Commons Sitting of 6 August 1913

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Heathfield and District Water Bill (by Order),
Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [5th August], "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments considered accordingly, and agreed to.
Aldbar Trust Estates Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That, in the case of the Aldbar Trust Estates Bill [Lords], Standing Order 235 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read a second time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 7) Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Wemyss Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Kirkcaldy and Dysart Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill [Lords],
Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [5th August], "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
Question again proposed; Debate resumed.
Question amended, by leaving out from the word "be," to the end of the Question, and adding the words "recommitted to the former Committee for the purpose of reinstating the Kingstown Order."—[Mr. Robertson]—instead thereof:—
Ordered, That the Committee to which the Bill is recommitted have power to divide the Bill into two Bills dealing with the opposed and unopposed Orders respectively, and that the Bill for confirming the Kingstown Order stand referred to the Committee of Selection.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Alexandra Park and Palace Bill [Lords],
Limerick Harbour Commissioners Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT, 1901 ("PARTICULARS" SECTION).
Copy presented of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Sir Ernest Hatch, Bart., on his investigation as to the application of the "Particulars" Section of the Act to Foundries [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF DURHAM).
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the county of Durham altering certain Polling Districts in the Houghton-le-Spring, South Eastern, and Mid Parliamentary Divisions of the county [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MINT.
Copy presented of Forty-third Annual Report of the Deputy Master and Comptroller of the Mint, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Reports concerning Peterhead Harbour Works [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
Copy presented of Fourth Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Customs and Excise, for the year ended 31st March, 1913, being the Fifty-sixth Report relating to Customs and the Fifty-fifth Report relating to the Excise [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 5th August; Mr. Masterman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 255.]
PACIFIC CABLE ACT, 1901.
Account presented, showing the Money issued from the Consolidated Fund under the provisions of The Pacific Cable Act, 1901, and of the Money received, expended, and borrowed, and Securities created under the said Act, to the 31st March, 1913, together with a Copy of the Report of the Chairman of the Pacific Cable Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 5th August, 1913, affecting certain classes of Shops in the burgh of Leith [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Annual Report on Sea Fisheries for the year 1912. Part I. Report [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

FEUDAL CASUALTIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Copy "of Memorandum explanatory of the Feudal Casualties (Scotland) Bill."—[The Lord Advocate.]
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

EXPERIMENT'S ON LIVING ANIMALS.
Address for "Return showing the number of Experiments on Living Animals
1454
during the year 1912, under licences granted under the Act, 39 and 40 Vic., c. 77, distinguishing the nature of the Experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 207, of Session 1912–12)."—[Mr. Ellis Griffith.]

COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS AND SITTINGS).
Address for "Returns from every County Court in England and Wales of the total number of Plaints, etc., entered in each Court from the 1st day of January to the 31st day of December, 1912, both days inclusive, distinguishing those not exceeding £20, those above £20 and not exceeding £50, those above £50 and not exceeding £100, and those by agreement over £100; and of the Sittings of the County Courts in England and Wales holden before the judges of such Courts in the year 1912 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 302, of Session 1912–13)."—[Mr. Ellis Griffith.]
VITAL STATISTICS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
Address for "Return of quarterly summary of the marriages, births, and deaths registered in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, with comparisons of the corresponding figures for a period of ten years."—[Mr. Chiozza Money.]

PATENT MEDICINES.
Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed];
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 258.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 258.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Government of the Soudan Loan Bill, without Amendment.
Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill, with Amendments.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    OIL FUEL.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Royal Commission on Oil Fuel or any expert Committee of the Admiralty have reported against the construction of capital ships designed to consume oil fuel only?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): I cannot undertake to answer questions about the Reports of Royal Commissions or Admiralty Departmental Committees which are of a confidential nature further than to say in general terms that nothing in the policy which the Board of Admiralty have pursued is in conflict with the recommendations which have been received.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will lay upon the Table, for the information of Members, a copy of the Admiralty specification for oil fuel submitted to contractors in the year 1910, showing thereon the modifications and amendments thereof with the dates of same down to the present time?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The information which the hon. Member desires shall be laid upon the Table of the House.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any of the new battleships in course of being laid down for the navies of Germany, Austria, Italy, or France are being designed for the use of oil fuel?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It has been the practice for some years in the navies referred to to carry a certain proportion of oil fuel in their battleships, but there is no information regarding those in course of being laid down. Three American battleships are designed to burn oil fuel only—"Nevada" and "Oklahoma," laid down in 1912, "Pennsylvania," laid down in 1913. It was stated in "Le Yacht," 18th January, 1913, that the Russian battleship, "Ekaterina II.," was to burn oil only, but no official confirmation has been received.

    ILLEGAL TRAWLING (START BAT).
    Mr. MILDMAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the destruction of the fishing gear in Start
    1456
    Bay, South Devon, resulting from illegal trawling in the prohibited area and of the practical immunity of the offenders, he will consider the possibility of directing the officers in command of the destroyer and torpedo-boat stationed at Dartmouth to assist in the indentification of such offenders?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Actual assistance in enforcing local by-laws, either by His Majesty's ships (both fishery cruisers and otherwise) or by Coastguard on shore, has always been refused by the Admiralty, but at the same time the Admiralty have assisted so far as they could, consistently with the above policy, by authorising His Majesty's ships and the Coastguard to report to the local committee any cases of infringement of local by-laws which may come to their notice in the ordinary course of their duties. The instructional duties on which the destroyer and torpedo-boat stationed at Dartmouth are employed will not admit of visits to Start Bay being made as a matter of routine, but the question whether they can usefully and without interfering with their ordinary duties make occasional visits will be examined.
    Colonel BURN: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to get the acceleration of a convention for the English Channel just as we have for the North Sea? This has been going on a long time, and it is a matter of most material interest.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This is not really an Admiralty matter. When our boats are going about if they notice any infringements of the by-laws they have instructions to report them. We cannot undertake the extra duty of police.
    Colonel BURN: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—I have spoken about these things so many times, and this has been going on so long?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This is question time, and I am here only to answer questions which affect my Department.

    COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to a compensation case, which has just been decided in the final court of appeal, of a bricklayer employed by the Admiralty, who lost his

    1457
    finger and was reported as unfit for further employment; whether the Admiralty offered him 3s. 5d. per week as compensation, on his refusal to accept this sum the offer was increased to 6s. 9d. per week, when he again refused, and after arbitration proceedings the Admiralty offered him 10s. 2d. per week, subject to review in twelve months; whether he is aware that the man filed an application for arbitration in the County Court claiming 17s. 3d. per week; whether he is aware that the case was ruled out on technical grounds, and these technical objections have been sustained by the final Court of Appeal; if he can state whether all the men working under the control of the Admiralty are forced to contract out of the Workmen's Compensation Act; and if he can state whether the scheme adopted by the Admiralty gives more compensation to the workmen than the Workmen's Compensation Act?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The facts of the case are generally as stated in the earlier parts of the question. The case was ruled out of the County Court on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction, and subsequent appeals against this judgment, based on the suggested invalidity of the Government scheme, were dismissed. With regard to the latter parts of the question, acceptance of the Government scheme is entirely optional so far as Admiralty workmen are concerned. They are perfectly at liberty, without prejudice, to remain under the Act if they so prefer. The Government scheme of compensation is certified by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies as providing scales of compensation not less favourable to the workmen and their dependants than the corresponding scales in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906.
    Mr. GILL: Is there a definite basis for the payment of compensation, and is it customary to offer three different kinds as was done in this case?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is in accordance with the scheme.

    NAVAL CANTEEN, PORTLAND.
    Mr. POINTERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received any complaints with regard to the employment of labourers on painters' work at the naval canteen, Portland; and whether he is inquiring into the matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

    HIS MAJESTY'S GUNWHARF, PORTSMOUTH.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that when Mr. H. Hawkins, late of His Majesty's Gunwharf, Portsmouth, was examined by the medical referee there were four military surgeons and one civilian surgeon present at the examination; if so, will he state whether they were present at the request of the War Office; whether Hawkins had the opportunity of inviting medical men to be present in his interest; and, if not, why he was not given the opportunity?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. Baker): One officer of the Royal Army Medical Corps was present at the physical examination of Mr. Hawkins. A representative of the Treasury and two other military officers (one of whom was solely concerned in another case) were in attendance in another room to give information if necessary as required by regulations. There is no reason to suppose that the medical referee would have objected to a medical man attending with Mr. Hawkins in his interest, but that is not a matter which rests with the military authorities.

    San Thomé and Principé.
    Mr. HOAREasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to state whether the Portuguese Government are taking a census of labourers on the island of San Thomé?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I have not heard that the Portuguese Government have yet taken a census of the labourers, but I will make inquiry on the subject.
    Mr. HOAREasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Consul Small-bones has taken any further action since the Foreign Office Vote Debate in the direction of identifying any British subjects, who may be among the contract labourers in San Thomé; and, if so, what are the results of his inquiries?
    Mr. ACLAND: The Vice-Consul has been in Fernando Po since the end of May

    1459
    and has not yet been able to continue his inquiries as to the presence of British subjects among the labourers in San Thomé.
    Mr. HOARE: Can the hon. Gentleman add to the information which he has already given to the House on the subject?
    Mr. ACLAND: I think the Vice-Consul will be going back shortly, and although it is a matter of very great difficulty to obtain information on this matter, yet the Vice-Consul is quite aware that we are interested in the matter, and he will pursue his inquiries as soon as he returns.
    Mr. HOAREasked how many contract labourers have been repatriated from San Thomé and Principé since February; how many have received any bonus; and to what amount?
    Mr. ACLAND: During March 234 labourers were repatriated from San Thomé and twenty-one from Principé, and in April 359 were repatriated from San Thomé. I have not yet received any further statistics as to repatriation nor any information as to the bonuses paid to the men, but His Majesty's Consul at Loanda has been instructed to make inquiries on this point.
    Mr. HOARE: Are the labourers being repatriated to the full extent of the carrying power of the ships?
    Mr. ACLAND: That I do not know, and I do not think we could possibly make a demand of that kind, but I do know that in the case of the numbers of labourers whose time expires they roust be repatriated to the full capacity of the ships which happen to call.
    Mr. HOARE: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that all those whose time has expired are being repatriated?
    Mr. ACLAND: That is quite another question.

    Opium.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information regarding the extent to which Indian and Persian opium has this year been smuggled into China through Macao and other depots, and regarding the extent to which the use of cocaine and other stimulants is now replacing that of Indian opium in China; and whether he has any proof of
    1460
    indications that the establishment of an official monopoly in native-grown opium will follow on the final extinction of the import from India?
    Mr. ACLAND: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative, but as regards Macao an agreement has recently been concluded with the Portuguese Government, and will shortly be laid on the Table, which it is hoped will make it extremely difficult for any smuggling to take place into China. As regards the last part of the question the Chinese Government at one time made certain proposals which included the establishment of an official monopoly in native-grown opium, but these proposals have since been withdrawn, and I am unable to say whether they will be renewed.

    Hague Peace Conference.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the desirability of having a programme for the next Peace Conference. His Majesty's Government will suggest to the Government of The Hague that it would probably meet with the general approval of the Governments of the world if the Government of The Hague were to take the initiative in calling a conference to prepare such a programme?
    Mr. ACLAND: His Majesty's Government will ascertain the views of other Governments upon this matter as soon as the troubles in the Near East are less exacting; till that has been done I cannot, of course, make a suggestion to The Hague Government in the terms proposed by the hon. Member, though I am in sympathy with the object of his question.
    Mr. BARNES: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the reply from other Governments is expedited?
    Mr. ACLAND: I am sure my right hon. Friend will do what he can in the matter.

    Colombo Harbour Scheme.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Ceylon Government proposes to include a tea-blending warehouse in the Colombo harbour improvement scheme and to remit the duty on imported tea?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have no information with regard to the matter.

    Trinidad (Arrests).
    Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a Memorandum from the Trinidad Working Men's Association calling attention to the increasing number of arrests and the increased severity of the penalties inflicted in Trinidad under the Ordinance giving to the police power to arrest without warrant anyone whom they may suspect of conveying stolen goods; and whether he will inquire into the working of the Ordinance?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have not yet received the Memorandum to which my hon. Friend refers.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    MERITORIOUS SERVICE MEDAL.
    Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make arrangements that for the future soldiers duly recommended for the Meritorious Service Medal shall receive that medal according to the priority of the recommendations?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The award of this medal depends upon the age, amount of pension, length of service, character and record of service of the candidate. Every care is taken to ensure that the award is made strictly in accordance with merit.
    Mr. NEWDEGATE: May I ask whether it is the case that there are several soldiers who have been recommended for the Meritorious Service Medal and have been twenty years without receiving it, and if it is the case that soldiers recommended at a much recent date have already received the medal?
    Colonel SEELY: I am certain every care is taken to ensure that the awards shall be made strictly in accordance with the merits, taking into consideration all the facts of the case. I have satisfied myself these awards are made strictly in accordance with merit.

    ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY.
    Colonel BURNasked the Secretary of State for War whether no captains of the Royal Garrison Artillery have been promoted since 15th February, 1913, although ten majors have been promoted to the rank of lieutenant-colonel since that
    1462
    date; and, if so, will he say what is the reason?
    Colonel SEELY: On and since 15th February nine majors have been promoted. No captains have been promoted since that date, as all vacancies to the rank of major have been required to restore to the establishment majors who have returned from extra regimental employment.

    PENSIONS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for War why Army pensions are paid in advance for the quarter, whereby the taxpayer loses the interest on his money and the pensioner is encouraged in reckless expenditure; and why arrangements cannot be made for payment every week, as in the case of old age pensions?
    Mr. BAKER: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to the reply to a question put on this subject by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Ross Division on 22nd January last.

    WEST KENT QUEEN'S OWN YEOMANRY.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether Lieutenant Bertrand Stewart has been gazetted a captain of the West Kent Queen's Own Yeomanry as from April 19th last; whether at that date Lieutenant Stewart was suffering imprisonment; and whether his promotion is to be regarded as a reward for orders carried out by him on foreign service or as compensation for his foreign incarceration?
    Colonel SEELY: Captain Bertrand Stewart was the senior subaltern of his regiment, and, being fully qualified, was promoted to fill a vacancy in the ordinary course.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Mr. GLAZEBROOKasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take any steps to prevent the further production of a sketch now being performed at the Empire Music Hall, Ardwick, Manchester, entitled "Territorials, or England's Last Hope," and calculated to bring ridicule and contempt upon the Territorial Force?
    Colonel SEELY: I have directed that inquiry shall be made into this matter, which had not previously been brought to, my attention.

    SPECIAL RESERVE (RIFLES).
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that during the training this year of one Special Reserve battalion some of the officers and men were prevented from becoming marksmen by the jamming of their rifles during rapid firing; whether, seeing that this is unfair to those whom it affects and might be disastrous in war, he will say what steps he proposes to take to provide rifles which do not jam; and will he say whether rifles jam in the same way in other Special Reserve regiments?
    Colonel SEELY: No complaint of the matter in question has been received from any Special Reserve battalion. If the hon. Gentleman will furnish me with some detailed information on the subject I will have inquiry made.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask whether the rifle which the Special Reserve use is the converted rifle which the right hon. Gentleman described as being as good as any in the world, or is it the old rifle which he described as being better than the converted one, or is it the new rifle which he described as being the best in the world, and in which the Ammunition explodes in the chamber?
    Colonel SEELY: I cannot accept the last statement as being accurate, and, indeed, I think I may say it is not an accurate statement of the facts, but with regard to the series of questions which the Noble Lord puts, perhaps he would put them down.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask if he means the new rifle is not now the best in the world, or that the ammunition does not often explode?
    Colonel SEELY: Those are all matters of opinion upon which I differ from the Noble Lord, and perhaps he would put them down.
    Mr. HUNT: May I ask whether I may naturally assume, if I give the regiment that neither the colonel nor anybody else will get into trouble about it?
    Colonel SEELY: It is difficult for me to say what the hon. Gentleman would naturally assume, but the specific point that I think the hon. Gentleman means to put to me as to whether anybody will get into trouble, because it is given, I will say at once, certainly not.

  Delhi.
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will give the names of the qualified architects employed by the Government or the Government of India to prepare the accepted scheme of Town Planning for the New Delhi; whether any of these qualified architects so employed have since been given an order to prepare plans for acceptance for any of the new Imperial buildings in Delhi, and, if so, which; and, if any, whether he can give the estimated approximate cost of each, whether large public buildings or small public buildings?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The only qualified architect who was a member of the Delhi Town Planning Committee was Mr. E. L. Lutyens. Mr. Lutyens, conjointly with Mr. Herbert Baker, has been given a commission to prepare designs for Government House and two secretarial blocks. The estimated cost cannot at present be given.

  Public Works Department (Imperial Branch).
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received requests for pension allowances from the engineers of the Imperial branch in the Public Works Department; whether the matter is still under consideration; when the requests for pensions were first made; and, if the matter is still unsettled, when any announcement of policy will be made?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State is aware that petitions have been submitted by engineers of the Public Works Department asking for increased pension allowances, but the petitions have not yet been transmitted by the Government of India. The conditions of pension come within the scope of the Public Services Commission's inquiry, and it is proposed to await the Commission's Report before arriving at a decision on the petition in question.

  India (Religion Statistics).
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the total number of Christian soldiers and of non-Christian soldiers, respectively, serving under His Majesty's Colours in India, and how much money from the revenues of India was paid in the last financial year for religious

  1465
  buildings, religious services, and religious ministers in India for Christian and for non-Christian religions, respectively?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The total number of Christian and non-Christian soldiers, British and Indian, are 83,806 and 150,624, respectively. The Government of India report that last year the total Army charges for religious ministrations were: For services and ministers for Christian troops, Rs. 4,35,000; for non-Christian troops, Rs. 22,000. Complete information of the charges on account of religious buildings for the troops has not yet been furnished. I will let my hon. Friend have it as soon as it is received from India.

  Victoria Memorial Hall (India).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India to what use it has been finally decided to put Belvedere; and whether the art and historical treasures for the Victoria Memorial Hall are only temporarily housed therein?
  Mr. MONTAGU: So far as the Secretary of State is aware, no final decision has been arrived at.

  Bengal Service.
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a number of petitions have been addressed to the Secretary of State through the ordinary channels from members of the various Indian education services against the proposed appointment of an outsider to the headship of the Bengal service; and whether any decision on the subject has yet been arrived at by the Government?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has received the memorials referred to. The appointment to which they relate has been made in the circumstances described in the explanation published by the Government of Bengal, a copy of which I shall be glad to send to my hon. Friend.

  Finance Act, 1909–10 (Application of Taxes).
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the cost of new ships for the Navy and of old age pensions, incurred in the year 1910, was met from the proceeds of the taxes on land and property levied under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; and if he will give the same information as regards the years 1911 and 1912?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EX-CHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The yield of the taxes in question has already been given to the House, and I must leave the hon. Member to make his own calculations.
  Mr. F. HALL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the speeches he made in August and September, 1909, in which he defended those discredited taxes on the assumption that in 1910 and subsequent years they Would be largely paying for old age pensions and to provide battleships?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly, £455,000 was provided last year.
  Mr. F. HALL: May I ask whether anything has been derived for the present, year from the payment of those?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly, if the hon. Gentleman will look at the revenue returns he will find that is so.

  Revenue Bill.
  Mr. GLAZEBROOKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the Manchester Law Society's objection to the last paragraph of Clause 9 of the Revenue Bill, providing that a decision of the Commissioners under the Clause shall be final; and, if so, whether he is prepared to omit that paragraph?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Manchester Law Society have communicated to me their objection to the provision referred to by the hon. Member, but as there is an Amendment on the Paper on the subject of this provision it does not appear to me convenient to deal with it in answer to a question.

  Public Buildings (Office of Works).
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will ascertain and say whether any designs for the elevations of the new College of Art at South Kensington, the new Industrial Museum, and the new extensions of the Admiralty buildings have been prepared by the permanent staff of the Office of Works; whether these designs may now be placed in the Tea Room, so that Members may have an opportunity of seeing the different styles of architecture which have been adopted;

  1467
  and if he will say whether the estimates of £65,000, £45,000, and £25,000, sanctioned by Parliament for these three public buildings, were prepared without any designs having been submitted or approved?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD-BENN (Lord of the Treasury): Designs have not been prepared, either of the elevation of the new College of Art or of the new extension of the Admiralty buildings. An elevation for the new Industrial Museum has been prepared and can be exhibited in the Tea Room, if desired. The estimates were made from sketch plans prepared in the Department, but not settled in detail.
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the number and names of the qualified architects permanently employed by the Office of Works, as well as the dates when they first joined that office; whether all or any of them are fellows of the Royal Institute of British Architects, and, if either, the dates when they became fellows?
  Mr. W. BENN: The total number of architects of all grades on the establishment of the Office of Works is sixty-one. Of these three are fellows, twenty-four associates, and four licentiates of the Royal Institute of British Architects. The three fellows attained their rank in 1891, 1906, and 1912, respectively.
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked at what cost in thousands of pounds a public building is regarded officially by the Office of Works as a large public building and a small public building; if he will say at the same time whether the new College of Art, which is estimated to cost £65,000, and has been officially classified as a small public building, is to be a three-storey building; and if he will say how many square feet of ground this new building is to cover?
  Mr. W. BENN: The Board has no fixed scale under which a building is classified as a large or a small public building. As plans for the new College of Art have not yet been definitely settled, it is premature to say how many stories it may have. The area of the site is about 16,630 square feet, which will be covered by the buildings with the exception of the necessary areas for light and air.

  House of Commons (Bath Rooms).
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East,
  1468
  as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the attention of the First Commissioner of Works has been directed to the defective bath room accommodation in the House of Commons; and whether the First Commissioner will give directions that this deficiency in accommodation be rectified by the requisite improvements and the providing of a greater number of bath rooms in the interval between the prorogation and the meeting of Parliament?
  Mr. W. BENN: There are four baths at present provided within the precincts and they have not hitherto been found inadequate.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this night week there was a great demand for bath rooms, that one bath room was crowded by five Members presumably wishing to get in, and that there was such a scene of confusion as has not been witnessed at any bathing place since the Pool of Siloam?
  Mr. W. BENN: The facts may be as the hon. Member states, but in this case no miracle followed.
  Sir J. B. LONSDALE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that amongst the five Members there was no Nationalist?

  Order of the Bath (Westminster Abbey Ceremony).
  Sir WILFRID LAWSONasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the Board of Works were responsible for the recent alterations in Westminster Abbey; if so, whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction which has been expressed as to the seating arrangements therein at the recent ceremony of the Order of the Bath: and whether, in case of further alterations, the provision of adequate accommodation to which they are entitled can be ensured for the Knights Commanders and Companions of the Order on any such or other future public occasions in which they are interested or concerned?
  Mr. W. BENN: Neither the First Commissioner nor his Department were in any way responsible for the arrangements at the recent ceremony of the Order of the Bath in Westminster Abbey.

  Telephone Service.
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Postmaster-General if a new class of assistant engineers has been formed in connection with the telephone service; if, in filling these positions, a large number of second-class engineers have been passed over in favour of men of a lower grade in the service; and, if so, the number of men so passed over, and the reasons for adopting this course?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question on 11th June, of which I will send him a copy. The number of officers affected is sixty-five.
  Mr. F. HALL: Is it not a fact that the engineers who were excluded were in many cases officers of long standing, whose knowledge would in the ordinary course of events have been advantageous to the telephone system in general?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A new class of higher qualifications was instituted, and the officers who were excluded, although of many years' service, had not the necessary qualifications for promotion to the new class.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    SUB-POSTMASTERS (ADDITIONAL DUTIES).
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Postmaster-General whether sub-postmasters have received any financial consideration on account, in respect of the additional duties involved in the sale of insurance stamps; if so, how much has been paid in respect of such duties; and when it is proposed to inform sub-postmasters what they may expect to receive for their additional work?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Scale payment sub-postmasters have received 10s. each as a payment on account in respect of the first six months of the period during which the Insurance Act has been in operation, this being one-half of the proposed minimum annual payment of £1. With regard to the last part of the hon. Member's question, I beg to refer him to the answers which I gave to similar questions on the 28th of July.
    Mr. MORRELL: Did not the right hon. Gentleman expect the Report to be received some time ago?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No; the Report of the Select Committee was not expected before the present date. I believe that it is now almost complete.

    SICKNESS BENEFIT.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether an insured person can claim sickness benefit from an approved society under the National Insurance Act for Sundays during a period of illness, as well as on other days, with the exception of a Sunday that may occur in the first three days of the illness?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Sickness benefit under the National Insurance Act is payable at weekly rates. It depends on the rules of the particular society whether the benefit is administered on a seven or a six-days' basis. Most societies have adopted the latter basis, and pay one-sixth of the weekly rate for any day except Sunday, but a few pay one-seventh of the weekly rate for each day, including Sundays. In either case the same sum is paid for each week of sickness.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the choice of doctor is materially restricted in the case of insured persons in Wisbech owing to the exclusion of several local doctors from the panel, he is prepared to grant a special inquiry into the administration of medical benefits in the Isle of Ely?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have fully explained the circumstances which led to the suspension of the normal panel arrangements in the area referred to. No representations have been received from the insurance committee or from insured persons resident in the area that the arrangements which have been sanctioned for the provision of medical benefit to insured persons are inadequate, and I see no reason for instituting such an inquiry as is suggested by the hon. Member.

  Secondary Schools (England and Wales).
  Mr. HOAREasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can give the House any approximate estimate of the number of secondary schools in England and Wales other than those which receive rate or State aid?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): In addition to the secondary schools in receipt of Grants there are 101 schools which have been inspected by the Board and recognised by them as efficient. From the Public Schools' Year Book, the Girls' School Year Book, and a published list of preparatory schools, it would appear that there are, in addition, 376 preparatory schools for boys, 386 secondary schools for boys, and 227 secondary schools for girls. No approximate estimate can be given of the total number of private schools outside the above categories, but it probably amounts to some thousands.

  Elementary Schools.
  Mr. HOAREasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will state the number of children of each year of elementary school age who left school in 1911–12?
  Mr. PEASE: I am unable to give the hon. Member the information for which he asks. No statistics on the subject have been collected by the Board.
  Mr. HOARE: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advantage of going back to the practice which I believe prevailed before 1903 of publishing these statistics in the Annual Volume of the Board of Education?
  Mr. PEASE: I have considered how far it would be possible to supply such statistics, but it seemed to me that the value of the information given would not be equal to the labour involved.

  Suffragist Conspiracy.
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if the man Clayton, who was sentenced to twenty-one months' imprisonment for conspiracy, is being watched by the police; when he was last released; and if it is proposed to rearrest him?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): Clayton was released on temporary discharge on 23rd June. I can give no further information with regard to a man who is now a fugitive from justice.
  Mr. F. HALL: When the man was released on 23rd June, did not the Home Office take the necessary steps to know where he was going during the time of his parole?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: This man is now a fugitive from justice. If it is possible to rearrest him no doubt that will be done.
  Mr. F. HALL: In future in important cases like this will steps be taken in order that the persons concerned shall not leave these shores?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Steps are taken, but the steps are not invariably successful.
  Mr. J. WARD: Why not let them all go if they want to?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Miss Lake, who was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for conspiracy in May last, although the verdict of the jury was accompanied by a recommendation for leniency of sentence; whether he is aware that Miss Lake was a business employé, and had never made any inciting speeches or had ever been connected with any acts of militancy; that before sentence she was given no opportunity of making a statement of facts which her counsel had informed her would be better stated by herself; that since her conviction she has been for the most part in solitary confinement, without books or writing materials, and is allowed only one visit of fifteen minutes per month; and whether, in view of the circumstances of this case, he can see his way to remitting the remainder of the sentence?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: My right hon. Friend is well acquainted with the circumstances of the case, and recognises that, although she was undoubtedly guilty of conspiracy with the other defendants, Miss Lake's part was a comparatively subordinate one. She is enjoying the privilege of Rule 243A, and is allowed a liberal supply of books, and, for special reasons, is also allowed the use of writing materials for purposes of study. Her husband has been allowed special extensions of time for his visits. The Home Secretary would be very glad to be able to advise the remission of the remainder of her sentence, but he can only do so if she will give him an assurance that she will not for the future break the law.

