at the moment, but there passes through my mind several instances where a request has been made that the names of the Commissioners shall be given, and it has always been granted. Whether or not the proper time to do that is on the Committee stage, I do not know. There may be something in what the right hon. Gentleman says, that these are important functions, and that time must be taken to choose the right men. Only yesterday, or the day before, he said the Bill had been six months before the House of Commons, therefore he has already had six months to consider the names of these people, and I rather agree with my right hon. Friend that, at any rate at the commencement of the Report stage, the names should be given. The object, as far as I understand, of giving the names of the important officials who are going to carry out the work which is outlined in this Bill is to let the House know before they pass a Bill how far they can trust the people with the important functions which are to be carried out. [An HON. MEMBER: "Question."] The hon. Gentleman is a man of business. If he goes into partnership with someone else and is proposing to appoint a manager to an important branch, does not he consult the people with whom he will be in partnership as to who is to have the management of the important branch? It is most essential that we should know who these people are going to be. I believe it has always been done in the past, and I sincerely trust the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate if he finds I am correct in my statement, will comply with the usages which have always been complied with.

The CHAIRMAN

I ought to point out that the discussion which has just taken place ought to come really on Clause 41—the appointment of the Insurance Commissioners. We cannot go any further at the present stage.

Mr. TERRELL

The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave it as a reason for not accepting the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend that it was necessary, inasmuch as the State and other persons contributed considerable funds, that the State should have control. If that is so, why is the Clause limited to a society having branches?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

Drafting words are to be inserted in order to make it apply also to societies without branches.

Mr. TERRELL

That meets my objection.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I quite see the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in saying it is necessary that with regard to the administration of duties of an approved society under this Act, there must be State control, but I would call attention to the extraordinary width of the words of paragraph (a), "the government of the society and its branches." These words go far beyond the administration of the duties of an approved society, and they would give power to the Insurance Commissioners practically to upset the government of any society, possibly for reasons which do not appear on the surface. They have the power of telling any society, "You must entirely change your rules. Not merely must you have rules which we can approve for the administration of your duties under this Act, but your whole constitution must be reorganised." I understand the Ancient Order of Hibernians will become an approved society under this Act. Under these words of paragraph (a) it would be perfectly competent for anti-Irish Insurance Commissioners to insist upon rules, not merely with regard to the administration of benefits under the Act, but with regard to the constitution of the society, which would entirely put a spoke in its beneficent operations. That is one example, and I think Members below the Gangway might see that the position of trade unions under these words might become very precarious. It goes far beyond anything that is necessary to carry on the operations of this Act. It gives a drastic and arbitrary power to Insurance Commissioners to upset the constitution of any society which, with regard to part of its work, is an approved society under this Act. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend would not be wise in pressing for the whole of Sub-section (1) to come out, but if no one else does it, I shall move the omission of paragraph (a).

Mr. CASSEL

If the omission of paragraph (a) is to be moved, I will withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: Leave out the words "being a society with branches."—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I beg to move, after the word "Commissioners" ["to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners"], to insert the words "for the government of the society, and, if a society with branches."

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I do not quite understand how (a) will read with this. Is this in substitution for (a)?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

It reads on before you get to (a) so as to make it clear that the provisions apply to a society with branches and to a society without branches. There are subsequent provisions which make quite clear what is to be done by the society with branches. This is necessitated by our having to move later on to omit Sub-sections (2), (3), and (4).

Mr. JAMES HOPE

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman read out the whole of the first three lines as they will read with his Amendment?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

Every approved society shall make proper provision by rules to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners for the government of the society, and if a society with branches.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

Then this really is (a), and it is an extremely objectionable provision, because it puts the whole government of these societies, of whatever kind, whether purely philanthropic, semi-political, semi-religious, or denominational, or any other, entirely at the mercy of the Insurance Commissioners. They, in virtue of their powers to make rules for the administration of this Act, have the power in all these institutions to interfere with the constitution of the society generally. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] They have indeed. These powers sometimes will destroy some insurance society or some benefit society. I have known it happen through an official refusing leave, off his own bat and by laying down impossible conditions. This is putting an approved society absolutely within the power of the Insurance Commissioners. I know that is not the intention, but it is really the effect of the words of the Amendment.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

