HC Deb 31 October 1911 vol 30 cc722-77

(1) If upon any such valuation a deficiency is found, the following provisions shall apply:—

  1. (a) If the deficiency is shown by a branch of an approved society, it shall, in the first place, so far as possible, be made good out of any surplus in the hands of the central body or other central authority of the society:
  2. (b) Subject as aforesaid, every deficiency shall be made good in accordance with a scheme for that purpose to be prepared by the society and submitted to the Insurance Commissioners for their sanction} such a scheme shall provide for making good the deficiency, within a period 723 of three years from the date at which the valuation was made, in any one or more of the following ways:—
    1. (i) By a compulsory levy upon members of the society or branch being insured persons;
    2. (ii) By reducing the rate of sickness benefit or maternity benefit;
    3. (iii) By deferring the date as from which sickness benefit becomes payable;
    4. (iv) By reducing the first or the second period of thirteen weeks during which sickness benefit is payable, or both such periods;
    5. (v) By increasing the period which is required by this part of this Act to elapse between two periods of disease or disablement to prevent the one being treated as a continuation of the other,
    and on the sanction of the Insurance Commissioners being given to the scheme the society shall proceed to make good the deficiency in accordance therewith:
  3. (e) Payment of the amount of any compulsory levy made in accordance with a scheme sanctioned under this Section may be enforced in such manner as may be provided by the rules of the society; and where those rules so provide it shall be lawful for the society in the case of any member to enforce payment of the amount of the levy by giving notice in the prescribed manner to the employer of such member requiring him to pay the amount of the levy, and upon such notice being given such amount shall be payable as if it were part of the contribution to be made by the employer on behalf of the member, and all the provisions of this part of this Act relating to the payment of such contributions shall apply accordingly:
  4. (d) If within six months after the declaration of a deficiency, or where an inquiry as to excessive sickness is pending under this part of this Act, such longer period as the Insurance Commissioners determine, such scheme as aforesaid has not been submitted to and approved by the Insurance Commissioners, or if at any time thereafter it appears to the Insurance Commissioners that the society or branch to which the 724 scheme relates is not enforcing the provisions of the scheme, the Insurance Commissioners may take over the administration of the affairs of the society or branch under this part of this Act, and shall as soon as possible thereafter take such steps as they may think necessary to make good the deficiency by any or all of the methods mentioned in paragraph (b) of this section, and for that purpose they shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the powers given to the society by this Section:
  5. (e) Any question or dispute arising between the Insurance Commissioners and the society in respect of the amount of the deficiency, or as to the adequacy of any scheme proposed for making it good, shall be decided by an independent valuer to be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice:
  6. (f) A scheme made under this section shall not affect any person who becomes a member of the society after the date as at which the valuation was made, or any member over seventy years of age:
  7. (g) Any member of the society, being an insured person, who is transferred to another society before the deficiency is made good, shall be liable to any levy or reduction of benefits which may be made in respect of such deficiency in like manner in all respects as if he had not ceased to be a member.

(2) Any member liable to a levy payable at intervals may relieve himself of the liability thereto on payment to the Insurance Commissioners of the capitalised value thereof ascertained in the prescribed manner.

Mr. LANSBURY

I beg to move, to insert the following words at the end of paragraph (i), Sub-section (1), "Provided that no such compulsory levy shall be made upon persons whose wages or other remuneration are less than 30s. per week, or during any period in which any person is temporarily out of employment."

This Clause makes an arrangement that if a deficiency is shown at the end of a certain period through anything that may happen, a compulsory levy may be made upon the members of an approved society in order to maintain the benefits laid down in the Act. All members may be called upon to pay. It is not quite so well-known outside that the benefits are not granted either by the Government or by anyone else. I am certain also that it is not known that the majority of members of an approved society may be able in exercise of the power conferred upon them to put upon the members a compulsory levy which some of them may not be able to pay and which may press very severely upon them. In all these societies there would be people earning various wages and living under various conditions, and a levy, which is quite easy for a man earning from £2 to £2 10s. a week, may be a tremendous injustice to a man earning only 18s. a week. Men with wives and families whose wages are over 15s. a week will be, under this Bill, compelled to pay just as much money as those earning more than £3 a week. That part of the Bill is not under discussion just now, but we are discussing whether a levy may be compulsory or not. It may be said that everyone must have this 10s. a week, and it is necessary for the benefits to be kept up, but that is a kind of compulsory arrangement in which certain things are not taken into consideration. A man running a family may want a good many things, but he has to choose, or his wife as a rule has to do so, because the woman has to do the management, which are the most important things to provide, and there are many families where the 4d. will be quite as much as they can pay, and in many cases more than they can afford to pay. But if you allow a levy to be put on in addition at the end of three years, you will be imposing a grievous hardship on very many poor people, and you will be saying to them, although you may want this extra 2d. for some other purpose, you shall put it by in case you are ill, or a baby is going to be born, or for some other purpose.

First of all, I object to making the 4d. compulsory, but I think there is a much stronger argument against making a compulsory levy in this manner. I may be asked why I limit myself to 30s. Personally, I have a great deal of experience of a 30s. income, and I know just how far it goes in keeping a man and his family in anything like decency. I have had the experience of having a great deal more than 30s. a week and having only 30s. a week, and I want to tell the House that all the talk which we hear about poor people wasting their money who earn only 30s. a week in London is the sheerest nonsense. When I was earning that money I never smoked; I never went to a theatre; I never drank beer. I spent practically all my money at home, and yet I had to run out of the Hearts of Oak Society because I could not make up the payments to that society. That was on a 30s. a week wage; and when I hear of what people can do on 30s. I go back on my experience. Our children had to be fed and clothed and every penny we did get had to be spent on them out of this 30s. a week wages. Therefore, in moving my Amendment, I fix it at 30s. not from any theoretic idea that 30s. is some magic sum, but because I know from actual experience how far it will go for people spending their money in what I consider a decent manner and getting full value for every penny. Under this Clause you are going to allow a society that may have people earning £3 a week to inflict on some of their poorer members a very grave injustice. I do not think I need argue the case with regard to unemployment. The arrears sooner or later will have to be paid unless the society is going to become bankrupt. Still the compulsory levy ought not to be inflicted. I hope that the Committee will give this Amendment the consideration it deserves.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

This is an Amendment which cannot possibly be accepted. I think, on reflection, that the hon. Member himself will see that it will not work. He proposes that if a society, through bad management, is forced to make a levy, it should be confined to all the members of that society whoso wages are over 30s. a week. That is quite an impossible proposition. No society could survive a distinction of that kind drawn between one class of members and another. The 30s. a week members may be in a minority; the deficiency may be due to action against which they protested. It may be due to some slackness for which the majority are responsible and which the 30s. a week people took an active part in resisting. Still it is an impossible proposition that the whole burden should fall on members whose incomes are above that sum, and I do not think that the Committee would accept an Amendment of that character. With regard to the second part of the Amendment, if there is any doubt at all about it, I would rather accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Salisbury, which does deal in a practical form with that difficulty. I shall have something to say purely on the drafting of that Amendment, but I do not object to it at all. He protects the unemployed by means of an Amendment which I think is a practical suggestion. But to say that you are not to levy at all upon the unemployed, and that the whole burden should fall upon the others, is a thing that I cannot do.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 3; Noes, 238.

Division No. 356.] AYES. [4.3 p.m.
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Watt, Henry A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Snowden, P. Mr. Lansbury and Mr. Jowett.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Acland, Francis Dyke Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)
Adamson, William Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of Martin, J.
Addison, Dr. C. Elverston, Sir Harold Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Esmonds, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Masterman, C. F. G.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Falconer, J. Meagher, Michael
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) Farrell, James Patrick Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Amery, L. C. M. S. Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Molteno, Percy Alport
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Ferens, T. R. Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz
Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Ffrench, Peter Money, L. G. Chiozza
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Gardner, Ernest Morrell, Philip
Banbury, Sir Frederick George George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd Munro, R.
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Gibson, Sir James P. Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.
Barnes, George N. Gladstone, W. G. C. Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.
Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick) Glanville, H. J. Nannetti, Joseph P.
Bathurst, Charles (Wilton) Goldstone, Frank Newton, Harry Kottingham
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Beck, Arthur Cecil Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Nolan, Joseph
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Greig, Colonel J. W. Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Griffith, Ellis J. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.) Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Hackett, J. O'Connor, P. T. (Liverpool)
Bentham, G. J. Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) O'Dowd, John
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) Ogden, Fred
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) O'Mallcy, William
Black, Arthur W. Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Boland, John Plus Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Booth, Frederick Handel Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Palmer, Godfrey
Brace, William Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Brady, P. J. Haworth, Sir Arthur A. Parker, James (Halifax)
Bryce, J. Annan Hayden, John Patrick Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Helmsley, Viscount Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.
Burke, E. Haviland- Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Burn, Colonel C. R. Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon) Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Henry, Sir Charles S. Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Higham, John Sharp Pirie, Duncan V.
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) Hill-Wood, Samuel Pointer, Joseph
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) Hinds, John Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Byles, Sir William Pollard Hope, Harry (Bute) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Hope, John Deans (Haddington) Power, Patrick Joseph
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hughes, S. L. Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Cassel, Felix Hunter, W. (Govan) Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburghshire) Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Chapple, Dr. W. A. Johnson, W. Pringle, William M. R.
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) Radford, G. H.
Clough, William Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Raphael, Sir Herbert H.
Collins, G. P. (Greenock) Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) Rea, Walter Russell, (Scarborough)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Reddy, M.
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Joyce, Michael Redmond, William (Clare)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Keating, M. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cotton, William Francis Kellaway, Frederick George Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Cowan, W. H. Kelly, Edward Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) King, J. (Somerset, N.) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End) Robinson, Sydney
Crumley, Patrick Leach, Charles Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) Levy, Sir Maurice Roe, Sir Thomas
Davies, E. William (Eifion) Lewis, John Herbert Ronaldshay, Earl of
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) Rose, Sir Charles Day
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire) Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Rowlands, James
De Forest, Baron Lundon, T. Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Lynch, A. A. Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Devlin, Joseph Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Samuel, J. (Stockton)
Dewar, Sir J. A. Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott McGhee, Richard Seely, Col. Rt. Hen. J. E. B.
Dillon, John MacVeagh, Jeremiah Sheeny, David
Donelan, Captain A. M'Callum, John M. Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Doris, W. M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)
Soames, Arthur Wellesley Wadsworth, John Wiles, Thomas
Spicer, Sir Albert Walker, Colonel William Hall Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)
Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Summers, James Woolley Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central) Waring, Walter Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Taylor, John W. (Durham) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) Yate, Col. C. E.
Tennant, Harold John Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Younger, Sir George
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Webb, H.
Toulmin, Sir George White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Trevelyan, Charles Philips White, Patrick (Meath, North) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Verney, Sir Harry Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Amendment made: Paragraph (ii.), leave out the words "or maternity benefit."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (iii.)—"by deferring the date as from which sickness benefit becomes payable."