  Mr. George Lansbury (Imprisonment).
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the sentence of imprisonment recently passed

  1473
  upon Mr. George Lansbury; and whether, in view of all the circumstances of this case, he will take some action in the matter?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Mr. Lansbury has been released under the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-health) Act after serving only three days. He is liable to return to prison, but it is open to him at any time to bring his sentence of imprisonment to an end by finding sureties to keep the peace.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is really in respect of an expression of political opinion that Mr. Lansbury is now under sentence of imprisonment? Has he considered the fact that if the law is allowed to take its course against Mr. Lansbury while no proceedings whatever are taken against the right hon. Gentleman for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson), it will bring the administration of the law into great discredit?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: That is raising another point. Mr. Lansbury is under sentence; he has served only three days of his sentence, and he can at any moment bring his imprisonment to an end by finding sureties to keep the peace. The concluding part of the question appears to rest rather with Mr. Lansbury than with the Home Secretary.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Has Mr. Lansbury been proved to have committed a breach of the peace?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am concerned with the sentence. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment which he has not yet served.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The hon. Gentleman says that Mr. Lansbury can bring his imprisonment to a close by finding sureties. Has the hon. Gentleman considered whether Mr. Lansbury can bring his imprisonment to a close honourably by giving such sureties?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: That is a question entirely for Mr. Lansbury.

  Piccadilly Flat Case (Queenie Gerald).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings at the London Sessions on 10th July, when a woman giving the name of Queenie Gerald pleaded guilty to charges under the
  1474
  Criminal Law Amendment Act, and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment in the second division; whether when she was arrested she had in her possession over £200 in gold and notes in a handbag; whether the three girls on whose account she was charged were aged seventeen, seventeen, and eighteen years, respectively; whether the letters and documents seized by the police when the flat was raided showed that Gerald had also been acting as a procuress for rich people staying in London; whether these letters were in Court in the hands of the Public Prosecutor, but only one of the names contained in them was disclosed, whilst the names of the three girl victims had already been made public during the preliminary proceedings connected with the case; and whether, in the interests of the public and the efficient administration of the Act, he will now give the House the names of the men implicated?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The Home Secretary's attention has been called to the case. It is the fact that money to the amount mentioned was found in the woman's possession, and the ages of the girls whom she employed were as stated in the question. It is true that the documents showed she was keeping an establishment for immoral women frequented by wealthy persons; but there was no evidence whatever that she was guilty of an offence within Section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, of procuring any woman or girl not being a common prostitute. The case was conducted by the solicitor to the Metropolitan Police, not by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The letters were in the possession of the prosecution. The name of one man whose letters showed he was acting as an agent for the woman was mentioned by counsel in Court. Other names appeared in a diary kept by Gerald, but these names were not relevant to the case, and there was nothing to show that they were the names of persons who in fact frequented the premises. As the woman pleaded guilty to all the seven counts of the indictment, the facts were not given in evidence in Court; but in any case it would have been an injustice to persons who were possibly innocent to have brought their names into the case, and for the same reason I cannot mention them now.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether the Home Secretary does not consider that

  1475
  the publication of the names of men who tempt women in this way by offering large sums of money would not act as a deterrent; and whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the names of certain very prominent men, including those of members of the Cabinet, are being mentioned in the rumours outside?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I certainly was not aware of that. If these men were guilty of any offence, of course they would be prosecuted. That may, in my hon. Friend's opinion, justify the necessity for changing the law, but as the law now stands none of these men whose names appeared in the diary can be proceeded against.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Why were not the facts of the case, including the names of these men, submitted by the prosecuting counsel, so that the judge might have had the opportunity of weighing up the case in all seriousness before pronouncing judgment?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: As my hon. Friend knows, the prisoner pleaded guilty to the seven counts of the indictment; under these circumstances no evidence was proffered or permissible. The only thing that counsel did was to make an opening statement, as is always done. The names of the men were not relevant to that particular issue.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Was it not stated in Court that there was a ledger kept with the amounts opposite the names of each of those who had paid this woman sums of money, and is not that proof enough that they were connected with her sufficient to justify prosecution in each case?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am advised that the facts and the evidence in this case did not justify prosecution in the sense that prosecution would be successful. As the hon. Member no doubt is aware, the mere fact of a man going to a house of this kind is not in itself a criminal offence.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Were there not letters found from men inviting this woman to procure young girls for immoral purposes, and does not that of itself constitute an offence under the Act?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: We are advised that nothing that was disclosed in the
  1476
  letters would make any of the men who wrote them amenable to criminal prosecution.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: How many letters were found? Were they of such a nature as to induce the belief that this woman was acting as a procuress? If so, why was she not charged with being a procuress?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The Noble Lord knows that there was no charge against this woman at Quarter Sessions under Section 2 of the Act of 1885, and the reason for that is quite well known to him, because the women who were on the premises were common prostitutes or women of known immoral character. Under these circumstances no charge of procuration, as such, was ever brought against her, either in the first instance before the sitting magistrate or in the second instance at Quarter Sessions. The charge upon which she was indicted, to which she pleaded guilty, and on which she was sentenced, was under Section 7 of the Act of 1912.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not think I made the question clear. I asked the hon. Gentleman how many letters there were, and whether they were of such a nature as to lead to the belief that this woman was a procuress, and, if so, why she was not charged with being a procuress on the evidence of the letters?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: My information is that none of the letters would have supported a charge of procuration under Section (2) of the Act of 1885, and for the reason I have already given the Noble Lord.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: How many letters are there?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to give notice that on the first opportunity I will call attention to this matter.

  Criminal Law Amendment Act.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Home Secretary if the recent statement of the police authorities to the effect that the tales about decoying girls by means of bogus nurses and other startling disappearances were untrue was made with his knowledge and concurrence; whether this warning is meant to apply generally to such stories; and if he can say what is the motive to which the police attribute the invention of such narratives?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to a question on the 29th of last month, to the effect that many tales of the spiriting away of girls have been circulated in London, but that in no case have the police been able to find any evidence of their truth. The police know of no motive for the invention of these reports, many of which are obviously variants of the same story.
  Mr. BOOTH: Does my hon. Friend not know that these stories first had their origin when the Criminal Law Amendment Bill was before this House?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I have no special information upon that point.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the increasing number of girls of tender years parading the streets; if he has any explanation to offer; and does he still persist in refusing a thorough inquiry?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: In the opinion of experienced police officers there is no increase in the number of girls of tender years parading the streets. They report that there is on the part of many women who walk the streets a tendency to dress in such a manner as to appear much younger than they are.

  Marylebone Borough Council (Purchase of Freehold).
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Marylebone Borough Council has been considering the offer of Lord Howard de Walden for the purchase of the freehold, or for a 999 years' lease, of Nos. 34, 35, 36, and 37, Aybrook Street, now held by the council on a lease expiring in May, 1961, at a ground rent of £176 a year; whether he is aware that the terms offered for the freehold were £10,000, or for a 999 years' lease the annual payment of £176 and a premium of £6,000, which offers were declined; and whether he will promote legislation in order to obtain for local authorities security of tenure of their premises on equitable terms?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I understand the facts to be as stated in my hon. Friend's question. I am afraid I can make no promise of legislation to the effect suggested.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to introduce some legislation to give local authorities better terms than that—fifty-six years' purchase of the fee simple for property for public purposes?

  Workhouse Regulations (Newington).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the inquiry which it instituted in the case of Edith Plumb, was conducted by a barrister or solicitor; whether he saw Edith Plumb and took her evidence, asked her what inmates could give evidence, and took their evidence; whether he took the evidence of the police who saw her at the Court, or the rooms near the Court, or of the Court Missionary; whether she was accompanied to the Court by any women; whether she was given no food except bread and water for two days, and were they consecutive days; by whose orders was this punishment given; by whose orders was she prosecuted; did the guardians hear her before or after she was punished; and did they hear her before she was prosecuted?
  Mr. BURNS: No formal inquiry has been held by my Department, but two of my inspectors, both of them barristers, have investigated the circumstances of the case. On the subject generally I may refer to the reply I gave to questions addressed to me on the 24th July.

  Labourers' Cottages (England and Wales).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether it is on the instructions or with the sanction of his Department that landowners and others desiring to build cottages in rural districts are required, under the by-laws of the rural district council, not merely to furnish plans of such cottages to their inspector and agree such plans with him, but subsequently to fill up and return to the surveyor of such council four separate notices as to the progress of the structure, the first when the damp course is laid, the second when the foundations are completed and ready to be covered up, the third when the drains are completed and ready to be covered up, and the fourth after the completion of the building; whether he realises that such action on the part of the local sanitary authority often acts as a serious deterrent

  1479
  to landowners willing and anxious to erect cottages in their localities; and whether he will take steps to refuse Departmental sanction to such by-laws?
  Mr. BURNS: The present rural model series does not require the first two notices mentioned in the question. Some local authorities, however, have asked for a by-law requiring a notice when the damp course is laid, and I am advised that this is not unreasonable. A requirement as to a notice when the foundations of a building are completed is included in the urban model series, and is also in force in some rural districts. If an opportunity is to be given for the inspection of buildings during the course of their construction, it is only reasonable that notice of the progress of the work should be given.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that such official fussiness on the part of district councils acts as a serious detriment to cottage building in rural districts?
  Mr. BURNS: I do not admit the existence of the alleged fussiness. It is not unreasonable for a local authority to ask that cottages should have a damp course, that they should have reasonably dry foundations, and that the builder or owner of the cottage should build it so that it will be, when completed, in a habitable condition.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it necessary, in order to effect that, that the owner should have to fill in five separate forms?
  Mr. BURNS: The forms that the owner now fills in are the simplest possible. Anything that the hon Member can suggest to reduce their number or complexity, I will willingly accept; but we must insist that owners shall build cottages that are reasonably decent.

  Boards of Guardians (Expenses).
  Sir WILFRID LAWSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the payment of travelling expenses to members of county insurance committees and other public bodies, he will introduce legislation to sanction similar payments to members of boards of guardians attending the meetings of their authorities?
  Mr. BURNS: I am not in a position to promise legislation of the kind suggested.

  Load Line (Departmental Committee).
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the increase of loss of life at sea during recent years, he will take steps, either by the appointment of a Departmental Committee of inquiry or otherwise, to raise the load line or make such further Regulations as may diminish preventable loss of life at sea?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): Some time ago I appointed a Departmental Committee on Load Line, which is now investigating the whole subject.

  Irish Provident Assurance Company.
  Mr. W. A. REDMONDasked for the date on which the Irish Provident Assurance Company went into liquidation; what interest has accumulated since that date; and what is the cause of the delay in winding up the company?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Irish Provident Assurance Company, Limited, went into liquidation, under an order of the Irish Court, on 24th April, 1911. As I have already pointed out on several occasions, in reply to questions by the hon. Member for North Westmeath, the liquidation of the company is under the control of the Irish Court, and the Board of Trade have no knowledge or jurisdiction in the matter. I am, however, informed by the solicitors acting for the liquidator that an order has been obtained from the Court authorising the payment, in November next, of a first dividend to the creditors of the company.

  Labour Exchange (Darlington).
  Mr. HODGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any communications which go to show that not only did the clerks at the Darlington Labour Exchange represent their grievances in a proper manner, but that their intention to strike if satisfaction was not secured was known; whether he has received a copy of the communication sent by the clerks to the divisional inspector on 23rd May; and whether, in any inquiry into this matter, he will allow a representative of the Clerks' Union to be present in the interests of the men?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have considered very carefully all the documents in this case, including the communication referred to

  1481
  in the question. I see no reason to modify my opinion on the action of the clerks concerned as conveyed to my hon. Friend in answer to his previous question of the 30th July, or to hold any further inquiry on the matter.

  Sight Tests.
  Major WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that at the recent annual meeting of the British Medical Association at Brighton a resolution was adopted, with one, dissentient, by the ophthalmological section, and recommended to the council of the British Medical Association, that the sight tests of the Board of Trade are not satisfactory and that an inquiry is urgently needed in the interests of the mercantile marine and of the nation; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in respect to this recommendation?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I have seen a statement in the Press to the effect that such a resolution was carried. The Board of Trade have, however, received no communication from the association on the subject, and I am not aware of the grounds on which the resolution was based. As the hon. Member is probably aware, the sight tests now used were adopted on the recommendation of a strong Departmental Committee which recently investigated the whole question, and I see no necessity for any further Committee of Inquiry.

  Overcrowded Trains.
  Mr. W. A. REDMONDasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the overcrowded condition of the trains in various parts of this country, and to the delay caused thereby in their arrival at their destinations and the failure to make period connections generally, and especially during the Bank Holiday; and whether he will make representations to the railway companies in order to prevent a repetition of this inconvenience to the public?
  Mr. BUXTON: The great pressure of holiday traffic at this time of year, and particularly on or before the Bank Holiday, is bound to result in a certain amount of public inconvenience, and I am afraid that some delays are unavoidable. Generally speaking, I think that the railway companies make creditable efforts to cope with
  1482
  the traffic, but if my hon. Friend has any special case in mind and will furnish me with particulars, I will consider whether I can usefully make representations to the companies concerned.
  Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Has the right hon. Gentleman himself ever been delayed on those railways, and, if he has, may I ask is it not much more likely that ordinary individuals would suffer greater inconvenience?
  Mr. BUXTON: In these times there is much more pressure than ordinarily. If my hon. Friend will bring any special case under my notice I shall be glad to consider it.

  Ordnance Survey (County Westmeath).
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Ordnance Survey authorities have served notice of discharge on John Kellegher, P.T.O., an employé of theirs at present stationed in Rathowen, county Westmeath; and, if so, will he say why this man, who has spent seven years in the service, is to be so treated?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. John Kellegher is a labourer, and, on the completion of the work on which he was engaged, will, with others, be discharged.

  Butlocks Heath School (Hampshire Education Committee).
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education (1) whether he is aware that the Report of His Majesty's inspector, who visited Butlocks Heath School in February last, stated that matters could only be remedied by the removal of the present head master; whether he is aware that the managers have informed the education authority that the head master should seek an appointment elsewhere, and that the Hampshire Education Committee refuse to take any action whatever; whether, under the circumstances, the Board of Education will now intervene; and (2) whether he is aware that at the meeting of the Hampshire Education Authority on the 25th July no action was taken concerning Butlocks Heath School, near Southampton; whether he will now call upon the authority to remedy the conditions which have now continued over six months; or whether he

  1483
  intends to take such action himself as will put an end to the grievances of ratepayers and parents?
  Mr. PEASE: The report of His Majesty's inspector said nothing whatever about the removal of the head master. I understand that the managers of the school and the elementary education sub-committee of the county education committee have passed resolutions expressing the opinion that the head master should seek an appointment elsewhere, and that the proceedings of the elementary education sub-committee were confirmed at the meeting of the education committee on 25th July last. I do not think that any occasion has arisen which would warrant me in interfering with the discretion of the local education authority in the administration of their area.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he previously stated that, on 25th July, public action would be taken, and that although the local authority met on that date no public action has been taken and no hope is held out to the ratepayers?
  Mr. PEASE: My recollection is that I said I could not anticipate what action the authority might take when they met on 25th July, but I did not feel I was justified in interfering with the discretion of the local authority in this matter.

  Scottish Farmers (Insurance Claim).
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Lord Advocate whether he can now give any information to the House with regard to the alleged non-payment of insurance claims to Scottish farmers by a Scottish insurance company, as referred to by the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow on 21st July; and can he give the name of any farmer who has been treated in this way?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The answer to both questions is in the negative.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman is he aware that the farmer referred to is alleged to have given the wrong age of the animal when insuring, and that the delay in paying the claim was in consequence; and, further, that he threatened the company that if they did not pay up at once he would pillory them by raising
  1484
  the question in Parliament; and, further, that the farmer is now Member for the College Division of Glasgow?
  Mr. URE: I am not aware of these facts.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Lord EDMUND TALBOT: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what business he proposes to take to-night after the Insurance Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: After the Insurance Bill is disposed of to-night we hope to take—

  Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Bill: Report.

  Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Bill: Report.

  Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Bill: Second Reading.

  Wine Privileges Abolition Bill: Second Reading.

  Misdescription of Fabrics Bill.—Report.

  Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill: Report.

  Public Health (Prevention and Treatment of Disease) Bill: Report.

  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is it proposed; to take the Third Reading of the Insurance Bill to-night?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand that that is absolutely necessary.

BILL PRESENTED.
  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
  "To make further provision for securing the purity of articles of Food and preventing the misdescription thereof." Presented by Mr. JOHN BURNS; supported by Mr. Herbert Lewis; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 309.]

COMPANIES (ANNUAL) RETURNS.
Mr. F. HALL: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to extend the period within which, under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, companies having a share capital are required to complete and send to the Registrar of Companies in each year a list of the members and a summary giving certain particulars respecting the financial position, etc., of the company, together with a statement in the form of a balance sheet."
At the present time the list and summary must be completed within seven
1496
days after the date fixed for making up the list, and it must be forthwith forwarded to the Registrar of Companies. I think I am right in saying that some thousands of companies are returned each year as having made default under this provision; but proceedings are taken under the present law only in a very limited number of cases. It may interest the House to know that in 1908 the defaults in respect to Returns in regard to which the companies concerned were circularised by the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies was 5,800, according to the figures obtained from the Board of Trade. Six hundred and sixty-two companies were struck off the register on the ground that they were not carrying on business, and yet I find that the Board of Trade only issued thirty-four summonses in respect of default of those not furnishing the particulars as required by Section 26 of the Act. The respective numbers in the same category for 1912 were 8,584, 1,549, and 22 only. It seems practically impossible for companies having many hundreds of shareholders, as many companies undoubtedly have, could possibly complete the required list and summary within the period allotted to them. So much is that the case, that the number in which prosecutions are taken is exceedingly small, and the number circularised as not having carried out the necessary regulations are not to be compared with the number of those summoned for not having carried out the obligation. I wish to make myself perfectly clear upon this point. The Board of Trade every year circularise a certain number, picked out apparently, of those who have not complied with the law, and, therefore, my idea is, that if it is necessary that some should be circularised, surely according to Section 26 the whole of those not making the return should be circularised. Take, for instance, 1912, in which 8,584 were circularised as not having complied with the law, but there were only twenty-two summonses. It seems perfectly obvious that some alteration is required. I think it is needless to say that if the information asked for is of a desirable nature proper time should be given for the companies to carry out their obligations, and if the law is left as it is at the present time it seems to me the whole thing is practically a dead letter. I believe I am right in saying that in some cases latitude has been granted by the Board of Trade to large companies, and those who have not

1497
carried out the necessary regulations. That seems proof positive that some alteration is recognised by the Board of Trade, at any rate they recognise that the time allotted at present is not sufficient to enable the companies to carry out the requirements of the law. The Bill I am introducing is a very short one, and I do not think it will be regarded by any hon. Member as contentious. Its object is by no means to stultify business in any way whatever, but it is for the purpose of protecting the shareholders of public companies. This subject was given great consideration when the Companies Act was established, and it has been deemed necessary that a certain time should be allotted. The object of this Bill is simply to extend the period from seven days to one calendar month, and I hope this proposal will be acceptable to the House.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. F. Hall (Dulwich), Sir Harry Samuel, Mr. Touche, Mr. Boyton, Mr. Shirley Benn, and Major Gastrell. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 310.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [5th August] on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.

  CLAUSE 13.—(Maternity Benefit.)
  (1) Maternity benefit shall in every case be the mother's benefit, and paragraph (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section eight of the principal Act shall be altered accordingly by the insertion of the words "to the mother of the child" after the first word "payment" in that paragraph; and in Sub-section (1) of Section eighteen of the principal Act for the words "treated as a benefit for her husband, and shall be administered in cash or otherwise by the approved society of which he is a member" there shall be substituted the words "administered in the interests of the mother and child in cash or otherwise by the approved society of which the husband is a member."
  (2) At the end of Sub-section (1) of Section eighteen of the principal Act the following words shall be inserted—
  1498
  Where a woman who is an employed contributor is the wife of an insured person, then—

  (a) if her husband is a member of an approved society, and by reason of an insufficient number of contributions having been paid by or in respect of him, or on account of arrears, no maternity benefit is payable in respect of his insurance, she shall on her confinement be entitled to receive in respect of her own insurance such sum as she would have been entitled to receive if he had not been an insured person; and

  (b>) if her husband is a deposit contributor, and by reason of an insufficient number of contributions having been paid by or in respect of him or of the insufficiency of the sum standing to his credit in the Deposit Contributors' Fund, no maternity benefit or a sum less than the full maternity benefit is payable in respect of his insurance, she shall on her confinement be entitled to receive, in respect of her own insurance, such sum as, with the sum (if any) payable in respect of her husband's insurance, is equal to the sum she would have been entitled to receive if he had not been an insured person.

  (3) Where a woman confined of a child is herself an insured person and is a married woman or, if the child is a posthumous child, a widow, she shall, in lieu of any sickness or disablement benefit to which she may be entitled under Subsection (6) of Section eight of the principal Act, be entitled to receive a maternity benefit from the society of which she is a member or the insurance committee, as the case may be, in addition to any maternity benefit to which she may be otherwise entitled in respect of her husband's or her own insurance, and every approved society and insurance committee shall make rules to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners requiring any woman in respect of whom any such sum is payable in respect of her own insurance to abstain from remunerative work during a period of four weeks after her confinement.
  (4) So much of Sub-section (1) of Section eighteen of the principal Act as provides that if a duly-qualified medical practitioner is summoned in pursuance of the rules made under the Midwives Act, 1902,

  1499
  the prescribed fee shall, subject to regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners, be recoverable as part of the maternity benefit shall cease to have effect.
  Amendment proposed [5th August], to leave out the words "and paragraph (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section eight of the principal Act shall be altered accordingly by the insertion of the words 'to the mother of the child' after the first word 'payment' in that paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words "but where the benefit is payable in respect of the husband's insurance, the wife's receipt or his receipt on her behalf shall be a sufficient discharge to the society or committee, and, where the benefit is paid to the husband, he shall pay it to the wife or apply it for the maintenance and care of the wife and child."—[Mr. George Roberts.]
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill." Debate resumed.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: I think the Clause that I am proposing to amend has given rise to a controversy which, in my opinion, is altogether disproportionate to the abuses alleged which all Members of the House desire to see removed. None will deny that abuses in the administration of maternity benefit have been established, and, so far as we can, we are prepared to do what we can to redress the evils that do exist. On the other hand, when seeking to remove one abuse, we have to take great care that we are not setting up abuses on the other side equally objectionable. In my opinion, the fact that there are a few bad husbands in the country constitutes no good reason for panic legislation against all husbands. I believe that the great class of working-class husbands are really decent people, and are always concerned to do the right thing by their womenfolk on the occasion that we have under consideration. I object to the Clause as it stands in the Bill because it legislates against a whole sex in the community, and I very strongly resent the implication that working-class husbands cannot be trusted to do the right thing towards their wives. I recognise, with other hon. Members, that in a few isolated cases maternity benefit has been abused, and, therefore, I was quite agreeable and even sought to find some means of preventing the repetition of such abuses as did exist. I acknowledge that the problem is a very difficult one. I do
  1500
  not think that if you alter the original Act and say that maternity benefit shall be the exclusive legal right of the woman, you can be satisfied that no further abuses will arise. Everybody with practical experience will agree that there are indifferent women as well as indifferent men, and if you recognise that abuses may arise whatever provisions you establish, I think you will also have to appreciate the fact that a mere declaration is not sufficient to meet the case we are now considering. It has already been decided upstairs that the new Bill shall declare that the maternity benefit in every case shall be the mother's benefit. I desire it to be perfectly well understood that I am not disputing that in the slightest degree, and that is not brought into question by the Amendment I am now submitting to the House.
  I believe it was the intention of the original Act that the maternity benefit should be the benefit of the woman and everybody is concerned to see to it that, as far as practical measures can be devised, the mother and the child shall have the full advantage of the maternity benefit. But when you have made that declaration you have not solved the real difficulty. A number of societies to my knowledge have recognised that some men are not to be fully trusted with this 30s., and they have exercised a discretion under which they have paid the 30s. direct to the wife of the insured man. They have felt that perhaps this might be open to challenge, and they have represented to some of us that the certificate for the receipt by either the wife or the husband should be accepted as a sufficient discharge of the liability of that society. That is the real problem which we ought to have contemplated. There was no occasion to go beyond that. Once we depart from it, we are beset with a vast number of difficulties which we are compelled to consider. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) in perfect good faith introduced this question in the Committee upstairs, and recognised that after the statutory declaration some administrative provision must be incorporated. Thus, the first proposal was that the benefit should be the exclusive property of the woman; but because of the practical difficulty of a society getting a receipt from a woman placed in that extremely delicate position, it was also proposed that she should be allowed to nominate some other woman to draw the benefit on her behalf.