How far do the Government intend that the Commissioners should go in this matter? Do they mean the Commissioners to have power to approve or to veto any rule unconnected with this Bill? Of course, a society must have a connection with the Bill—that is to say, a society must desire to become an approved society. But take the case of a society which, desiring to become an approved society, has to make regulations for the carrying out of the purposes of this Bill, while it has other rules and regulations for purposes of the society altogether outside of this Bill. Are the rules of the society, as a whole, to be submitted to the Insurance Commissioners? Are the Commissioners to have power because a society deals with the Bill, not merely to insist upon proper regulations for those purposes, but also to veto any rule made by a society for purposes wholly unconcerned with the Bill if the rule displease them?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

The object of this Amendment is to make clear that the Insurance Commissioners shall have power to approve of the rules which relate to the purposes of the Bill, and that is shown by subsequent Clauses on particular points. It does not propose that they should interfere with matters which do not in any way concern the Insurance Commissioners. It is to enable them to deal with the particular scheme of an approved society which comes before them with rules affecting the scheme.

Mr. HAROLD SMITH

I am sure that the House gladly accepts the interpretation put on the words of the Amendment by the Attorney-General, but he does not know that the courts would accept that interpretation. I submit to the Government that these words are far too wide. I submit that the attention of the Committee and particularly of hon. Members opposite below the Gangway should be directed to the form of the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. James-Hope) has pointed out that under this Amendment there is no trade union or friendly society which will not be obliged to submit every rule which deals with the government of the society and its branches to this somewhat bureaucratic body, the Insurance Commissioners. I cannot believe that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite appreciate that. It is not just those rules which may deal with the desire of the various societies to become approved societies, and to obtain the benefit of the Act which are to be submitted, but every rule that deals with the government of a society must be submitted to the Commissioners, who may or may not accept them as they like. It may be said that we may raise in this House the question of the exercise of the discretion of the Commissioners. If that were done, I do not think it would be a very illuminating Debate. We might raise a question in relation to the discretion or the behaviour of an individual, but it would not be so simple a matter to raise a question as to the exercise of the discretion of the Commissioners. We would have to go into the whole question of their administration, and show that they were abusing some particular rule. I am sure if the Attorney-General will give the House an undertaking that he will reconsider the matter and try to find words to be inserted in the Clause which will reflect the intention which he has stated, the Committee would accept his promise.

Mr. PARKER

As I read the Clause, I take it to mean that the Insurance Commissioners have to have rules made to their satisfaction for carrying out the purposes of the Bill. I do not know that any trade union is particularly desirous of concealing its rules from the registrar. The rules receive the imprimatur of the registrar, and the Insurance Commissioners will not be able to override the rules which he has sanctioned. I think this Clause applies only to the administration of the work, and trade unions have nothing to fear from it.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

There is no doubt as to what is intended, but I think that possibly the words might be narrowed a little. I think it might be possible to give a wider construction to these words than is intended, and it is quite reasonable to ask that we should reconsider them with the view of introducing some words which will make quite clear what the intention of the Government is. I am willing to insert in the Clause words which will make clear the intention of the Government.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I would suggest the insertion of the following words: "in respect of the discharge of its duties and liabilities under this Act."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON

I beg to move, in paragraph (c), after the word "benefits," to insert the words "either by itself or."

The object of this Amendment is to enable the approved society to pool the maternity benefit. That is to say, to enable the approved society to take the maternity benefit off the shoulders of the branches. The Government actuaries based their calculations, on the general average birth rate throughout the country, but, as hon. Members know, the birth rate varies enormously in different parts of the country. In Durham it is 33 per thousand, in Nottingham 30, in Northamptonshire 20, and in Sussex 19 per thousand. Therefore, it is quite clear that in some districts where there is a high birthrate branches would be penalised very heavily, while in those localities with a low birth rate they would be able to get greater subsidies. It is quite possible, although each branch is going to hand over half its surplus in the ordinary way to make up the deficiencies of other branches, there will not be enough of these half surpluses to go round to make up all the deficiencies. I have been in communication with a gentleman whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer has called the greatest friendly society actuary in the world, Mr. Watson, the actuary of the Manchester Unity. He feels very strongly in favour of this Amendment, and he has pointed out to me that already it is the custom of a great many of the affiliated orders to pool their funeral benefits. It is a system which they are quite accustomed to. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts this Amendment from an administrative point of view it would be practicable and quite easy.