I move this Amendment in order to elicit information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the actual meaning of the paragraph. It is not at all clear whether the date refers to what is called the waiting period, or whether it refers as to what is known as the qualifying period—that is to say, the months after entering into membership. It is a very important point. If it refers to the qualifying period, the effect will be that in the vast majority of cases the younger members of the society will be penalised in order to make up the deficiencies created by the older members. In fact, the whole burden of the deficiency will really be thrown on the younger members. The reason of it is this, as hon. Members will clearly see, that the waiting periods do not in the nature of the case apply to the older members, who have got no waiting period. The only persons who are affected are the younger members who enter for the first time. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make up the deficiency by extending the waiting period, he can only do it at the cost of the younger members.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

This paragraph refers to alternative methods by which the society can make up a deficiency. We are not at any rate prescribing anything in these matters; it is only a general permission. The paragraph refers not to the qualifying period, but to the days upon which sickness begins to date. For instance, three days is now the time in the Bill. They may take another day, and by taking another day they may be able to make up the deficiency. By starting to pay additional benefit they may restore the three days, but if at the end of the second three years there is a deficiency they will say, "Very well, we will go back to the first method, and take the decision of the date as the third and fourth days instead of the first." That is all it means.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I beg to move, in paragraph (iii.) to leave out the word "date," and to insert instead thereof the word "day."

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I beg to move to leave out paragraph (v.), "By increasing the period which is required by this part of this Act to elapse between two periods of disease or disablement to prevent one being treated as a continuation of the other."

This paragraph is to enable the wiping out of a deficiency by extending the period between the illnesses. There is no doubt it is far far more important really, from an actuarial point of view, to try and stop deficiencies in the future. If this paragraph merely refers to future deficiencies it may be an extremely good piece of machinery for stopping future deficiencies from growing. I have been in very close contact with various actuaries, and they toll me it is quite impossible for any actuary to make up his mind as to the value of extending the period to wipe out an existing deficiency. I think the principle of trying to wipe out future deficiencies by extending the period is a good principle, and I have put down a new Clause containing that. I do not think, however, that this paragraph is of the slightest good in the machinery of the Bill, because no actuary could possibly calculate the value of extending the period.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I do not see why this should not stand as one of the alternative expedients to which the society may resort. It is left entirely to themselves. They will naturally be anxious to avoid a substantial reduction in benefits, and also to avoid imposing any additional levy on their members, and they will try several expedients, I have no doubt, with the object of avoiding those. They may save a few thousands by one expedient, and perhaps a few hundreds by another, and between them they may come to the conclusion that they will be able to make up the deficiency. They may find, for instance, that a deficiency is due to malingering, and if they come to that conclusion, I think they will probably say, "on the whole we will adopt the plan of fining, because the position of our society is due to the fact that there is too much malingering." I hope the hon. Gentleman will not seek to cut this out of the number of statutory suggestions with the view to reducing the deficiency.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer quite right in thinking that this will be a really efficient protection against malingering? Malingering may of course take the form of a fresh claim, but surely that is a form of malingering which is easier to check than to check the continuance of an old claim on which I should have thought it may arise, and would more probably. I do not want to make general charges of malingering or anything of that kind. We all of us know, and we have it on the evidence of everybody who have dealt with these matters, that they have to take account of the fact that some members will try to malinger. I do not want to do anything which makes it difficult for a society to put a check on malingering, which is nothing less than the robbing by a few of their many friends in the society to which "they belong. I really feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is leaning on a slight support if he trusts to any great extent to this Sub-section, or the means indicated in it, as a protection against malingering.

Mr. HARRY LAWSON

I am bound to say that in my experience of the Hearts of Oak Society the main method of imposition and malingering is the way pointed to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that is to say, by trying to obtain for the same disease within a short period the benefits under the sickness relief. It is a very common method, and although I do not think it is easy to determine what amount will be obtained by the society by exercising their power under this Section, yet on the general principle that it is wise to leave the greatest latitude to the friendly societies, I should be averse to taking it out.

Mr. AMERY

In connection with this point, may I ask what probability is there that the approved societies will avail themselves of these different alternatives, all of which will involve the loss of some portion of the State two-ninths as against the first alternative, namely, a levy which insures the full value of the State two-ninths.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. LANSBURY

I beg to move, in paragraph (c), Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "and where those rules so provide it shall be lawful for the society in the case of any member to enforce payment of the amount of the levy by giving notice in the prescribed manner to the employer of such member requiring him to pay the amount of the levy, and upon such notice being given such amount shall be payable as if it were part of the contribution to be made by the employer on behalf of the member, and all the provisions of this part of this Act relating to the payment of such contributions shall apply accordingly," and insert the words "provided that in no case shall such compulsory levy be enforced by or through the employer of such member by way of deduction from his wages."

I hope that this Amendment will meet with more support than the one I moved just now. We are for the first time in the history of the country levying a tax on a man's wages, and now we propose to levy something which this House will have nothing to do with. The society may call on a man to pay and go to the man's employer, as I read the Clause, tell him that the man is in arrears and ask him to deduct, the amount from the man's weekly wages. I do not want to argue, about the popularity or unpopularity of the matter, but I do want to argue it from the point of view of levying taxes. Up to now you are supposed in this House to levy taxes on persons according to their ability to pay, and, as a rule, the tax is levied by a vote of this House. You are now going, by Act of Parliament, to delegate to someone else the right to go to the man's employer and deduct something of which this House may have no cognisance at all. I for one think that that is a gross infringement of the right of a man to spend his wages in his own fashion. The answer made just now is that these people may have been responsible for bad management. I turn the case round and say that they may not have been responsible for the bad management. It may have been the other and wealthy members of the society who may have been responsible for the entire management of the society, whether it is good or whether it is bad. I base my case against this arrangement of going to the employer for the compulsory levy on this, that this House has no right to delegate the function of levying taxation to somebody else, and has no right to levy it in this kind of fashion by deducting it from the man's wages at the end of the week. I say, further, that there is nothing, it seems to me, to prevent this Committee or the House of Commons, if it continues in this sort of spirit, saying at a later date that a man shall put so much per week into the savings bank or spend so much on his clothes or on any other particular thing. For those reasons I trust the Committee will give the Amendment a little more consideration than the last one I proposed.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

This Amendment is of exactly the same character as the last, as it is hopelessly impracticable. The levy can only be imposed by the society. It is not imposed by the State or the Insurance Commissioners. The society is self-governing, and the levy can only be carried by a majority of the members. The hon. Gentleman's idea of a society seems to be that a man should be able to take part in a self-governing body and, if he carries the majority, then everybody is to submit; and that, on the other hand, if he does not, he is not to submit. The hon. Member is the most hopeless individualist in the House, although he thinks he is a collectivist.

Mr. LANSBURY

I do not think anything. I know what I am.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Suppose there is a levy made by the society, and that everybody knows he can pay or not, as he pleases, does anybody think that the society will get much money out of that kind of levy, which would be a sort of voluntary rate? It would be as well not to have a levy at all. It would be far better if the hon. Member proposed that there should be no levy at all, but a reduction of benefits.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

How does the Chancellor of the Exchequer provide that the contributions, which are increased or levied, will actually get to the credit of the proper society? The position is this, a society is in a deficiency, and it is agreed by the majority that there should be a levy—

The CHAIRMAN

That does not arise on this point, which has only to do with the machinery for the collection of the levy.

Mr. C. BATHURST

If the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) were to confine his Amendment to the first part of his proposal, namely, to leave out the last words of the Section, I should most heartily support him, although I am bound to add that I do not see my way to support his proposed alternative words, as, being somewhat impracticable I should like to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot quite see what the object of the final words of paragraph (c) is. If it is left with the words, "may be enforced in such manner as may be provided by the rules of the society." that really gives all that is wanted. The remaining words seem to me only to lay undue emphasis on the fact that the odium, of collection is going to be taken off the society and thrown on to the employer. The odium that is already going to be thrown on every employer in taking 4d. per week out of the workman's wages is going to be very considerable, especially in the country districts. If you are going to add to that the increased odium to which the employer will certainly be subject if he is made responsible for keeping the levy which the society requires out of his workmen, then I think you are throwing on to the employer an undue odium, and one which he ought not to be called on to bear. In my opinion the words are not necessary.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The hon. Member confines himself to the last words and objects to the levy being made by way of reduction of wages. Unless you make the levy by way of deduction from wages it would be a very costly matter to collect. You would have to set up special machinery for the collection from the individual member. The whole advantage of the State system is that the collection, at any rate, is very cheap. There is no odium on the employer, because the society, through a majority of its members, must have passed a resolution to begin with. If there is any odium at all it is simply as far as the minority is concerned. The minority may object to it, but the majority will have passed a resolution in favour of the levy. A notification would have to be given to the employer of that fact, and he would collect the extra halfpenny or penny, as the case may be, from the members of that society. That is not at all an impossible thing.

Mr. C. BATHURST

If a notification is given to the employer, will it be given simultaneously to the employed contributor? That would to some extent relieve the odium to which I have referred.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I assume that if a society has passed a resolution there must have been notice given to the members of the intention to propose the resolution. In some of the larger societies it would be done by means of a ballot. At any rate, every member is notified of the intention of the society to pass a resolution of that character. Therefore the employés will know about it. Then a notfiication will be sent to the employer that that society by a majority of its members has passed a resolution, and that in the case of all those employés who are members of that society he must deduct the extra penny or whatever it may be. It is the only way in which it can be done without increasing enormously the expense of administration.

Mr. C. BATHURST

The question of notification is rather important, because many of the employed contributors are and will be somewhat ignorant of the provisions of the Bill. Will the notification be in this form—that a notice has been sent by the society to their employer requesting him to make this deduction? If it is done in that way I think that no hardship will be done.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The society can do that by means of its rules. Under Subsection (c) the methods are to be prescribed by the society itself, and I should have thought that that would be a very reasonable rule.

Mr. W. PEARCE

I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks it absolutely necessary to bring in the employer. Of course, there must be compulsion, but, speaking as an employer, it will be a very disagreeable duty to have to make this deduction. It is quite different from the ordinary deduction under the Bill. It really makes the employer a means for the recovery of a debt, and, to my mind, there is great objection to it. I think the money might be recovered without any reference to the employer at all.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Will my hon. Friend tell me how?

Mr. W. PEARCE

How are all other debts recovered?

Mr. NEWTON

During an earlier discussion there was great anxiety on the part of Labour Members that employers should not know in what society their employés were insured, and that they should have no way of finding out. If these words are retained in the Bill it is obvious that in the case of a deficiency, at any rate, it will be brought very forcibly to the employer's notice in what society his employés are insured.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Not necessarily. There are several ways in which that can be avoided. You might have a card of a different colour when collecting the extra money, or there might be a notice stamped on the card. No doubt an employer could trace the society if he chose to take the trouble, but there would be nothing on the card necessarily.

Mr. NEWTON

How can the card reach the employer? The society must notify the employer, and that must mean, at all events as regards the member about whom the notice has been received, that the employer will know what society he is in.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The card will be stamped by the employer, but if it is a card with a notification of that kind upon it, he will not know the name of the society.