  1501
  My attitude on this question has been very much misrepresented, because I made a speech following upon that proposal. My objection was to the fact that it was then proposed to draw any woman into this transaction, whilst expressly excluding the husband. I have a deep-rooted objection to Parliament interfering as between man and wife, and to say by law or by implication that a man is not to be trusted to do right under these circumstances is in my opinion either to display a gross lack of knowledge of working-class husbands or to be desirous of setting up what is equally objectionable—almost a position of war between the sexes. That would lead to great disaster. The man is the insured person and the woman, because of the circumstances for which the benefit has been established, is the person entitled to get the full advantage of that benefit. Therefore, my view has been that it is a joint question as between husband and wife, and that Parliament would do wrong to say that it should be the legal property of one and that the other partner in the matter should be excluded by law from taking any part in administering the benefit thus paid. What happens in the ordinary working-class home? If this Act had been in existence prior to my coming to this House, my home would have received 30s. maternity benefit. I should have regarded it as a gross insult and an unwarrantable reflection on my character if Parliament had said, "We cannot trust you with 30s., and you shall not touch the benefit which comes into your home." The average workman at that time is forced to accept full responsibility for all home affairs. Every working man who has been through the experience knows that not only has he to have a Land in attending to the woman but he has to take charge of all the home affairs, and those who meddle with this matter do so without any knowledge of the actual circumstances of working-class home life. The hon. Gentleman very soon perceived that it was impossible to defend a proposal which brought in an outside woman, whilst at the same time excluding the husband. It was then proposed to substitute the word "person" for "woman." This did not remove the objection of certain of my colleagues on the Committee or of myself. We altogether object to third parties being brought into this matter at all. We object to persons being nominated for the purpose of receiving this benefit. One can quite see that some women would be
  1502
  subjected to extraordinary temptation if this principle of nomination were established. Certain people might approach her prior to maternity and offer to advance her money on the condition that she made a nomination in their favour. It was very soon apparent to most members of the Committee that the principle of nomination might open up possibilities of much graver abuses than those which have yet been proved under the administration of this Act.
  4.0 p.m.
  That is where we stand at the moment. The real point is whether persons shall be nominated for the receipt of this benefit or not. Various other proposals are being made to the effect that the wife should nominate some relative to receive the benefit on her behalf. It was pointed out by an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cassel) that it was impossible in law to prove who is a relative and who is not. I am anxious to know whether it would be proposed to incorporate in this Bill the Prayer Book table of consanguinity. There again we have proved that there are insuperable difficulties in determining who is and who is not a relative of the woman entitled to this benefit. Furthermore, you are increasing the administrative difficulties of the various societies who have to administer this benefit. Has the sick visitor or the secretary, as the case may be, to inquire whether the person nominated is a relative, and has he, after the relative has been nominated, to inquire whether the person claiming the benefit is really the person whose name appears on the nomination paper? I respectfully submit that once we enter as between the man and the woman in this case we open such grave difficulties, administrative and otherwise, as to prove the utter impracticability of the proposal as it now stands in the Bill, and also the extreme desirability of accepting my Amendment. After all, the responsibility of providing for a woman must always rest with her husband. You propose, under the original Act, that this obligation shall be pressed upon him, but, if you in any way enact against the husband and say that he has no right even to touch this 30s., you must necessarily be weakening that claim which rests upon him. I have always understood that it is desirable, at any rate in this country, that we should recognise man and wife as being one in joint co-operation. My hon. Friend the Mem-

  1503
  ber for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), in the course of the Debate, introduced the Question of sick pay administration, and I should like to relate what actually happens in friendly society experience in respect of sick pay. I never drew sick pay but once in all my life from any of the friendly societies of which I am a member. In that case I was unable to draw the benefit myself. It was quite impossible for me to rise from my bed and sign a receipt for the money. But my wife drew the money on my behalf, she gave a receipt for what she received, and I think that you are bound to admit that that operation will follow in this case. When the woman herself is unable to sign, her husband must have the right to sign, both in the interests of the efficient administration of the society's affairs and because it is a matter of justice. This Amendment which I am proposing is strictly in accord with the present practice of friendly societies in the administration of other benefits.
  It is hardly necessary for me to point out that there is a great deal of consternation existent amongst friendly societies, and that there is a very insistent demand that the Amendment I am proposing should be accepted by the House. I am quite aware, on the other hand, that there is also an agitation against any alteration being made in the Bill as it came from upstairs, and, therefore, I am not going to place too much stress upon that portion of my argument. Still, I wish to emphasise the fact that you have a demand backed by the experience of societies which are administering benefits of a very similar character, and it is backed by them because they can see that great administrative troubles may arise under the Clause as it stands; they, therefore, express preference for the words which I am seeking to get incorporated in the Act. After all, their opinion is worth something from the administrative point of view. It has been suggested that I am seeking, by certain words in my Amendment, to undermine the statutory declaration of the first part of the Clause. But I stated upstairs that I have certainly no desire and no intention to undermine those words—to undermine the declarations that the benefit shall be the mother's benefit.
  Mr. BOOTH: You voted against it.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: My hon. Friend has had some experience of the extreme difficulty of taking a straight vote on a question of this nature. I spoke against cer-
  1504
  tain provisions in the Clause, but I have never questioned the declaration, and it will still stand as far as my Amendment is concerned. I am, however, given to understand that the concluding words of my Amendment—the words "apply it for the maintenance and care of the wife and child"—are objected to in some quarters. I should be glad to hear what arguments are to be adduced against those words. My colleagues and I are not concerned simply to defend words because we have put them down, but I am going to deny that our purpose in putting these words on the Paper is, as has been stated, to get round this declaration. We are of opinion—and we are, indeed, advised—that the retention of the words is desirable in the interests of appropriate administration. For what will happen? You declare that, in those cases where the husband has to draw the money, he must pay it to the wife. That is all very well. But the wife may be totally incapable of administering or using the money for the purposes for which it is intended. I do not see why the husband should be relieved of his responsibility. I do not see why, even by implication, you should say he shall not expend this money. In my opinion he is the person who ought to have the responsibility. He is the person who ought to be allowed to carry out these things in connection with his own home. But still I am not wedded to any particular form of words or to any particular word, and if it can be proved that it is open to reasonable interpretation that the retention of these words do in any way modify the preceding portion of the Clause, then I will be prepared to listen to any argument that may be put forward, and I will also be prepared to consider any suggestions that may be made across the floor of the House.
  I simply would like to add I am moving this Clause first, because I most strongly resent the implication that, because some few husbands are bad, it is competent for Parliament to legislate against all husbands. I want also to devise methods whereby the benefit goes to the purpose for which it is really intended. The Amendment I am moving has been put down in that spirit, whatever may be said to the contrary. Certain of my colleagues, as well as myself, have had actual experience in administering the affairs of friendly societies and trade unions. We know that under the Insurance Act the administration is already very complex and very difficult, and we have no desire to

  1505
  add to those complexities and those difficulties. In our view, if you allow either the wife or the husband to give a receipt in these circumstances, at the same time declaring that where the husband does receive the money, it is the intention of Parliament that it shall be exclusively devoted to the benefit of the woman and child at that period, I think you will have carried out the intentions of Parliament, and you will have made it possible for societies to administer this benefit efficiently and in full accord with the spirit of the Act of Parliament. It is for these reasons that I submit my Amendment to the consideration of the House.
  Mr. J. WARD: I understand that the Resolution has been seconded and, therefore, we are discussing the question put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts). I am bound to say I shall be obliged most strenuously to disagree, not so much with the Resolution to which, however, I do object, as with the terms of the speech of the hon. Member upon this subject. There is no one who wishes to put any difficulty between man And wife in regard to the business of insurance and the administration of the maternity benefit; therefore those who are supporting the proposal already inserted, that for the future this benefit shall be considered as the benefit of the mother and not of the husband, are not actuated by that idea, neither do they believe that, in putting forward that they will do anything whatever to cause domestic disagreement between husband and wife. I, however, propose to deal with this question on a broader basis, and I would venture to suggest that this discussion should not take the line that there is a possibility of causing disagreement where disagreement does not already exist. It is a moral certainty, however you decide this, that in cases where domestic felicity already exists nothing that you do will alter that; therefore, it is not on that basis in the slightest degree that this matter should be considered. I could understand, if it were a paternity benefit, paying it to the father. If it were understood that it was a paternity benefit the man might be entitled to it. But the mere description of the benefit is, I should imagine, sufficient to indicate whose property it really is.
  The supposition underlying the argument of the hon. Member for Norwich, and the arguments that were adduced in Committee, is this: that by some means
  1506
  the benefit in cases where the wife herself is not an insured person is more the husband's than the wife's. I have never been able to understand that argument. My hon. Friend has asked us to look for a moment at the position of affairs in the ordinary home and the domestic relations of the workers of this country. Let us place ourselves in that position for a moment or two. The home is not exclusively the property of the man, because, I take it for granted that my hon. Friend will admit that the wife who looks after the children at home, who looks after the home of the worker, and who does all the drudgery in order to keep the family in decency, is really doing her share and in most cases the lion's share of keeping the home up. Really she is earning part of the wages that the man actually receives for the work which he does. She herself is contributing to his insurance by that work even though she herself is not an insured person. I venture to say she really earns half of the money that he pays and even half of the money which the employer pays towards the insurance, and therefore it is a joint contribution, not a contribution especially from the man. Consequently this maternity benefit by right and justice of every possible kind belongs to the woman and the woman only. Though I do not understand quite the technical bearings of the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend, as to whether it belittles in any way the first proposition that this benefit really belongs to the mother and is the mother's benefit, I do understand it is a whittling away of that proposition, and for that reason I give my most certain hostility to the proposal of my hon. Friend.
  I venture to say that all this quibbling that if you do this or the other you will cause contention in the homes of the working people of the country is utterly beside the mark and has no foundation in fact. The workmen of the country are not so narrow as that. I could give illustrations of how things which look unjust are carried out at the present time, where workmen, apparently receiving no personal benefit themselves, are actually prepared to contribute towards the benefit of those who are less fortunately placed than themselves. You only supply medical benefit for the men who are insured, but there are cases where the employers have arranged, if their workmen agree, to deduct twopence a week so that medical benefit can be given to the wives and

  1507
  families of the men employed. It became a question whether the single men should contribute. I know a case in which at least 1,000 single men are allowing the twopence a week to be deducted from their own wages in order that medical benefit may be given to the wives and families of their mates who happen to be married. You do not find this fine chopping of rights and these technical objections in the relations of the working men. If Parliament had decided at the outset that maternity benefit was intended to be paid to the wife, and that no one but she had a right to give even a receipt for it, the workmen of the country would gladly have accepted such a proposition. I do not see any reason whatever why the Amendment should be put forward to belittle in any way the right of the woman to this benefit Which has been placed in the Bill by the Grand Committee upstairs.
  Mr. BECK: I am also quite unable to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwich. If there are men, as we are told, whose pride of manhood is outraged by the act that the 30s. is conveyed directly to their wives, I say those men do not deserve the encouragement of this House. It is obvious that nothing we can do will turn a bad man into a good man, or a miserable home into a happy home, but what we can do, what the Committee upstairs did, and what we hope this House will do, so far as Parliament can do it, is to lay it down that maternity benefit is the property of the mother and of no one else. Of course, we know that in ninety-nine homes out of a hundred the husband and wife will act together in perfect amity in laying out this money to the best advantage. There is only one small point in addition to what I have said. It has been brought to my notice—I have no intention of mentioning names, because it would obviously not be fair—that in two or three cases most well-meaning husbands have got hold of the maternity benefit and spent portions of it, as they thought to the best advantage, but, as their wives think, they have taken their money to a very bad market. They have bought things which were intended to be very beneficial to the wife and comforting to her, but which, in her opinion, have been useless. That has happened in two or three cases within the knowledge of people who have given me information. The State, rightly or wrongly—as we think rightly—has entered into a great scheme of compulsory insur-
  1508
  ance. We insist upon men insuring themselves, and women, too, for that matter. We insist upon employers paying money towards insurance, and we also provide money out of the taxpayers' pockets to add to the benefits in the time of sickness. There is nothing illegal, there is nothing foolish, and there is nothing tyrannical in saying that of the benefits that money can buy, we are entitled, on behalf of the future generations and on behalf of the women of this country, to earmark this maternity benefit as belonging to the woman and nobody else.
  I really believe that my hon. Friends below the Gangway are unduly obsessed by the difficulties of this proposition. Everyone who knows them, knows that they have no hostility whatever to the working-class women of this country. I understand their argument to be that there is great difficulty in setting up machinery to deal with this question. I think that must be the gravamen of the Amendment, because I am certain they would not be very tender towards the feelings of men who are unworthy of confidence and need to be restrained by the law. We have passed laws protecting the women of every class. We have passed a law protecting people who make a marriage settlement, and it is not suggested that that is a deadly insult to the man about to be married. We have passed laws protecting married women's property, and it is not suggested that that was a deadly insult to the men of this country. I appeal to my hon. Friends below the Gangway to reconsider this question, even at this late hour, and to realise that they are doing a thing intensely resented by the women of this country, and which, I believe, will be unpopular with the men. So far as I have been able to consult the men in my own Constituency, and elsewhere they have been unanimously in favour of giving the women this maternity benefit. It is a pity to have a division of any kind on what must be a mere matter of machinery, but if the Amendment goes to a Division, I shall unhesitatingly vote against it.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I very much regret that already this Debate is turning on the question as to whether this benefit is the woman's benefit or the man's benefit. I have no hesitation in saying that I am in favour of this being the woman's benefit. That question was definitely settled upstairs. I say quite frankly that in my opinion this Amendment will not in any way reverse the decision arrived at upstairs

  1509
  as to whether or not it is the woman's benefit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen will be able to follow me; I am giving my own opinion. The best evidence of it is that when the proposal was made upstairs, on the first day the Committee were almost unanimous in making it the property of the woman. [An HON. MEMBER: "They were unanimous."] They were nearly unanimous.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): It was carried unanimously.
  Mr. THOMAS: The next day, when the Committee were face to face with the question of carrying out the decision, an entirely different aspect was placed on the situation. I want to approach the question purely from the standpoint of administration. How did this difficulty arise? There would have been no question raised on this Amending Bill, and there would have been nothing said as to whether or not it was the property of the woman or the man, had it not been for the fact that the insurance committees' auditors refused to accept the receipt of the woman for the payment of the 30s. The difficulty was created in this way: The majority of the approved societies were anxious, and rightly anxious, that the 30s. should reach the home as early as possible. Most of us connected with the organisations gave instructions that immediately the branch secretary or the local officer was acquainted with a confinement, he should immediately proceed to the house with a view to taking the 30s., so as to render the assistance which was necessary immediately. Everyone will agree that that was not only a necessary plan and a wise plan, but that it was the real intention in giving the benefit, because it gave to the mother and to those in charge of the home the knowledge that there was 30s. there to meet the additional expense of the particular occasion. What really happens is that there are hundreds of cases where the husband is away at work, sometimes in another town, and on some occasions actually at sea. The branch secretaries are faced with this difficulty: He is anxious to help the case and anxious to leave the money there, but he knows perfectly well that he is responsible to the society, and that the Government auditors will not accept any other receipt. The result is that we have scores of occasions where a real injustice is done, not because the man is callous or indifferent, but because he himself is liable to be surcharged
  1510
  with the 30s. That is how the difficulty arises. This House ought to meet that difficulty. The benefit is made the property of the woman. If the woman's receipt is necessary, no one in this House will suggest that the insurance agent or local secretary is to go into the bedroom on the first day of the confinement. That is absolutely impossible, and I need not debate it. If the woman is allowed to nominate, the very woman who is brought into the working-class home on such an occasion—I say this with all seriousness, because I know—is the kind of woman the majority of men have invariably to clear out of the house as soon as possible. I am not talking of the midwife, but of the woman who generally comes in to take charge of the home. Is that the woman to whom the 30s. is to be given? Is that how the maternity benefit is to be administered?
  Mr. SNOWDENmade an observation which was inaudible.
  Mr. THOMAS: You will be able to follow me. I am speaking of the actual difficulties from actual knowledge. I am asking the House not to go off on the track of woman versus man, but to apply themselves to a real solution of the difficulty. What I have said answers the case so far as the Amendment is concerned. The next point is the case of the man who may be away. If the Insurance Commissioners had originally decided that the receipt of the woman or the man would be acceptable to them, there would be no difficulty. No Act of Parliament can stop the abuses which have come to light of the husband spending the 30s. No Act of Parliament is going to stop the husband doing that in future, because that is the class of man who, deprived of the 30s., will stop it out of his wages the following Saturday, because he knows his wife has received 30s. Do not let us blind ourselves to that fact. We cannot deal here with these abuses, because the woman who is troubled with a husband of that description unfortunately is more in the power of that man than any other woman, and that is the real difficulty of the situation. Therefore, viewing the circumstances purely from the standpoint of the friendly societies, the trade unions and all the other approved societies which have to administer the Act, you have laid it down, and I hope it will not be gone back upon, that it is the property of the woman. Of course the woman contributes equally with the man to this, and, of

  1511
  course, she ought to have the benefit, but that is not the point in question. The real point is that by this Amendment you have made it the property of the woman, and you simply now say that the receipt of man or woman shall be acceptable to the friendly societies. On the other hand, if it is abused by either the man or the woman, you can have the power to deal with it in another way. You cannot deal with these abuses in the direction indicated by legislation, and I ask the House not to go back on the question that it is the woman's benefit, and not to have an unnecessary Debate as to that aspect of the question; but if the suggestion that we make is not acceptable to the House bring forward some proposal which will meet the difficulty. But do not shirk the responsibility, because there is no Member of this House who can speak with a knowledge of the administration of the Act, and no Member can quote any approved society of any magnitude which does not support our proposal. There is no Member who can claim to speak with any authority of those administering the Act who does not agree that if you leave the position as it is now, it is impossible to carry it out, and if we recognise that fact I have no hesitation in saying that we ought to find a solution, if not in these words, in similar words, which will enable the approved societies to have some control, and to have the necessary receipt to do in the future as they have been anxious to do in the past, and pay the 30s. immediately in order to relieve the woman's anxiety.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am sorry I am unable to agree with the hon. Member in the conclusion at which he has arrived, but I agree most fully with him that in this discussion we are all agreed that the benefit belongs to the woman. I did not understand the hon. Member (Mr. G. Roberts) to dispute that, and indeed he proposes by his Amendment to leave in the words "maternity benefit shall in every case be the mother's benefit." The hon. Member (Mr. Thomas) did not at all indicate what is the practical reason why he regards that as a desirable course. Surely he must really regard it as a desirable course, in spite of his general contempt for the power of legislation, in which I largely agree with him, because he thinks it, desirable that the benefits should be legally under the control of the woman. I think we are therefore all agreed that the maternity benefit should belong to her,
  1512
  and we are equally agreed that in the vast majority of cases husband and wife get on very well together, and that it does not really matter a bit, whether you call it the woman's or the man's benefit. It will be applied by the man or woman to the purpose for which it is obviously desired. I wish to disabuse the mind of the hon. Member (Mr. G. Roberts). No one proposes to make an attack on the moral character of the married working men of this country. No such thing is dreamed of by any Member of the House. The hon. Member (Mr. Thomas) appears to think that the only grievance we have to deal with is that there is a difficulty in the way of approved societies paying over this benefit as quickly as it ought to be paid. I really do not think that is the point. That may be the point which ought to be dealt with, but it is not the point on which the Amendment was moved upstairs, nor is it the real point which has been brought by a large number of people outside. The point is really exactly that which the hon. Member says we cannot deal with at all. It is that in a certain number—I am quite ready to believe a very small proportion—of the cases, taking them all together, this benefit is misapplied. May I read what the medical officer of health for Glasgow says on the subject:—
  "Abuse of the benefit money is unhappily very common. Cases are numerous in which the husband receives the entire 30s. and spends it in liquor…. It is obvious from the above statement that in many cases abuse of the money would be prevented by the direct payment of the benefit to the wife."
  I quite agree that that may be a little overstated. I am not sufficiently familiar with Glasgow to know whether it is, but it is a very serious grievance if it exists in only a comparatively small number of cases. I believe everyone is anxious to remedy that grievance in spite of the hon. Member's (Mr. Thomas) rather despairing view that we cannot do anything, and I believe the hon. Member (Mr. G. Roberts) is anxious to remedy this. I understood him to say so. But his Amendment will absolutely destroy the practical value of the first words of the Clause, because he provides that the husband's receipt is to be a sufficient discharge. That really puts the whole thing back again. The effect of the wording of this Clause is really to render the whole thing absolutely nugatory. I am sure that will not do, and I cannot help thinking that the best course is to leave the Clause as it stands. We are told there may be administrative diffi-

  1513
  culties. The Clause as it stands provides that the payment shall be made to the' mother. I do not know what the legal advisers of the Government say, but I should have thought that a provision that payment should be made to the mother would mean what it would in any other case, namely, that as long as a person is authorised, whether the husband or anyone else, to receive the money, payment to the authorised person was payment to the mother. If that applies, and I can see no reason why it should not, payment to the mother will be satisfied as long as the payment is made to someone who is authorised by the mother to receive it. Surely, that is a reasonable thing. It gives her a real control of the matter, and that is the way in which it should be dealt with. I adduce this as we are dealing with it for the moment from an administrative point of view. I doubt very much whether the Amendment as drafted would be a very workable Amendment from a purely administrative point of view. It provides that you must necessarily produce a receipt, either from the wife or from the husband. Take the case which the hon. Member put of the husband being away and the wife not being well enough to give a receipt. It would still be impossible to pay the money out. It seems to me much better to say that if the payment is to be made to the mother let the approved society make its own machinery by its own regulations as to how and on what evidence the payment is going to the mother, and then you get rid of all difficulties. If you put in these precise words it seems to me that you run a great danger of placing difficulties in the way of the administration of the Act. I hope very much that the House will reject the Amendment. There are administrative difficulties about the Bill as it stands without the Amendment. I cannot think they are insurmountable, indeed they have to be surmounted in the case of the unmarried mother at present, and therefore I have no doubt they can be surmounted in other cases, and after all we have had a very striking testimony in the almost unanimity of all the women who are entitled to speak on the subject that they desire that the Bill should be left as it is. It is not a question of suffragists, or anti-suffragists, or of rich or poor. They all agree that since this House in its wisdom has declined to give them political power it ought to attend very carefully to the desires expressed with so much authority.
  Mr. BOOTH: I have an Amendment on the Paper, but it is not in order until this Amendment is accepted. Consequently I can only indicate that while I appeal to the House to vote for this Amendment I only do so hoping that they will afterwards pass my Amendment to leave out the words at the end of the Clause, which to my mind will utterly contradict the decision of the Committee upstairs. If they are left in. the decision of the Committee, and of the House if it affirms it, that it should be the mother's benefit, is really vitiated, because the man will spend it as he likes. He will be the sole judge as to what is for the benefit of the wife and child, and then really the whole object of the hon. Member (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), to whom the principal credit is due for bringing this question forward, would be defeated. As one who supported him in Committee and entirely agrees with the views expressed by the hon. Member (Mr. John Ward), I could not support the Amendment if that latter Clause were left in. I am supported in that by the document which, I think, all Members have had, which came from the leading officials of the approved societies. Although many separate sections and groups of larger and smaller dimensions have sent manifestoes or requisitions, or memorials to the House, I think this, of all the communications we have received, stands alone in that it incorporates so many different bodies. The trade unionists are here, including two Members of the House, the Oddfellows and Foresters, the Hearts of Oak, and a group of other orders have all signed this. The Prudential Society have signed it by their actuary and secretary; the Associated Officers who form the National Amalgamated have signed it by their chairman and secretary; the Liverpool Victoria, the United Order of Oddfellows, and representatives of the dividing societies have all signed it. It would, perhaps, have been more convenient if those Members of the Labour party who have spoken had made some reference to this document to which their colleagues committed themselves. I had nothing to do with drawing it up, but some Members of the Labour party had, because they were in the room. I was called in when the document was almost completed, and was asked if I would take the responsibility of supporting it in the House, and I feel it my duty to do so on behalf of these signatories. My Amendment on

  1515
  the Paper is to make the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. H. Roberts) in exact accord with the decision which took place, on the invitation of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in one of the Committee Rooms of this House on Friday last. These are the people who administer the Act. I was exceedingly interested in what was said by the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil), and I should like to make an appeal to him. After all, we must see how the principal Act leaves the question. It undoubtedly leaves maternity benefit as the mother's benefit. The societies administering the Act have during the past months administered it more sympathetically to the woman than the Act itself authorises. In some cases they have broken the Act, and paid the money to the woman against the express wish of the husband, where they have no confidence in him. The trade unions, where men have complained to them, say, "If you press this matter further we will have to consider the propriety of retaining your membership." I mention that to show that there is no desire on the part of the approved societies to do anything but to give the utmost consideration to the woman. I want to point out that, if this Amendment is carried with the words deleted which I suggest should be deleted, there would be a great gain over the position which has existed. In the first place, we shall have decided that it is really the mother's benefit—a gain which I consider is of the utmost importance. Secondly, we say that the receipt shall come from the wife, or from the husband on her behalf. We mention the persons in the natural order. The first idea is that, if possible, the mother should give the receipt, and therefore we mention that if he gives the receipt he is only to receive the money on her behalf. I think that is all the difference in the man receiving the money on his own behalf and receiving the money to hand it to her. We say specifically that where the money is paid to the husband he shall give it to the wife.
  If the Clause ends there, I think we shall have taken an immense stride forward from present conditions. Then when the next amending Bill comes to be considered, if any cases have been found where the woman has not actually got control of the money to be spent at her direction, then it means that the decision of this House is being defied and vitiated. I
  1516
  would appeal to those who might otherwise be inclined to vote against this Amendment rather to recognise that we may pass the Amendment with the final words deleted and still make a very great advance on the present position. I would like to say quite frankly that the societies in approving of all this have, in my opinion, put themselves in accord with the Grand Committee upstairs, and I trust that this House will support the Committee. What do the great approved societies say? They say:—
  "We welcome anp cordially approve of the provision providing that this benefit should be the absolute property of the mother, and we are desirous that the payment of the same should he made to her in full and as speedily as possible."
  I would say to the House that the great approved societies in putting down in black and white that definite pledge show that they are anxious to carry out the proposal of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). If they will administer it in that spirit, I think we might meet them on the actual question of machinery. The Members of this House do not want, when they have the goodwill of these societies, to ask them to attempt the impossible. Nor should they be asked to determine such internal questions as who is master of the house or whether it is partnership or not. Surely all that the societies can be asked to do is to take the 30s. to the mother if she is in a condition to take it and get her receipt, and, if the state of her health does not admit of that, to give the money to the husband, make him the trustee, and say, "This is her money. You can only sign this receipt on her behalf." I submit that we cannot follow that working man from the living room up into the bedroom, and I ask the House not to request the approved societies to go further. At any rate, this is a great gain on last year, and it seems to me a sensible proposal that, whenever the money is paid into the husband's hands, he should know that it is his wife's property. Then the insurance part of the problem is satisfied. If, after all, there should prove to be some difficulties, time can only show them, and next year we might consider the carrying of the Amendment further.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I should like to reinforce nine-tenths of the speech of my Hon. Friend (Mr. Booth), and, if I disagree with him in the other tenth, I shall try to explain to the House the grounds of my disagreement. There is

  1517
  one thing perfectly evident, in spite of the interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. J. Ward), that that kind of speech is not going to solve this problem. It is not a question of sentiment or of generosity. It is not even, if I may say so, a question of property, because maternity benefit is a trust fund, and ought to be administered as a trust fund. It does not belong to the husband; it does not belong to the wife, and it ought not to belong to either, because, if it does belong to the husband, then he is entitled to misapply it if it is his property, and if it is the property of the wife, she is entitled to misapply it, and nobody has any business to quarrel with her. That is not the intention of the money at all. That is not why maternity benefit is being given. This sum of 30s. is given for a certain object either to the wife or to the husband, or to both together—it does not matter for the moment to whom. This sum of money is given by the approved societies, or through the operation of the Insurance Act, for the purpose of being spent upon a certain object. That object is to bring the mother round, to make her strong and well as quickly as possible, and to give the newly born child a fair chance at the beginning of life. If the father misapplies that money under the Act as it is now administered, he is a brute, and he ought to be punished in every way possible. If the mother misapplies it, she is equally wrong, equally culpable, and ought equally to be visited with such censure as can be visited upon her.
  Therefore, when we talk about property, we are talking loosely, and we are using words which really do not apply under the circumstances. Property it may be, but it is a very limited kind of property, and I prefer the expression, which I have already used, that maternity benefit is a trust fund. Under the principal Act that trust fund can only be paid to the husband. That is wrong, and everybody admits it. We approach this problem, first of all, from the point of view of administration, and the first form of our Amendment was that the receipt of the mother would be equally valid with the receipt of the father. The principal Act gives a society power to administer this money either in cash or in kind. Do not let the House forget that. An approved society, if it likes, can say that this money shall not be paid either to the husband or to the wife, but may be administered otherwise than in cash. But if it is given
  1518
  in cash, the husband's receipt alone is valid so far as the Insurance Act is concerned. Some criticism has been made upon my hon. Friends and myself on the assumption that we thought that any variation of payment to the husband would be an insult. As a matter of fact, the trade unions, which are approved societies themselves, have in many cases from the first been flying in the teeth of the law, so to speak, and accepting the receipt of the mothers when they decline to pay this money to the fathers. We simply looked at it from the purely administrative point of view, and took into account the actual experience of the societies. Our first idea did not go any further than to legalise the administration as well as the practice of the societies, of which my hon. Friend the Member for the Gorton Division (Mr. Hodge) is a leading official. His society issued orders to the branches that if it was found that there was reason why the husband should not get the money, the husband was not to get it, and that it ought to be paid to the wife. That practice is enough to justify us in standing up here without fear of the accusation which is thrown against us that we are acting on some narrow ground. I think the Noble Lord was wrong when he said that the Amendment put in by the Committee upstairs has declared that maternity benefit is the property of the wife.
  Lord ROBERT CECILindicated dissent.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The whole of my case rests on that point. The Clause does not state that maternity benefit is the property of the mother. As the principal Act stands, if the benefit is paid in cash, must be given to the husband, but it may be administered otherwise. According to the Amended Bill, which we are now considering, the money has to be paid to the wife and to her only. What we want to bring in is that the money shall be paid on the receipt of the wife or of the husband. That is a very important administrative difference. The Noble Lord does not agree with receipts. He says, "Why receipts?" I will tell him. If this House would visualise the conditions under which that money, as a rule, reaches the possession of the wife—may I say parenthetically that I am only dealing with bad cases, and not with the ninety-nine good cases in a hundred? —if this House would visualise the conditions which exist in the room when this money