Sir RUFUS ISSACS

The difficulty of accepting this Amendment would be that by the introduction of these words you would be acting in a manner quite contrary to the spirit of the Bill. What we do is to make each branch in a society an independent body for this purpose under the scheme, subject always to this, that it has made its contribution of half the surplus to the central society. The last thing we want to do is to introduce any words into this Bill which will take the control away from the branches, which in these societies are self-governing branches. We do not want to interfere with that. If we insert these words the effect would be you would be giving to the central society power to take from the branches the right of administering benefits, which is what we do not want to do. The words are far too wide to carry out the objects which, I understand, the hon. Member had in mind, which was a very limited range of alteration. They go far beyond the argument which he has addressed to the Committee. It might be that it could be arranged in some other way—I do not know—but the words which he is proposing could not possibly be accepted for the reason which I have given.

Mr. WILLIAM PEEL

It may be that the particular words suggested by my hon. Friend go a little too far, but I think that we must draw a great distinction between maternity benefits and, say, sick benefits or death benefits, because, while I understand that in the case of the other benefits you want to have the branches specially responsible for their own sick benefits, as otherwise obviously they might tend to give too much benefit, and in that case there would be a deficiency in the fund, that argument cannot apply to maternity benefit. You will not have malingering as regards maternity, and if more children are born in any particular district I suppose so much the better for that district, and I do not quite see why that should not go on the fund of the whole society. I am taking the Amendment on the argument of my hon. Friend behind me, and it seems to me that you might well accept it as regards maternity benefit, because the considerations which apply to the administration of sickness benefit do not apply to the birth of children.

Mr. CASSEL

May I point out to the Attorney-General that the Clause, as drafted, was only applicable to a society with branches, but it is now amended so as to make it applicable to centralised societies, and as it stands the whole Subsection really makes nonsense. It says that centralised societies must, by their rules, provide, to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners, for the administration of the benefits by the branches. I think the Attorney-General will recognise that, with the alteration which he has made in the Section in making it applicable to centralised societies as well, the Sub-section necessarily must have some amendment. I would suggest simply to make it "for the administration of benefits," because as it stands now it is clear that it applies to centralised societies. It seems to me—

The CHAIRMAN

May I point out that the words last inserted make these paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) apply only to the case of branches.

Mr. CASSEL

If that is so, then I would suggest that the simplest course is to say that the rules only apply for the administration of benefits which would leave the question open.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The question with regard to maternity benefit is one which I would like to consider if the hon. Member will not press the matter now.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

Would the right hon. Gentleman limit it to maternity benefits in this paragraph.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

No, I would rather not say at present.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

Shall we have an opportunity of discussing it?

Mr. HAROLD SMITH

If we have not already discussed the maternity Clause when does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that we shall be able to discuss this Clause as applying to maternity?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

If you allow me to come to the conclusion that it can be done we can do it on Report stage.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

If the words "by the branches" were left out it would make it perfectly obvious. If they were left in they might seem to exclude the possibility of amendment in the direction desired later on.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I beg to move, to leave out the words "by the branches." I am afraid they might prejudice the question in spite of the satisfactory assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and this cannot do any harm because it leaves the matter entirely open.

The CHAIRMAN

I am not sure that that is not contradictory to "the society and its branches." Those words, occurring in the third line of the Section, govern the whole of this paragraph, and I am afraid that I could not take a contradictory Amendment.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

Is it contradictory?

The CHAIRMAN

Can the hon. Gentleman show that it is not?

Mr. JAMES HOPE

It does not mean that in each case the branches would have to administer the fund separately; it is a matter which is left open to the Committee.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I think it will be much better to leave the matter as it has already been dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If it were necessary to leave the words out, it could be done on Report.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I should like an opportunity of ascertaining the views of the friendly societies in regard to the matter.

Mr. FORSTER

On the clear understanding that the Government are going to consider the matter before Report, and having got an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my hon. Friend might withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Captain Clive), to add, at the end of paragraph (c), the words "and for the reinsurance of any benefits with the district or central body."