Mr. NEWTON

How will a notification be stamped on the card the first time the deduction has to be made?

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot have appreciated the effect of his own words. The society may in the case of any member enforce payment by giving notice in the prescribed form to the employer of such member. That at once makes the employer the only possible authority for making the deduction. May I point out how exceeding difficult it will be for the employer of a large number of workmen. If an employer has 1,000 hands it will be perfectly simple for him to arrange to deduct the 4d. and 3d. week by week from the men's wages, and to put it on the card. But suppose some are insured in the Hearts of Oak, and a deficiency occurs. In using the name of any society, I want to use one in regard to which I cannot be assumed to be casting the slightest aspersion. We know that it is not likely to occur in regard to the Hearts of Oak or the Manchester Unity. If a deficiency occurs a notice is sent to the employer that thirty men, giving their names, are to pay an extra 1d. a week for a certain number of weeks. Suppose further that a certain number of men are in the Manchester Unity and a deficiency arises there. Notice comes that twenty-five men, names so and so, are to pay an extra ½d. a week. Then there may be a small club in connection with which there is an extra 2d. to be paid. See the extreme complexity of the matter so far as the unfortunate employer is concerned. He must know the particular society. He or his clerk will have to send for the particular workmen. If you deduct 5d. instead of 4d., the workman will say, "Why are you deducting 5d.?" The employer will have to say, "I have received this notice from your society asking me to deduct an extra 1d." Nearly every workman will be perfectly entitled to be satisfied, before he allows the deduction, that a levy has really been made. Think of the work you are putting upon the employer to prove to his workmen week by week that there has been a levy made, and to see that he does not make the levy for more than the required number of weeks. I do not often side with the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), but on this occasion I do, from a somewhat different point of view, though I have great sympathy with him also from the point of view from which he originally moved the Amendment. I believe the Clause will be totally unworkable in any works where a large number of men, insured in different societies, are employed, and under these circumstances I suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should reconsider the form of words.

Mr. AMERY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the Committee just now that members of a society in connection with which there was a levy would be notified. If they are to be notified of the fact that there is a levy, could they not be notified that if the levy was not paid they would lose all benefits or be suspended from the society? In fact, that would have to be done in the case of voluntary contributors. When societies by way of an additional benefit arrange for a reduction of contributions the Bill has not provided that employers should be informed. It is left to the society. When a society has a deficiency—according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, usually through bad management—why should the trouble, expense and difficulty of raising the extra contribution in respect to certain specified men be imposed upon the employer? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it is a democratic arrangement, not a State arrangement—that it is imposed by a self-governing society. But imposed upon whom? Upon an employer who is not a member of the society. It seems to me a perfectly unreasonable burden to place upon him. It was simply and solely on the ground of the inconvenience of making employers raise different rates in regard to different men, and of letting employers know to what society their men belong, that the valuable Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), that members should be allowed to contribute to the society direct, and not through the employer at all, was rejected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who declared that its acceptance would strike at the very root of the machinery of the Bill. It seems to me that these words strike at the same root as far as the convenience of working is concerned, and I would suggest that they should be left out, even if the proposed additional words are not inserted.

Mr. JAMES PARKER

Different views seems to be taken of this Clause. The hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) discussed if as if it applied to the arrears of individual members. The Clause applies to the deficiencies on the valuation of the society as a whole. When such a deficiency has been found it may be made good by one of certain specified methods. Amongst those methods is the making of a levy—a perfectly simple thing, which is done by every trade union and friendly society to-day. The Bill proposes that approved societies shall have power by a majority vote of their members to make such a levy, and that they shall proceed to collect it at the source in the same way as the ordinary contribution is collected. For myself I shall support the Bill as it stands, because I believe it will be perfectly consistent with what we have already done, and that any other method of collecting the money would be more costly, and would not be likely to lead to as good a result in avoiding deficits in the societies.

Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE

The hon. Member for Halifax has told us that in the case of trade unions and friendly societies a levy is perfectly easy to collect. It will be, he says, collected in the same way as the original contribution was. If the trade unions find it perfectly easy to collect that extra levy direct from the men why should not approved societies also adopt that same perfectly simple method which is already in working order?

Mr. JAMES PARKER

It is quite simple, because you have a society within a society. But here you will have members of a friendly society who will not belong to the approved societies. So far, therefore, as this is concerned it will not be so easy to collect the levies as when you have a compact body like a trade union.

Mr. R. GWYNNE

I differ from the hon. Member in this particular. There will have to be two kinds of levies, because, as has been pointed out, in the case of the voluntary contributors the levy will have to be collected direct. Consequently in some cases the societies will have to collect from the men themselves, and I shall certainly support the Amendment, which leaves the societies to deal direct with the contributors in all cases of levies.

Mr. MOUNT

I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one question with regard to the character of the levy. We are told that the employer must be notified. There will be a large number of people who have to come in under this Bill, and I would like to know when the men themselves do not know who their employer will be, how can any notification be given to the employer of such persons.

Mr. LANSBURY

I am not sure, under the rules of the House, whether or not I will be entitled to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment as moved, and then to move it to leave out all the words after the word "society" ["the rules of the society"]?

The CHAIRMAN

The effect that the hon. Member desires will be produced by the question I am going to put, which is to leave out words down to a certain word, in order to protect a manuscript Amendment that another hon. Member has handed in. If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is carried it will knock out the whole of the words to the end of the paragraph.

Mr. LANSBURY

I do not intend to detain the Committee except to say this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that I am an individualist, though I am a collectivist. Collectivism means bearing one another's burdens. This Bill does nothing of the kind. I also want to say, in answer to him on the other point, that if these were voluntary societies I should quite agree that the majority should rule, but these are compulsory societies. You are going to compulsorily levy a man who may not be at all responsible for the consequences that the levy is provided to meet. Therefore, I am going to stick to that part of the Amendment.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I think it will really assist the Committee to come to a decision—for I do not want to disguise it that this is a difficult matter, and I do not think it is simple to find an answer to the various points which have been put—if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to tell us how he proposes to deal with such cases as put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Berkshire. An hon Friend below the Gangway suggested that it will be perfectly easy for the societies to make this additional levy from their own members if required without the mediation of the employer. The hon. Member suggests that under this Bill the matter will be comparatively easy, as there will be a society within a society. Take the case of a trade union, although it might equally apply to a friendly society. There will be a society within the trade union. Not all the members of the trade union would be members of an approved society. That, thought the hon. Gentleman was fatal to the collection through the trade union. The employer then is going to have, as it were, a society within a society in his works. Instead of making a general levy from all his men at the same moment, particular men have to be picked out and a different deduction made from their wages than that made from the wages of the others. I do not think that anybody thinks that that in itself is a very good or a desirable thing to happen if it can be avoided.

I am quite certain that every employer who is consulted will say that it is a very invidious task which he will gladly be saved. But I am not quite clear that I can find a better alternative. We have got to find an alternative, for instance, in connection with the class suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berkshire, namely, the case of casual labourers. How is a man who does occasional jobs going to have his contribution deducted by the employer, who happens to take him on the Monday of each week, and who is not always the same man? How is the society, in the words of the Bill, to notify the employer of such a man of the deduction and require him to make it? The society would not know that the man had changed his employment; the man himself does not know who his employer will be! You have to find some other way to deal with this case, and possibly the way you will find might be the way which will be available for all. That would relieve us of the necessity of putting this additional duty on the employer. At any rate, if we had the Government's proposals for dealing with this casual class before us it might enable us to see whether we could not apply those proposals more widely, and to the whole range of the cases which we are now discussing.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I cannot now discuss the question of the casual labourer. I can only deal with it in so far as it concerns this particular point. But there is really no difficulty. As I have already explained to the Committee, the notification to the employer will be on the face of the man's card. The moment a society decides that there shall be an additional levy fresh cards must be issued to the members of that society, and on the face of the card there will be a notification that the employer has to deduct 5d. instead of 4d. Take the case put by the hon. Member, the case of the casual labourer. His card is marked 4d. The next time he goes to his employer there is a change in the rules of the society, and he has to pay 5d. A fresh card has been issued, and on the face of that card there will be a notification to whoever employs him that 5d. is to be deducted. Really it is not so difficult a matter. In Germany the employer has five different deductions to make. There are five classes of workmen, and under the German scheme they have to distinguish between the five classes.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

What is to happen if the man does not take his card, or takes his card and gets it marked two or three weeks ahead? If he gets 4d. marked on on it, what are you going to do?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

That will not be an offence by the employer. That will be an offence by the man, which will have to be dealt with.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

The Chancellor has not replied finally to the point raised by my hon. Friend, that the employer will get to know exactly what society the men are insured in. I had a deputation of working-men members of friendly societies some time ago, who insisted upon this very point. They drew attention to the fact that it was very undesirable that employers should get to know in all cases, and if these words are left in he undoubtedly will get to know. It might be possible to avoid this by other words.

Mr. TYSON WILSON

Might I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this question between now and the Report stage? I will tell him why: It is quite possible that trade unions will become approved societies, and they may show a deficiency. If that is so, what about the fears of those hon. Gentlemen in this House who have tried to safeguard the trade unions from having to tell the employers? As the Bill is now, if the trade unionist shows a deficiency his employer will have to be notified that, say, John Brown must have extra money deducted from his wages because he is a member of a society which shows a deficiency. Unfortunately we have employers who object to their men being trade unionists, and under this Bill it may be that these men will be victimised. I appeal to the Chancellor to give this question, if possible, consideration, and to devise a better method between now and the Report stage.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

If I may respectfully suggest it to ray hon. Friend, rather than that I should consider the problem between now and the Report stage he might read the Bill between now and the Report stage. If he will do that he will find that it is left entirely to the trade unions to decide which way to collect the money. The union need not notify the employer if the members do not want the employer to know.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 90.