  1519
  reaches the place, assuming that it reaches immediately or very soon after the birth, it will see that a monstrous injustice is far more likely to be done than otherwise unless the society has got some definite proof that the demand for payment has come directly from the mother, and that the payment when made is going to go directly to the mother. The Noble Lord knows what the terrible intervention of the third person means under such circumstances—the terrible intervention of neigh-bours, and so on. If this is a trust fund we must be particularly careful in dealing with bad cases, even putting impediments in the way if necessary, in order to make sure that the money is going to go into the hands of the person who is going to administer it in trust for the mother and the child, or into the hands of the mother, who will spend it on her own behalf. The Married Woman's Property Act has nothing whatever to do with this case. No talk about a married woman's property or the separate property of married women has the least bearing upon the problem which this House has got to face. It is this, How are the obligations which are attached to every 1s. of this 30s. going to be carried out by the person who spends the money? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, that given a bad husband and a blackguardly husband who is capable of some of the things of which we have been hearing, neither this House nor any other House is going to settle that. He is going to be a disgrace and he has got to be wiped out by some other means, but this House must honestly admit to itself that there is also the bad wife of the good husband. We cannot deny it. It is very sad, but there it is, and as business men trying to face a real problem we must face it honestly to ourselves. If this money is paid over to the bad mother, then you get on her side a duplication of every abuse that has been published as an abuse which has attended the expenditure of this money when it found its way first of all into the hands of the husband.
  We propose to give the societies discriminating power, and I believe that in the long run we are going to do more of that than we have done. I know the argument used against us, and admit its strength to the full, that if the societies begin to discriminate they discriminate against a man and brand a man. My reply is that if a society discriminates
  1520
  against a man in 9,999 out of every 10,000 cases he ought to be discriminated against, and I, for one, would be only too glad if he was discriminated against and branded as the sort of person that undoubtedly he would be in those circumstances. We ought to be courageous as well as sympathetic in this matter, and we believe that the society and its responsible officers should have some discriminating powers. That is in the Act now and, therefore, it does not require to be put into this Amendment. Therefore we say we must insist upon the wife's receipt, though in certain circumstances I quite see that it is going to be rather difficult to get it, but it is the one safeguard which we have got in a large number of bad cases that it will not be intercepted on the way to the mother. If anyone can give us a better suggestion we shall be delighted to accept it. The final point is this: I do not know whether I am specially old-fashioned, but I still believe that the man and the wife should co-operate together in the expenditure of the common fund. It is a very miserable family that cannot have a common fund. So what would happen if these last words of ours were left out? The man can go to the society and state, "I will draw the money for my wife," and he gets it. He can say to the society, "I would advise you not to pay it to my wife because she cannot administer it," but he cannot say to the society, "Please give it to me and I will administer it for her." He, then, can only say to the society, "You have got to administer it yourself on her behalf." Surely that is very improper! That is the unfortunate position which will hit the good families and the people living in good relationships. But I hope that the House will vote for the Amendment, and then it can consider the matter further. I am perfectly willing to take the decision of the House upon the Amendment which my hon. Friend has got down to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwich, but the House must do something to supplement the Clause which is now in being. It must do something to make machinery for carrying out the intentions of the Clause. When that is done, as I hope the House will do, by voting for my hon. Friend's Amendment, then the House can say whether it is going to leave in the final words or not.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I hope very much that the House will not accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Mem-

  1521
  ber for Norwich. The hon. Member made, I suppose, the best case that could be made for an extremely weak cause, and I do not feel that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Pontefract really improves what I look upon as an entire going back upon the principle that we decided upon upstairs. I hope that the Secretary to the Treasury is not going to make this a party question, and is not going to put on the Government Whips when it comes to a Division. Upstairs in Committee he made it. quite plain that it was not going to be treated as a party question, and if the Government Whips are put on down here that would be going back on a distinct pledge that he gave us upstairs in Committee. The House has not very often an opportunity of deciding upon a non-party issue and I feel that in a case of this kind no Cabinet pressure whatsoever should be brought to bear upon the decision of the House. It is essentially a question for the decision of the House, and it ought not to be made a question of political expediency. I feel strongly that if women had votes to-day there would be absolutely no doubt whatsoever as to which way the decision upon this question would go. If women had votes I believe that the 30s. would he absolutely safe in their pockets in every single case. I would like to appeal especially to the anti-suffragists in this House.
  As long as men deny the vote to women—and it may be that in doing so they are quite right—they ought to look upon themselves, especially as the trustees in this House of women's interests, and they ought to go out of their way to behave generously whenever a question of this sort comes up. I believe that if we do neglect these rights of the women we shall be doing an immense amount to add to the very long list of supporters of women suffrage all over the country. The hon. Member for Derby and the hon. Member for Leicester referred to certain administrative difficulties that might occur in reading the Clause in the Amending Bill. The hon. Member for Leicester says that we have not declared it is the women's property. That may be perfectly true, but we have declared that it is the woman's benefit, and it is the woman's legal benefit. I do not think that there is the slightest controversy in any part of the House in regard to that. Therefore, it is our duty to see that the whole of the legal benefit is expended on her behalf for the benefit of herself and the child.
  1522
  I do not see that there are going to be any administrative difficulties at all. Post office orders can be perfectly easily sent through the post, or the approved societies can find out some cheap means of seeing that this benefit gets into the hands of the mother. At present everybody knows that sick pay is sent through the post through the instrumentality of post office orders. More than that, in the case of unmarried women who are insured, post office orders are sent through the post to those unmarried women in respect of maternity benefit, and no administrative difficulty has been found so far as I am aware in getting the maternity benefit into the hands of insured unmarried women. If it can be done in their case I do not see that there need be any administrative difficulties in getting the maternity benefit into the hands of insured married women. The midwife or the doctor can perfectly easily give a certificate of the birth even in the case of the insured married women. The difficulty has already been got over. What happens in the case of a man at sea who is insured and married? On the birth of a child the maternity benefit is now sent to the wife of an insured man and no administrative difficulties have been discovered in this case. I would like to point out that you are really differentiating, I think very unfairly, as between the married and the unmarried insured woman. Under the principal Act, as everybody knows, if a woman is insured and married to an insured man the insured woman does not get any maternity benefit at all. The maternity benefit is paid to the husband who is insured. But if a woman is unmarried and insured she gets her own maternity benefit to deal with as she likes. That is under the present system an unmarried insured woman would be able to deal with her maternity benefit and you deny this to the insured married woman. I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke that it is perfectly fallacious to suppose that it is merely the husband who contributes towards the maternity benefit. The woman's work at home continually enables the man to earn his wages outside, and in hundreds of cases it is the woman's privation, much more than the husband's, or the children's privation, that results from the deduction of the contribution, very often from a very low wage.
  I am aware that a great deal of pressure has been brought to bear upon the Government by trade unions and ap-

  1523
  proved societies, but I do not think that my Noble Friend mentioned this, that a unanimous resolution has been passed, I think yesterday, at the English speaking Conference on Infant Mortality, expressing the hope that the Clause in the Amending Bill would be passed in its unaltered form. I hope the right hon. Gentleman when he gets up to reply will make it quite clear that this is not a party question. I do not know from the smile on his face whether he is or is not going to make it a party question. I do not want to use language which is too strong, but if, after his pledge upstairs that he would leave it to the sound common sense of the Committee and not make it a party question, he now on the floor of this House is going to do so and put on the Government Whips, I say it will be a scandalous breach of the pledge which he gave. I only hope that he is not going to do it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I propose to reply to the arguments which have been addressed to the House now, as we have further and important work to do this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman seemed to attack me with some violence, and suggested that I had made a certain pledge. I made no pledge upstairs in connection with what the action of the Government might be on Report. To relieve the hon. Gentleman's mind, however, I may state that I have no intention of exercising any kind of pressure in regard to this subject, and, indeed, the only thing I can do will be to adopt the same attitude that I adopted upstairs. The hon. Member may be interested to know what actually did happen upstairs. All four Members who were leading the four parties in the Committee voted one way—they all voted in the minority, with a result, I am sure, very much to the satisfaction of the Noble Lord.
  Mr. LYNCH: Who were those leaders? I do not know.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Quite apart from this question, during the whole of this Bill, which I regard now as a Bill which has been made by all parties uniting together, I always realise that when anything in connection with women enters into our controversies, party divisions become absolutely submerged in other divisions, and friend carries on a violent warfare against friend. What I have to submit now is really the result of a promise that I made to the Committee to try and ascertain how far these powers, which I think
  1524
  were almost unanimously desired by the Committee, could be translated into practical action—how far administrative means require amendment or alteration. I think everyone in the Committee recognised that it was impossible to leave the Clause as it was left in Committee; in fact, we had a very long debate afterwards about what exact administrative suggestions could be introduced, and, finally, the whole Committee agreed to leave it to me to consult the members of the approved societies, who have actual experience of this administrative work, and ascertain what administrative amendment they thought was needed. I immediately proceeded to effect such a consultation. I had a conference, I suppose the most representative conference that ever could be got together, of all approved societies— friendly societies, trading, collecting, industrial, and other societies. They realised, and I am quite clear that none of them had any objection, that a very definite change has been made by the action of the Committee, and that henceforth maternity benefit was the woman's benefit, the benefit of the wife of the person insured in their societies. There, I may say, one of those administrative difficulties arises, because this benefit has got somehow to be administered for the benefit of a person who is not actually a member of the society. That makes it much more difficult than administration in the case of an unmarried woman where the woman is a member of the society.
  After a very long consultation, and a good many suggestions made, the members of the approved societies agreed that they could see no other or better way to meet this difficulty than the suggestion which they circulated to Members of this House. I need hardly say that hon. Gentlemen were perfectly right in saying that no pressure was to be put on the societies in this matter, and no pressure was put by myself in this matter, except to find out how it would actually work in practice. In regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwich, the last words of it, I believe, are the words most objected to by those who wish it to come into force. Their difficulty is this: The wife's receipt can be accepted, and in certain cases it is being accepted to-day, although I believe it is doubtful whether it is legal and whether it is a full discharge to the the society, or whether, as a matter of fact, the husband on coming back could not make a further demand. They say that they cannot accept prac-

  1525
  tical responsibility in respect of the authorisation or nomination of a third person to give receipts in full discharge of the payment. The difficulty would be exceedingly great to prove in each case that there was a legal authorisation. That is the point which the Noble Lord made, and. it is the point I put to them in discussing the difficulty. As the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) said, this concerns to a very large extent humble houses. It is of very great importance that the money should be paid at once; in fact, I think one big society prides itself on the fact that it pays the money on the same day on which the child is born. They object to the principle of nomination, and I think the whole House, on the merits, objects to the principle of the nomination of a third person. It is perfectly right that the wife should be able to give her discharge for the money. I think it is right that the husband should be able to give the discharge. I believe that once you started the principle of nomination you would get very profound difficulties in connection with the benefit in the poorer districts, and I speak as one who lived ten years in the poorer districts. In any case, the societies agreed that, from the administrative point of view, they must ask those who wish to hear their views on the subject, that the husband's receipt should be valid. They say if that is not the case, either there will have to be a very elaborate inquiry in each case, with very considerable delay, or some system would have to be devised which they themselves were unable to devise.
  I agree that when you come to the last words of the Amendment, you come to a controversial point. The words are, "apply it for the maintenance and care of the wife and child." I recognise the strength of the case as put by the hon. Member for Leicester, and I have some sympathy for it indeed, I voted for it in the Committee stage, because if there is reason to believe that the wife herself is not going to use the maternity benefit and spend it on the wife and child—I know of some cases where that has been demonstrated—I think the husband ought to be in a position to apply it to the maintenance and care of the wife and child. But my position is not to argue that point; my position is merely to inform the House of what occurred after I had promised to call attention to the question of administration. What I should like would be a straight vote, not on that last passage,
  1526
  but on the statement omitting that last sentence, which says that the benefit shall be payable in respect of the husband's insurance, that the wife's receipt shall be valid, and that the husband's receipt on her behalf shall be valid; but that where the benefit is paid to the husband he shall pay it to the wife. There are difficulties in that point, but the approved societies, when I approached them on the subject, said they thought that those difficulties could be overcome. They said that if the Committee would be willing to receive that as a condition, and if the House were willing to receive that as practical administration carrying out the Resolution that this benefit shall be the wife's benefit, they believe that the administrative difficulties can be overcome. I do not believe that the general sense of the House, as far as I can judge at present, is to include the last sentence. If in any way we can get that last sentence removed and rest purely on the administrative part which is left, I honestly believe that it will be the best way and the only practical way of carrying out the intention.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I should like to endorse the appeal made to the Secretary to the Treasury to leave this Amendment to us to see whether we cannot get rid of these last words, which, I believe, is the feeling of the majority of the Committee. I think that the Member for Salisbury ought to be congratulated on having brought this matter before the House. He has done, I think, a real service in getting inserted in the Act of Parliament that this benefit is the woman's benefit, and that whoever receives it, and however it comes to her, it is her benefit, and is to be used for her in its entirety. That having been done and accepted by everybody as a desirable thing, the difficulties immediately begin. In Committee we spent some two hours or more trying to devise a form which would carry out the declarations which the Committee had then agreed upon, and here, to-day, we have been discussing them for a couple of hours and trying to agree upon them. I am not going to argue the matter at all, but I will give the reason why I intend to support the Amendment now before the House, especially if the words at the end are cut out. We have now got the valuable declaration that it is the woman's benefit, and we have got to provide that it can be paid to the woman, whose receipt can be accepted. We know that at the moment she might be ill and troubled, and unable,

  1527
  personally, to receive the benefit and apply it to her own need, and to give the receipt for it; so that we have, then, either got to postpone the payment until she is well enough to receive it, or we have got to provide someone else who can receive it and siga a receipt for it on her behalf. We have provided that the husband shall be at liberty to receive it and give a receipt on her behalf, but if he does receive it he has got to pay it over to her. No person is more naturally indicated than the husband to receive the money for the wife when she is in that condition. I think there is no doubt the husband is the natural person, and we need not in that case go beyond him. But we must go as far as the line that the husband can give a receipt, unless we are prepared to say that the payment of the benefit should be postponed for one week or two weeks or, perhaps, three weeks
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Does that mean that the husband is to be authorised by the wife to receive it?
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No. I will meet that point, which we discussed considerably upstairs. The Noble Lord wants to know whether the husband ought to be authorised ad hoc to receive the benefit. I say, No. Let us authorise by the Act, because in 999 cases out of 1,000 you would only be complicating the administration and causing unnecessary documents to be signed in order to protect one case out of 1,000, and that one case would be protected by the authority of the Act. If the husband is of such character that he is going to rob his wife, under those circumstances he will have no difficulty in forcing her to sign any authority or receipt that is necessary in order to enable that condition to be complied with. After all, we, or most of us, while entitled to exercise our judgment, are bound to listen to the representations which are made to us by those who are practically occupied in the administration of the various societies. Here we have an absolutely unique recommendation on the part of the trade unions, the old friendly societies, the newer form of approved societies, the Prudential and other industrial assurance companies, the dividing societies, and, indeed, we have got a recommendation from societies representing something like three-fourths, or probably more, of the insured persons. They have got to carry out the administration. This is a difficulty
  1528
  not of principle, because we are all agreed on the principle, and I do not think the House can do better than listen to the recommendations that have been given.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: In deference to the suggestion that has been made, I would like to ask whether I would be permitted to withdraw the Amendment in its present form and move it as far as the word "wife," and then leave it for my colleagues and myself to decide whether we should like to move the other words as an addition in the event of the first portion being carried?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the Amendment as proposed is now withdrawn the hon. Member can move it again in the form he has suggested down to and including the word "wife." If he is successful in displacing the words in the Bill and the Amendment which he is moving becomes the substantive Motion, then it is open to himself or any other hon. Member to move additions to those words.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: On the point of Order. I submit it is really quite unnecessary for the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment, because the Question you, Sir, will put is, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill." If that is taken, then the question of what words should be there inserted could be considered.
  Mr. WORTH I N GTON-EVA NS: I rather think there are some Members of the House who would be willing to vote for the Amendment down to the word "wife," but would not be willing to vote for the additional words.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is the reason the hon. Member asks leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I handed in an Amendment which comes in after the word "receipt" in the proposed Amendment, and I suppose that Amendment will not fall through?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The words suggested could be moved when the Amendment becomes the substantive Motion. The only object of the hon. Member in withdrawing is to move the Amendment down to the word "wife."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words

  1529
  "and paragraph (e) of Sub-section 1 of Section 8 of the principal Act, shall be altered accordingly by the insertion of the words `to the mother of the child' after the first word 'payment' in that paragraph," and to insert instead thereof the words "but where the benefit is payable in respect of the husband's insurance, the wife's receipt or his receipt on her behalf shall be a sufficient discharge to the society or committee, and, where the benefit is paid to the husband he shall pay it to the wife."
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is my Amendment in order now?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That Amendment cannot be taken unless the Amendment proposed becomes the substantive Motion.
  Mr. FORSTER: I am very reluctant to give a silent vote on this question, because I took a line which differed from the views expressed by a good many of my Friends in the Committee. I want to say at once that the views I expressed will, I am afraid, differ from the views of some of my hon. Friends behind me, and I want it to be quite clear that I am speaking for myself alone, and that I am not attempting to influence their views beyond such influence as I may be able to bring upon them by argument. I am not going to cover all the ground, and desire shortly to say why it is I am going to support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite. We are discussing maternity benefit now, because there has been abuse or misuse of it in the past few months. We are endeavouring to prevent misuse of it in the future, and that is the reason why the House is engaged upon the subject this afternoon. I think if we are going to do what we can to prevent misuse by the husband we cannot leave out of account the prospective misuse of it by the wife. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) spoke words of common sense and spoke from a knowledge of what actually happens, a knowledge shared by many other hon. Members, when he said the problem is not confined to the bad husband, but that we have got to deal with the problem of the bad wife as well. I agree with him in looking on the money provided under maternity benefit as trust money, and taking that view I think the proposal of the hon. Member for Norwich is a sound one. I am not in the least moved by the arguments that have been addressed to us as to discrimination on the part of society officials. I believe that that
  1530
  discrimination where it will be exercised will be exercised wisely on the whole. I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester that where it is necessary it is desirable that it should be so. I have been told by many of those who have to administer maternity benefit under the Act that they would have given it to the wife over and over again in cases where the husband was a bad lot, if her receipt had been a valid discharge to the society. I will not labour the point any further, and I support the Amendment because I believe it to be sound, and because I believe it is desirable to give some measure of elasticity to the arrangements made by those who really know the conditions of every family with Which they are concerned, and I hope the House will support it.
  Mr. LYNCH: I am glad that the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) has deleted the words at the end, because it makes a clear cut issue such as we already decided in Committee on the Amendment as it now stands. Having listened to all the arguments and having been impressed by each in turn, because I believe that throughout the House there has been a sincere desire that the mother and the mother alone should benefit by this sum of 30s., it seems to me finally the issue might be confined to this:—On the one hand we have administrative difficulties, and on the other side we have a few cases, very rare and exceptional cases, where the woman has a bad husband who would seize this money and use it for his own purposes. With respect to administrative difficulties I am inclined to think that they may be greatly exaggerated. I agree thoroughly with what the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) said, that this money should be regarded as a trust fund, and I think also that great importance should be attached to the further point he made that this may not be paid necessarily in money at all, but may be paid in kind. I think it might be an advantage if in all cases the benefits were paid in kind and, for instance, at the discretion of the doctor. If the money were paid in kind it would remove almost the entire difficulties which have been suggested in the course of this Debate. As to administrative difficulties, if it were once made statutory that the mother's signature, and hers alone, would be sufficient discharge, it would seem to meet all that and greatly remove the administrative difficulties due to the societies having to decide which was a good case and a bad

  1531
  case, and whether the husband should receive the money or not.
  There was one other point which the hon. Member made which struck me very forcibly, and that was where he appealed to the House to visualise this by a concrete instance. That is the aspect which appeals to me most strongly. Suppose that it is a very exceptional case where a woman has a bad husband, and that it is only one in a thousand or a much less number, yet it is agreed on all sides that those exceptional cases do occur. I think there would be nothing more distressing to a woman in a condition of life where she most needs help and protection, and in those exceptional cases where she has long suffered every kind of abuse and tyranny, that then in the hour of her life where she is most defenceless herself and where she is most solicitous for the safety and for the life of her child, that she might then be deprived of the opportunity of restoring herself to health and succouring her child. I say that if we can visualise that one case, and know all that that means and all the cruelty and pain that would be inflicted, it would outweigh any occasional difficulties of administration. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to receiving a very representative deputation from the approved societies and others, I would suggest to him that another deputation would be needed to balance that, and that would be a deputation representing all the mothers of this country. I do not think he has received such a deputation, and I dare say they would be able to impress upon him arguments which might outweigh these mere questions of administration. This appeal which is made is a distinctly sentimental one, but, after all, it is a sentiment which Members of the House will agree strikes upon the deepest chords of human nature and brings forth impulses for the protection of the mother and those dependent upon her.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I wish to put before the House the importance of what the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has told us. What he has told us ought to influence us very greatly in coming to a decision. In fact, my own mind was not quite made up until I heard him speak; but since he has told us what is the opinion of those who have to administer this Act, I am prepared to support the
  1532
  hon. Member for Norwich. I do not think there is any difference of opinion on the principle. We are all agreed that this money ought to go to the mother. The question is: How can that best be secured? The mother is the proper person to receive the money. If she is in a position to do so, the money will be paid to her, and she will give the receipt. If she is not in a position to receive it, the proper person to do so is the husband, who, under the Amendment, would be under a legal obligation to pay the money over to the wife. The words are:
  "His receipt on her behalf shall be a sufficient discharge to the society or committee, and, where the benefit is paid to the husband, he shall pay it to the wife."
  I maintain that under those words, if he does not pay it to the wife, he will be guilty of an offence for which he can be prosecuted. I submit that by voting for the Amendment the House will best carry out their intention that the woman should receive the money.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I rise because I disagree with the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. S. Roberts). I do not think it would be the best course for this House to adopt to pass the Amendment, even in the form in which it now stands. We must not forget the speech by which the Amendment in its original form was supported. We must remember the arguments by which it was recommended to the consideration of the House. It will be remembered that the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) repeatedly stated that the main reason why he was supporting the Amendment—he confined his observations almost entirely to the Amendment as it now stands, and had very little to say about that part which has been deleted—was that he had an abhorrence of any State interference between husband and wife. He is supporting this Amendment in order to give the husband what I might call a locus standi in the matter. It seems to me that the question can be put in a nutshell. It is whether this benefit is or is not the mother's benefit? If it is the mother's benefit, it ought to go to the mother, and there ought to be no insulting or objectionable conditions attached to it. The hon. Member says that he has an abhorrence of any interference between man and wife by the State. He belongs to the Mosaic period. I am sure he heartily approves of the last

  1533
  part of the tenth Commandment. He would place the man's wife in the same category as the man's ox and the man's ass. If the hon. Member had been in this House forty years ago, he would have stated as eloquently as he has done this afternoon his deep-rooted objection to any interference by law in the relations between man and wife. But the relations between man and wife do exist at present under this Bill in this connection. Those of us who are opposed to this Amendment want to place the woman in a more honour-able position with regard to the receipt of this money. The hon. Member talked about the insulting provisions that were embodied in the Bill as it now appears. Still, in the Amendment in the form in which it now stands, there is an implied insult to the wife, because if this be the woman's benefit, the woman ought to receive it, and she ought to be in a position to say who should act on her behalf.
  I am no lawyer. In that I am like my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). Therefore, my opinion in law is as good as his—that is, it is worth nothing. But he gave us quite a learned dissertation upon the legal construction of the first few words of this paragraph: "Maternity benefit shall in every case be the, mother's benefit." His legal dictum is that that does not make it the legal property of the wife. May I alter the words a little? "Maternity benefit"—that is 30s.—thirty shillings— "shall in every case be the mother's thirty shillings." Suppose you put it like that. I think it is perfectly evident to the layman who knows nothing about law that that does make the maternity benefit the legal property of the woman. That being the case, I object altogether to the introduction of another party, even if that party he the husband. I think that the administrative difficulties have been altogether exaggerated. I cannot but feel a suspicion that they have been introduced so prominently for other reasons than those which have been stated. There cannot possibly be any administrative difficulty which is not being encountered at the present time and being met by the societies. We have some millions of women who are insured persons, and they fall sick. What about the administrative difficulties there? The hon. Member spoke
  about the woman being confined to bed and not being in a position to give a receipt. That case happens every day, and it happens in regard to women. Women fall suddenly ill. They are not able to give receipts for the benefit, but the benefit is being paid. How is it being paid? Under regulations and arrangements which the friendly societies have made. There are a large number of married women entitled to benefit in one form or another under the present arrangement. The receipt of the husband is not taken for that. It is the wife who has to make the acknowledgment. In my own Constituency 60 per cent. of the mothers are insured persons on their own account, but I have never heard of a single case of difficulty. Therefore, I repeat that I think the administrative difficulties have been altogether exaggerated. What I would like to see done would be to leave out everything except the first few words, namely, "Maternity benefit shall in every case be the mothers's benefit," leaving to the societies full power to make what arrangements they like. While we all agree that this ought to be the benefit of the mother and the property of the mother, the full effect of that is being taken away by the words embodied in this Amendment. Therefore, I shall certainly vote against the Amendment, and I hope we shall receive a sufficient amount of support to be able to defeat. it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: May I ask the House to be quite clear as to what is the Amendment upon which they are going to vote. It is the Amendment which says:—
  "but where the benefit is payable in respect of the husband's insurance, the wife's receipt or his receipt on her behalf shall be a sufficient discharge to the society or committee, and, where the benefit is paid to the husband, he shall pay it to the wife."
  It is not, as one or two Members apparently think, a later Amendment dealing with quite a different subject.
  Question put, "That the words of the Bill to the word 'after' ['to the mother of the child after'] stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 186.

  Division No. 262.]

  AYES.

  [5.58 p.m.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Hills, John Waller

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Hogg, David C.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hogge, James Myles

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Bentham, G. J.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Bird, Alfred

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Boland, John Pius

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Boyton, James

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Bull, Sir William James

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Radford, G. H.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Cowan, W. H.

  Leach, Charles

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Scott, A MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Shortt, Edward

  De Forest, Baron

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Snowden, Philip

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Locker-Lampson. O. (Ramsey)

  Stewart, Gersham

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Doris, William

  Lynch, A. A.

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Manfield, Harry

  Wadsworth, John

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Waring, Walter

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Middlebrook, William

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morgan, George Hay

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Morrell, Philip

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Gulland, John W.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid)

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Neilson, Francis

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Newman, John R. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. J. Ward and Lord Robert Cecil.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Devlin, Joseph

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Dillon, John

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Cassel, Felix

  Duffy, William J.

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cater, John

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Barnes, George N.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Falconer, James

  Barnston, Harry

  Clough, William

  Fell, Arthur

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Clynes, John R.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Field, William

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Cullinan, John

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Forster, Henry William

  Blair, Reginald

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Brace, William

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Delany, William

  Goldstone, Frank

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Grant, J. A.

  1536

  1537

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Royds, Edmund

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Rucciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Hackett, John

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

  Meagher, Michael

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Hancock, John George

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Sheehy, David

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Molloy, Michael

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Hazleton, Richard

  Mooney, John J.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Muldoon, John

  Sutton, John E.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Munro, Robert

  Swift, Rigby

  Hewart, Gordon

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Thomas, James Henry

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Hinds, John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Hodge, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Dowd, John

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Grady, James

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Wardle, G. J.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Malley, William

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Webb, H.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Keating, Matthew

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  King, Joseph

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molten)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Reddy, Michael

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Richardson, Thomas Whitehaven)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  McGhee, Richard

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Roberts and Mr. S. Roberts.

  Maclean, Donald

  Rowlands, James

  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "receipt" ["or his receipt on her behalf"], to insert the words "if authorised by her."
  This Amendment will bring this question to a real issue. It will really test whether there is a genuine desire to save the money for the woman. The only thing now is as to whether it is to be made quite clear that the husband only in that case, and in that case only, where he has been authorised to receive the money by his wife, shall do so. I do not want to detain the House by argument. Everything that can be said has been said. But I do say that the suggestion that administrative difficulties are in the way is really not the case. It is quite a common practice for building societies and for friendly societies to accept nominations from many persons; and there is not the slightest difficulty in doing it, because the husband and the wife will be known as belonging to one another. What will have to be shown is that the husband has been authorised by the wife to receive the money. I think this is a reasonable and proper Amendment, and I trust that the House will see that this justice is done to the woman.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This question was really decided by the last Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS "No, no."] I can only repeat here the same objection taken by me in the conference of friendly societies; that we have decided that the husband has got to pay the money to the wife. If he does not pay the money to the wife he is subject to the law. There is a profound difficulty in dealing with authorisation. If this is passed, unless the authorisation had been made before, no money could be paid at the time.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."]
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of speaking later.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am told that it is quite certain that a very large number of persons who will be confined will not make any authorisation before confinement. So long as you make it perfectly certain, and the House has accepted that, that the money shall be paid to the wife, then you have given every kind of protection that.