I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he cannot accept these words or something like them. The Amendment deals partly with the question of centralising maternity benefits to enable the branches to reinsure their liabilities to the district or central body. There is no power provided, at any rate, in this Clause to enable the branches to reinsure any portion of their liabilities, and it seems to me in the interests of solvency that this Amendment should be accepted, and it cannot do any harm, certainly if it is left as a permissive power.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

The effect of these words might be to make it compulsory upon any society to reimburse benefits. That is not desirable. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it, and I think it would be much better if we did not deal with this point at the present moment, more especially as the Amendment goes far beyond what I understand is the view of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. It would be very much better to keep open this question until we reach Clauses 30 and 31.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I do not think the learned Attorney-General has really seized the point at all. I do not think the Amendment does make it compulsory. The learned Attorney-General explained what he thought it meant, and used some such words as these, "that it should be compulsory to make it possible." I think those are the words the Attorney-General used. I want the societies to have the power; but I do not, on the other hand, want to make it compulsory that they should exercise the power. That seems to be reasonably clear, and I think the Amendment would carry that out. Nor would societies, in my view, have the power to reinsure their benefits, unless it is provided in some part of the Bill specifically, because the whole framework of the Bill is that the branches should receive the contribution, or should be credited with the contributions, and should be liable for the benefits to be paid out of the funds derived from those contributions. What I am suggesting is that they should have some power to apply some portion of those contributions in reinsurance of another fund, and out of that other fund would come the benefits. As the Bill stands now, I think the branches could not reinsure, because they have no power to do so, and because they have to pay the benefits themselves out of funds which are credited to them. Unless, therefore, this Amendment, or something like it, is inserted in the Bill, they will have no power to reinsure at all. The reinsurance power is a good power. I do not think anybody will deny that; I do not think the Government will deny that. It is a means of spreading the risk and of ensuring greater certainty for solvency, and to throw away that chance seems to me a wanton risk which the learned Attorney-General is asking the societies to run. I am not satisfied to leave these things over for consideration to a time when the guillotine probably will cut short our deliberations. To-day we happen to have a fairly free Paper, and to-day we happen to have Clauses which we can discuss. But next week, when there are so many other points to be considered, this point, if it stood over, will be crowded out. Already other points have been carried forward from to-day, and I for one am not willing to allow this to be carried forward. I think the Government ought to make up their minds whether they are going to allow the branches to reinsure, or whether they are not going to allow the branches to reinsure. That is the point; there is no other point. Are they to be permitted to reinsure or are they not? I will not withdraw the Amendment, and I ask the Government to further consider their position upon it.

Mr. FORSTER

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. It is quite idle to say that the Amendment would make it compulsory upon the societies or any of their branches. It would be very foolish indeed not to allow the societies permission to do it if they desire it, nor can I see that it interferes with the scheme of Clause 31. If my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall certainly support him.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I ask the hon. Member not to press the Motion to a Division. I am not quite satisfied in regard to it, and I do not want the matter settled before I am satisfied that it is correct. If it would help the societies to make proper provision in the lodges, and there is the power to do it, if that be correct, then I should accept it, but I am not quite satisfied about it, and I would ask the hon. Member not to take a Division upon the matter now; or, I am willing to do this: I will accept it provisionally. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] There is a misunderstanding about the matter, and I do not want anything I have said to contribute to the misunderstanding. This does not in any way, as I understand what the hon. Member for Colchester said just now, in any way compel the societies; but the object of it is to compel the Insurance Commissioners to see that there is a provision in the rules enabling them to do it if they want to do it. If it is as the hon. Member says I should be quite prepared to accept it, but if it goes further than that I should certainly object to it. I do not think I can put it plainer than to say that if it turns out to be what he says we shall put these words in on the Report stage, so that we will accept his Amendment. I certainly could not accept anything now without looking more closely into it, and I am quite sure neither he nor the hon. Member for Sevenoaks would wish to insert words when we were not quite sure.

Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANS

You could take them out later.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I think it is better to leave them out subject to that.

Mr. FORSTER

When the right hon. Gentleman makes an ad misericordiam. appeal in that way it is entitled to our attention. We know he has many other things to do, and that he has to depend to a large extent upon the advice and assistance that is given to him by other Members of the Government. I wonder where they are. Is it a matter of strictly legal interpretation?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

Yes, it is not a question of the Government at all.

Mr. FORSTER

Then I do not quite understand. I understood him to say that he had been advised that those words bore an interpretation which he might have misrepresented in an earlier speech.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

What I said was that, in view of what the hon. Member for Colchester had explained as the true meaning of his Amendment, and in view also of the view put forward by the Member for Sevenoaks, that if that were true, and if the Amendment would carry that view out, and would not do anything more then I would accept. The point whether the words do carry out that view or do anything more is the point on which I am still in doubt, because, as I explained, I had certain other views submitted to me as to the effect of the words. I want to be quite frank. I am not prepared to say that I accept that meaning when it is in conflict with the views which have been put before me, and which I have not had time to consider. I cannot say anything more than that now or fairer. If it turns out to be what the hon. Member for Colchester and the hon. Member for Sevenoaks say it is then I shall accept it. I should have thought that they would be content with that.