Division No. 357.] AYES. [5.0 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Bentham, G. J.
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Bigland, Alfred
Acland, Francis Dyke Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine
Adamson, William Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Black, Arthur W.
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick) Boland, John Plus
Ainsworth, John Stirling Beauchamp, Sir Edward Booth, Frederick Handel
Alden, Percy Beck, Arthur Cecil Bowerman, C. W.
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George) Brace, William
Brady, Patrick Joseph Hayward, Evan Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Brocklehurst, W. B. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Pirie, Duncan V.
Bryce, J. Annan Henry, Sir Charles Pointer, Joseph
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Higham, John Sharp Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Burke, E. Haviland- Hope, John Deans (Haddington) Power, Patrick Joseph
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Hunter, W. (Govan) Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Byles, Sir William Pollard John, Edward Thomas Pringle, William M. R.
Cameron, Robert Johnson, W. Radford, G. H.
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) Raphael, Sir Herbert H.
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Chapple, Dr. W. A. Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Clough, William Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) Reddy, Michael
Collins, G. P. (Greenock) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Joyce, Michael Remnant, James Farquharson
Condon, Thomas Joseph Keating, M. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Kellaway, Frederick George Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Cotton, William Francis Kelly, Edward Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Cowan, W. H. King, J. (Somerset, N.) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Robinson, Sidney
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Crumley, Patrick Levy, Sir Maurice Roe, Sir Thomas
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) Lewis, John Herbert Rowlands, James
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Rowntree, Arnold
Davies, E. William (Eifion) Lundon, T. Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Lyell, Charles Henry Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Lynch, A. A. Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
De Forest, Baron Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas McGhee, Richard Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Devlin, Joseph Macpherson, James Ian Sheehy, David
Dewar, Sir J. A. M'Callum, John M. Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Dillon, John McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Donelan, Captain Anthony Charles M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Doris, William M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spaiding) Spicer, Sir Albert
Duffy, William J. M'Micking, Major Gilbert Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Marshall, Arthur Harold Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Mason, David M. (Coventry) Tennant, Harold John
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.) Masterman, C. F. G. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of Meagher, Michael Toulmin, Sir George
Elverston, Sir Harold Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Menzies, Sir Walter Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Falconer, James Molteno, Percy Alport Verney, Sir Harry
Farrell, James Patrick Mond, Sir Alfred M. Wadsworth, J.
Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Mooney, J. J. Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Ferens, T. R. Morgan, George Hay Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Ffrench, Peter Morrell, Philip Wardie, George J.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Waring, Walter
Gibson, Sir James Puckering Munro, Robert Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Gilmour, Captain John Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Gladstone, W. G. C. Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. Webb, H.
Glanville, H. J. Nannetti, Joseph P. White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Goldstone, Frank Neilson, Francis Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Nolan, Joseph Wiles, Thomas
Greig, Colonel J. W. Norman, Sir Henry Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Griffith, Ellis J. Norton, Captain Cecil W. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Nuttall, Harry Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Hackett, John O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Winfrey, Richard
Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) O'Dowd, John Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) Ogden, Fred Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) O'Shaughaessy, P. J. Younger, Sir George
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Palmer, Godfrey Mark Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Parker, James (Halifax) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Haworth, Sir Arthur A. Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Hayden, John Patrick Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
NOES
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Beckett, Hon. Gervase Cassel, Felix
Amery, L. C. M. S. Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Cator, John
Archer-Shee, Major Martin Bennett-Goldney, Francis Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Ashley, W. W. Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) Clyde, J. Avon
Astor, Waldorf Bridgeman, William Clive Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)
Baird, J. L. Bull, Sir William James Croft, H. P.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Burn, Col. C. R. Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott
Barrie, H. T. Butcher, J. G. Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.
Bathurst, Charles (Wilton) Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Faber, George D. (Clapham)
Falle, Bertram Godfray Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Fell, Arthur Kirkwood, John H. M. Sanders, Robert A.
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Lane-Fox, G. R. Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Fleming, Valentine Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End) Snowden, Philip
Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) Spear, Sir John Ward
Foster, Philip Stavaley McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine) Starkey, John Ralph
Gardner, Ernest Malcolm, Ian Stewart, Gershom
Goldman, C. S. Martin, Joseph Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Middlemore, John Throgmorton Thorne, William (West Ham)
Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Walker, Colonel William Hall
Hamersley, Alfred St. George Mount, William Arthur Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Neville, Reginald J. N. Wheler, Granville C. H.
Harris, Henry Percy Newton, Harry Kottingham White, Maj. G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Winterton, Earl
Helmsley, Viscount O'Grady, James Wolmer, Viscount
Henderson, Major H. (Berks) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Hill-Wood, Samuel Paget, Almeric Hugh Yate, Col. C. E.
Hinds, John Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Hoare, S. J. G. Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Hope, Harry (Bute) Pole-Carew, Sir R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Pollock, Ernest Murray Mr. Lansbury and Mr. Jowett.
Joynson-Hicks, William Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment made in paragraph (c): After the word "contributions" ["payment of such contributions shall apply"], to insert the words "and the recovery thereof from members"].—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON

I beg to move, at end or paragraph (c) to insert, (d) "if a member chargeable with a levy fans into arrear his arrears shall reckon as though the total sum thereof, inclusive of the levy, consisted of a weekly sum of the premium payable by him had no levy been made."

If a levy is made to meet a deficiency and a member keeps up his contribution, he is paying so much, of course, every week to meet the deficiency, but if a member is not paying a contribution and the levy is running he is not only not paying his contribution but also he is not paying the levy to meet the deficiency. As hon. Members know, when a member is in arrear his benefits are reduced in accordance with the number of weekly contributions not paid, and therefore it seems to me only fair in calculating the arrears of members who ought to have been paying the levy to meet the deficiency to take this into account. This is somewhat complicated, but it seems to me the proper way is to add all the additional levies together which the member ought to have paid and find out how many additional weeks of ordinary premium at 4d. represents the addition, and then to add these additional weeks of arrears to the weeks of arrears he would be liable for on deficiency levies. In this way a man in arrear would be sharing the burden of deficiency with his fellow-members. I hope the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) thinks that is the proper way. The Government may say the case is covered by the first three lines of Sub-section (c) where the question of levies is settled by the Insurance Commissioners, but I think it is really impossible for a society to enforce any payment of levy if the member does not want to pay the levy, and therefore I think the society ought to be given the power of recovering a levy in this manner by calculating the weeks a member is in arrear and adding it to the levy.

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

Before I reply to the hon. Member, perhaps I might inform the Committee that my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, tells me that the White Paper with all the Amendments will be in the Vote Office this evening giving the actuarial calculations. The point the hon. Member has raised is a difficult point, and I am not quite sure that the Bill, as it stands, is perfectly clear. The word "arrears" in the Bill is a term of art. The contributor only suffers if he is in arrears under Clause 10. If the hon. Member turns to Clause 10 he will find when the contributor is in arrear more than four weeks and less than thirteen weeks, he suffers certain loss of benefits. He will suffer further loss of benefit if he is in arrear more than thirteen weeks, but it is not quite clear whether an arrear of levy is an arrear of contribution, and it is therefore not clear at all whether a contributor would suffer anything by means of being in arrear in respect of levy. The Bill I think as it stands goes a good deal further than the hon. Member proposes. He suggests that arrears in respect of levies should not be distributed over a total number of weeks in which the contributor is in arrears in respect of contribution, but that the arrears in respect of levy should be added together and contributed as additional weeks. The point will have to be considered before the report of Clause 10 whether the arrears of levy should be considered as arrears of contribution at all. I think as the Bill stands they would not be arrears of contribution, and therefore the non-payment of arrears of levies would not bring any loss to the contributor. The only deprivation of benefits he can suffer is under Clause 10 when he is in arrear in respect of contribution. As I say, the point will be considered before the Report stage of Clause 10, and it will be made clear, if it is not made clear already, that arrears of levy are not arrears of contribution.

Mr. FORSTER

The right hon. Gentleman has made a very clear statement of the position in answer to my hon. Friend, but he has not told us what machinery he proposes for the collection of the arrears of levy. My hon. Friend has made this proposal with a view to giving the Government an opportunity of saying whether they are going to put in machinery for that purpose and of giving them an opportunity of saying whether it is proposed to treat arrears of levy in the same way as arrears of contribution. The right hon. Gentleman admitted the gap in his Bill, but he has come to no definite decision as to how the gap is to be filled. He has intimated that the matter will engage the attention of the Government on Report, and we have been told that when the Report stage comes the Government will tell us what their official decision is.

Mr. McKENNA

The point will be dealt with on Clause 10.

Mr. HARRY LAWSON

I take it that the Home Secretary had the support of the right hon. Gentleman near him in his exposition of the law. It seems to me that the matter is much clearer than he thinks, and perhaps even clearer than my hon. Friend below me thinks. The arrears would be collected under the rules of the approved society, and supposing they were not paid in a lump sum, in all probability the member, after a stated time, would be expelled from the society. What my hon. Friend proposes is a mitigation of the rules and he ought to be supported by those who wish to make what has been the great disadvantage and the hardship of the existing system weigh less heavily upon the working people. I do not say that the form of words proposed is the best, because that is a matter of interpretation, but I am quite sure it is better than the existing practice, and if they are not inserted the rules of the society will prevail, and that will make it much harder for the individual member.

Mr. BOOTH

There are two considerations to be borne in mind, and I thought the object of the hon. Member was to meet them both. We have to consider, not only the fairness to the man, but we have to pay some consideration to the society to see that it does not lose the money, because the man in arrear may be one of those whose conduct has led to the deficiency. The man does not fall out of benefit through being in arrear of the levy. I am not sure that the Bill meets this point, and perhaps the Amendment is an improvement; but I want those two considerations kept in mind, namely, the fairness to the man and the society as well. Both should be fairly dealt with, and there should not be an amount of arrears the society cannot collect.

Mr. McKENNA

The whole point is really one which should be raised on Clause 10, which deals with arrears. When the contributor is in arrear he is not liable to be sued. All he is liable for is to suffer a reduction of benefits, and the point is whether he should suffer a reduction of benefits if in arrear in respect of levy as well as contribution. As a matter of fact, it will be considered on the Report stage of Clause 10.

Mr. HARRY LAWSON

Will there be time to consider it?

Mr. McKENNA

Yes, it will be considered then, and if thought necessary the Government will bring forward an Amendment.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly said that he would accept this Amendment subject to certain necessary alterations, and that was really the reason why I moved it. There is no doubt about that, for it was quite distinct, and he said he would accept it.

Mr. McKENNA

It is only a question of whether it is provided for in the Bill or not. If it is not in the Bill already the point will be dealt with upon the Report of Clause 10. The hon. Member will not be prevented from raising this point again on Clause 10. Under the Bill, as the hon. Member will see, arrears cannot be collected by the society as a right. The remedy for the society is to reduce the benefits of the person in arrear, and under Clause 10 the remedy of the society is dealt with. It is there that the proposal of the hon. Member will be more properly brought up.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

The right hon. Gentleman really must know that my hon. Friend will not have an opportunity of moving anything upon Clause 10. The Home Secretary was not in the House at the time, but I appeal to the Under-Secretary to the Home Department on this point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly said he was prepared to accept this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman added that he was not prepared to commit himself to the drafting, and no doubt some alterations might have to be made on Report, but he said he was willing to accept the principle of the Amendment. As my hon. Friend will not be able to bring it forward on Report and have it discussed, surely it can be put into the Bill.

Mr. McKENNA

I have already stated that a Government Amendment, if it is found to be necessary to carry out this purpose, will be inserted on Report of Clause 10. Up to the present we have not been able to decide whether it is necessary or not.

Sir F. BANBURY

If the right hon. Gentleman accepts this Amendment now, and finds on the Report stage that the Amendment is wrong, or requires further amendment, it will be in the power of the Government to make such an Amendment. If the Amendment is not accepted now, on the Report stage my hon. Friend will, in all probability, have no opportunity of moving his Amendment. Probably he may be told, "We did not consider it necessary on further consideration to put in an Amendment, because we think the Bill meets the point." As I understand it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a distinct pledge to my hon. Friend, who will not have a chance of considering later the Government Amendment, although he may have a chance of voting upon it. As hon. Members know, whilst the time of private Members has been taken away, the time of the Government has been preserved, and my hon. Friend will not have an opportunity of moving his Amendment.