  1539
  is needed, without bringing in administrative difficulties. I do suggest to the House that these having been discussed in my conference with the friendly societies are in many cases difficulties which they say will make the matter very difficult indeed.
  Mr. GOULDING: Just one word in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. How is it that these difficulties are so great now? They have always been got over in the past by nominations or by authorisations under the Friendly Societies Acts. Long before the National Insurance Act was passed the friendly societies, under their rules and under the Friendly Societies Acts, made nominations and made authorisations. Under these nominations and authorisations sums were paid. Why cannot the same authorisation be carried into effect, and so give effect to what we desire to see: that this benefit is the woman's benefit, and that she should have the power to authorise her husband to get it for her?
  Mr. BOOTH: I would appeal to hon. Members opposite not to press this Amendment. The authorisation by the wife must be given either before she is ill or after she is ill. If it is meant to be given before she is ill it will be given months ahead on printed forms. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It can be, and the simplest way would be taken. I do not think hon. Members quite want that—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"]—that months beforehand, before the circumstances of the case, something should be signed. I venture to say that the woman herself months later may have a totally different view about her benefit. Either it will be made long before she is ill, and, therefore, I submit will not meet the case, or it will be made after she is ill. If it is made after she is ill, the approved society will wait—and I want hon. Members to realise this—until they are quite sure that she can authorise the receipt of it, and this means delay in paying the benefit. We are throwing upon the approved societies the onus of deciding that the recipient is authorised. To make quite sure they must wait until the woman has recovered sufficiently for her wishes to be made known. Let hon. Members put themselves in the position of a workman or working woman who has to distribute this benefit in working men's dwellings. He has to decide whether in these various cases the
  1540
  husband is quite authorised to receive the money, and to make quite sure, I venture to submit, in practice he will wait some time until the woman has recovered. That would be an unfair infliction upon the home that needs payment promptly.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I apologise for having interrupted the right hon. Gentleman, but I only wished to put to him this question: What procedure has he adopted in the case of the frequent absence of the husband during the time of the confinement of the wife with regard to giving a receipt for the money?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That is a question I answered before. There are cases where the money has been paid to the wife when the husband is away, but the friendly societies are quite sure that under the law as it stands that is not a legal discharge, and the husband, if he chose, could come lack and demand another 30s. In many such cases the maternity benefit, I regret to say, is held up.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: An immense mountain has been made out of a molehill in regard to these difficulties. They have been got over, as we know, in cases of sickness benefit, in the case of the wife who is insured on her own account, and in the case of the unmarried mother. I really do not believe that there in any real difficulty in getting this receipt.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I only want to say one word in answer to the hon. Member for Pontefract. He knows perfectly well that no society would delay the payment of those benefits for a single hour if it knew that the woman had given no authorisation to have it paid to her husband. They would immediately make provision to pay to the wife. Any decently managed society, knowing that it had no authorisation to pay it to anyone else but the woman, would immediately pay it to her.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I do not know what justification the hon. Member has for any such assumption. Is it to be assumed that the approved societies are to make inquiries of its members as to whether they are likely to expect maternity benefit? It is an absolutely absurd suggestion, and, therefore, I make this appeal to the Noble Lord, and I am sure he will agree at once, that whether it be a bad husband or a bad wife, there would be no need for legislation in this direction. Therefore, we

  1541
  have to presume that the only object of this particular Amendment, if carried, is to protect the woman against a bad husband. That being agreed, I ask the House to consider the position. The bad husband knows the condition of the wife and knows that if this Amendment were carried she has power to deprive him of the 30s. or to let him have it. I ask the House to imagine the life that is going to be led in such a house prior to the confinement if that state of things is allowed to exist. What is going to be the condition of that woman's life?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: As the hon. Member has appealed to me, may I say that the speech he is delivering with such eloquence is really a speech against the last Amendment?
  Mr. THOMAS: That is no reason why it may not be a speech against this Amendment, and, furthermore, if that is the only argument against it, it is no reason why it may be a strong argument against his own Amendment. I am putting the matter from a practical standpoint. You have secured by the last Amendment that this benefit is to be the mother's benefit. Can the House contemplate the position, of the home where there is a bad husband, and where the wife knows he is bad? She knows what is likely to take place and the misery that must result on her refusal to make this his property.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think his Amendment is really asking the House to undo the Resolution it has just come to. To put in these words would, in effect, make the provision we have made, allowing the husband to give a receipt on behalf of the wife, entirely nugatory, and it is a great objection also, because of the bad case which everyone wants protection against, to apply it in every case. It seems to me that we are going back on the old position, either by having a great deal of unnecessary delay in running the risk of the benefit being only paid to the wife. If any further protection is required, why put the onus on the husband to show he has the authorisation. If anyone rally thinks there is a case to be met, it could be met by putting in after the words "or his receipt on her behalf," the words "until she has required the payment to be made to her direct," giving her the opportunity of preventing the husband From receiving the money; but do not
  1542
  say in every case she is to give authority to the husband to receive the money. Personally I do not think any words are wanted at all, but I call attention to the possible alternative to show that the words I suggest would meet the case if there was a case to meet at all. This Amendment only attempts to meet that one case, but it complicates the procedure as regards 999 cases, where it is not required at all.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I hope the Noble Lord will adhere to his Amendment, otherwise I feel certain these bad cases are sure to occur. In the case of a bad husband, he will go to his friendly society and say, "My wife is confined and I want the money." The officer has got to take his receipt and the officer can make no inquiries into the condition of the home life, whereas if the officer can say to him, "Where is your authority?" then he would be able to see, when the case arises, that the payment is made direct to the wife and not to the husband. If some sort of check like this is not introduced, friendly societies will find themselves in the same position as hitherto, and will have to hand over the money to a bad husband, who will be able to spend it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) that he said if we carried this Amendment we should run the risk of having the money only paid to the wife, but that is just what I want to have done.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: And I observed that this Amendment was going back on the decision the House has already come to.
  Mr. M'CURDY: I am sure the public outside look at this matter in a simpler way than it is looked at by speakers in this House. The Standing Committee has resolved with the general approval of the country that maternity benefit might to be the mother's benefit. We now have a number of extraordinary legal and administrative reasons put forward as to why this House should nullify that Resolution, and provide that although the benefit belongs to the mother, it can he paid to somebody else without any authority from the person to whom it belongs. I venture to think that if the House does not accept the Amendment of the Noble Lord, it will in effect not only be nullifying the decision already come to which proves that the benefit ought to belong to the mother, but

  1543
  it will nullify it by technical and legal methods which do not commend themselves to the country, and which are calculated to have a bad effect so far as the people of the country are concerned. The question is, having made up our minds as to what is just in regard to the system of these maternity benefits, we are
  going to say that what we believe to be just shall be done, or whether, having come to that decision, we are going to reverse the policy already arrived at.
  Question put, "That the words 'if authorised by her' be there inserted."
  The House divided: Ayes, 186, Noes, 165.

  Division No. 263.]

  AYES.

  [6.25 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Neilson, Francis

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Gulland, John William

  Norton, Captani Cecil W.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

  O'Dowd, John

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  O'Malley, William

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Shaughtnessy, P. J.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Hills, John Waller

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham.)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bird, Alfred

  Hogg, David C.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Boland, John Pius

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Boyton, James

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Radford, G. H.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shield)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  John, Edward Thomas

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Cator, John

  Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

  Sheehy, David

  Cowan, W. H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Snowden, Philip

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Swift, Rigby

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Taibot, Lord Edmund

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  De Forest, Baron

  Lynch, A. A.

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Delany, William

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C Scott

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wadsworth, John

  Doris, William

  McCurdy, C. A.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Manfield, Harry

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Fell, Arthur

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Ffrench, Peter

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Morrell, Philip

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. John Ward.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Barnes, George N.

  Benn, Hon. Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Barnston, Harry

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Blair, Reginald

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Shee, James John

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Brace, William

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hewart, Gordon

  Pointer, Joseph

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hinds, John

  Handles, Sir John S.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hodge, John

  Reddy, Michael

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hodge, James Myles

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Clough, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Clynes, John R.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Rowlands, James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Joyce, Michael

  Samuel, J (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Keating, Matthew

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Cullinan, John

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Shortt, Edward

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  King, Joseph

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Leach, Charles

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Dillon, John

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Sutton, John E.

  Duffy, William J.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Thomas, J. H.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  McGhee, Richard

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Maclean, Donald

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Falconer, James

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Field, William

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Wardle, George J.

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Meagher, Michael

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Webb, H.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Middlebrook, William

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Millar, James Duncan

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Forster, Henry William

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Molloy, Michael

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Gill, A. H.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Mooney, John J.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Muldoon, John

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Grant, J. A.

  Munro, Robert

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Hackett, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Hancock, John George

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Hardie, J. Keir

  O'Grady, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Roberts and Mr. S. Roberts.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Proposed words, as inserted in the Bill.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "child" ["interests of the mother and child"], to insert the words "or, if the child dies or is stillborn, of the mother."
  Amendment not seconded.
  Mr. HAMILTON: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "person" ["wife of an insured person"], to insert the words "or, if the child is a posthumous child, a widow."
  At the end of Sub-section (3) these words have been inserted, but in the pressure and urgency of this legislation the matter was overlooked in the first two sub-sections. I understand that the Gov-
  1546
  ernment are prepared to accept this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. HAMILTON: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "is" if her husband is a member"], to insert the words "or was at the date of his death."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. HAMILTON: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), after the word "is"' ["if her husband is a deposit contributor"], to insert the words "or was at the date of his death."
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 14.—(Amendment of Section 12 of Principal Act.)
  Section twelve of the principal Act shall have effect as though the first proviso to

  1547
  Sub-section (2) of that Section were omitted therefrom, and any sum which, but for the provisions of that Section, would have been payable to any person on account of sickness, disablement, or maternity benefit, if and so far as it is not paid or applied in accordance with the provisions of that Section while the person to or in respect of whom it would have been payable is an inmate of any workhouse, hospital, asylum, convalescent home, or infirmary, may, if the society or committee administering the benefit thinks fit, be applied in the provision of any surgical appliances required for the person or otherwise for his benefit after he ceases to be an inmate, or, if it is not so expended, shall be paid in cash to the person after leaving the institution, in a lump sum or in instalments as the society or committee thinks fit.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move to leave out the words "or otherwise for his benefit after he ceases to be an inmate."
  The House will remember that the object of this Clause is to alter the destination of the money which is payable in respect of the provision of surgical appliances required for a patient while he is in a hospital or other similar institution. As regards sickness and disablement benefit payable in respect of such persons, an attempt has been made in most cases to secure that the money shall ultimately reach the hands of the insured person although he is in the hospital. The old friendly society practice was that the money should pass into the patient's hands, and the only alteration being made in this Clause, so far as Section 12 of the principal Act is concerned, is that after the whole machinery of this Clause has failed, then, and then only, shall the money pass into the hands of the patient in the hospital or other institution. I want to secure that where the insured person has no dependants, and where there has been no agreement that a payment shall be made for his maintainence in the hospital, that the money shall pass into the hands of the insured person. Surely that is a proper course to take after he has made his insurance contributions with the object of receiving sick benefit at the time of his illness, and if, as a matter of fact, a hospital or other institution supported by voluntary contributions makes provision for him while within its walls, there seems no reason whatever why the man himself, after leaving the hospital, should not receive the money in full or by instalments,
  1548
  as is proposed by this Clause. The words I want to leave out provide for the society applying the money for his benefit after he ceases to be an inmate. I think the man himself best knows what is for his own benefit, and, therefore, I think it ought to. be left to him to receive the money without any further interference with him after he has left the hospital.
  Mr. DENNISS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We had a discussion on this Amendment in Committee, and I thought I had satisfied the hon. Member as to the necessity of these words. The same words are used in respect of maternity benefit, which provide that it may be paid in cash or otherwise. We are only meeting what has always been in the power of friendly societies, namely, the possibility in certain cases of administering the money for his benefit instead of paying it to him in cash. The hon. Member for Wilton, I am sure, will realise that such cases might arise when a man is recovering from sickness, and when he might be tempted by being paid in a lump sum of £5 to use it in a way which would not be to his own interests. Friendly societies have always had this discretion, and I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: In these circumstances, I do not desire to press my Amendment, and ask leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. NEWMAN: I beg to move, to leave out the words "if it is not so expended, shall be paid in cash to the person after leaving the institution, in a lump sum or in instalments as the society or committee thinks fit," and to insert instead thereof the words "may be paid to such hospital, asylum, convalescent home, or infirmary of which such person may be an inmate." My Amendment is a perfectly simple and obvious one, and it deals with the hardship which has been felt by the hospitals ever since the principal Act became law This hardship has been borne in silence for some time, and I think this is a matter which the House ought to take cognisance of. I was rather struck when discussing adequate medical service by an illustration given by the hon. Member for Wilton, who spoke of Wiltshire and South Wales where there was a case of two medical men on the panel, one of them a specialist in diseases relating to the ear-

  1549
  eye, and throat, and the other was a heart specialist. The hon. Member told us that when a patient requiring special treatment applied to the ear and throat specialist he was referred to the other doctor for heart affections, and the heart specialist referred ear and throat cases back to his colleague for special treatment. That may be all right in Wiltshire and South Wales, but it does not happen in Middlesex or in London.
  What happens is this: A patient goes to a panel doctor, and he is told on examination, "I cannot treat you, because you want a specialist form of treatment," and probably the doctor advises him not to go to a specialist, but to go to one of the small hospitals in Middlesex, or one of the large hospitals in London. The practice of people coming to panel doctors, and being advised to go to the hospitals for special treatment is becoming a very serious matter for the hospitals. Clause 14 gives power to the society or committee to pay to the insured person on leaving the hospital a lump sum in medical benefit. A very eminent legal gentleman in my own Division who acts as legal adviser to a hospital in which I am interested, told me that it was illegal at the present time for societies to pay over medical benefit in a lump sum, but if this Amending Bill becomes law that practice will be legalised. Unless under Section 12, Sub-section (2), paragraph (c) of the principal Act, the society or committee makes a definite arrangement with the hospital, no part of the medical benefit can be paid to the hospital which treated this man, and that the hospitals consider is a great grievance. We have got to take human nature as we find it, and I am sorry to say that in the district of which I speak it is the exception, and not the rule, for the societies to give any contribution at all to the hospitals which have taken their cases.
  Then, again, private subscriptions have fallen off. A man who sent one of his dependents to a hospital formerly felt in duty bound to pay something to that hospital, and a great many people gave subscriptions; but now, if they are employers of labour and have to pay on behalf of their employés, they say, "why should I send my two guineas, my five guineas, or my ten guineas to the hospital as well?" The result is that subscriptions from the employer class are falling off. I cannot say exactly what the working classes are doing, but I should imagine
  1550
  that they are doing their level best to keep their subscriptions up. I have been told by more than one general hospital that the subscriptions from the comparatively well-to-do are decreasing. It is also perfectly obvious that now we have got 14,500,000 insured people more people go to hospitals and have operations which, if the Act had not been passed, they would never have dreamed of undergoing. That, of course, means that there is a great deal more work thrown upon the hospitals. In the course of the last fortnight representatives of eight cottage hospitals in the Northern part of Middlesex had a conference, and the committee of management of the Great Northern Central Hospital which caters for Islington also, met and passed a resolution and interviewed me. As the result of those two consultations, I have put down this Amendment. I would like to give one or two examples why I think that the House ought to adopt this Amendment. Take, first of all, the ordinary case of a domestic servant who is an insured person. She is taken ill, and sees a panel doctor who tells her that she wants medical treatment, which he is not able to give her, and he advises her to go to the hospital. She goes to the hospital and stays there perhaps for four weeks, and then she comes out. She has had her wages all the time that she has been in the hospital, and she gets in a lump sum the medical benefit, 7s. 6d. per week, to which she is entitled. She might, and I dare say would, pay some of that back to the hospital, but we have got to take human nature as it is, and there is a temptation to that girl to use the money to buy something for herself. Again, the employer who in the ordinary case would have contributed perhaps two or three guineas to the hospital says, "I pay my 3d. per week for this girl, why should I give anything to the hospital as well?"
  Take another case which came to my notice the other day. A young man earning 22s. per week went into the hospital and stayed there five weeks. When he came out he was met on the doorstep by the agent of the society with which he was insured and had passed over to him the sum of £3 10s. I am sorry to say that young man went off without subscribing anything at all. These may be exceptional cases, but there they are, and it is to meet them that I ask the House to accept my Amendment and to put it in the power of the hospital to get something in return for what they have spent on

  1551
  these insured people. After all, 10s. or 7s. 6d. is only a comparatively small sum. They cannot treat a person even in a cottage hospital for less than 25s. per week. I know that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has every sympathy with the work of our great hospitals and with the work which they have done in trying to make the Act a success. He has said so over and over again. We all sympathise with them, but unfortunately sympathy, unless it is backed by something else, does not pay the half-yearly bills of these establishments, and we have therefore got to do something practical. I know exactly what the Financial Secretary will say. He will say, "Do not let us do it now; do not raise this awkward question at this time." We have got to face it sooner or later, and I say, "Let us face it now." I may be told that next year we shall have had much more experience to deal with it, but I say that every year it will get worse, and every year the hospitals will be inclined to drive a harder bargain. I, therefore, suggest that it would be well now to give the hospitals the powers which I propose in my Amendment.
  Mr. CATOR: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This is a matter which we discussed in Committee, and I certainly think that no one at this moment wishes to deal with the question of the hospitals as a whole. It is a narrow Amendment, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman why I think that it is undesirable that we should accept it. I would very much deprecate a discussion on the general position of hospitals and their future on such a narrow Amendment. Their future will not be settled by this Amendment, and personally I think that those who are deeply interested in the hospitals as well as those who desire considerable changes would greatly prefer that the whole subject should not come up at this time. The Amendment proposes to put a compulsion upon the insured person who has been in the hospital to pay over to them his sick benefit. I do not think that it is a fair compulsion to put upon insured persons.
  Mr. NEWMAN: The word in the Amendment is "may."
  Mr. MASTERMAN: But it would be a compulsion on the insured person, and I
  1552
  believe that the hospitals themselves would rather have the contributions they receive as voluntary contributions. We allow full power to the insured person to give any sum he pleases to the hospital out of his sick pay in accordance with what the hospital has done for him, and surely that is a good deal better way than compulsion. I believe that the Committee upstairs was very much influenced by a speech made by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who gave us case after case in which persons having received good treatment from hospitals became friends of those hospitals for life. It is quite true that human nature is as it is, but it is very often a good deal better than it is supposed to be, and I am quite sure that we had better maintain the voluntary principle and see whether those who can afford it will not out of gratitude for the treatment they receive contribute something towards the hospitals out of the lump sum they get as medical benefit.
  Mr. FORSTER: The Amendment of my hon. Friend does not interfere with the voluntary character of the Bill. It proposes that such "a sum may be paid to the hospital"; it does not say that it shall be paid. It does not make it compulsory on either the society or the individual.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If the society decides that it shall be paid, the individual would have no choice in the matter.
  Mr. FORSTER: That is quite true, but it is a power the societies have already got under the Act. They have the power of entering into arrangements with the hospitals for payment to the hospitals of, at any rate, some portion of the sickness benefit of their members who have no dependants. This would merely extend that power. I do not know that my hon. Friend will think it necessary to press the Amendment to a Division, but it will not interfere in any shape or form with the voluntary character of the Bill.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Unfortunately most of the Amendments on the hospital question are moved with regard to London, but that which affects London would be a serious injury in other parts of the country. If this Amendment were accepted, it would give great offence to a very large number of working men, especially in the North of England, who contribute not only towards the maintenance of hospitals but also towards convalescent homes and other

  1553
  such institutions. The money, in fact, is stopped from their wages. We know that in London there is no such contribution exacted or asked for from working men. I think, therefore, that the proper thing would be to try and introduce some such contributions in London, rather than to adopt an Amendment like this, which would give power to a committee or a society, if they thought fit, to deduct a subscription from the benefit to which the man who had gone to the hospital for treatment was entitled. I have just been reading the report of the committee of the hospital in the town I represent. A part of the report deals with this very question, and it reads as follows:—
  "Oar past year's experience shows that this institution was not affected adversely—indeed, rather to the contrary—for the subscriptions and contributions show ran increase compared with the previous year."
  7.0 P.M.
  That is so where working men contribute towards the upkeep of the hospitals. They dealt last year with 5,387 outpatients, and, although the workmen there contribute their 4d. per week to the insurance fund, and also to a convalescent home, and to Dr. Barnardo's Homes, they raised £327 for the hospital more than they did in the year before. This indicates that working men do not object to paying this money, and where they do pay it I think that it would be a mistake to give any power to a society to deduct from their benefit the cost or any portion of the cost of their upkeep in the hospital. I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment to a Division, but will leave the matter open until we have had a little more experience with regard to London. The present system undoubtedly, in many cases, does bring greater attachment to the hospitals on the part of working men, who work all the harder towards their upkeep.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I should be sorry to think that the observations of the last speaker in re1gard to the working men in London were accurate. I think if he made further inquiries he would find that considerable contributions are made by working men to the London hospitals, and that there are many sources—associations and societies—through which they make their contributions. The hon. Member cannot know London as well as he knows his own town; if he did he would find that my statement is well founded.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I was speaking more of deductions from wages and systematic contributions week by week.
  Mr. POLLOCK: That may be the case, but in the wider sense in which the hon. Member appeared to speak, I do not think it would be true so far as the working men of London are concerned. This Amendment seems to be very much misunderstood. There already is power in the committees to use this sum in certain ways; they may apply it to the provision of surgical appliances or otherwise for the benefit of the insured person, and if it is for his benefit it can be paid to him. That is one way of making use of the money. But the rest of the Clause goes on to say that if it is not so expended for his benefit, then it can be paid to him in a lump sum on leaving the hospital. The purpose of the Amendment is not to try and force a contribution from the working man and the committee will still have the power of using this money for his benefit, by making a payment to him should they think it right to do so. But this power to make contributions to hospitals might be a very useful one to place in the hands of the committee. At present their hands are tied, their powers are limited in a particular direction, inasmuch as they can make make no contribution at all to these institutions. If this Amendment were accepted the Committee would have a larger range of choice, and it would give them the opportunity of making payments to institutions which certainly deserve some sort of reward. If the Committee find the exercise of this power is objected to they can still employ the money for the insured person's benefit in one of the ways already laid down, and one of those ways obviously would be to pay it, to him. This proposal I think is a good one.
  Mr. THOMAS: I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment. There was a long debate on this point in Committee upstairs. In the first place, the hon. Member must be aware that it is undesirable for any insured person to have to go before any committee with a view to explaining his financial difficulties. Perhaps that point has not occurred to the hon. Member. If you give a power to the committees to pay the money to the hospital or some other institution while the insured person is in that hospital or institution they must before they can come to any decision have inquiries made as to the position of the particular individual. Take the case of a young man with no dependents. He lives in lodgings. While he is in hospital his lodgings must be paid for. He may also have other

  1555
  other difficulties. It is obvious there are thousands of young men in London who live in lodgings and who, while they are in hospital, have to pay for their lodgings week by week. There is, therefore, a continuous charge upon them. They may, too, have other debts which must be met out of the sick pay which comes to them in a hoop when they come out of hospital. Then there is this further point. They may find it necessary, after leaving hospital, to go to a convalescent home. This money would enable them to do that; but if discretion is to be given to the committee to pay the sick benefits over to a hospital it will be necessary to drag the man before the committee in order that he may explain his circumstances. There are hundreds of working men who are so gratified at the treatment they have received in hospital that when they come out they start funds among themselves and organise concerts for the benefit of the institution, and in a hundred and one ways they show their appreciation of what has been done for them in the hospital. I hope that that spirit will continue. If you give the money to the man in a lump sum, he is just as likely to make a contribution to the hospital. For this reason, I would urge that this matter should be left to the insured person and that no definite obligation should be put on the approved society.
  Mr. DENNISS: I, too, hope my hon. Friend will not press this matter to a Division. If he does so I shall have to vote against him, and as one very much interested in hospitals I will give my reasons for the attitude I am taking up. I do not think this proposal will be good for the insured person, and I am quite sure it will be very bad for the hospital. It will not be good for the insured person, because if he knows he is liable to have his sick pay compulsorily taken from him and paid to the hospital, when he is told by the doctor he must go to a hospital because he cannot get proper treatment at home, he will be very disinclined to act upon that advice. I have always thought it was a great blot on this Act that hospital treatment was not included in the medical benefits, and I hope that some day, and that very shortly, the cases of the hospitals will be taken into consideration by this House. It is quite clear something should be done for some of them. They have had a lot of extra work put upon them since this Act came into operation,
  1556
  and in many cases their subscriptions have largely fallen off. Where ought the money to come from? Not from the pockets of individual patients who happen to be ill, but from the contributions of all insured persons through insurance committees, or from some Government contribution. The principle of insurance is that all should pay towards the sick benefit of those who fall ill, and if insured persons have hospital treatment the payment for that treatment should not come out of their pockets only. If that is insisted on, then it is not in accordance with the principles of insurance. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said it was designed to meet exceptional cases, but as I read the Amendment, it is of a most general and sweeping character. I am quite sure that the hospitals, or at any rate a large majority of-them, would not desire that their funds should be supplemented by compulsory contributions from sick people. If they are to receive support at all in the way of contributions they should be general. contributions from all insured persons, and they should come out of general funds. For these reasons I ask my hon. Friend not to press this matter to a Division With regard to one other point—the suggestion that a man when he leaves the hospital and receives his sick benefit in a lump sum may abuse it by getting drunk. I venture to say that, in the vast majority of cases, this is the time above all others when the man wants money in a lump sum in order to enable him to make a start. He may have to pay for his lodging, he may have to go to a convalescent home, or, having been out of work for some time, he may have to seek fresh employment, and under such circumstances a lump sum of money would, of course, be most useful to him.
  Mr. MAN FIELD: I also would appeal to the hon. Member not to press this Amendment to a Division. All those who are interested in hospitals have had this question under consideration for some time, and I do not think it would be at all in the interests of hospitals and kindred institutions that such a proposal as this should be introduced into this Act. I can endorse all that has been said by the last speaker as to the attitude which working men have taken up in regard to hospitals, and especially those who have received insurance benefit. There is no doubt also that the sum of money paid as sick benefit is of the greatest use to a man on leaving

  1557
  hospital, and in most cases it certainly is not misapplied. I do appeal to the hon. Member not to press his Amendment to a Division.
  Mr. NEWMAN: I ask the leave of the house to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: At the end of the Clause add,
  "and Where any sum which apart from Section twelve of the principal Act would have been payable on account of sickness has been paid or applied under that Section as amended by this Section, it shall be treated as a payment in respect of sickness benefit for the purpose of determining the rate and duration of that benefit."
  "(2) Proviso (ii) to Sub-section (2) of Section twelve of the principal Act shall have effect as if for the words 'both on account of sickness or disablement benefit and on account of maternity benefit' there were substituted the words 'both on account of maternity benefit payable in lieu of sickness or disablement benefit and on account of maternity benefit not so payable,' and for the words which would otherwise be payable on account of maternity benefit' there were substituted the words which would otherwise be payable on account of such last-mentioned maternity benefit.'"—[Mr. Masterman.]

  CLAUE 15. —(Provisions as to Societies haring Members in More than One Part of the United Kingdom.)
  (1) So much of Sub-section (3) of Section eighty-three of the principal Act as provides that the regulations made under that Sub-section shall require that in the case of a society or branch which has amongst its members persons resident in England, Scotland. Ireland, and Wales, or any two or any three of such parts of the United Kingdom, the members in each such part shall, for the purposes of Part I. of the principal Act relating to valuations, surpluses, deficiencies, and transfers, be treated as if they formed a separate society, is hereby repealed:
  Provided that where the joint committee are satisfied, on representations made within six months after the passing of this Act, that the members of any such society resident in a part of the United Kingdom other than that in which the registered office of the society is situated desire that they shall be treated as if they formed a
  1558
  separate society, the members of the society resident in that part shall for the purposes aforesaid continue to be so treated.
  (2) A society shall not be required to be approved in respect of any part of the United Kingdom other than that in which its registered office is situated by reason of the fact that among its members are persons for the time being resident in that part of the United Kingdom, but a society shall not admit as a member any person resident at the time of admission in any part of the United Kingdom in respect of which the society is not an approved society.
  (3) A society which has received approval for more than one part of the. United Kingdom may relinquish approval for any part or parts other than that in which its registered office is situate, if it satisfies the joint committee that it fulfils one or other of the following conditions:—

  (i) that none of its members are resident in the parts of the United Kingdom in. respect of which approval is proposed to be relinquished; or

  (ii) that any members who are so resident were at the time when they were admitted to membership of the society resident in a part of the United Kingdom in which the, society will remain an approved society.