Mr. FORSTER

I am not at all content with that. I understood the Attorney-General meant to convey that he was advised by some person of greater authority. He did not say so, and if it is merely the advice of some other private Member—

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

He is not a Member of the House.

Mr. FORSTER

Worse still. I think that confirms the view we hold as to the meaning of the Amendment and that my hon. Friend ought to press it.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

If that is so I must ask the Committee to negative the Amendment, as the hon. Gentleman will not accept the offer I have made to him, and which I think is as fair an offer as could be made across the floor of the House.

Viscount HELMSLEY

I really think that it is rather remarkable that the learned Attorney-General should speak in that way of my hon. Friend when it is quite obvious that his proposition was entirely altered during the course of his speech. When he got up to make his speech he suggested that he was going to accept the Amendment, and that if it proved not to have the meaning he thought, that it should be taken out on Report. That was the tenor of his speech which he altered on a few growls from hon. Members opposite.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

made an observation which was inaudible.

Viscount HELMSLEY

I will substitute "murmurs," or any other word hon. Members choose.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

made an observation which was inaudible.

Viscount HELMSLEY

I have not the slightest intention—

The CHAIRMAN

I would invite the Noble Lord to address me.

Viscount HELMSLEY

I assure the hon. Member that in using the word "growls" there was not the smallest intention of being offensive to the Labour party, and if they like I will say there was a remonstrance, more or less inarticulate, which induced the Attorney-General to alter his phraseology. I really think he should adhere to his original intention to accept the Amendment now, with the proviso that should it not bear the meaning ha intends, it should be taken out on Report.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

I do not wish to carry on the heated part of the discussion, but to explain why I am very strongly opposed to the Amendment. If the Amendment is read in the Clause this is what we get:— Every approved society shall make proper provision by rules to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners for the reinsurance of any benefits.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

"Any," not "every."

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

The Amendment does not carry out the explanation of the hon. Member. It is that a society must make provision in its rules to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners for the reinsurance of any benefits. That is what I am going to vote against, and it is the insertion of that which I think is very dangerous. So far as I am concerned, I am not in favour of having it inserted even pending the Report stage.

Mr. BAIRD

I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) that the effect is as he states. I should like to raise another point. Why have not the Government taken the trouble to find out what these words mean? This Amendment was put down on 14th August, and surely if the Government themselves have not been, able to master the Amendment, how on earth can they expect private Members to do so, and how can we possibly take part in the discussion of this measure unless we are given more time than the time which the Government themselves find insufficient

in which to understand the Amendments put down! I do venture to protest against this. Here is a case in point, and a very important one. Here is an Amendment which to ordinary people is perfectly easy to understand, but of which the Government are unable to obtain an explanation, although it has been on the Paper more than three months.

Sir RYLAND ADKINS

I shall certainly vote with the Government, and I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite have not accepted the offer of the Attorney-General. But I hope that when the Amendment has been defeated it will still be the intention of the Government to insert at a later stage words which will allow permissive reinsurance, without the ambiguity of the present Amendment and without any attempt to make it compulsory.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 195.