Mr. McKENNA

If the hon. Member will put his Amendment in the way suggested the Government will accept it. I did not understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a distinct pledge upon this point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he did."] Of course, if hon. Members opposite say he did, I will accept their statement. We only accept the Amendment now subject to this, that if on Report the Government find this Amendment ought not to be put in, and that the principle should be introduced as an Amendment to Clause 10, they reserve the full right to strike out this Amendmtnt.

Mr. PEEL

I have before me the timetable, and I see that at 7.30 on the allotted day the guillotine falls on the new Clauses and the whole of Part I., which includes sixty Clauses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer used an argument for persuading us to vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley the fact that the second part was to be dealt with by an Amendment of the Clause.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (d), leave out at end the last word "section" and insert instead thereof the words "part of this Act."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON moved at the end of Sub-section (d) to add, (e) The Insurance Commissioners shall not withhold their sanction from a scheme on any ground excepting that of inadequacy.

This is really an important Amendment. Supposing a society is told by the Insurance Commissioners to take the second alternative of reducing the rates of benefit, the Treasury will gain a good deal of money, and it is quite possible that the Insurance Commissioners might get a tip from the Treasury in any particular case to make the approved society take that alternative in order to reduce the deficiency. It is quite clear that in such a case the Treasury would gain, and it might be a very bad thing for the approved society. I think it ought to be the rule of the Insurance Commissioners that they should not be able to refuse their sanction except from the point of view of inadequacy.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)

I do not think an Amendment of this sort is necessary, and this matter should be left to the Insurance Commissioners. The only ground for suggesting that it is desirable to have this Amendment is that the Government might tempt the Insurance Commissioners to act in some way which would be adverse to the interests of the society concerned. I assure the hon. Member that the Insurance Commissioners have to decide these, matters in a proper judicial spirit, and I am surprised that he should suggest that the Treasury might give a tip to the Commissioners to act in some way that was not judicial. Even if that is a good reason it is a very improper way. If there was any necessity to provide against that danger you would have to do it in a much wider Clause. I suggest that it is not necessary. I quite conceive that there may be cases in which the Insurance Commissioners may have to consider whether a proposed scheme does justice between all classes. It is necessary to give them some power, and not confine them strictly to inadequacy. That would not deal with the distribution of benefits in relation to the various classes, and I should have thought it was better to keep the matter as it is. The Insurance Commissioners will be a body who may be relied upon to act properly and in a judicial spirit.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

Does the Attorney-General mean to say he has never heard of the Treasury giving tips to Commissioners? There are, for instance, the Commissioners of Income Tax. Has he never heard of an instruction, not quite official, being given to them either to hasten or retard the collection of the Income Tax? Yet the Commissioners of Income Tax are a statutory body not primarily responsible to the Treasury. If he bases the whole of his argument in answer to my hon. Friend's contention on the ground that such tips will not be given, he rather ignores recent facts. On what ground except that of inadequacy does he suggest the Insurance Commissioners would refuse to sanction any scheme? Surely, if you want to preserve as much freedom to the societies as possible you should allow them to draw up these schemes in a broad spirit, and, as long as they are financially sound, they ought to be allowed.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I think we get on ground where definition is rather difficult when we try and lay down any general principles as to where the Treasury may fitly and properly give hints or instructions to semi-independent Commissioners, more or less responsible to them. There are, of course, a great many instances in connection with the Treasury, and even in my own experience in connection with other Departments, where an officer who is distinctly subject in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred in his functions to the directions of a superior in the hundredth case has a judicial discretion with which his superior has no business to interfere. It is sometimes a matter of dispute where that exactly occurs. I remember to have been attacked, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I declined to be responsible for certain instructions which had been drafted by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I said the document issued by them was issued in pursuance of a judicial discretion conferred upon them, and that it would be clearly culpable on my part to attempt to prejudice what was a judicial decision. This is exactly one of those cases where the Commissioners would act as judges, nd where they would be precluded from taking a general instruction from the Treasury that of various methods proposed the Treasury preferred one from the other. I think it is very unlikely the Treasury would issue such instructions. If the question arises where if one particular course were taken the Treasury would be safe, and if any one of other courses were taken the Treasury would have to pay, I do not think the amount would be sufficient to make it likely the Treasury would interfere, but I would not like to say, without further consideration of their relation to the Commissioners, that it would be clearly improper for the Treasury to say, other things being equal and there being no special cause why a particular course should be adopted, they would prefer it should not be taken. It is not because I suspect the Treasury or the Commissioners. My inclination is to support the Amendment. It is because I think the less we interfere with the discretion of the societies concerned the better it will be. We are, of course, obliged to interfere with their discretion in a great number of cases, because we are using them as agents of a public benefaction and as the instruments of a public Statute, but surely the less we interfere with their likes and dislikes, and with their authority to manage what are their own affairs in their own way according to their own preferences, the better it will be.

It is clearly right the Commissioners should be entitled to reject any scheme on the ground of inadequacy, but I think it would be going outside what is necessary to say the Commissioners are also to step in to see that the vote of the majority of the society in their opinion does full justice to every member or section of the society. For the great part the Commissioners will have nothing to say at all. It will be left to the society, and I do not see why in this particular instance the discretion should be taken out of the hands of the society and placed in the hands of the Commissioners instead.

Mr. BOOTH

I think I can make an appeal which will find a response on the benches opposite. Surely there is such a thing as the protection of the rights of the minority. I am sorry there are no Members from Ulster here, because I am sure they would all cheer that. It might easily be possible that schemes would be carried by a majority which in some way or another would do an injustice to a fairly large section, and it does seem to mo the Insurance Commissioners might in that case offer a little advice which would be of great purpose. I am not in favour of increasing the power of permanent officials, but a worse thing than giving power to permanent officials is to instal them in their places, put responsibilities upon them, and then tie them hands and feet. I should have thought this was one of the points where the influence of the Commissioners might have a good effect. In a case where a resolution was carried by a small majority and which did an injustice to the minority, they could ask the society to reconsider the scheme.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I put down a similar Amendment, not because I had any particular suspicion of the Treasury, but on the wider ground my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) adumbrated in the second portion of his speech. I feel it a very great pity to fetter the decision of the approved societies as to what they consider the best way of meeting a deficiency. The whole endeavour not merely of the Government, but of all sides, has been to retain the system of the friendly societies as far as possible, and to retain especially the system of self-government which has done so much for thrift during the last hundred years or so in this country. At the present time all friendly societies have the right themselves to decide without any reference to any Government Department in what particular way a deficiency should be made up. It can either reduce the rate of sick benefit, as suggested in this particular Clause, or it can make a compulsory levy, or it can defer the grant, or it can increase the period to elapse between disease and disablement, and so forth. There are five different modes by which a friendly society can get out of its deficiency. For years past they have been able to do this without any complaint on the part of their members, and the friendly societies, and particularly the smaller societies, are in a much better position to determine which of these five courses is the best than any Insurance Commissioners sitting in London. The friendly societies, and particularly those connected with a particular district, know the needs of their members and whether it would be better to make a compulsory levy or reduce the rate of sickness benefit. How, for instance, can the Insurance Commissioners sitting in London know which of those two modes of reducing the deficiency is really desirable in the interests of the people insured in a particular society in a particular district? The only possible reason the State has any right for saying whether these schemes are proper or not is whether they are adequate. The State can only be concerned with the adequacy of a scheme. It cannot possibly be concerned as to whether there shall be a diminution of sick pay or whether there shall be a compulsory levy.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

The State does not interfere unless there is no action for six months.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. The State, under the provisions of this Clause, has to sanction the scheme which may be passed by the approved society for getting rid of a deficiency. My hon. Friend's Amendment says the State should only be concerned, whether the scheme is adequate or not, from a financial point of view. That is really the only point about which the State ought to be concerned. The members themselves have a right to say in what way the deficiency should be met. The broad principle I think should be that of preserving the rights of friendly societies and of leaving them unfettered in their decision so long only as their decision provides an adequate mode financially of getting rid of the deficiency. Many of us have felt there is a possibility in this Bill of diminishing the old spirit in the friendly society. I am perfectly certain, if this Amendment is not accepted, it will go a long way to diminish those great principles of self-help and brotherly spirit which have made the friendly societies what they are. I want you to leave them as unfettered as possible, merely letting the State be responsible for the financial adequacy of any scheme.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

The argument of the hon. Member does not really touch the point. The Amendment would have the effect of limiting the Commissioners' discretion in respect of a scheme which can only come in operation if within six months after the declaration of a deficiency the approved society has not done what is necessary. It is a very limited operation. If the approved society will not prevent a scheme, then the Commissioners must do it, and the whole object of the Amendment is to limit the discretion of the Commissioners to a very narrow point.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

Sub-section (e) really meets the point of the Amendment, because in cases of dispute arising between the Insurance Commissioners and the society in respect of the amount of the deficiency or the adequacy of any scheme proposed for making it good, the point is to be decided by an independent valuer, appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. If an approved society takes exception to the scheme suggested by the Commissioners, they can appeal for an independent valuer, who is to be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, and he must decide between the society and the Commissioners.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

One may overlook the exact effect of an Amendment in dealing with so complicated a measure. It has happened to us all, and it has happened to the Attorney-General on this Amendment. He will see it is a new Sub-section which my hon. Friend proposes, and it would govern not merely Sub-section (d) to which he seemed to think it was confined, but the whole Section.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I quite agree; it does not cover that point.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Perhaps I may be equally successful with the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. J. Samuel).

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

It all turns on my not observing the little [e] which is put in. I thought it came at the end of line 25.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Yes, it all turns on a little "e" in brackets, and it is on such small matters that such great consequences follow. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees assured us that the only point in our argument is adequately provided for by the next Subsection, which provides that if a dispute arises as to the amount of the deficiency or as to the adequacy of the provisions under the scheme, then it should be referred to a valuer, appointed by the Lord Chief Justice to decide. That is a very proper proviso, but what on earth has it to do with the Amendment which we are now discussing. That Amendment does not deal with the amount of the deficiency, but what it states is that the scheme for removing that deficiency should not be rejected by the Commissioners on any account except inadequacy. They would then, if the words were inserted, be entitled to reject it on the ground of inadequacy; and if their verdict were disputed they would go to the valuer, appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. That is what happens if the Amendment is accepted. But the hon. Member is asking us to reject the Amendment, and if the Amendment is rejected a scheme may be disapproved by the Commissioners on half-a-dozen grounds not connected either with the amount of the deficiency or with the adequacy of the provision made. And on none of these grounds can there be any appeal to the valuer appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. If the hon. Member will look at the Amendment itself, at the Section, he will see that the next following Sub-section really has no bearing on the particular discussion in which we are now engaged. The whole question before us is, is it necessary in connection with this matter to give to the Commissioners a power which has been hitherto vested in the members of the friendly societies themselves? Is it necessary to leave the last word to the Commissioners as to how the members of a society should make good a deficit; surely we may safely leave that to those who now have the power, namely, the societies. I think we may safely leave it to the societies, and I see no reason to suspect that they would wish or be able to inflict injustice on their members under this Bill any more than they would wish or be able to do so under present circumstances.