  For the purposes of this provision admission to membership of a society means admission to membership whether for the purposes of Part I. of the principal Act or for any other purposes of the society, and in the case of a society which is a separate section of another society includes admission to membership of that other society.
  (4) Where any members of a society reside in a part of the United Kingdom in respect of which the society is not an approved society, the provisions of Subsection (2) of Section eighty of the principal Act, which relate to payments into and out of the Scottish National Health Insurance Fund, and the corresponding provisions of the principal Act relating to the Irish and Welsh National Health Insurance Funds, shall apply as if those members resided in the part of the United Kingdom in which the registered office of the society is situated or, in the case of a society with branches in which the registered office of the branch of which they are members is situated.
  This Sub-section shall apply as respects the members of a branch of a society resident in a part of the United Kingdom other than that in which the registered office of the branch is situated, notwithstanding that the society is approved for that part, unless the Joint Committee, on the application of the society, otherwise determine, but no branch to which the said provisions apply shall admit as a member of the branch any person resident at the time of admission in any part of the United Kingdom other than that in which the registered office of the branch is situated.
  (5) For the purpose of facilitating Adjustments in respect of persons removing from Ireland to Great Britain or from Great Britain to Ireland the transfer values and reserve values of persons resident in Ireland shall be calculated as if they were resident in Great Britain, and where any member of an approved society is at the time of attaining the age of seventy resident in Ireland, the prescribed part of his transfer value shall be carried by the society of which he is a member to a separate account and dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert the following:—

  "(1) On the expiration of a period of six months after the passing of this Act the Joint Committee constituted under Section eighty-three of the principal Act shall exercise all the powers and duties of the several bodies of Insurance Commissioners appointed under Part I. of the principal Act, and all the powers and duties of those bodies of Commissioners shall cease and determine except as respects any powers and duties which the Joint Committee by special order (which it is hereby declared the Joint Committee shall have power to make) may from time to time delegate to any one or more of the several bodies of the Insurance Commissioners.

  (2) Upon the coming into operation of the foregoing provisions—

  (a) the Joint Committee shall take over the central office of the Insurance Commissioners established under Section fifty-seven of the principal Act and the provisions of Sub-sections (3), (4), and (5) of that. Section (which relate to the appointment of officers, the authentication of documents, and the conferring of
  1560
  power on inspectors in relation to approved societies) shall apply to the Joint Committee instead of to the Insurance Commissioners;

  (b) the provisions of Sections eighty, eighty-one, and eighty-two in so far as they relate to the powers of the Scottish, Irish, and Welsh Insurance Commissioners shall be read and take effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this Section;

  (c)the Joint Committee shall be called the National Insurance Commissioners and may sue and be sued, and may for all purposes be described by that name, and shall have an official seal which shall be officially and judicially noticed, and such seal shall be authenticated by any National Insurance Commissioner or the secretary for the National Insurance Commissioners, or some person authorised by the National Insurance Commissioners to act on behalf of the secretary.

  (3) Regulations under Sub-section (2) of Section thirty-five of the principal Act shall fix the limit of the amount which may be carried to the administration account out of contributions under Part I. of the principal Act at a sum not less than four shillings net in respect of each insured person other than those insured under Section forty-six of the principal Act, and any regulation fixing a sum less than four shillings net in respect of each such person shall cease to have effect, and in respect of each insured person who is a seaman, marine, or soldier at a sum not less than one shilling net, and any regulation fixing a less sum shall cease to have effect.

  (4) The regulations shall provide for the payment of any additional sums carried in pursuance of this Section to the administration account being repaid to the, contributions account out of the sums retained by the Insurance Commissioners for discharging their liabilities in respect of reserve values."

  This, I venture to suggest, is an Amendment of considerable importance, as it alters in a very large way the structure of the present Act. The intention of the Amendment is to reverse the policy of having four Commissions and to convert the present Joint Committee which supervises the work of the four Commissions into a sole Commission, leaving the four Commissions only as delegated bodies or

  1561
  branch offices of the chief Commission which takes the place of the Joint Committee. The Amendment also amalgamates the insurance funds. There are four now, one for each of the different countries, and they will all be amalgamated into one fund. The reason for this Amendment, which, by the way, is supported by every representative body of approved societies—
  Mr. HOGGE: No.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member dissents, but I would point out that a similar Amendment in the name of one of the hon. Members who represents the Labour party was supported by societies representing seven million insured persons, these societies including different classes of trade unions, the old friendly societies, collecting societies, and the more modern approved industrial societies. If the hon. Gentleman is right, and this is not supported by all, at least it is supported by the great majority of the insured persons. It is necessary in order to remove the confusion and expense which has been caused, more especially to the international societies, which have now to deal with all the four Commissions in a way which has been found to be both clumsy and cumbrous. The International Society is a society which has members both in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, or in two or three of those countries. All the large friendly societies and several of the large trade unions have members in all four countries, and to them the difficulties to which I have referred have been almost overwhelming in the course of the short experience they have had of the Act. To a society like that the expense of the four Commissions, with four separate insurance funds, has entailed the keeping of different sets of books—a separate set in respect of each group of members in each of the different countries, and a separate set for men and for women. Consequently, they have had to keep eight Sets of books and have had to apply separately to the various Commissions for advances or repayments in respect of their benefit and administration account relating to the members in the various separate countries.
  They have also had immense difficulty with regard to the transfers of members—transfers which ought not to have been necessary, and would not be necessary if their organisations were not under four
  1562
  separate societies. If a man originally living in England and consequently belonging to the English section of one of the international societies moved to Scotland, he has had to be transferred from England to Scotland in much the same fashion as if he were leaving the society altogether and joining another society. There have been special difficulties about transfers to and from Ireland. If a member of the society, say, of the engineers in Ireland came to work in England he would require to be transferred from. Ireland to England, but, as in Ireland there is no medical benefit given, his transfer-value and reserve value is different; consequently, great and special difficulties have occurred in connection with the-transfer from Ireland to England. It has been equally difficult to transfer from England to Ireland, for in England the transfer value is higher, and adjustments of a complicated and difficult nature have to be carried out on the occasion of each transfer. It has often happened that a man may be working in England for a few months and in Ireland for a few months, and has returned to England or, perhaps, to Scotland in the course of the same year. He has had to be transferred from one set of books to another, and from one society to another, although all the time he has been a member of one of the large organisations. With regard to societies which are not supposed to be national societies — the societies which are either Welsh or English in origin—great and special difficulty has been found to occur especially along the border counties. A society having members in Wales and approved in Wales finds that its members or some of them do, as the Secretary to the Treasury calls it, stray across the border. When they stray across the border they can no longer remain, if they stay across the border, members of their Welsh society, but have to leave it and go into an English society. Equally, when an English approved society has members who stray across the border into either Wales or Scotland or go to Ireland, unless it is an international society and is approved in all those coutries, it has to lose its members, who are no longer able to remain members of their parent society. On the other hand, if the society were to become approved in that other country in order to keep its strays as members, supposing a Welsh society happened to have four members in London, those four members.

  1563
  will have to be treated, to all intents and purposes, as if they were members of a separate society. The payments in respect of their benefits and the cost of their administration will have to be claimed against the English Commission, whereas the parent society would be under the jurisdiction of the Welsh Commission.
  A still greater difficulty has been facing the international societies, especially those societies which have less than 5,000 members in any one country. For the purposes of valuation, in such a case the members below 5,000 in one of the countries will have to be treated, not as members of the International Society, but as members of a separate society, and will have to be grouped for the purposes of valuation with other societies in that country. I believe there are many societies devoted to special trades or callings which have a relatively large number of members in England, perhaps more than 10,000 members in Scotland, and perhaps only 2,000 or 3,000 members in Ireland. Although for all other purposes — trade purposes and mutual purposes on their voluntary side—these three societies are treated as one, yet under the National Insurance Act they have to be treated as three separate societies, and if they have, say, a few members in Ireland, they are not allowed to group them with their Scottish or English branch, but are forced to group them with other Irish societies with which they have nothing in common. These four Commissions have caused considerable difficulties to those who are managing those societies by pouring out upon them a stream of four different sets of Regulations, mostly similar, but in some particulars differing. and because of their similarity and their slight differences likely to cause increased confusion, because the managers of the societies are not easily able to detect the differences between the various Regulations. When this matter was dealt with in Committee the Secretary to the Treasury had to admit that the objections to the present four Commissions which I have endeavoured to outline again this evening were real points. In referring to them he said:—
  "They are real points which are at present torturing the administration of the approved societies."
  I do not know whether that summary is not even stronger than the recital of the points of difference. When we have the Secretary to the Treasury who, as Chairman of the Joint Committee, is in a special
  1564
  position to know the facts, admitting that the organisation of the four Commissions, and some of the consequences of that organisation, are torturing the administration, surely it is time that some real remedy was applied. While admitting that, he promised a remedy, and a new Clause. That Clause is now Clause 15 of the Bill, and I am asking that my Amendment shall be practically treated as a substitute for that Clause. With regard to the Clause in the Bill, the national societies will be helped to some extent. Strays are to be allowed to remain as members, although the difficulty with regard to claims on the two different insurance funds has not been got over, and, even in the national societies, two sets of accounts, or at least two sets of records, will have be kept, in order that claims may be made upon the separate funds, or at least so that information may be given to the Commissioners or the Joint Committee so that the adjustments necessary between the two funds may be carried out. With regard to the international societies, Clause 15 has dealt with some of the points. It deals with the question of grouping for valuation. Probably the method suggested in the Clause will be satisfactory; but if it is satisfactory it is only so at the expense of taking something like one-half of the. Scottish insured population out of the jurisdiction of the Scottish Commission, and putting it within the jurisdiction of the English Commission. I am not quite sure of the exact proportion, but I have been told that nearly one-half of the insured workers in Scotland are members of societies which are approved and have their head offices outside Scotland. I see that is assented to, and I believe it is right. Therefore, the method proposed by the Secretary to the Treasury in Clause 15 is going to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Scottish Commission one-half of the insured persons now under that jurisdiction.
  Mr. J. HOGGE: That is if it passes.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: At any rate, at the present moment it is in the Bill. While removing one difficulty with regard to valuation the Clause also removes whatever justification there ever was for setting up a Scottish Insurance Commission apart from the English Commission. It might have been justifiable possibly, in some form, for 1,500,000 persons, but it is difficult to justify it when one-half of the insured persons are not

  1565
  coming within that jurisdiction. While the Clause may deal with one of the difficulties, it certainly does not deal altogether with the accounting and book-keeping difficulty. Certainly, four sets of accounts will still have to be kept by every international society. I know the Secretary to the Treasury questions that, and that he denied it in Committee upstairs, but he had to admit, and these are his words, that
  "societies would have to keep a record analysing the cash payments, in order that the four accounts might be adjusted between the Commissions."
  If they were to keep a record analysing the cash payment, that is enough from my point of view, because it will have to be, an accurate record which may be subjected to audit and to my mind has little or nothing to distinguish it from the four sets of books or accounts which we have found already so clumsy.
  Then with regard to the transfer values, which have always been a real difficulty, an ingenious scheme has been added to deal with the difficulty of the difference in the transfer value between England and Ireland. It is that the Irish transfer values are brought up to the same amount as the English transfer values, so that if there is a transfer of an insured person living in Ireland to England, some of the old difficulties will be avoided. But when we were in Committee I asked the Secretary to the Treasury how much that was going to cost, and he was very precise in his reply, that it would not cost a penny. I suggested then that it might be at least £200,000 additional reserve value which was required, and I notice that the Actuaries' Report says that the increase of the Irish reserve value is £196,000, that is an annual value of something like £5,000 a year, so that this is going to cost quite a large sum of money to the existing insured persons. To say that if no other benefit is given for it it comes back as profit at a later period, is not to prove that there is no cost to the present insured people. On the contrary, this present generation which is paying for the redemption of reserve values for the next twenty years or so, is certainly having to pay the cost in the increased reserve value. The position of the House is this. They have two alteratives. They have the alternative of accepting my Amendment, which will amalgamate the separate insurance funds and will get rid of the difficulties due to the four Commissions and the four separate funds, or they can
  1566
  accept the Clause which the Secretary to the Treasury has added to the Bill as Clause 15, and they can allow these national societies to overrun the national limits, and remain ex-territorial as regards the Scottish Insurance Commissioners. They have got to take one of these courses. It seems to me that it is infinitely better, having now found what the difficulty is, to attack it at its root and remove the cause of the difficulty instead of tinkering with it and trying to get over the difficulties which are created by the four Commissions. I think I can claim the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a supporter to my Amendment. I do not think he ever very willingly adopted these four Commissions. I think he was driven to it against his better judgment. I might even remind him of what he said when this was added in Committee two years ago:—
  "It was not a proposal of the Government. The Government proposal was to have one Commission for the United Kingdom, and to treat insurance here, as in Germany, as an Imperial matter. If the Scotch or Trish Members have come to the conclusion, it is a conclusion I have not come to. I wish to be perfectly frank with the Committee. If they desire a separate Commission, I do not see how I can resist the same demand from Welsh Members if they say they prefer a separate fund. All I can say is I regret the conclusion they have come to. It introduces additional complexity into the working of the measure, but still it is one of those questions in which you have got to defer to sentiment."
  He anticipated the very difficulty that there would be in one insured person moving from one part of the country to another, and he then:—
  "I will not conceal from the Committee that the demand for separate Commissions does interfere with the simplicity of working of the whole scheme, but I am entirely in the hands of the Committee on that subject. I understand that the Irish Members have unanimously demanded a separate Commission for Ireland."
  And, of course, the sting was in the tail. That was why the Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to give way—a very good reason. There were seventy votes attached to that reason which it was absolutely essential that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should placate. They, of course, recognised that this was the first attempt at Home Rule, and they seized their opportunity to give vent to the national sentiment, and Scotland required also for the same reason their separate Commission and their separate fund, and Ireland did the same, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the nut between the crackers and he had to give way.
  Now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's anticipations of the difficulties which would occur if this were carried out has really come true, and must have im-

  1567
  pressed themselves upon all those who are at all interested in the international societies, I hope he will also support the proposal that I am now making. Of course, the Lord Advocate supported the proposition, from the Scotch point of view, of a separate Scotch Commission, and he was anxious for it because he thought there would be a separate Scotch Insurance Fund, and he seemed to think that in some way or other the Scotch were a very hardy, healthy race, and their fund would benefit by their special good health, and I am not sure, from some of the arguments used in Committee, that that feeling does not still exist. But if there is anything at all in the Secretary to the Treasury's Clause, and in his promise to the international societies that there will not have to be four accounts, there will have to be some amalgamation of the fund, at least as regards the international societies. There is an important point in regard to the international societies. Will they in future claim on all the four funds—on each fund—in respect of each group of members within the country, or will there be some amalgamation of these four funds for the purpose of the international societies? For if they are to avoid grouping the small units of the international societies in the various countries, if they are to be grouped with their central office—their office of origin—then clearly there will be a breaking up of the various national funds and there will be no longer a Scotch fund, which seems to be the chief attraction for the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate said:—
  "I cannot see what would be the object of separate Commissions unless there was a separate fund, and I should be dead against the setting up of separate Commissioners unless there was a separate fund."
  It seems to me that there is not going to be a separate, or, at any rate, there will be a separate fund broken into to a very large extent by the proposed arrangements with the international societies. Of course, the Lord Advocate has no sympathy with the point of the hon. Member (Mr. Barnes), that this separate Commission was bound to interfere with the trade unions. I may remind him of what the Lord Advocate said:—
  "There is no donbt if you have a branch trade union in Scotland, with a head office in England, that branch will require to group if it has not sufficient members and is not able to comply with the conditions of the Bill. That is an inconvenience, but it is not so serious by any means as the hon. Member seems to think. What the Committee has to consider is, Are we to give up our separate Commissioners and separate administration for Scotland and separate fund because some
  1568
  trade unionists—a few, not all—are put to some slight inconvenience and required to bring a particular branch to a certain number or group it with others in the sank district?"
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer accurately forecasted the difficulties of these four Commissioners. Scottish national sentiment, represented by the Lord Advocate, did not care a bit about the difficulties of the international societies, but did care to have a separate Scottish fund. After a year we know what the real position is. This attempt at Home Rule has failed in practice. It cannot be made to succeed in Scotland now without withdrawing at least half the insured persons from the jurisdiction of the Insurance Commission. You have an opportunity now of going back, admitting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right and that the Lord Advocate was wrong, and getting rid of the four Commissions. They are an expensive, clumsy, cumbersome way of conducting national insurance. You have had your try at Home Rule. It has not lasted very long. It has got in everybody's way, and now is the opportunity to get rid of it before worse trouble befalls the international societies.
  Sir J. SPEAR: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I have had strong representations front friendly societies in my Division urging me to support the abolition of the four Commissions, and contending that it would greatly simplify the application of the Act and also reduce the expense. The strong point that they urge is that it would be extremely convenient for working men and women and others who remove from one country to the other in order that there might be continuity of the application of the purpose of the Act, They believe, and I think with good reason, that it would greatly militate to the success of working the Act and would be very convenient to insured persons moving from one country to the other.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EX-CHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The hon. Member (Mr. Worthington-Evans) quoted some words which I used on this question of sub-dividing the administration of the Act into four nationalities. I very reluctantly assented on behalf of the Government to the setting up of four Commissions. I saw some of the difficulties in Germany of that method of administration. In Germany difficulties are introduced, and there they have a good many more than,

  1569
  four Commissions. No doubt there were some administrative difficulties of a very considerable character which could be foreseen. The hon. Gentleman quoted the last part of my statement which I very frankly laid before the House at the time. However unfavourable I was to come to that conclusion, I found from experience that I could not depend upon the support of the hon. Gentleman if I had opposed the appointment of the four Commissions. He, first of all, tried to get up a quarrel between my Friends and myself on the question, and I cannot doubt that that was with the object of destroying the Bill. It did not last very long, I must say. I do not think it survived the Second Reading Debate, but I saw that I could not depend upon him. That was my position at that time. Now he says that I have changed my mind, and he denounces me as a "nut." At any rate, I have got the kernel. I got the Bill, and I am here to say that I think the Lord Advocate was right and that I was wrong on that question. I will give my reasons for making that statement. There is no doubt at all that there are administrative difficulties under the present arrangement. The moment you begin to split up the United Kingdom for administrative purposes under this Act, necessarily you cannot avoid difficulties. But in a case of that kind it is a choice between two sets of difficulties, and I came to the conclusion that the setting up of four Commissions would, in practice, show that we had chosen the lesser evil.
  The difficulties arising from the splitting up into four divisions are quite obvious. I foresaw them, and the prospect has been justified by the facts. It has, no doubt, added a great deal to the difficulties of the international societies. It has added a real element of complication. I never thought that we should not do that when we decided to appoint separate Commissions. It has marred the simplicity of the workmanship of the Act. There is no doubt at all about that, and I am certain that everything I said upon that point was quite right. But there was another set of difficulties which I did not foresee, and which I ought to have foreseen. These were the difficulties which would arise in the working, from Whitehall, of a great and complex Act, in separate nationalities where the conditions and habits of the people, and even their industries, were different over wide areas. I am perfectly certain that no one knows better than the hon. Gentleman what the difficulties in the
  1570
  administration of this Act must have been even if you had every section and class, and every political party in the country doing their level best to help the administration. Even then it would have been difficult. But when you had a great political party rather adding to the difficulties, stirring up difficulties, and encouraging those who were putting difficulties in our way, then my own opinion is that it would have been almost impossible to work the Act without a postponement, at any rate, for some considerable time. Take, for example, the enormous area of Scotland. I do not remember the number of square miles to which that country extends. There you have an enormous area accustomed, very largely, to deal with Edinburgh in matters of administration. The same remark applies to Ireland. Even in Wales in matters of education and other important subjects, local government, is very largely centred in Cardiff and Swansea. I am sure if we had not had four Commissions we could not possibly have put the Act in operation successfully at the time we did. I am sure that is the opinion not merely of the Government, but of the friendly societies as well. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The friendly societies are good advocates, and they do not want to give away their case. At the same time I have no hesitation in saying that it would have been almost impossible to work the Act without a considerable postponement except by setting up four Commissions.
  There is one thing which the Commissions have succeeded in doing, and which I do not think would have been possible if you had had one central Commission—and it is a vital matter in administration—they succeeded in securing local co-operation. I know that better in the case of the Welsh Commission than in the case of the Scottish Commission. I came into closer contact with that Welsh Commission, and I can state that they came into personal communication with employers of labour, leaders of friendly societies, and the local leaders. That would have been impossible but for the setting up of a Commission to administer the Act in Wales. If that is true in regard to the relation between Wales in London, how much more must that be the case when you have to deal with the remote districts of Scotland. I know perfectly well from inquiries I have made that the Scottish Commissioners have worked diligently. I know perfectly well that Mr. Leishman put himself into

  1571
  communication with all the local authorities in Scotland. He came into personal contact with them, and also with some of the leading employers of labour, leading trade unionists, and leaders even of the doctors there. Had it not been that we had a Commission there dealing direct with all those interests, it would have been impossible under a couple of years to put the Act into operation. I said quite accurately that I did not foresee the other difficulties of a much more serious nature which the creation of the four Commissions got rid of. For my part—and I am speaking on behalf of the Government—I shall take no part at all in supporting any Clause or Amendment that would destroy the power and control of these four Commissions. When the hon. Gentleman says that Clause 15 withdraws half of the insured persons in Scotland out of the jurisdiction of the Commission there, I thoroughly challenge the statement. It does not withdraw a single insured person from the jurisdiction of the Commission. That is an important point. That is the first thing I inquired into, and, in justice and fairness to the Commission, I think it is right to say so. Nor does it remove these people from their control. What is the impression created by the statement of the hon. Gentleman that every member of an international society is withdrawn from the supervision and control of the Commissioners, that is to say, that every member of an international society resident in Scotland is withdrawn from the control of the English Commissioners. Questions relating to medical attendance and other benefits must come before the English Commissioners. I do not want that statement of the hon. Gentleman to go forth unchallenged, and I do not want anyone to vote for or against the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman by reason of the statement that half of the insured persons are going to be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Scottish Commissioners. I say that has nothing whatever to do with Clause 15. It does not mean that. It is quite clear that what the hon. Gentleman wants to do is, first of all, to get the support of the trade unions and the Labour Members, and to abolish these four Commissions. He wants, at the same time, to stir up discontent among the Scottish Members in order to make them dissatisfied with Clause 15.
  Mr. HOGGE: We will do that for ourselves.
  8.0. p.m.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree that my hon. Friends are well able to look after themselves. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is trying to have it both ways. What I wish to say at this stage as to the abolition of the four Commissions is that, as far as that is concerned, we shall certainly resist the proposal with the full power of the Government. I understand from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Masterman) that Clause 15 was put forward as a compromise to meet the difficulties of the friendly societies and the trade unions. I still think that they could have overcome the difficulties without the Clause, but the compromise was arrived at. I think the perils of the compromise have been very much overestimated by my hon. Friends, but, substantially, the Government feel bound to stand by Clause 15. That does not mean that the Government will not listen to any argument advanced in favour of any Amendment, because that would be equal to saying that we would not take into consideration any argument, however powerful, in support of an Amendment. Substantially, we feel bound to stand by Clause 15 in its essential and fundamental principles. At the present moment the hon. Gentleman seems to think that after this all these great societies will make an alteration in their present system, and henceforth will cease to value separately the Scottish members. I do not believe it. I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to pledge his authority to the prediction that these great societies will henceforth have one international pool and will not have a separate valuation for Scotland? If it is true, and to a great extent it is, that the sickness rate in some parts of Scotland is, at any rate, less than it is in England, undoubtedly a valuation in a case of that kind would be favourable to the Scottish members; but the Scottish members of these various societies are quite alive to that, and if they are deprived of that benefit it will not be an inducement to them to go into those societies. Does the hon. Gentleman imagine that these societies are not aware of that? I should be very much surprised if these societies did any such thing. I can understand that for other reasons, which have no reference to this at all, they attach great importance to the federation of these nationalities

  1573
  and that they would regard a separate organisation as a peril to them from the labour point of view. That is a different matter. But I should be very much surprised indeed if these great societies, regarding it from a purely business point of view, were not to continue the separate Scotch valuation. Therefore, I say that my hon. Friend's fears are very much exaggerated, and I challenge him to say that he thinks the societies will adopt any such course.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My point was that the societies, unless they are entitled to value as a whole all the four countries in one, will not retain the unity which is what they are fighting for. That is what I understand the Secretary to the Treasury promises them that they should be able to do that, and I asked the question if they do that, what happens to the separate Scotch fund?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman has really evaded the challenge which I gave. He said that he believed that these societies would discontinue the present system of separate Scotch valuations, and I asked the hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to predict that if this Clause in its, present form passes, those societies would take advantage of it and wipe out the separate Scottish valuations merely for the sake of a small book-keeping economy?
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It depends upon whether they prefer the solidarity of the society or the possible increase of members in one country or another.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Of course, it depends upon that. It depends upon whether they want to push their business in Scotland. That is what it depends upon entirely. But the hesitation of the hon. Gentleman is the best answer.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer himself? It is a question of prophecy. I am not a prophet.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have answered it. I have said that my belief is that they would not, and I challenged the hon. Gentleman to say whether he would not agree with me. That shows that this simply has been exaggerated in order to utilise the thing for the purpose of damaging these four Commissions and destroying them. The Government having
  1574
  had neither hand nor part in the four Commissions have come to the conclusion that they are doing their work effectively and that it is almost impossible for us successfully to carry out the Insurance Act with-cut them, and for that reason we shall resist with all our power the proposition to abolish the four Commissions, and we shall do our best to maintain their effective control over resident insured persons in Scotland or other parts of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. FORSTER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is such a master of the art of getting out of difficulties that I always listen to him with the keenest possible interest. What has he done to-night? He found himself faced by the awkward Amendment by my hon. Friend in reference to these four Commissions. He has not got a single word to say in favour of the four Commissions, and he sets to work to find some method of dealing with the question which would enable his Friends behind him to cheer and tide over the difficulty in which he stood. He endeavours to excite personal controversy between my hon. Friend and himself. He began by making some rather uncomplimentary remarks concerning my hon. Friend. I think that they were meant in a spirit of banter. He referred to the remarks of my hon. Friend in connection with the Conference while the Insurance Act was still a Bill in the House of Commons, a Conference that did not survive, said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, long after the Second Reading of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has surely forgotten the effusive thanks which he offered to my hon. Friend in Debates on our proceedings long subsequent to the Second Reading. In fact, I think that he was complimentary to him. when we came to the end of our discussion on the Bill. Therefore, I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not very serious when he made his remarks. I listened very carefully to see whether or not the Chancellor of the Exchequer really had any solid reasons to give the Committee for the preservation of these four Commissions. I cannot find one. He said that if there had been only one Commission from the start in all probability the Government would have had to postpone the commencement of the operation of the Act. At any rate they have got over the difficulties of launching the Act, and the Act has now been in full operation for twelve months.