Division No. 350.] AYES. [4.0 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Fleming, Valentine Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Archer-Shee, Major Martin Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) Mount, William Arthur
Arkwright, John Stanhope Forster, Henry William Newdegate, F. A.
Balcarres, Lord Foster, Philip Staveley Newman, John R. P.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gastrell, Major W. H. Newton, Harry Kottingham
Barnston, Harry Gilmour, Captain J. Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Goldman, C. S. Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Goldsmth, Frank Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich) Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)
Bigland, Alfred Grant, J. A. Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Perkins, Walter Frank
Boyton, J. Haddock, George Bahr Rolleston, Sir John
Bridgeman, William Clive Harris, Henry Percy Ronaldshay, Earl of
Burn, Col. C. R. Helmsley, Viscount Rothschild, Lionel de
Campion, W. R. Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury) Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Cassel, Felix Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford) Sanderson, Lancelot
Cautley, Henry Strother Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Kirkwood, John H. M. Spear, Sir John Ward
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford Talbot, Lord E.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Law, Rt. Hon. A Bonar (Bootle) Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Lloyd, George Ambrose Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee Wolmer, Viscount
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Craik, Sir Henry Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.) Yate, Col. C. E.
Croft, H. P. MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Younger, Sir George
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. M'Mordie, Robert James
Du Cros, Arthur Philip McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Malcolm, Ian Mr. Worthington-Evans and Mr. Baird.
Fell, Arthur Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Beck, Arthur Cecil Burns, Rt. Hon. John
Acland, Francis Dyke Benn, W. (T. H'mts., St. George) Byles, Sir William Pollard
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. Bentham, G. J. Cameron, Robert
Alden, Percy Boland, John Plus Carr-Gomm, H. W.
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) Bowerman, Charles W. Chancellor, H. G.
Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) Brace, William Chapple, Dr. William Allen
Anderson, Andrew Macbeth Brady, P. J. Clancy, John Joseph
Barnes, George N. Bryce, J. Annan Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Burke, E. Havlland- Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney) Pointer, Joseph
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Jowett, Frederick William Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Cowan, William Henry Joyce, Michael Power, Patrick Joseph
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Kelly, Edward Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Crooks, William Kennedy, Vincent Paul Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Crumley, Patrick King, J. (Somerset, N.) Pringle, William M. R.
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Lamb, Ernest Henry Radford, G. H.
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Dawes, James Arthur Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th) Reddy, Michael
Devlin, Joseph Levy, Sir Maurice Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Dewar, Sir J. A. Low, Sir F. (Norwich) Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Dillon, John Lundon, Thomas Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Donelan, Captain A. Lyell, Chas. Henry Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Doris, William Lynch, Arthur Alfred Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Roe, Sir Thomas
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) MacGhee, Richard Rose, Sir Charles Day
Farrell, James Patrick Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Rowlands, James
Ffrench, Peter Macpherson, James Ian Rowntree, Arnold
Field, William MacVeagh, Jeremiah Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Flavin, Michael Joseph M'Callum, John M. Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Gladstone, W. G. C. M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) Scanlan, Thomas
Glanville, H. J. M'Micking, Major Gilbert Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Marks, Sir George Croydon Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Goldstone, Frank Martin, Joseph Sheehy, David
Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Mason, David M. (Coventry) Sherwell, Arthur James
Griffith, Ellis J. Masterman, C. F. G. Shortt, Edward
Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) Meagher, Michael Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Hackett, J. Menzies, Sir Walter Spicer, Sir Albert
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) Molteno, Percy Alport Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Hancock, John George Mooney, John J. Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Morgan, George Hay Tennant, Harold John
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) Munro, R. Thomas, J. H. (Derby)
Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Nannetti, Joseph P. Toulmin, Sir George
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Needham, Christopher T. Verney, Sir Harry
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Nolan, Joseph Wadsworth, John
Haworth, Sir Arthur A. Norton, Captain Cecil William Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Hayden, John Patrick O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wardie, George J.
Hayward, Evan O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Waring, Walter
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Henry, Sir Charles S. O'Dowd, John Watt, Henry A.
Higham, John Sharp O'Grady, James Webb, H.
Hodge, John O'Malley, William White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Wilkie, Alexander
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Palmer, Godfrey Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Hudson, Walter Parker, James (Halifax) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Hughes, S. L. Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Winfrey, Richard
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Pearce, William (Limehouse) Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.
Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendments made: Leave out Subsections (2), (3), and (4).—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Mr. CASSEL

I beg to move to leave out Subsection (5). This Amendment is to reserve to friendly societies the right to meet where they like. I have very little hope that the Amendment will be accepted by the Government. We know that in the future these friendly societies are merely to become Government appendages, in accordance with the bureaucratic rules to be laid down by the Insurance Commissioners. The question is as to whether the Insurance Commissioners are to dictate to the friendly societies where the meetings are to be held. This Sub-section gives the Insurance Commissioners the power of making regulations with regard to where the meetings are to be held. Surely the first essential of a self-governing society is to determine its own place of meeting? On what ground are you going to take away that right? Do the Government suggest that friendly societies have hitherto held their meetings in improper places? If not, what reason is there for such a course as now proposed? Surely the matter is one that can be left to the societies themselves? I am not sure whether the Government are likely to consider my proposal favourably or not, but I move it in order to raise a protest here, and once again, against undue interference of the Bill with the independence and self-governing powers of these societies. They are not now to be allowed to meet where they please: their place of meeting is to be determined by a bureaucratic body.

Question put, "That the words of the Sub-section down to the word 'regulations' ["and those regulations"] stand part of the Clause."

The CHAIRMAN

The "Noes" have it.

Mr. CASSEL

On a point of Order. I was desirous of challenging a Division.