Mr. POLLOCK

The only question to be considered under Sub-section (e) is whether the scheme is adequate for the purpose of making good the deficiency, and the only machinery that is provided under this Sub-section is that a valuer is to be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. I do not know exactly what that phrase means. I assume it may mean the Lord Chief Justice of England, but it is a phrase quite unknown, and it does not identify anybody in particular, unless it be the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, who, I believe, is known as the "Lord Chief Justice." The Lord Chief Justice is to send down a valuer, but may I ask the hon. Member does he really suppose that valuer who may be sent down—

Mr. CAWLEY

On a point of Order. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman justified in discussing other Clauses?

The CHAIRMAN

We have not yet reached paragraph (e).

Mr. POLLOCK

I was pointing out to the hon. Member, who was arguing as to the adequacy of the safeguards contained in Sub-section (e), he said this Amendment was unnecessary because that Sub-section contains a sufficient safeguard, and it was in consequence of that that I was criticising Sub-section (e). I do not desire to go further on that point. I shall probably have an opportunity of saying a few words on that Sub-section a little later on. The question is whether or not we require some words to be inserted in this Clause 31 in order to prevent the Insurance Commissioners having a wider sphere of criticism for the purpose of saying whether or not a scheme is adequate—adequate to make good the deficiency. The friendly societies have surely earned a title to be trusted in the future. They have done very well in the past. Is it the only question that should be submitted whether or not the proposal they put forward will be sufficient to make good the deficiency. If they have a good scheme, surely that is sufficient. In some localities members may prefer to make a larger contribution; in others they may elect to have restricted benefits. But I do suggest that on this question the advice of the Commissioners should not be paramount. They ought only to be in a position to say that inasmuch as you are able to provide for the deficiency we are satisfied, and you can do it as you please. This provision is important as a safeguard for the freedom of friendly societies. Without it the whole matter may pass into the hands of the Commissioners, and therefore I hope this Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. CASSEL

I take every opportunity I can find of endeavouring to point out that at every turn this Bill hampers the freedom and independence of friendly societies. This is another instance of that, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Pontefract should take up his present attitude. On the Second Reading of this Bill he made a most damaging criticism on the ground that it was going to entirely undermine and destroy the independence of these societies. Since then a remarkable change appears to have come over him.

Mr. BOOTH

No, over the Bill.

Mr. CASSEL

Over the Bill in some respects, but not in this particular. On this point you certainly say that friendly societies cannot be trusted to deal fairly with their own members. The hon Member for Pontefract said that minorities would be protected, but in the past friendly societies have made their own schemes and their own rules. Does the hon. Member suggest that they are not capable still of making them?

Mr. BOOTH

No.

Mr. CASSEL

Apparently the Government has at last become enamoured of the Veto in the shape of the veto of the Insurance Commissioners on the independence of the friendly societies. Surely this is a case where the discretion of the societies is a matter to be preserved rather than give the discretion to the Insurance Commissioners. The result of the Government proposal is that instead of the friendly societies being independent democratic bodies they will be merely appendages of bureaucratic officials, who will hamper and restrict their movements at every turn. It is on these grounds that I support this Amendment.

Mr. AMERY

The only difficulty that can really arise is the substantial difference between the interest of the Government as represented by the Insurance Commissioners and those of the friendly societies, the former being naturally in favour of one of the schemes embodied in paragraphs (ii.), (iii.), (iv.), and (v.), the latter in favour of the alternative as provided by paragraph (i.). I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day, but I did not get a reply, and the right hon. Gentleman is not in this place to give me one now. What I wish to know is, what alternative there is for the societies to paragraph (i.).

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 239.

Division No. 358.] AYES [6.0 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Falle, B. G. Newton, Harry Kottingham
Amery, L. C. M. S. Fell, Arthur Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fitzroy, Hon. E. A. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Ashley, W. W. Fleming, Valentine Paget, Almeric Hugh
Astor, Waldorf Forster, Henry William Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Baird, John Lawrence Foster, Philip Staveley Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Balcarres, Lord Gardner, Ernest Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Baldwin, Stanley Gastrell, Major W. H. Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gilmour, Captain John Perkins, Walter Frank
Barnston, Harry Goldman, C. S. Peto, Basil Edward
Barrie, H. T. Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.) Greene, Walter Raymond Pollock, Ernest Murray
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Gretton, John Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Beckett, Hon. William Gervase Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Hamersley, A. St. George Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Harris, Henry Percy Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish Helmsley, Viscount Rolleston, Sir John
Bigland, Alfred Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon) Salter, Artnur Clavell
Boyle, W. L. (Norwich, Mid) Hills, J. W. Sanders, Robert Arthur
Boyton, James Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak) Sanderson, Lancelot
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell Hoare, S. J. G. Spear, Sir John Ward
Bridgeman, William Clive Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Starkey, John R.
Bull, Sir William James Hope, Harry (Bute) Stewart, Gershom
Burn, Colonel C. R. Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Butcher, John George Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford) Talbot, Lord E.
Campion, W. R. Hume-Williams, W. E. Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Hunt, Rowland Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)
Cassel, Felix Jowett, F. W. Thorne, William (West Ham)
Cater, John Kerry, Earl of Valentia, Viscount
Cautley, H. S. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Walker, Col. William Hall
Cave, George Kirkwood, J. H. M. Wheler, Granville C. H.
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Lansbury, George White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) Winterton, Earl
Clyde, James Avon Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.) Wolmer, Viscount
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Mackinder, Halford J. Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine) Worthy, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Middlemore, John Throgmorton Younger, Sir George
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott Mildmay Francis Bingham
Doughty, Sir George Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Duke, Henry Edward Mount, William Arthur Mr. Locker-Lampson and Mr. Joynson-Hicks.
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Neville, Reginald J. N.
Faber, George Denison (Clapham)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Chapple, Dr. William Allen George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) Clough, William Gibson, Sir James P.
Acland, Francis Dyke Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Gladstone, W. G. C.
Adamson, William Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Goldstone, Frank
Addison, Dr. Christoper Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Condon, Thomas Joseph Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)
Alden, Percy Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Greig, Colonel J. W.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Cotton, William Francis Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Cowan, W. H. Gulland, John William
Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Hackett, John
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Crumley, Patrick Hardie, J. Keir
Barnes, George N. Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)
Barran, Sir J. (Hawick) Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)
Beck, Arthur Cecil Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Bentham, George Jackson Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Harwood, George
Bethell, Sir J. H. Dawes, James Arthur Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Black, Arthur W. Devlin, Joseph Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry
Boland, John Pius Dewar, Sir J. A. Haworth, Sir Arthur A.
Booth, Frederick Handel Dillon, John Hayden, John Patrick
Bowerman, Charles W. Donelan, Captain Anthony Charles Hayward, Evan
Brace, William Doris, William Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Brady, Patrick Joseph Duffy, William J. Henry, Sir Charles
Brocklehurst, William B. Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Higham, John Sharp
Bryce, J. Annan Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Hinds, John
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Hope, John Deans (Haddington)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Elverston, Sir Harold Illingworth, Percy H.
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus
Byles, Sir William Pollard Falconer, James Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)
Cameron, Robert Farrell, James Patrick John, Edward Thomas
Carr Gomm, H. W. Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Johnson, William
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) Ferens, Thomas Robinson Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Chancellor, H. G. Ffrench, Peter Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. Rowlands, James
Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) Nannetti, Joseph P. Rowntree, Arnold
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Neilson, Francis Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Joyce, Michael Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Keating, Matthew Nolan, Joseph Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Kellaway, Frederick George Norman, Sir Henry Scanlan, Thomas
Kelly, Edward Norton, Capt. Cecil W. Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.
King, Joseph (Somerset, North) Nuttall, Harry Sheehy, David
Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Crickdale) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitherce)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) O'Doherty, Philip Snowden, Philip
Leach, Charles O'Dowd, John Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Levy, Sir Maurice O'Grady, James Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Lewis, John Herbert O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Low, Sir F. (Norwich) Palmer, Godrey Mark Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Lundon, Thomas Parker, James (Halifax) Tennant, Harold John
Lyell, Charles Henry Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton.)
Lynch, Arthur Alfred Pearce, William (Limehouse) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Verney, Sir Harry
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Wadsworth, J.
MacGhee, Richard Pirie, Duncan V. Walters, John Tudor
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Pointer, Joseph Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Macpherson, James Ian Pollard, Sir George H. Wardie, George J.
M'Callum, John M. Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Waring, Walter
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Power, Patrick Joseph Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
M'Laren, H. D. (Leics., Bosworth) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Watt, Henry A.
M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Webb, H.
M'Micking, Major Gilbert Primrose, Hon. Neil James White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Marks, Sir George Croydon Pringle, William M. R. Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Marshall, Arthur Harold Radford, George Heynes Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Mason, D. M. (Coventry) Raphael, Sir Herbert H. Wiles, Thomas
Masterman, C. F. G. Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Meagher, Michael Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Reddy, Michael Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Menzies, Sir Walter Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs. N.)
Millar, James Duncan Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Molteno, Percy Alport Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Winfrey, Richard
Mond, Sir Alfred M. Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Mooney, John J. Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Young, William (Perth, East)
Morgan, George Hay Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Morrell, Philip Robinson, Sidney
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Munro, Robert Roche, John (Galway, E.) Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.
Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Roe, Sir Thomas
Mr. AMERY

I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (d), to insert the following new paragraph:— (e) The Insurance Commissioners, after taking over the administration of the affairs of any society or branch, shall, within a reasonable time, not exceeding three years, make arrangements for the restoration to the society or branch of its powers of self-government, or, failing that, for the transfer of the members of the society or branch, being insured persons, to other approved societies or branches or to the Post Office fund. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the Insurance Commissioners shall not continue to keep in their own hands the administration of such societies as fail to make reasonable schemes. Considering the enormously wide judicial powers given to the Insurance Commissioners, it is very undesirable that they should also have wide administrative powers and be competitors with other societies in administering the Bill or be identified with any one particular policy of administration.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

It was never intended by the Government that the Insurance Commissioners should indefinitely carry on the affairs of such a society. I agree it is well to have some limitation imposed in the Bill itself. I think the proposal of the hon. Member is an improvement upon this particular Clause, and on behalf of the Government I shall accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN

The next two Amendments, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) are consequential.

Mr. FORSTER

Is the second one consequential? The hon. Member wants to bring in the Institute of Actuaries.

The CHAIRMAN

Yes, it is consequential. On the preceding Clause yesterday we settled the question of valuer or actuary. The hon. Member himself informed me that the second Amendment was consequential.

Mr. POLLOCK

Surely this is quite a different matter. The question under this Clause is whether the Lord Chief Justice is to appoint a valuer. He may appoint a valuer, and the question is, Who are to submit names to him for that purpose, and the hon. Member for Salisbury proposes that the persons who shall recommend the selection shall be those named in the Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for Salisbury himself asked me not to call upon him to move it, and we arranged that the matter was settled.