  1575
  I have listened in vain for any reason from the Chancellor of the Exchequer why we should continue a system which he admitted was attended with difficulties and complications. He told us that in the early stages of the Act the mere fact of having these four separate Commissions enabled the Commissioners to come into closer contact with people in Scotland and people in Wales. If they had only had one Commission, instead of four, it still would have been possible for the Commissioners to come into personal contact with people in Scotland and in Wales. The proposal of my hon. Friend is that acting under and with the Commissions there should be branch Commissions, and some of the gentlemen who are doing such good work on the national Commissions would do equally good service as members of branch Commissions. I do not think that there is anything substantial in the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I always took the view that it was a mistake to depart from the original structure of the Bill and establish these four separate Commissions for the different nationalities. I believed it was a mistake then, and I think that it is a mistake now. I think that we should be well advised to simplify our machinery and to simplify the whole object of the procedure in connection with the Insurance Act by reverting to the original plan of the Bill and establishing one Commission with branch Commissions assisting it in the different areas. We shall avoid a great many of the difficulties which those who have to administer the great societies have felt during the past eighteen months if we adopt this course. I hope, therefore, that the House will support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. THOMAS: My difficulty is as much with the hon. Member who moved this Amendment as it is with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. After the speech of the hon. Member I am not sure whether his real object in moving this Clause is to assist the international societies or merely to attack the principle of Home Rule. I think that those who took part in the discussion upstairs will agree that we were able to prove, not only to the Committee but to the Government as well, that there was a real, solid difficulty with which the societies were faced, and that that difficulty ought to be met. Therefore, I think that it will be much better if we were to
  1576
  apply ourselves now to see whether those difficulties are met, rather than to divide on the question of Home Rule versus Imperial Government. In this connection I want to make perfectly clear that when we attack the four Commissions we do not do it on what is called the national ground, because we are as well aware of the assistance of our local branches in these particular countries, of the advantage they are to the central organisation, as any Member of this House, but it was because of the duplication of work occasioned by the Commissions that we went into the question at all. I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us exactly where we are. I am anxious to oppose this Amendment, for reasons that I will show in a minute, on the ground that Clause 15 does meet the difficulties of the international societies. I believe that I shall also be able to show that our Scottish friends need not have the apprehensions they seem to have with regard to their side of the question. But if we are not going to have Clause 15 in the Act as it is now, then certainly the position of myself and of those for whom I speak is clear, that we will stand for the abolition of the Commissions entirely. That is clearly our position. I think we are justified in that, for this reason. Take the first question of valuation. Every International Society has a much larger membership in England than in any other part of the United Kingdom, either Scotland, Wales, or Ireland. It is so both in trade unions and in friendly societies.
  There are few Scottish societies, but, when we speak of the international societies, in the main we mean societies with their central Offices in England, and the difficulty which we have experienced up to to-day is a difficulty that is now being got over. Take my own society, with a membership of 100,000. Of that total there is a membership of 15,000 in Scotland, a smaller number in Wales, and less than 5,000 in Ireland. Our apprehension was that unless an alteration was made we would not be treated for valuation purposes as one unit. That is clearly met under Clause 15 of the Bill by means of which you not only maintain the identity of the society and its solidarity in all parts of the United Kingdom, but you bring together the same class of workers both in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. I believe there is much misconception with regard to the sickness rate in Scotland, especially on this particular point. The

  1577
  experience of the trade unions shows that the sickness rate is peculiar to a trade itself; that is to say, the railway man in Scotland is just as liable to sickness as is the railway man in England, and there is very little difference in the rate. But there are some trades where, even in Scotland, the rate of sickness is even much higher than it is in England, and that is the experience of international societies. Take the gasworkers—I am now giving the figures supplied to the Commissioners for the quarter ending July of this year—that society has 44,863 members, of which 1,356 are in cotland—the lowest number in that case.
  The average sickness per head in England is 15.8, and in Scotland 19.6. Therefore, apart entirely from the question of sickness alone, for the purposes of the International Society, it is absolutely essential that they should be treated as one unit. That has been met in this particular Clause. Then when we come to the question of transfer, here, again, was a difficulty under this particular Clause. The man transferred from England to Scotland or from Scotland to Ireland presents a case just as simple as if he were transferred at the present time from London to Kent. There are the regulations, but, as has been pointed out, the difficulty is to be met in a simpler form, and instead of eight sets of books having to be kept, as is now the case, one set of books would meet the situation. I submit that so far as we are concerned, interested as we are in the international societies, we have in the main been met in a real and practical way; but, if the effort of the Committee upstairs to meet us is to be whittled away to-night, then we have no other alternative than to support the abolition of the four Commissions. But I do ask the House, when they approach the question, to realise that all the objections raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) were real objections which we agreed with as being, in the main, objections to the Clause. The real position now, however, that our difficulties has been met, and, therefore, so far as we are concerned, if Clause 15 remains intact, we are prepared to vote against the Amendment; but if Clause 15 is to be, whittled away in the manner suggested from various quarters, certainly our position is that we will vote for the Amendment.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGE: The hon. Member for Sevenoaks, when he replied to the
  1578
  Chancellor of the Exchequer, made the remark that we have hot had a solid reason given for the creation of the separate Commissions by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the course of his speech. I would be quite willing now to give him fifteen substantial reasons for the creation of the Commission in Scotland, and, if he is not content with the first set of fifteen, I have a second which I can bring into the field. No doubt some other Members on these benches will communicate them to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I do not want to take those, in the first place, because I desire to deal with some other aspects of this question. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) has shaken a ledger in the face of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and declared on behalf of those whom he represents—I wonder if in what he says he represents the three Gentlemen who stand for the Labour party in Scotland; I should be extremely interested to see whether they agree with him in the Division Lobby, and I shall be glad to hear them speak for themselves in this particular Debate—that because they are satisfied on a matter of book-keeping difficulties, they are prepared to support the Government in carrying through Clause 15, which so far as the Scottish Members are concerned, is a Clause which fills them, not only with alarm as to the future of the whole administration of insurance in Scotland, but one to which they object, not only on national grounds, but economic ground. The hon. Member for Colchester, who opened this Debate, said that practically every friendly society was in favour of the abolition of the four separate Commissions. He was challenged by myself in the course of the Debate, and I now propose to submit my evidence, which is confined entirely to Scotland, but which I submit is the only evidence that is worth having, so far as the Commissioners in Scotland are concerned, and I do not propose to speak for any other than they. The members of approved societies in Scotland, on the contrary, are not dissatisfied with the administration of the Insurance Act under the Commissioners—they are amply satisfied. Not a less time ago than July of this year, that is a few weeks ago, the Scottish National Conference of the Affiliated Friendly Societies, which represets a majority of the insured persons in Scotland and numbers within its ranks, the largest section of those who come under the benefit of the Act in

  1579
  Scotland passed this Resolution unanimously:—
  "That the duly elected representatives of the friendly societies under the auspices of the Scottish National Conference of affiliated societies now constituted under the National Health Insurance Act as approved societies or branches of international societies,"
  Do not forget that,
  "and comprising a considerable majority of the total insured persons in Scotland, do repudiate the desire or the necessity of amalgamating, the four separate Commissions under one, as advocated by certain official interests mainly in England."
  Mr. W. THORNE: Did the trade unions approve of that?
  Mr. HOGGE: If the hon. Gentleman did me the honour of listening carefully, he would know that the title I read was the Scottish National Conference of Affiliated Societies including branches of international societies. They go on to say more:—
  "The difficulty with insured persons who are members of a society or branch registered in a different country from that in which they reside could easily be removed."
  And they suggest methods of doing so, and they go on to say, and this a point the House ought to bear in mind,
  "That inasmuch as the relations between the Scottish Commissioners and the approved societies are most satisfactory, both from the standpoint of disseminating information anti financial administration of the Act, also between the Commissioners and the local insurance committees whose duties are largely affected by local circumstances, such amalgamation of the Commissions would not, in our opinion, be conducive to the best interests of the insured, nor to the beneficial and harmonious working of the Act."
  Yet we have the hon. Member for Derby getting up and saying that unless he and his Friends get the Clause as it is set out in fifteen of this Bill, and that if the Government yield one jot or tittle on that particular Clause, they are prepared to throw over, and I presume to vote and go into the lobby against, the most marked of democratic tendencies, namely, that the people of separate nationalities shall look after their own affairs. I beg to remind my Friends—
  Mr. SNOWDENmade a remark which was inaudible.
  Mr. HOGGE: You can deal with that. I beg to remind my Friends, as far as those of us who represent Scotland are concerned, of the importance of this tendency in our national life to-day. As the House knows, Home Rule for Scotland is bound to follow the operation of certain Bills in this House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Question."] You may question it because you may find it uncomfortable if it were so. To my Scottish colleagues that will appeal as
  1580
  a matter of course, and one of the obvious concomitants of that is that we should not have it suggested by those who represent in Scotland a certain section of opinion, that unless certain technical difficulties can be overcome they will adopt a certain course. We suggest, if the House will look at the bearing of certain Amendments which we put down, alternatives which can perfectly easily meet those difficulties without interfering at all with our wishes in the matter of the Commissions. Let me deal with the subjects raised by the hon. Member for Colchester and the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. Why do we want separate Commissions? What is the reason? I have said that I have to offer a number of substantial reasons why we insist upon this Clause being carried. First of all, it is an enormous convenience to local administrators, to insured persons, and to the public generally. That is the first argument, the question of local convenience. I do not know how far this applies to Ireland or Wales, but, so far as Scotland is concerned, the second reason I am about to give is vital, and that is that Scotland, as a matter of fact, has a different code of laws and has a separate judicature, and a separate system of local Government. Those are three things which I could obviously enlarge upon, if one did not want to take up too great an amount of time, and which are very relevant to any administration in Scotland, and which ought to be borne in mind by our Friends here sitting in front.
  You are not dealing with the same country, or with the same laws, or with the same judicature. You have not got the same kind of local government, and, obviously, if you are going to meet those difficulties in a country like that which I and others represent in this House, you must meet our views on a subject of that kind. I would again suggest, if you are going to deal adequately, as everybody wishes you should deal adequately, through the Insurance Act with the public health of the community and with the health authorities, it is absolutely essential that you should secure the co-operation of those authorities in dealing with this particular question. I suggest to the House that a Commission on the spot, in sympathy and in touch and with knowledge of the public health necessities and authorities in Scotland, is much more likely to attend to those interests than if they were attended to from here. If there is

  1581
  one thing of which the Members of this House have been more cognisant than any other, and one thing in which they agree, it is that Scotland at the present moment suffers and has suffered from Departmental Government too far removed from public opinion in Scotland. While that is so, here you suggest, or it is suggested, that unless you get certain technical things put right, which can be overcome otherwise, you are prepared to oppose the public opinion of Scotland, which wants its affairs dealt with in its own country, within the control of its own public opinion, and that the party in front of me should deny that to Scotsmen who want it by a huge majority passes my comprehension, and is one which I do not credit them with in this difficulty. I bear in mind that since the National Insurance Act came into operation we have had by - elections in Scotland in which there have been Labour candidates, not one of whom would pledge himself to the abolition of the four Commissions, and not one of whom would come before the electors saying he was prepared to abolish the Scottish National Commission.
  I do not know any Member in this House who is a Labour man who looks forward with any case to a future occasion in Scotland when he may have to face the electors of that country with a vote to his credit in this House of having attempted to suppress a modern national institution in Scotland, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself this afternoon gave a testimonial which, I think, was due to the men who are at the head of that particular organisation. I would like to remind the House, further, that local government in Scotland is much more democratic than on this side of the Tweed, and that is a point which is well worth bearing in mind when you propose to set up in its place a body which would be governed by prevailing English ideas. I do not want to make a personal point of this, but. I have been looking at the members of the Joint Committee to whom this administration would be relegated if this proposal were carried. What do I find? That this Joint Committee consists of eleven persons, seven of whom are Englishmen, to which I have no objection; it seems a reasonable number if you take the population as a basis—one is an Irishman, one a Welshman, and two are Scotchmen, which is an unfair proportion on a population basis. What chance would local government in
  1582
  Scotland have against a body in which one nationality is so prevailingly dominant? That is a point which we are bearing in mind, and which we have shown before we do not like in other forms of administration. If there is one thing detested more than another, it is any form of bureaucracy. The mere fact that the Scottish Commission—and this is probably true of the Irish and Welsh Commissions also—is on the spot, that it is composed of people in whom we have confidence, that it is accessible to the people, that it is in close touch and sympathy with local matters, renders it absolutely impossible for it to become the same kind of bureaucracy as exists here in London with regard to the administration of other Scottish affairs.
  I put as another argument the geographical and economic conditions in Scotland. As the House knows, to-night, after we have finished the discussion on this Bill, and have put through the Mental Deficiency Bill for Scotland, we are going to take up the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Bill, which also deals with Scotland. That is an insurance question, and one which shows that the geographical and economic conditions in Scotland are different from those in the other parts of the United Kingdom. Is there any Member listening to me now who believes that if we had one Commission dealing with Scottish affairs from London the question of the Highlands and Islands would have been tackled yet It is so remote from London, you only hear about it on occasions when some pictures are put in a picture paper in London, or some startling paragraphs appear in the newspapers about a disaster in the Highlands or Islands of Scotland. The mere fact that we have had a Scottish Commission with its eyes turned towards the condition of these people has resulted in a measure which will probably pass this Session bringing relief. That would never have come if the affairs had been in the hands of one Commission. The very fact that you have to vary the conditions in the separate countries is made easier by having different Commissions. How can a Joint Committee dominated largely by English opinion, to which we do not object as such, vary in accordance with public sentiment and public opinion in Scotland, make regulations to deal with special conditions? The conditions in regard to casual labour in England and Scotland are often very

  1583
  different. For example, you have not in England to any extent such a casual occupation as the packing girls who follow the herring fleets from port to port and do a piece of work which renders it very difficult to deal with them in the matter of insurance. What can a Joint Committee, largely dominated by Englishmen, know about such a question as that. Their knowledge is probably that which might be obtained from a picture postcard.
  If it had not been for the existence of separate Commissions such as you have in Scotland, the Insurance Act could not have been put in operation when it was. Is there anything wrong with the administration of the Act in Scotland? Does the House know that out of every hundred insurable persons in Scotland, 99.5 are insured now? Does the House know that in the matter of dealing with tuberculosis the Scottish Commission have effected far better results than any one of the other three Commissions? If anybody doubts that, let me give one or two figures to show the great advantage of having different Commissions in the different countries. Up to 30th April there were 19,151 persons dealt with in England under the administration of sanatorium benefit. In Scotland there were 2,357, in Ireland, 762, and in Wales and Monmouthshire, 1,263. What is the best test of the treatment of tuberculosis? Obviously the treatment in residential institutions. What do we find in Scotland? Whereas in England they have been able to deal with only 39 per cent. of the people who came under their observation, in Scotland we have dealt with 64 per cent. That has been possible because we have a good Commission in touch with the people, carrying out their wishes, and able to do so because of the better public health conditions and the more democratic government in Scotland. Are my hon. Friends below me prepared to put themselves up against that, in order to secure some little matters which we are prepared to support them in getting, but which we consider to be mere technical difficulties?
  Mr. J. WARD: We think our points more important than any you have mentioned.
  Mr. HOGGE: It is more important that it should be made easy for a trade union secretary to keep a ledger than that you should tear up the whole national ideals of a country. I want to point out, further,
  1584
  that the proximity of the Commissioners in Scotland to the conditions with which they are called upon to deal is an enormous advantage in the administration of the Act. We Scottish Members know the activity which the Commission has displayed in Scotland. Every Scotsman, I believe, will agree that the present Commissioners have given the State a great deal more time than they are being paid for in administering this Act. It must be borne in mind that the professions now regard this national question in such a way that they themselves have recognised it in separate institutions. For instance, you have separate medical and pharmaceutical services in Scotland. Why? Because you have absolutely different conditions from those which obtain on this side of the Tweed. You have a perfectly different system of medical service and a perfectly different system of serving out medicines. That has been recognised in these different institutions, and what they have found to fit in with national conditions is likely to make us agree that our Commission in particular should be continued in its beneficent work. That also applies to doctors and chemists, and also to the question of tuberculosis, with which I have dealt. One other point may illustrate the difference between Scotland and this side of the Tweed: We have no Midwives Act in Scotland; therefore you want a closer personal knowledge of the conditions that exist in Scotland than you could otherwise have. Another argument that has been used in the course of this Debate is as to the huge expense of a separate Commission. The hon. Member who moved this Motion put it forward as one of his arguments that an enormous amount of money would be saved if you abolished the Commissions. Let us consider that for a moment. We have got four Commissioners in Scotland. I do not know the numbers and the salaries in the other countries. One of those Commissioners is a member of the Joint Committee. Presumably if the Commissions were abolished he would still remain a member of that Joint Committee. You, therefore, have three Commissioners, requiring to be dealt with left. At the present time their combined salaries are a little over £3,000 per year. But every other officer under the Commission in Scotland would be required to carry out the work of the Joint. Committee and, as my hon. Friends around me point out, as a result of the abolition we should require more.

  1585
  I was not thinking of that at the moment, but I shall be glad if my hon. Friends will later add that to my argument. I was thinking of the increased expenses made necessary by the movements necessary of persons from Scotland to London to deal with the Joint Committees here on the spot. We know perfectly well now the enormous expense to public bodies in Scotland and deputations here to London in order to meet officials who ought to be in Scotland. That would be added to, even if you did away with the Commissioners and subtracted their salaries. We want those who are in favour of the abolition of the four Commissions to say so. I know perfectly well none of the Scottish Unionists are in favour of abolishing the four Commissions. All the Scottish Unionists in this House are unanimously in favour of a separate Scottish Commission. The leading Unionist newspapers in Scotland are in favour of separate Commissions. If you put this to the vote amongst Scottish Members in this House the result will be seventy-two to nothing. That is an important thing to bear in mind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself raised one or two points which, I think, ought to be dealt with. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that this proposal, Clause 15, does not withdraw a single person from the administrative control of these Scottish Commissioners. That may be in a somewhat technical sense as your objections to the persistence of the four Commissions are technical reasons. It seems to me that what would happen would be that, instead of having people intimately in touch and in sympathy with the administrative results of insurance in Scotland, you would introduce a system comparable to the erection of a great number of branch offices, of which you would make the Scottish Commission managers. One knows what that means. One knows too much that that is out of touch with the common life of the community.
  After all, what does the Chancellor's argument amount to if it is not this: He asked the hon. Member for Colchester to answer his question, and to prophesy whether or not the large industrial societies in Scotland, if this were carried, if Clause 15 were carried in its present form, would not set up separate societies in Scotland? Everybody knows they will. What, then, is Clause 15? It is a Clause that is being offered to you for bad management. [HON. MEMBERS: "No,"] Well
  1586
  managed societies will turn themselves into separate Scottish societies. They will keep their books, because they want to know where their members are creating financial difficulties for them in the matter of sickness. They want to know where leakages are. They want to deal with that big Clause in the original Act, which, if Clause 15 is passed, will have its value considerably curtailed—that Clause which enables all approved societies to bring the results of their investigations before the local authorities to get reforms in housing and sanitary matters if they are so required. Where are the trade unions going to get their information from on social things, about the conditions of their own people? Where are they going to get their information if they are not going to keep some kind of books? It may be that trade union officials have found a difficulty in keeping books rendered necessary by the officials who are at the head of these organisations. That does not mean surely that it is impossible to get a simplified form of book-keeping! It is one thing to have the whole of national ideals torn up simply because this little difficulty has been created after the operation of the Act for a short time. Everybody recognises that a man who is not trained to bookkeeping finds it difficult to keep books, but no large insurance society has found that.
  If the trade unions find a difficulty in that particular the obvious remedy is to get people into employment who can deal with it. You have got to keep six men where before you had to keep two. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, are you not in favour of giving men employment or are you in favour of throwing men out of work? If you have got six men employed now and you get this Clause 15 you will get rid of these men, but where will they go to? It is a pathetic spectacle to see the Labour party sending men in their employment to the Labour Exchanges because they want a technical change made which will result in the tearing up of the national scheme in which the people of Scotland are interested. If Clause 15 is maintained in its present form it shall receive a resolute opposition from the men who believe that a separate Commission is the best way to deal with the question as it meets us in Scotland. I do not want to go into that at this moment, because we have on the Order Paper a large number of Amendments which will arise, and which we will

  1587
  have to address our remarks to from time to time. It will not, therefore, be fair to cover too wide an area now, but I do want to try and express to the Secretary to the Treasury the opinion that on this matter we Scotsmen are quite clearly of opinion that Clause 15 in its present form does not maintain to us the Scottish Commission in the way that we desire it to be maintained. We ask him, we beg of him, to stop and think whether or not it is worth the while of the Government that he represents to persist in putting Clause 15 through this House of Commons in its present form, and outraging the experience and sentiment of everyone who believes in the economically and well-managed affairs of the separate Commission which we now have in Scotland.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I rise in order to express in a few sentences the united opinion of the Welsh Liberal Members with regard to the Amendment now before the House. The question was considered by a meeting the other day when the Bill was under discussion, and we were unanimously of opinion that it was essential in the interests of Wales that there should be a separate Commission. The hon. Member who has just sat down referred to the peculiar position of Scotland, and said that certain parts of Scotland differed economically and geographically. I draw attention to one circumstance in Wales which rather distinguishes it from Scotland, and that is that owing to the generosity of an hon. Member of this House, we in Wales have already before the introduction of the Insurance Bill, attempted to make a national effort to deal with the question of tuberculosis, and that we have in the Welsh National Memorial, already in existence, a scheme for fighting what is now called the White Plague; and because we have that scheme in existence and practically in working order, we feel it is essential that that scheme should not be controlled from Whitehall, but should be under the control of the Welsh Commissioners themselves. In addition to that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken pointed out what has been done in Scotland with regard to consumption. I think it is only fair to point out that in Wales not only have the Welsh Commissioners, through the National Memorial, dealt with those consumptives who are insured, but they have also dealt with a very large number of consumptives who did not happen to be insured.
  1588
  The hon. Member for Derby, in opposing this Amendment, said that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted any Amendment of a serious character to the Clause as it now stands, that he and the party with whom he is associated would be bound to vote for the extinction of the four Commissions. I am exceedingly sorry to hear that. No one who knows the part I have taken in this House will accuse me of any hostility to the ideals of the Labour party in whatever matters they brought before the House, and I should be very sorry to think that the Labour party should be so ill-advised as to place itself in matters of this kind against the national sentiments of the Welsh people. What is the position in Wales at the present time? In Wales there are 680,000 insured people. Considering that the number of those people belonging to trade unions is less than 100,000, is it right that hon. Members, not supported by a single Member from Wales, and speaking for less than one-sixth of the insured persons, should advocate something which practically means the abolition of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners. The hon. Member for Derby contended that he is in a position to express the opinion of the society with which he is principally associated, but may I suggest to the hon. Member and to those associated with the trade unions, that the real opposition to the Welsh Insurance Commissioners and the other separate Commissions, is practically an official opposition; that is to say, it is the opposition of the officials of the trade unions and the big societies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] If hon. Members do not agree with that, let them put their objections in the form of speeches.
  Mr. J. WARD: You should speak of what you know something about.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: The hon. Member for Stoke is very fond of interrupting.
  Mr. W. THORNE: You do not know the views of the trade unions.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: What I am contending is that the opposition made by the trade unions and the friendly societies is exactly the same class of opposition that we had from certain parts of the country when the Bill was under discussion. We had resolutions galore upon this point, and we were assured that we did not represent our constituencies, but when an inquiry was made we found the real opposition came from the officials of the unions rather

  1589
  than from the men, and I suggest that the real opposition to-night is the opposition of the officials, and that there is something to be said for the suggestion made that it is due to jealousy on the part of the officials in England to the position taken up by the officials in Scotland, Ireland, or Wales, and that these officials fear they will be ultimately ousted. All I say, speaking on the part of my own Constituency, and on the part of the Welsh Liberal Members, is we have heard no ground of complaint; we
  have had no resolution of complaint as to the action of the Welsh Commissioners; and I beg to say we shall give the most strenuous opposition to the Amendment before the House or to anything calculated to whittle down the power and influence of the Commissioners in Wales.
  Question put, "That Sub-sections (1). and (2) be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 232.

  Division No. 264.]

  AYES.

  [9.2 p.m.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Barnston, Harry

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby),

  Bigland, Alfred

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bird, Alfred

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Boyton, James

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Swift, Rigby

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Cassel, Felix

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Cator, John

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Fell, Arthur

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Worthington-Evans and Mr. Rawlinson.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Forster, Henry William

  Nield, Herbert

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Goldstone, Frank

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Gulland, John William

  Arnold, Sydney

  Crumley, Patrick

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Cullinan, John

  Hackett, John

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hancock, John George

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Barnes, George N.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  De Forest, Baron

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Delany, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Boland, John Pius

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Hayward, Evan

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Dillon, John

  Hazleton, Richard

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Doris, William

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Duffy, William J.

  Hewart, Gordon

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Hinds, John

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hodge, John

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Falconer, James

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  John, Edward Thomas

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gill, A. H.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Clough, William

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Clynes, John R.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Joyce, Michael

  Nuttall, Harry

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Keating, Mathew

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton.)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Sheehy, David

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Shortt, Edward

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  King, Joseph

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Dowd, John

  Snowden, Philip

  Lardner, James C. R.

  O'Grady, James

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

  O'Malley, William

  Sutton, John E.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  O'Shee, James John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Lundon, Thomas

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Thomas, J. H.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  McGhee, Richard

  Pointer, Joseph

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wadsworth, John

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Wardle, George J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Waring, Walter

  M'Cailum, Sir John M.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Webb, H.

  Manfield, Harry

  Reddy, Michael

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Meagher, Michael

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Middlebrook, William

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs, N.)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Molloy, Michael

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Mooney, John J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Rowlands, James

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Muldoon, John

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Neilson, Francis

  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1) of Clause 15."
  I must apologise to the House for having to speak at some length on a technical and somewhat involved subject. Section 83 of the original Act provides, amongst other things, that an International Society with members in more than one part of the United Kingdom shall, for purposes of valuations, surpluses, deficiencies, and transfers be treated as a separate society. The Clause of the Amending Bill with which we are dealing repeals Section 83 so far as I have described it. We Scottish Liberal Members object to the repeal of this Section, because we desire to keep in Scotland the separate valuation of all persons who are insured under the National Insurance Act. We desire to keep our Scottish management in the hands of the Scottish National Commission, and we object to this first Sub-section on national grounds. We desire to maintain unimpaired and uninfringed the full control of the National Commissioners for the administration of the Insurance Act in Scotland. There are many reasons why we desire to do so. The
  1592
  circumstances in Scotland differ from the circumstances in England. I will not go into detail on that point, but it is sufficient to say that our laws, Law Courts, Poor Law, land laws, agriculture, religion, race, education, and our whole social system in Scotland differ from that of other parts of the United Kingdom. Naturally we desire to have this Act administered in accordance with our different social circumstances, and we think we ought to have the Act modified to suit our peculiar circumstances. We want to have the National Commissions who administer this Act in a Scottish atmosphere. We want to have them specifically engaged in the work of Scottish administration. We want to have their minds thoroughly soaked and permeated by the Scottish point of view. We object from the purely national point of view to the first Sub-section of this Clause, because we think that it undermines the power, the authority, and the prestige of the National Commissioners in each part of the United Kingdom. I may say that we have behind us, I believe without exception, the people of Scotland in this matter. We have the Unionist opinion of Scotland behind us. Is there a more vehement

  1593
  Unionist paper in the whole of the United Kingdom than "The Scotsman." It is a strong Unionist paper, and a strong anti-Home Rule paper. It is a type of strong vehement Conservatism, if not Toryism, in Scotland. Yet this paper supports us. It supports the Liberal Members for Scotland in the efforts they are making against the first Sub-section of this Clause. I understand also that the Scottish Conservative Members will be with us, and I say with confidence that we have trade union opinion with us. We certainly have not got the officials of trade unions who are in England with us. There has been no time for an expression of opinion in the country, for this new Clause was not in the proposals of the Government when they submitted them to the House; it was suddenly sprung upon us in Committee, and there has been no time for an expression of opinion in the country; but I say that my belief is that if the rank and file of the trade unions in Scotland are consulted, their opinion will be found to be inspired by the national sentiment in this matter.
  I do not believe that the friendly societies are against it. Much has been made of a meeting of the Foresters who are just now holding their conference at Manchester. I saw a report in the "Times" yesterday to the effect that the Foresters had sent a telegram to Mr. Lloyd George urging him to stand by this Clause. The extraordinary thing is that this telegram shows that the Foresters have not the slightest idea what the Clause is about. They are under the impression that it is going to relieve them of great administrative difficulties, but with one very small, minute exception—a part to which we do not object—the type of society to which the Foresters belong is not affected. The Foresters are organised in branches, and each of these branches is separately valued under the Act. We do not abolish the separate valuation of each of these branches. Each separate branch in Scotland will be separately valued and treated separately for the purposes of the surplus or deficit. I have had some talk with the advisers of my right hon. Friend on this matter, and I gather they think that I am wrong in one point. They say that the Foresters come under Section 83 of the original Act which says that all the branches, say, in Scotland or England or Ireland shall be treated separately for valuation and for surplus, but that if the branches link together in Scotland for the purpose of
  1594
  forming an association with a central financial committee they shall be treated as a society with branches. They are are already grouped together in that way, but I believe it is contended that they must be grouped together separately in Scotland and England, and that the Scottish branches must form one group and the English branches another group. I believe it is the contention of the officials that that is the present state of the law, but I defy them to find anything in the original Act to support their view. The original Act says that a society's branches shall be grouped together and shall pool a certain portion of their surplus. It does not say anything about there being national boundaries between the separate branches.
  There is not a word in the original Act which lays down a national boundary between any parts of a society which is organised in branches. Section 83 says that a society, and it can only mean a centralised society, which has branches in both parts of the United Kingdom shall be treated separately for the purposes of valuation; but, quite independently of that Section, a society organised in branches has still got to be treated separately in each of its branches for the purpose of valuation. I say, therefore, that this support from great orders like the Foresters which is embodied in this telegram, is based upon an entirely false idea. This Clause relieves them practically of none of the difficulties with which they are at present confronted. Perhaps I am too sweeping. Supposing they had a branch in Berwick and that branch had members on both sides of the border, then it would be affected by Section 83, Sub-section (3), but that is a small thing compared with the society as a whole. We are prepared to meet the grievance of one particular branch or several branches on the border line, but that, as I say, is a small point compared with the society as a whole. I do not expect that there is a branch in the Irish Channel, so that we are simply dealing with the border between England and Wales and England and Scotland. My contention is—and I believe that this will also be disputed—that the powers of the Commissioners in any country are seriously diminished by this Clause. I think I had better explain in what direction they are diminished. They are not diminished so far as valuation is concerned. They never had any powers of valuation. That has always been conducted by the Treasury.