The CHAIRMAN

I called on the next Amendment.

Mr. CASSEL

I did not understand that.

Mr. W. PEEL

On a point of Order, we were waiting to hear the Attorney-General.

The CHAIRMAN

So was I, and when neither the Attorney-General nor anyone else rose, I naturally put the question.

Mr. HAROLD SMITH

On a point of Order. With the leave of the House, might not the question be put again? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am putting the question to the Chairman, not to hon. Members opposite. When you, Mr. Chairman, put the question neither my friends nor myself appreciated it. I quite realise that without the leave of the House you are debarred from putting it again, but I suggest that if by the leave of the House the question could be put again it should be put again.

Mr. LEIF JONES

On a point of Order—

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member (Mr. H. Smith) is already on a point of Order.

Mr. HAROLD SMITH

If, Mr. Whitley, I am right in my assumption that by the kindly leave of the House you can do so, then I would ask the House to give you that leave, because, after all, we are discussing a great business problem.

The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid that is beyond my power. I distinctly waited to see whether anyone from the Government Bench or elsewhere would rise. No one did rise.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

May I remind you, Mr. Whitley, that on a former Amendment you called upon the Attorney-General, although he was obviously disinclined to rise.

The CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Gentleman suggest I must do that every time?

Mr. CASSEL

You have only taken the Sub-section down to certain words, and instead of the Amendment I have just moved may I move that the rest of the Section be left out?

The CHAIRMAN

That cannot be done. The Clause is put in the way in which I put it to protect the next Amendments.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words "and every such local committee as aforesaid."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words "with or without payment" ["for the use for such meetings with or without payment of any offices or other buildings "].

I move this Amendment in order to get an explanation from the Government. I am not quite certain what the legal effects of these words are. There is one effect they ought not to have. The Section provides that the society shall comply with the regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners as to the use for their meetings of offices or other buildings belonging to the local authority with or without payment. I presume that is not intended to give the Insurance Commissioners a right to empower a society to use the office of the local authority without payment when the local authority demands payment.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

That question is raised in a later Amendment to insert the words "subject to the consent of such authority."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS

I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), after the word "buildings" ["offices or other buildings belonging to"], to insert the words "occupied by, or in connection with a Labour Exchange, or under the control of a Government Department or."

The words already in the Clause seems to me only to give power for meetings in offices belonging to, or under the management of, the local authority. I do not think it is possible to say that a Labour Exchange is under the control of a local authority. It may be under the control of an advisory committee, but surely a Labour Exchange is under the control of the Government Department. I know some Labour Exchanges are already available for the use of trade unions, and I think also friendly societies. I know there are such cases, but I think it very desirable to widen the area, and to give every possible facility to friendly societies for the use of these rooms. If the Government assure me that it is possible to get the use of the Labour Exchanges under the Clause as it stands I shall be content. I do not think it is so at present, and I should be very much surprised if it is so.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I do not think the words of the Clause would cover the point raised by my hon. Friend, and I have no objection to having those words put in.

Mr. FORSTER

I want to know if the effect of this regulation is that the only places that can be approved by the Insurance Commissioners are buildings belonging to a local authority or Labour Exchanges? If the places which the Commissioners may approve include places other than the buildings belonging to a local authority, I should have thought that would have included Labour Exchanges. If the words do not include Labour Exchanges, I take it that under the Sub-Clause the only places in respect of which the Insurance Commissioners can make rules will be buildings belonging to local authorities or Labour Exchanges.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

Or under the control of a Government Department.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in Sub-section (5), to add at the end the words "but subject to the consent of such authority."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

In this case the words "such authority" must mean the local authority, and it would not mean the Government Department. You have put in "buildings under the charge of a Government Department," and I think you should now say "of such local authority or Government Department."

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I quite agree, and I will accept the insertion of those words.

Word "authority" omitted from proposed Amendment. Words "local authority or such Government Department" inserted instead thereof.

Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. BAIRD

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (5), to add the words "but arrangements made by approved societies before the passing of this Act shall not be disturbed unless proved to be inadequate or unsuitable." The object of the proposal is to safeguard the arrangements made by the friendly societies and secure as little interference with them at all. I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I think it is very undesirable to accept those words. We are leaving it to the discretion of the Insurance Commissioners, and they would not take action unless they found the arrangements were inadequate or unsuitable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "Provided that no meeting at which contributions are received or at which the ordinary business of the society, branch, or local committee is transacted shall be held upon premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors."