Mr. POLLOCK

Shall I be in order in moving it myself?

The CHAIRMAN

No.

Mr. POLLOCK

I accept what you say, Sir, but I understood that the hon. Member for Salisbury intended to be in his place to raise the point.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for Salisbury was good enough to come to my room and go through his Amendments with me, and in his presence I marked this Amendment as one that was not going to be moved. My view, as I told him then, was that the second Amendment was out of order.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

Would it be possible to move the omission of paragraph (e)?

Mr. POLLOCK

Can I move to omit paragraph (e)?

The CHAIRMAN

The hon Member can certainly move to leave out that paragraph, but he will not be able to go back on the matter we decided yesterday.

Mr. POLLOCK

I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (e).

This Bill proposes to establish a system under which any difficulties, disputes, or questions which arise between the Insurance Commissioners and a society who may feel that they have not been fairly dealt with shall be laid to rest. This is one of the Clauses that looks so useful, but which in practice is of no use whatever. The dispute or question is to be submitted to an independent valuer who shall be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. How is that valuer to make his decision? To whom is he to make it? Under what rules is the inquiry to take place, and who is to pay the cost of it? It is a very easy thing to put in a Bill a provision that the Lord Chief Justice shall select a valuer to go down to settle a dispute, but when the valuer gets down, he wants to know what is the dispute. What power has he got to deal with the matter or to call persons before him to inquire into it? And when he has made a decision, does he make a decision or a report? All these questions immediately arise as soon as the Clause says that the Lord Chief Justice is to send for a valuer. He will send for a valuer and say he is to settle the dispute, but the valuer will say: "Who is going to pay me? To whom am I to report? What powers have I got?" All these matters are left out. If we are to have a reasonable method of settling these disputes a good deal more must be provided than is in the Clause. May I call attention to another curious thing? The paragraph refers to "the Lord Chief Justice." There is no person who holds that office except the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, who under the Judicature Act, 1877, is called the Lord Chief Justice. In all Statutes, if you wish to refer to the Lord Chief Justice in England, you say the Lord Chief Justice of England, which is his proper title. The curious thing is that the Government, whether by a slip or not, I do not know, have referred to the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland as the person who is to select a valuer. The Bill applies to Ireland, Scotland, and England. Is the intention of this Clause that the Lord Chief Justice of England shall send down a valuer, or do you mean that the highest judge in each country shall determine and select him? As this Clause stands it is incomplete. It does not provide a code or a scheme, it does not provide for costs, and does not accurately mention the authority who is to select the valuer. I remember a protest once being made by the late Lord Coleridge, who was addressed as Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, and he complained that although there was an official known as the Lord Chief Justice of England, and although there was a person called Lord Coleridge, there was no such person as Lord Chief Justice Coleridge. When the Government bring forward a Clause under which they propose that the Lord Chief Justice is to settle these valuers, I ask whom they mean and under what rules he is to make his selection, at whose cost and with what powers the valuer is going to proceed? Is he a judicial officer. When he has made his decision, what validity is it to hold, and is it merely a report or what not? This requires development, and I ask the Attorney-General to explain what his scheme is, in the hope that we may have a real scheme and not a Clause which apparently offers much, but which those persons who are conversant with the practice which is necessary under these Clauses know really means nothing and offers a scheme which is entirely illusory.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

The hon. and learned Gentleman has really exercised his ingenuity in order to put some point which he has in his mind in reference to this paragraph, and has administered what is known to lawyers as a series of interrogatories. He has set to work to criticise two points. The first is the use of the term Lord Chief Justice, and the second is that the Clause does not state how the decision is to be given. In regard to the first, he seems to be, in doubt as to who is the person to designate the particular valuer, and he says there is nothing to show whether it is intended to apply to the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, or even he thought it did apply to the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland. If he had looked a little further into the Bill he would have found that the term is defined both in Clause 58 and Clause 59. In Clause 58 it is said who the Lord Chief Justice is with reference to Scotland, and in Clause 59 who the Lord Chief Justice is with reference to Ireland, so that there is not very much room left for doubt. There is only one other Lord Chief Justice that I know who will come within this Bill, and I do not think that even the hon. and learned Gentleman's ingenuity would suggest that where you have it explained that in Scotland it is the Lord President and the Court of Session, and where you have the Lord Chief Justice applied to Ireland it means the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, that there is much ground for saying Lord Chief Justice would mean otherwise than the Lord Chief Justice of England. The other point which the hon. and learned Gentleman raised is that there is no provision as to what is to happen.

Mr. POLLOCK

As to the revision of costs. The Attorney-General will appreciate that my criticism as to the name was intended only to introduce the discussion, but the really serious question is as to the costs and the rules under which it is to be conducted.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I will address myself to the serious question. It is said in the Bill that the question in dispute shall be decided by an independent judge. It is not intended to have here an inquiry in the nature of a legal inquiry. The point of it is, as I am quite sure the hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware, that we frequently have decisions of this kind which have to be given by a valuer. It is by no means uncommon to say that these points shall be decided by a valuer, and I have no doubt that on many occasions the hon. and learned Gentleman himself has agreed that some particular point shall be-decided by an expert. This is only that an independent valuer shall be selected by the Lord Chief Justice. It may be necessary to introduce some arrangement in regard to it.

Mr. POLLOCK

Who will pay the valuer?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

That will have to be decided.

Sir WILLIAM BULL

Will he make it a rule of court under the Arbitration Act?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

Does the hon. Gentleman mean would the valuer make it a rule of court? That is just exactly one of the things which will be dealt with by the regulations. The whole scheme of this Clause is to take care that you shall have some person who shall decide what is going to happen in case there is a dispute between the society and the Commissioners. With reference to the matters of detail which are left over, I agree that it is desirable to introduce some regulation and, of course, we shall have that in the Bill, either in a subsequent Clause or it may be necessary on Report. We only want regulations of the simplest kind for the purpose of enabling him to give that decision when the matter is left to him.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I am not quite certain whether words can be introduced on Report which will give power to fix a charge on the society. I rather think it must be done in Committee.

Mr. JOHN WARD

Is it not already provided for in Clause 41?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I pointed out that it would either come under the regulations in subsequent Clauses or, if not, that we should have to consider how it could be done.

Mr. BUTCHER

If these important matters of costs and so on are not capable of being dealt with by the regulations referred to in the Bill, will the hon. and learned Gentleman give us an undertaking that he will put down at a later stage in Committee—we shall not have much time on Report—the necessary provision to meet this case?

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I have looked at Clause 41, and it has nothing whatever to do with this Clause. No regulations in regard to this matter could be made under it, and it must be dealt with, I think, in Committee, because it could not be settled by leaving out this paragraph.

Mr. RAWLINSON

Is there any power under this Bill as it stands to make regulations dealing with this Clause, and how do the Government intend to pay the costs of these valuations?

Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS

Is it intended that the person who is to hold the inquiry is to have power to take evidence on oath?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

That question does not arise under this particular paragraph. There are two Clauses which deal with regulations, and one gives very wide powers—Clause 57. The regulations will come in one of those Clauses or will be introduced in Committee.

Mr. NORMAN CRAIG

Clause 57 is one which cannot be amended in Committee. There is a Clause which takes power to make regulations for a variety of different matters. That is Clause 67. It is desirable that in the Committee stage any regulations which involve the raising of money should be made applicable to this part of the Bill, as well by an Amendment to the latter part of the first part of the Bill. That appears to cover the point which is at present being raised. The difficulty might thus be met and the Committee might have an opportunity of dealing with it at this stage and before it comes to Report. Might I ask a further question? In what way is it intended that this Clause shall be enforced, because the enforcing of the Clause will require statutory power altogether apart from the question of cost, and altogether apart from the machinery by which the valuation is to be arrived at. Surely if the Sub-section is to be effective there must be something which will give it effective force in any proceedings which may be instituted upon it. For that reason also I think the Clause might be reconsidered at some stage before Report.

Colonel GREIG

Clause 48 would cover this if some words were introduced in the final Sub-section. Clause 48 says: The Insurance Commissioners may make regulations for any of the purposes for which regulations may be made under this part of this Act, or the Schedules therein referred to, and for prescribing anything which under this Act or any such Schedules is to be prescribed, and generally for carrying this Act into effect, and any regulations so made shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.

Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS

Surely it cannot, be contended that if a dispute should arise between a society and the Commissioners they should themselves frame the rules. I should still like to know if this is to be in the nature of a judicial inquiry before which evidence is taken as before a Royal Commission, or is it to be some sort of private inquiry of his own which the valuer is to conduct by investigating the books?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

The Clause provides that "Any question or dispute arising between the Insurance Commissioners and the society … shall be decided by an independent valuer …." He will decide on the case which is put before him. The whole point will be in respect of the amount of the deficiency, or as to the adequacy of any scheme proposed for making it good. These are the only questions which will come before the valuer. No one will contemplate anything in the nature of a lawsuit, or proceedings in a court of justice to decide these questions.

Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS

There might be great questions arising as to how the deficiency has arisen.

Mr. POLLOCK

The discussion we have had on the Clause seems to have served some purpose. The Attorney-General agrees that regulations will be necessary, and that at some time during the Committee stage he will have to indicate how these regulations are to be made and what body is to make them. These regulations, I understand, would indicate how the cost of the inquiry is to be borne. The Attorney-General has, therefore, quite candidly admitted that the Clause as it stands is really incomplete. Provision has to be made somewhere or other for carrying it into effect. Perhaps that is a more happy and accurate way of putting it. He will not be surprised that some of us have not been able to find where provision is made for carrying it into effect. After the statement of the Attorney-General, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Let hon. Members opposite understand that if they do not get a working scheme hereafter, and that the provision made is wholly illusive, it is because irritation is shown when these matters are discussed by persons who have had experience and who know the importance of having proper provision made for carrying these arrangements into effect. I think the observations of the Attorney-General have amply justified the attitude taken up by hon. Members on this side of the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount HELMSLEY

I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (e), to insert the words "in accordance with regulations to be made in manner hereinafter provided."

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I do not think these words would come in very well there. The Noble Lord proposes that the matter is to be decided by the valuer "in accordance with regulations to be made in manner hereinafter provided." That would be much too narrow. I think the Noble Lord might leave this, and he may depend upon it that we will indicate a Clause under which regulations can be made for the purpose of carrying out the object in view. We will look at two or three of the Clauses which have been mentioned by hon. Members, and if they do not meet the purpose, we will have to introduce amending words.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I wish to make a remark in regard to what has fallen from the Attorney-General. These Clauses which have been mentioned contemplate regulations which are to be made by the Insurance Commissioners. The hon. and learned Member below the Gangway has pointed out that we cannot allow the Commissioners to make regulations as to who is to pay the cost in connection with a dispute in which they are engaged, and to which they are parties. That must be done by some other authority.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I have carefully preserved the right to insert some other words.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In paragraph (g), after the word "society" ["Any member of the society being an insured person"] to insert the words "or branch."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Amendment proposed: In paragraph (g), after the word "society" ["transferred to another society"], to insert the words "or to another branch of the same society."

