HC Deb 02 December 1912 vol 44 cc2050-2

(1) The Admiralty shall erect, fit up, and maintain or provide—

  1. (a) Such huts or buildings for the accommodation of the workmen employed in and about the construction of the works authorised by this Act;
  2. (b) Such hospital accommodation for the treatment of cases of sickness or accident among such workmen including accommodation for dealing with infectious diseases
as shall be reasonably necessary having regard to the accommodation available in the neighbourhood of or conveniently accessible from the said works, and shall provide and maintain proper and sufficient sanitary accommodation in connexion with every such building and hospital.

(2) The Admiralty shall pay all reasonable, costs and expenses incurred in respect of the medical and surgical treatment of any workman employed on the construction of the said works who is treated in any hospital accommodation provided by them except in so far as such costs and expenses are payable under the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1911, or otherwise.


I beg to move in Sub-section (2) to insert the words, "The Admiralty shall pay all reasonable costs and expenses incurred in respect of the medical and surgical treatment of any workman employed on the construction of the said works who is treated in any hospital accommodation provided by them." I wish to explain the purport of this Clause which is the one alteration in the Bill made by the Select Committee. I may say I explained this matter very carefully last Wednesday, but I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), and I will do so again. When this Bill came up for Second Reading on October 24th the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) moved a declaratory Amendment asking the House to refuse the Second Reading unless there was a provision in the Bill as to house accommodation and medical and hospital treatment. He further added that we were not to pay less then 6d. per hour. I pointed out to him then that Standing Order, 184 (A), of the House empowered the Select Committee to look into the matter and to see whether it would appear that these works would take into the locality a larger number of men than the existing accommodation provided, and if so the Standing Order empowered the Select Committee to put a provision in the Bill to make that provision, should it be necessary. There has been provided a model Clause, No. 14, and under the Standing Order the Select Committee with our entire concurrence put in that provision. The hon. Member for Stoke, who has always displayed great interest on behalf of the navvy, is entitled to ask us how we propose to proceed under the Clause. The Clause empowers us to make careful inquiry, and if we find we shall be taking men there beyond the accommodation of the locality we are to make provision. I have already in anticipation of this had a careful report made to me as to the housing in the locality, and as to the number of men we are likely to take there. I do not think we shall take more than forty men for this particular pier, the cost of which will be from £7,000 to £9,000. Certainly we shall deal sympathetically with this matter which we are bound to carry out under the pledges I have given and under the obligations which this Clause lays upon us. If we find that these works bring into the locality men for whom there is no reasonable accommodation within reasonable distance, having regard to the light railway which now exists to Immingham, my hon. Friend may take it from me that we shall carry out fully the provisions of this Clause which have been introduced with our full concurrence.


I rise to thank the Government for having met us in such a handsome manner. As the right hon. Gentleman has himself explained the Clause, there is no need for me to do so.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

CLAUSES 8 and 9 agreed to.

Bill reported with an Amendment.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."


I understood you to put the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill." If that is so, there must be a Report stage. You cannot take the Third Reading.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean)

This is what we are now about to do.


But can you, on the same evening that you have taken the Committee stage, take the Report stage of a Money Bill which has been amended? I really must protest. The whole proceeding is absolutely out of order. Under these circumstances I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned.


This is not a Money Bill originating in Committee of Ways and Means. There was a Money Resolution before the Committee, which is quite a different thing. There is nothing to prevent the House from taking the Report stage now.


With all deference, although the Bill itself was not a Money Bill inasmuch as it did not originate in Committee of Ways and Means, this particular Clause, which has been amended, did originate in Committee of Ways and Means, and it is because it is that particular Clause which has been amended that I venture to say the proceedings are out of order. I really do not see what the Government gain; we shall have no objection to taking the stage to-morrow.


As far as the Government are concerned, we have no objection to the further proceedings being adjourned.


I should like the hon. Baronet clearly to understand that the Ruling I gave is perfectly correct, as the Bill did not originate in a money Committee. But if the Government agree to adjourn the Bill, that is another matter.


I was quite aware that the Bill did not originate in Committee of Ways and Means, but this particular Clause did, and the Money Resolution had to do with this particular Clause.

Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow (Tuesday).