The object of the Amendment is to put an end to a practice which I think the whole House will realise is not desirable. Many friendly societies and trade unions hold their meetings on licensed premises, but I think it is very largely recognised that it is not a desirable practice. It is certainly a diminishing one. Whereas in 1885 67 per cent. held their meetings on licensed premises, that has now been reduced to 46 per cent., and I can say from my personal knowledge of the societies that process of diminution is steadily going on. It only requires a little help from the Government to altogether remove the meetings of these societies from licensed premises. Quite apart from our views on the question of intoxicating liquor, I can hardly think it will seriously be contended that licensed premises are proper places at which to hold these meetings. It lays a very heavy tax on the members of the friendly societies. In many cases no charge is made for the room, but every member who attends has to order something in order to pay his share of the evening's entertainment. I myself, when attending such a meeting in my capacity as a member, felt constrained to order liquor of a harmless character for the good of the house, and I would seriously urge on hon. Members that this lays a very heavy tax on members of friendly societies quite apart from all other considerations. The tax is estimated to be sometimes not less than 3d. per member per meeting. We are by this Bill compelling a large number of persons to insure. We are going to bring many women and young persons into these societies, and that is a good reason why you should not allow them to meet on licensed premises. They must join some society to get the full advantages of the Act, and they ought to be protected and not obliged by the action of the Government to attend meetings held on licensed premises. It will be objected that they cannot get other premises, but that is not the experience of those two healthy Orders, the Rechabites and the Sons of Temperance. By their principles they may not meet on licensed premises, and they have been able to find other suitable premises. Therefore, I believe that meeting places can be found, such as the public schools, labour exchanges, public buildings, church vestries, and schools attached to churches and chapels throughout the country. If the Government's influence is used to induce the societies to use these other places, the practice of meeting on licensed premises will soon come to an end.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

The Government could not accept the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend. It would be quite impossible at the present moment to give effect to the views that he and others no doubt hold. [Hon. Members cheered and laughed.] I do not know why these references should excite hilarity. You cannot at the present moment prohibit absolutely the payment of contributions at licensed houses, but of course, so far as our information goes, the number of such cases is already a diminishing number. There is already a very strong movement in favour of not paying contributions or transacting friendly society business of that character in licensed houses. Nevertheless, there are some places at the present moment where societies have been in the habit of receiving contributions in public houses, and have no other place in which they could carry on. I am sorry if there are many, but I do not believe there are. In any event it seems quite clear that this is a diminishing number. That is to say, the number of licensed houses used as places of meeting for friendly societies must be necessarily diminishing in view of the movement which is taking place, and it is not desired to prohibit it absolutely, but I would remind the Committee that under this Bill we have taken power for the Commissioners to make all such regulations as they think best. The Commissioners would be in a much better position to deal with this question, because some elasticity at a particular moment and under particular conditions, might be necessary, and the Commissioners could deal with it, whereas under this Amendment it would prohibit them absolutely. I would therefore ask my hon. Friend not to persist in this Amendment, having regard to the wide powers already given to the Insurance Commissioners.

Mr. CHAPLIN

Why on earth cannot the hon. Member leave the friendly societies alone? Does he suppose they are not capable of judging just as well and ten times better than himself as to where they ought or ought not to meet and carry on their own business? I protest against this attempt on the part of the hon. Member to impose this grandmotherly legislation on them.

Mr. BARNES

I should like to say that I am going to vote against this proposition, but I am in full sympathy with its objects. The hon. Member has said that the number of public-house meetings is on the decline. Then why not leave well alone? If you want to destroy this Bill, if you want to make it unpopular, then pass this Amendment, because it is very important that the societies should be left to manage their own affairs.

Mr. SANDERSON

I should like to be allowed to protest against this Amendment. Speaking from my own experience, I can endorse what the learned Attorney-General has said. There are many places where the public-house is the only place where the members of the friendly societies can meet. They go there now; it is well known; they are all respectable men, well able to look after themselves, and able to judge whether it is fit and proper for them to hold their meetings in a public-house. I protest that such an Amendment as this is nothing more or less than an insult to the members of the friendly societies.

And it being Half-past Four of the clock, the Chairman, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 25th October, proceeded to put forthwith the Question on the Motion already proposed from the Chair.

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.

The CHAIRMAN

then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at this day's sitting.

Mr. WATT

On a point of Order. Are we not to have an opportunity of voting on the Temperance Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN

Hon. Members have had that opportunity, and did not take it.