Mr. HILLS

I think we want some additional words there to meet the point raised last night.

Mr. MASTERMAN

We want the words "or any."

Mr. HILLS

I agree. I beg to move, in the proposed Amendment after the word "same," to insert the words "or any."

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. BAIRD

I beg to move, in paragraph (g), after the word "society" in the Amendment just agreed to, to insert the words "after the date as at which the valuation was made, and." The object of the Amendment is to prevent a man who leaves a society before a deficiency has been declared, being obliged to carry on indefinitely a liability in connection with a deficiency, after he joins another society. As the Clause now stands it would appear that there is no limit as to the time he would be liable to pay a levy to make good the deficiency. That is to say, if a man leaves a society to-day and five years hence a deficiency arises, he would be liable to pay a levy under the terms of this Sub-section as I read it. That, of course, is not the intention. If the words I propose do not meet the case, some other words should be found. I think the intention of the Amendment will be clear to the Attorney-General, namely, that a man should not be liable to pay a levy unless he was in the society at the time the deficiency was declared. If you do not add these words, anybody who leaves a society before a deficiency is declared will be liable for the levy.

Mr. J. WARD

Why should he?

Mr. BAIRD

It may be five or ten years after he leaves a society that the levy is made. There must be something in this Amendment when I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent—a very rare occurrence. I hope I shall be able to persuade the Attorney-General to agree with me as to the necessity of the Amendment. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept the principle and do what I want done in this matter, I would be very glad to adopt any alteration in the Amendment he might suggest.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

My difficulty about the words proposed by the hon. Member is that they do not absolutely carry out his intention. I admit that some words might be usefully inserted, but I do not think we can take these words. It is not our desire, and it is not the intention of the Bill, to make a person liable indefinitely, but I do not think you can fix the date as that at which the valuation was made as the limit. We must find some other date to fix.

Mr. BOOTH

If the hon. Member wishes to readjust it so as to insure the members of the society who have heaped up the liability shall take a part in the levy, I am entirely with him.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I think we are all agreed with the object which my hon. Friend has in view, namely, that people who are not really responsible should not, long years after they have left the society, find themselves charged because the society of which they once were members was in arrear. I feel it is a little difficult, as it always is, to find exact words to carry out an idea which commends itself to all quarters of the House. I venture to suggest that possibly the scheme of the Bill docs provide a measure of time for these members to be responsible. These valuations have to take place every three years. Surely when you take a valuation to-day and find that the society is deficient you ought not to go back beyond the last valuation at a time when the society was sound. If the society was unsound at the previous valuation, of course, a levy would then have been made. It seems to me that that is a way out of the difficulty, and that we should not carry the charge back beyond the period of the previous valuation.

Sir RUFUS ISSACS

That is a suggestion which I would be very glad to accept, but I cannot accept it now. It seems to me that there are difficulties even in carrying that out, but I will consider it.

Mr. BAIRD

Obviously we will never get into watertight compartments. We cannot secure that a man shall not be liable for a levy for which he has no responsibility, but it is desirable to tighten up the Clause in some way, to secure that a man's liability shall not be so wide as it is under the Bill. I hope the learned Attorney-General will not include this in the Clauses which are to be dealt with on the report, as there is such an awful number of these to be settled then. We are always met by the Government with the reply that the idea is a very good one, and will be dealt with on Report. If the learned Attorney-General will find words to put in now, I hope he will do so.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I am obliged to the hon. Member for the point which he has raised. It is a very useful point, and shall be very carefully considered in the light of the observations which have been made. But I have the greatest objection to drafting words upon an Amendment which we have not seen. It affords a very useful peg on which to hang a discussion which leads to something in the end, but this is by no means an easy matter, and requires careful consideration, having regard to all the provisions in the Bill. The House is agreed on it, and it is only a question of finding what is the exact point at which you are to state in the Bill where the line is to be drawn. I would suggest to the Committee that they should be satisfied with that, as the Amendment has never been on the Paper, and we have never heard it until now.

Mr. BUTCHER

As we may not have any opportunity whatever of discussing this point later on, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to indicate at what time a member should be allowed to go out? Should he be allowed to go out before the deficiency is declared or at some subsequent time? Where is the line to be drawn?

Mr. BAIRD

I quite understand the learned Attorney-General's reluctance to accept an Amendment which he has not even seen, but he cannot complain of the Amendment not having been put down in time, as the Bill is being rushed through at such a rate. From the manner in which he has met this point I am quite prepared to leave it in his hands on the distinct understanding that words will be put in which will cover it.

Mr. CASSEL

I would ask the Attorney-General, in dealing with this matter, not to fix the time at too long a period, because otherwise it will be a very difficult thing for societies. They will have to keep a special list. Under the Companies Acts the time is only one year, and a special list has to be kept of past members who are liable to make good deficiencies. In these societies it would really be a difficult thing to trace all the past members, more particularly over a long period of years.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I beg to propose, in Sub-section (2), after the word "thereto," to insert the words "and a member subject to a diminution of benefits by virtue of any such scheme may, with the consent of the society, acquire a right to undiminished benefits."

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Will the right hon. Gentleman give in a word or two an explanation of the exact effect of this Amendment?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

The whole point of the Amendment is to apply to cases where a deficiency is met by reduction of benefits. It was the intention of the Clause to give effect to this provision, and it was only by inadvertence that these words were dropped out. Anybody will see that they ought to have been inserted, and they are being inserted now merely to carry out what is the intention of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: At end of Sub-section (2) to add the words "Nothing in this or the preceding Section shall affect any funds of the society or branch other than those under this Part of this Act."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 31, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. C. BATHURST

Before we part with this Clause I want to make an appeal to the Government with regard to a question which arises under Sub-clause (a), Sub-section (1) of the Clause. I intended to put in a manuscript Amendment to deal with this matter, but as some other Amendments were ruled out of order I was two or three seconds late. Under the Bill in its present form the only circumstance in which a society may refuse to make good a deficiency of one of its branches out of a surplus is the maladministration of a branch. Another point that may arise is maladministration on the part of the local authority. It is quite possible, as pointed out by the Government in Clause 46, which relates to excessive sickness in a locality, that a very serious difficulty may be thrown upon a local society owing to bad housing and sanitary conditions over which the local sanitary authority has supervision and control. Bearing in mind that the local health committee is to consist as to one-third of its members of the local sanitary authority it is not reasonable to say that in the case of a healthy society carrying on its business properly in a healthy district, where the housing and sanitary conditions are attended to, the surplus produced by the good management of such societies should go to make the deficiency due to in-sanitary conditions caused by the laxity on the part of a sanitary authority, especially bearing in mind that the local sanitary authority is going to have a voice in the affairs of the local health committee, and may, if necessary, apply for an inquiry either to the Home Secretary or the President of the Local Government Board, and as a result of such inquiry may throw the cost of making good these local defects upon either the authority or upon the individual property owners who may be proved to be at fault in such respects.

Surely it is only fair to those who carry on their local affairs properly and attend to sanitary matters in their districts that the local societies should not have their surplus applied in order to remedy defects in a district when the local sanitary authority it not doing its duty properly. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may find it possible to incorporate into this Clause that it shall be possible for a society to make good the deficiency of a branch in a locality where the deficiency is not due to maladministration of the branch, but is due to maladministration of the local sanitary authority. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will remember that he has particularly provided in Clause 46 against such conditions prevailing, and has given very large powers to the local sanitary authority, by means of applications to Government Departments, for inquiries to deal with these matters. I would appeal to him that on Report he should introduce as a second alternative into this proviso maladministration on the part of the local sanitary authority as well as maladministration on the part of the branch in question.

Viscount HELMSLEY

I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider this suggestion very carefully before he adopts it, because it seems to me hardly fair to the members of a society or of a particular branch to be mulcted because of the default of the sanitary authority. That is really what the suggestion comes to. It is not the fault of the members of the branch that because the sanitary authority of the district is not up to the mark that therefore the deficiency should not be met. I do not often differ from my hon. Friend on these points, but I must say that I think this Amendment would be a mistake.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. HAROLD CAWLEY

If there should be laxity in any locality, the local authority of course, has to make good the deficiency in the branch. Therefore, there is no deficiency of the branch which the society, as a whole, will have to continue. When this altered Clause for sickness comes into effect there will be no deficiency at all, because it will be made good by the local authority.

Mr. AMERY

I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the point that in reality, of the alternatives offered to the society to meet a deficiency, the only way in which they can get the full two-ninths from the State is if they make a compulsory levy. I do think that brings out the effect of the two-ninths, and I should like an answer to the question whether there is any real freedom of choice on the part of the society under the Clause.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I do not think there ought to be any difficulty in regard to the question of the two-ninths, because that is the amount which they distribute. If they distribute it wastefully they will have to pay out two-ninths in the way of benefit. I have considered the difficulty of the hon. Gentleman, and for the moment I cannot see where it arises, because if they reduce the benefit it means that the State, distributing the two-ninths, is paying in effect before the deficiency has arisen. Supposing there is a deficiency of £10,000 owing to their having distributed more money than they have actually had, the State has already contributed its amount. Therefore, the levy will go in making up the deficiency, and not to paying benefit.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not quite appreciated the question put by my hon. Friend (Mr. Amery), who has made a most interesting contribution to the Debate. As I understand my hon. Friend's point it is this, that, nominally, the society in a deficiency has a great choice of methods for making up that deficiency But there is one method alone which reduces the amount which its Members get from the State. Therefore, as my hon. Friend points out, the societies will always choose one of the other methods—that is to say, instead of reducing the benefits, and thereby reducing the contribution which the State make they will always choose some other alternative. I think it conceivable that sometimes they will withstand the attraction of the full subsidy of the State, and refer to take the reduced benefits even if by doing that they obtain a reduced subsidy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his answer, mentioned one point to which I think it is worth while giving a moment's reflection in order that we may consider what ought to be done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that anyway the societies were going to have the full amount of money that they ought to have. That is quite true, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that the society which was maladministered might easily have more than its share. That had not occurred to me before, and I owe it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will put it very shortly, and I would like him to consider it. A deficiency arises, the right hon. Gentleman said, because the society has paid too large benefits in one shape or another. To those benefits the State has paid two-ninths, and, if the society pays larger benefits than it ought, necessarily the State has to pay a higher subsidy. While the society is getting into a deficiency, not only is it spending more of its own money than it ought, but it is expending a larger subsidy from the State than it ought, because the State subsidy is in proportion to the benefits paid. We then come to the stage at which the society has to make good the deficiency, but it is never made good to the State unless the society chooses to reduce the benefits during the next triennial period. In that case the balance would be restored. That is the point which was forced upon me or shown to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I thought it worth while to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to it, and let him have an opportunity of considering it before he parts with it.

Mr. AMERY

May I point out that if the society makes an excessive levy, a levy more than is absolutely necessary for the deficiency, then it will again take more from the State? I think it does bring out the two-ninths method of contribution to be very unsatisfactory indeed.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.