  1595
  After the valuation has been completed and the surplus or deficit, as the case may be, has been ascertained, then very important powers are reserved by the Act for the Commissioners. I will give three instances where power is taken away from the Commissioners. There is, first of all, the power of dealing with the surplus. The surplus must be expended in providing additional benefits. These additional benefits have to be approved by the Commissioners. I want to appeal to the House with regard to the importance of the power of dealing with these additional benefits. The rest of the Act is hard and fast. The benefits are fixed. These additional benefits are the flexible part of the Act. These are the means by which this Act may be moulded and adapted to the national needs of each separate country, and we regard it as of most vital importance that when these come to be adapted to the needs of each country the decision should be taken by people whose official life is bound up with each particular country, and not with some central authority which is not permeated by the atmosphere and feeling of that country. There is one power—dealing with surpluses. There is a corresponding power for dealing with deficits. There are provisions with regard to levies which have to be approved by the Commission—a very important power indeed. There is a further power. Suppose a levy has been fixed, and some society, disappointed with the position of affairs, refuses to administer the Act. There is power in the National Commissioners to undertake the management of the society—to take over, administer, and run the society. We, in Scotland, do not want an English authority undertaking to administer the affairs of societies in Scotland. In case of shipwreck, we desire that the administration shall be undertaken by purely National Commissioners.
  I think I have said enough to show that in very material details powers are taken away. The societies will become international. Their surpluses will not be Scottish surpluses, their deficits will not be Scottish deficits. The body dealing with them will not be local, or even national, but some new body not provided for in this Section will have to be called into existence by administrative action, and it will have to be a Joint Committee, strengthened and reinforced with a new
  1596
  staff. Our objection to the interference of an International Commission, or of English officials, is not due to any objection to the officials themselves or to any doubt as to their ability. We yield to no one in admiration of the manner in which the English officials have put in force this Act, and administered it in England. We are, too, very proud of our Scottish Commission. We think our Scottish Commissioners have done marvellous work—work of unsurpassed difficulty, and work which only they could have carried out. We are proud, from a national point of view, of what has been accomplished by the Commission in Scotland. We are confident that men of the standing of English Commissioners if they were brought to Scotland and were engaged in Scottish work, immersed in Scottish atmosphere, and brought into sympathy with Scottish conditions, would do the work as well, and would prove as big a success as our present Commission. What we demand is a Commission which shall be engaged in specifically Scottish work.
  I have said a great deal about the national point of view, but I do not want it to be thought that that is the only point of view we have in our country. After all, the Commissioners are only the machinery. It is the separate valuation which is the substance. We believe we have much to gain in Scotland by a separate valuation. We believe it is not merely danger to nationality, but danger to our pockets that is involved in this scheme. In this instance the interest of patriotism coincides with the interest of our pockets, and I am sure that hon. Members will recognise what. a powerful combination it is. We expect to have a larger surplus in Scotland than will, on the average, be obtained in other parts of the United Kingdom. We have many reasons for thinking so. We believe that, possibly, our rate of sickness will be lower than in England, and lower especially than in Ireland and Wales. We think the characteristics of our Scottish countrymen have certain advantages in the point of view of insurance. We believe also that the higher type of elementary education in Scotland will give some advantages in the administration of the lower scales of the societies. We may be mistaken in that. I may be challenged about the sickness rate. I have figures that have been taken out by some societies. They give indications both ways I admit, but, on the whole, those I have seen are favourable to the view which I

  1597
  am advancing. I was challenged the other day about figures, but let me point out that there are no figures available within the first six months which would enable us to form a conclusive opinion on this point. Is not that a good reason for delay? Let us wait until we have had our first valuation. There is no need for haste in taking this more or less irrevocable step.
  I would like to call attention to a meeting held recently in London—the National Congress of Industrial Approved Societies, representing, I believe, 5,000,000 of insured people. The chairman of that conference, in his speech, made reference to the new Bill, and he certainly seemed to voice the opinion of the conference. He said that in that Bill they asked that there should be no structural alterations. They did not think that they had had enough experience, and they strongly recommended the Government, before making any structual alterations, to wait until-they had obtained the necessary experience. The Government have taken that line. They have also promised that they will have an inquiry into the whole administration and working of the Act. The inquiry will take place soon. They did not think it necessary to introduce these structural changes in the original Bill. If they were of that opinion then, let them wait another year until they have had actual experience of the working of the Act before they introduce changes of so vital a character as these.
  There is another financial reason I would give in favour of the policy of a separate valuation. Some figures I have seen have shown a very heavy sickness rate among women in Belfast. One society which has women members in all parts of the United Kingdom has shown a specially heavy sick rate among the women members of Belfast. The rate was remarkable, and I cannot help thinking it has something to do with social conditions and with the nature of employment there. I am sure, when the figures are seen, they will cause a demand from all parties and all sections for a reform of these social conditions. The working of the Act, with its separate valuation, has been most valuable in revealing this state of affairs, but if all the valuations are to be lumped together; if the valuations in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, are to be put together, these really dangerous conditions which obtain in one particular part of the
  1598
  United Kingdom will be concealed. They will be covered up and hidden from men's eyes. If they are known at all they will be known only to the officials of that society and to headquarters, who will decide not to reveal them in the place affected, because it will, perhaps, prevent them from getting members. The Act as it stands with a separate valuation is valuable because it reveals in advance the different social conditions and enables not only the officials, but the general public to see an evil at its source. The abolition of the separate valuation will make for the covering up of these evils.
  There is one fact which will surprise many hon. Members opposite. They may possibly think we are making a lot of fuss about a small affair, and that only a few persons in Scotland will be affected. The fact is that more than one-half of the insured people in Scotland are affected. I think the proportion is greater in Wales. These people who have joined the societies in Scotland did so upon a statutory assurance that they would be valued separately, and that the societies would be treated as separate societies. Something has been said as to a Statute not being a contract. I quite agree that in the strict interpretation it is not. But the relations of the insured people are not directly with the State, but with a society. They have entered into a contract with their society, and, in many cases, these societies, in sending out their prospectuses inviting new members, have embodied in the prospectus an assurance that the members will be valued separately. You have more than one-half of the people in Scotland who have joined these societies upon a statutory assurance, and in many cases upon the statement in a prospectus that they would be valued separately. Now, without consulting them, without giving them anything more than a vague and shadowy option, you are proposing to tear up the contract, and saying, "We will secure by Statute that all shall be valued together." I do not think that is fair treatment, or that it is playing the game with the insured people in Scotland who have joined on the. understanding to which I referred. I said some thing about an option. It is true that there is in the Sub-section a provision which gives to members of these various societies a kind of option to remain as they are at present, but it is a vague, shadowy and altogether illusory option. May I indicate its nature? I am sure

  1599
  hon. Members will agree that it is put into the Clause for no purpose whatever, but is a mere piece of window-dressing. To put it briefly, the Clause provides that Sub-section (3) of Section 83 is repealed. Then it provides that where the Joint Committee is satisfied that the members of any society in any country desire to remain as they are they shall remain as they are.
  How is the Joint Committee to be satisfied? No machinery is provided. [An HON. MEMBER: "It says 'On representations made.'"] No machinery is provided whereby the members of the society can exercise that option. The Clause says that if the Joint Committee are satisfied on the representations made that the members desire to remain as they are they shall do so. How is the Joint Committee to be satisfied? Is a poll to be taken? Is an inquiry to be held, or is the Committee to do anything at all? There is not a vestige of machinery of any shape or form. Mark this also, that the decision is to be taken at once, if there is any decision. It is not to remain open until the first valuation is made and until the people see how they stand and know whether or not they will be in a better position if they are valued separately. This vague and shadowy option is to be exercised before the first valuation. It is a thing not worth the paper it is written upon or the space it occupies in the Bill. May I add a word to show that we do not adopt an impossible attitude? The trade unions are centralised societies, and they are now under real and substantial grievances. We never doubted that they had those grievances. We are anxious to meet them, and believe they can be met without abolishing the separate valuation. We are willing and ready to meet them, and have put upon the Paper Amendments designed to do so: Perhaps the House will bear with me while I briefly deal with the grievances. I think there are four. First, there is the grievance with regard to strays. That does not apply to international societies, but to national societies. For instance, some members of an English society may migrate to Scotland, and, according to the law as it stands at present, they have to be treated as a separate society, and are valued separately. We think that grievance ought to be removed. It is removed in the Subsections in this Clause other than that to which we object. We are quite willing to
  1600
  accept any provision in the Clause dealing with strays. There can be no difference of opinion about that.
  The next substantial grievance is that concerned with the grouping of societies. The original Act contains a provision requiring that in the case of the smaller societies, that is to say, societies having less than 5,000 members, that they shall be grouped together in association, with a central financial committee, for the purposes of pooling one portion of their surpluses to meet the possible deficit of some of the societies. I take the society with which my hon. Friend (Mr. Hodge) is connected, the Iron and Steel Workers' Society, which has 12,000 members in England and 3,000 in Scotland. Under the present law those Scottish members must form an association with some other society for the purpose of pooling their surpluses, if they have any, therefore they are required to form an association with any society but their own excellent and well-managed society, in which they have not merely the pride due to its being a well-managed insurance society, but to which they have the loyalty of a trade unionist to his own trade union. They do not want to be forced to group with some other alien society in Scotland. They would much rather form a group with the other members of the society in England. It is asked, why cannot they do so? Because the English society has more than 5,000 members in England, and the grouping arrangement is limited to societies which have less than 5,000 members. Therefore their members in Scotland are forced to link up with some other society with less than 5,000 members.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: This Bill has already provided by means of Amendments that these larger societies shall in future be all grouped with smaller ones.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: That is my point, and that meets the grievance.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: It does not meet the grievance of the small society, but it enables the larger societies to have other societies in the same country grouped with them.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I think the hon. Member is wrong in his law there. So far as the grouping of societies is concerned my contention is that there is no national frontier. There is nothing in the Act to prevent societies on different sides

  1601
  of the border from forming a group. All that is required in Section 83 is that members in Scotland shall be treated as a separate society for the purpose of valuation and surplus. The separate societies may then form a group. I know the Treasury desire to prevent it, but they are doing so not under any statutory power, but under some administrative power, and my contention is that if it is desirable that they should be allowed to group on either side they can do so at present, and the Treasury ought to permit it. If it does not do so I have an Amendment on the Paper which will allow grouping between societies irrespective of their numbers, irrespective of the limit of 5,000, and irrespective of any national frontier. There is a second very real and substantial grievance felt by the Labour party which we meet entirely and fully. The next grievance is that of transfer. If there are members of a society both in England and Scotland they are treated separately under Section 83, and if any member leaves and tomes to work in England, owing to the separate valuation he will have a different transfer value in Scotland from what he has in England and the value has to be calculated and transferred to England. We think this can be met easily. We have two alternative suggestions for meeting it. The first is, Why not apply the same principle that is already applied in this Act for dealing with strays? You met the difficulty with regard to strays. Why not apply it to an international society, or, say, something like this, that if a member has joined a society in Scotland, and if he afterwards migrates to England, he may continue to be regarded for the purpose of valuation and surplus as if he were still resident in Scotland? I think the societies would be better advised to get a real and effective transfer for any member who becomes a permanent migrant, but the real difficulty arises when men come for a few months, and they could quite easily escape any difficulty by treating them under this Amendment.
  There is another alternative. In what kind of society is it that this difficulty arises most frequently and causes the greatest congestion? It is the society which is limited to one trade, that trade being of a migratory character. In an ordinary society which accept members from all over, the proportion of migrates will be very small, but in a trade union which limits its membership to persons
  1602
  occupied in one specific trade, and that a migratory trade, the proportion of migrates may be very high. I refer especially to shipwrights, who are constantly moving from Glasgow to the Tyne or Belfast. One Amendment which we suggest would be that this new Clause should be limited to societies whose membership is limited to a specific trade, that trade being a migratory trade. We recognise the difficulty which my hon. Friend feels, and we think that much, practically all, could be done to meet that difficulty without doing away with the separate valuation. Much has been said about bookkeeping, but they will not get the substantial relief that they think they are going to get. I know trade unions feel this difficulty more than any other societies, not because they are less competent, but because this is a kind of thing which they have never been accustomed to do in the past in the same way. Trade unions in the past have never kept separate accounts. They have lumped all their funds into one, and concentrated all their energies on one fund with which to fight the employers. It is a matter of policy and they came to a sound decision when they decided to do that. But here it has been definitely decided that this insurance fund is to be kept separate and separately administered. Whether the Act requires national frontiers or not, if it is an International Society, and if it is going to be well managed, it has got to do far more bookkeeping than the Act requires. It is not merely going to find out how its members are doing in England, and Scotland, and Wales, but how they are doing in Lancashire, in Manchester, and in London. It has got to be able to trace a leakage anywhere. It has got to be able to root out an evil anywhere and find how things are going on. If it is going to secure the best benefits it will have to do that.
  We have suggested that we are willing to meet the grievance. We object to this whole scheme, but it is possible that we may be defeated by a combination of Labour Members and Conservatives and Irish, and the Government. If we are defeated we have on the Paper a large number of Amendments. They do not reconcile us, even if every one of them was carried, to the evil which we think is being done by this Clause, but they mitigate the hardship and the attack upon the national Commission. There is a whole series of Amendments dealing with the option to

  1603
  which I have referred. We suggest a poll of the members. The burden of proof is on those who wish to remain as at present. Why should we not throw the burden of proof on those who wish to change Why not make the Joint Committee satisfy itself by some form of inquiry that the members desire this change? Then we suggest some alteration in the time limit. It is limited to six months. Why should it not be extended to a year or to the first valuation? We have a number of Amendments in regard to that matter. Then, finally, you have to remember that those who are members of these societies joined under the assurance that the societies would be treated as separate societies. If anyone is aggrieved at the change, why not give him the option of transferring into another society—a purely national society? You have induced him to join under the idea that he would be treated separately, and if you make a change you should make that a reasonable excuse for transferring to another society. None of the Amendments will reconcile us to the injury which we believe will be done, but they will, at least, help to mitigate the injury.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I would be very glad to second the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend if the fate of the Amendment depended upon argument; then, I think everyone will agree, that his able and powerful speech would give the Amendment an overwhelming victory in this House. But from what occurred in the previous Debate this evening, it is obvious that argument will have nothing to do with the decision. It is obviously so, because Members of the Labour party agree with me. The origin and development of this Clause show that quite other considerations will determine the decision of the House this evening. What is the origin of the Amendment? When trade unions became approved societies for the first time they had to transact friendly society business on business lines under the supervision of the Insurance Commissioners. They awoke to the fact that it was necessary to keep books and fill up forms. They found out that as the result of the United Kingdom being divided into four parts with separate Commissions and separate funds, a certain number of extra books would require to be kept, and a certain number of extra forms would require to be filled up. Discovering this, they jumped to the remedy. It was
  1604
  inconvenient to keep books and fill up forms, and they said, "Let us abolish the separate Commissioners." That was the first Amendment proposed in the Committee upstairs—an Amendment very much on the lines of that proposed by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) this evening. The Government is endeavouring to meet them. By some means the Government were in a difficult position upstairs. It was necessary to meet the Labour party.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Labour party could have been beaten in the Committee.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I understand from the hon. Member for Colchester that it was a false alarm and that the Labour party could have been beaten. But the Government were not aware of it. I am giving a true account of what were the apprehensions of the Government, and it was on their apprehensions that Clause 15 was based. An undertaking was given that something would be done. No notice was given of what would be done. On the day this new Clause was moved in the Committee it appeared on the Paper for the first time.
  Mr. FORSTER: In justice to the Government I ought to say that they did give notice of the new Clause a long time beforehand.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It was not on the Paper, and there was no opportunity of putting Amendments on the Paper.
  Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. It was circulated days before it was moved.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It was not on the Paper, and there was no opportunity of putting Amendments on the Paper. I think the House will agree that my statement was correct. My statement was that on the day this Clause was moved in the Committee it appeared on the Paper for the first time. I never suggested that some notice of it had not been given. A draft had been circulated, but as to whether that draft was the final form no statement was made. When it appeared for the first time, my hon. Friends in the Committee were taken at a disadvantage. My hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Falconer), who is deeply interested in this question, was unable to

  1605
  be present to put his views at the service of the Committee. All the hon. Members from Scotland were at a disadvantage in dealing with this matter, for there was really no notice given to those principally concerned in dealing with it. Only a small proportion of those persons in the different countries who are affected have any knowledge of what is being done by the Clause. The House has no right to pass a Clause like this so materially affecting the interests of the people concerned without more adequate notice of the change. Hon. Gentlemen have gone about from platform to platform, throughout the United Kingdom, saying that the Insurance Act was rushed through this House. Was there anything equivalent then to the way in which this Clause is being rushed? Are hon. Gentlemen opposite going to support this Clause? Are they going to stultify all their denunciations with respect to the rushing of the Insurance Act through the House by passing this Clause, which vitally affects all insured persons throughout the United Kingdom, when there was no notice given of the change?
  Mr. FORSTER: If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer, I will say that this is the one Clause we did have notice of.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It must have been behind the Speaker's Chair. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] The Bill which got a Second Reading in this House did not contain this Clause. It was not until the second last day of the Committee that this Clause was discussed in the Committee. It was discussed under such conditions that it could not be amended. When the draft Clause was circulated with a memorandum, it was marked "Confidential." That was the best kind of notice that could be given. Far more notice was given of the original Insurance Act. An hon. Friend, who was a Member of the Committee, got the confidential draft. Only members of the Committee got the draft. I would point out that it is not only the members of the Committee who are concerned in this matter. The insured people in the country are also concerned in it. They had not this confidential document. The hon. Gentleman who has just interrupted me said that a confidential document is notice to the people of this country whose interests are affected.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There was no notice of the original Clause.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Member apparently knows what is in the Bill before it was introduced into this House.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This Scotch Commission was originally created without notice at all. It was created on a Monday. The Clause was never in the original Bill. It was brought in on Saturday afternoon, and we never saw it until a half-hour before it was moved.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I had more cognisance of what took place when the original Clause was introduced in the Bill, and there were weeks of negotiations, not confidential at all, because what was going on was in the public Press all over the Kingdom.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It was not on the Order Paper.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It was not in a confidential document, and when it got on to the Order Paper there was plenty of time to move Amendments to it.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Half-an-hour.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Gentleman has a House of Lords at the other end of the passage. We have no House of Lords. Liberal Members from Scotland have no revising chamber. The interruptions to which I have been submitted, of which I do not complain, throw a very interesting though somewhat sinister light, more sinister than I myself would have thrown, upon the history of this Clause. It is a back stairs arrangement. We saw what happened when the Amendment was proposed by the hon. Member for Colchester. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt at some length with this particular Clause in dealing with that Amendment. He said, of course, that the Clause as it stood was a compromise, and although it was a compromise he was quite willing to listen to arguments on the question, but the hon. Member for Derby immediately got up and said, "We have accepted this as a compromise, but we will submit to no alteration in it. If there is to be the slightest alteration then we vote against the separate Commissions." Of course he did not do it. In these circumstances I think I am justified in saying that this is not a question of reason or argument at all, but this is not a ground why my hon. Friend should not have submitted in the very forcible way in which

  1607
  he did submit the argument against the arrangements that are proposed in this Clause. I think that he has made out an unanswerable case in the first place that the evils which are complained of are exaggerated, that the advantages to be obtained from this arrangement are also exaggerated, and that the disadvantages incident to it are far in excess of any advantages which may accrue to the beneficiaries. I do not intend to enter at length into the main arguments which he has used in this matter, but there are two sets of considerations which appeal to us who are concerned for the fate of the National Insurance Commissions. We are concerned with sentimental and national considerations, and we are concered with the material aspect of the matter also, and the effect of the Section if it is passed. We believe that the motive of those who have brought it forward, is to undermine the position of the National Commission in Scotland. It is very largely for that reason that we are giving it our strenuous opposition.
  I know that many hon. Gentlemen opposite who do not share our views or feelings in relation to the national aspect of the question have by experience of the advantages of the administration been convinced of the importance of the National Insurance Commission for the purpose of administering insurance in Scotland. As my hon. Friends have said, there have been numerous advantages not only from the point of view of the organisation of the Act, and of the local bodies who have to administer it, but also of the interests of the individual insured persons in Scotland, owing to the personal attention which could be given by members of the Commission and to the great local knowledge which they had of the peculiar conditions of Scottish industry and Scottish social life. We, therefore, desire naturally to safeguard this national institution. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks, in replying to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that the Chancellor may have established a case for the Commissions for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation, but the Act was now in operation, and there was, therefore, no need for the Commissions for the administration of the Act in future. But the very considerations which have made the Commissions of so great value for bringing the Act into operation are equally operative in regard to its smooth and successful
  1608
  working in future. This is an Act which, more than any other Act of Parliament passed at any time in this country, affects closely and intimately the private life of all classes of the people, and it is of vital interest to these people that they should have administering this Act a body which is readily accessible to them which knows the conditions under which they live and work, and which has sympathy with their needs and wishes. That is the part which has been played by the National Commissions in reference to the National Insurance Act in the earliest stages of its working, and it is because it will continue to play that part in the future that we regard it as of vital importance that it should continue to operate successfully and efficiently.
  Hon. Members have noticed the strange attitude of the Labour party in this matter. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh said that this idea of devolution was a popular, modern, and democratic idea, and this was a statement which was received with cheers by Members of the Labour party. [An HON. MEMBER "Old fashioned."] Old fashioned is democratic, but centralised bureaucracy may be socialistic. This Clause, which commands so much support from the Labour party, may be Socialism, it is not Democracy. It is only through such decentralisation that you can retain democratic control over social legislation and social administration in matters which are now becoming of greater and greater importance every year. Of course, they jeer at the idea of nationalism as having anything to do with the question. I remember that on the question of factory legislation in regard to Home Rule for Ireland, they were quite willing to go into the Lobby and vote for a separate Industrial Court being set up for Ireland. We all understand how it is that they find this inconvenient for bookkeeping purposes. So nationalism and legislation go by the board because contrary to their own interests. It is not only from a national and sentimental point of view that we are arguing this question to-night. When we argued for a National Commission for Scotland at the time the Act was passed, we argued also on grounds of material benefit to the insured people in Scotland. We could only, at that time, base our arguments upon forecast, what we thought a reasonable forecast, based upon the experience of friendly societies in Scotland compared

  1609
  with the experience of corresponding societies in England. We knew then, in regard to societies which existed before the Act, that in respect of sickness experience and management expenses, Scottish societies had a better record than corresponding English societies. These were undisputed facts. We argued, on the basis of that experience, that it would be to the advantage of insured persons in Scotland to be grouped in Scottish societies, and to have a separate Scottish office for the purpose of valuation, so that when the period of valuation came insured persons in Scotland would have the full benefit of the advantages which we forecasted it would give them. We have had a certain amount of experience in the working of this Act. It is true that it is a short and limited experience; it is true, also, that the experience of some of these societies was one way and of other societies another way. It is true that the experience of the majority of international societies shows that sickness experience in Scotland is superior to the sickness experience in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) said that this did not represent the experience of trade unions. I hoped that he would adduce something to back up his assertion, but he only quoted figures relating to one national union, that of the Gas Workers. The figures related to a society with 41,000 members, and 1,600 in Scotland. If we are to have figures, I think it is almost impossible to have figures less useful for the purpose of comparison—41,000 in one country, and 1,600 in the other. It is true that there was a small percentage of sickness in his favour in that case. But in other cases to which I have access, and in which the membership is more on an equality, when we make comparison it is found that the Scottish sickness experience is superior to the English sickness experience, although there has been only six months' experience, and in some instances only three months. I admit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. MacCallum Scott) admitted, that the experience of six months cannot possibly be conclusive, but in view of the experience of friendly societies which existed before this, we, I think, are justified in believing, and in still maintaining the belief that a separate valuation was going to be for the advantage of insured persons in Scotland. Until the
  1610
  valuation takes place and disproves this conclusion I think we are justified in adhering to it, and under this new Clause by linking together the Scottish societies with similar societies in other parts of the United Kingdom you may take more than half of the Scottish insured persons outside the valuation. I do not believe that will be the effect, because I believe many of the societies will not avail of the privileges, if they indeed be privileges, which are offered by this Clause. The people who do not like to keep books will avail themselves of it, but well and efficiently managed industrial societies will find it to their advantage to maintain their separate Scottish organisation. Under those circumstances it is probable that there will not be such a large number taken out of the Scottish valuation, but still a certain number, a considerable number, will be so removed. We object to that as affecting the value of that valuation, and we object to it also still more because it is depriving large numbers of insured persons in Scotland of the rights to which they were entitled under the Act as it was first passed. We have had a Debate also in the course of the Report stage upon the rights of insured persons, to the full terms of their contract. We had a Debate as to the rights of voluntary contributors, who had over £160 per year, with the full terms of their contract with respect of medical benefit. On an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding), the Labour party were so shocked with this attempt to vary the terms of the contract for the benefit of those voluntary insured persons who had more than £160 per year, that they went into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Worcester. But this is only an attempt to vary the contract of poor working men who have not £160 per year, and the Labour party are going to go into the Lobby in favour of it.
  That is another example of the democratic views of the Members of the Labour party. This is surely a bureaucratic movement; it is a movement of the officials and not of the members of trade unions. I hope the other Members of the House will not be deceived by this apparent solidarity of the Labour party on this occasion, because we believe it will be proved they have no right to speak for the average members of their own unions. What are they afraid of? The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us what they were afraid of. He said if you had separate societies in different parts, then there

  1611
  would be separate valuations for each branch of the United Kingdom in which they were situate, and they were afraid if, in any one of those parts of the United Kingdom the valuation was better than in another part, that that would break up the solidarity of their union, or, in other words, that members of the union in that part where they were benefited by superior conditions would form a separate section. It means they are afraid their own members, if they see the value of maintaining separate funds, will take advantake of it and keep separate. Yes, and it has happened. When the Act was going through the House of Commons at first I was interviewed by the secretary of a Scottish trade union which in years gone by had broken off from the trade union in England—that is the slaters. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a small union."] It is a small union, but still it has as much right to respect as some of the large unions. This is just the kind of sneers and contempt which are poured by Labour Members on people who do not happen to agree with them. There were not many of them. There were not 5,000 in Scotland, and they saw the provision that for valuation purposes a minimum of 5,000 was required under the Act, and this gentleman came to me and said, "Will this mean that our society will be compelled to link up with the English slaters?" I said no, it did not mean anything of the kind, that it was the other way about. He said that he was very much relieved; they did not want to link up with the English slaters, because they were very much worse managed and their benefit fund was in a very bad position; they wanted to link up with another society as well managed as themselves, and so retain the benefit of their better position. That is the sort of thing that will happen in the future. The fears of the trade unions shows their distrust of their own members. They do not desire their own members to sec the value of having separate valuations because, forsooth, it may lead to some temporary breaking-off from their organisations. I think they are mistaken. I think the result will be quite the reverse. If this Clause is passed, we believe that in the long run the majority of the Scottish insured persons will be in the Scottish valuation; that those who are not in the trade unions will be outside that valuation; that those who are in the trade unions will
  1612
  see that those who have not availed themselves of this section are doing better than those who have availed themselves of it, and that those in societies which have remained distinctively Scottish are getting greater benefits than those who are international societies. If they see that owing to the false leadership of their leaders now they are deprived of these benefits, they are far more likely to be disloyal to them in the future. It is a short-sighted policy, but it is not an uncommon thing to find a short-sighted policy pursued on these benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I mean on the benches in front of me.
  I have to apologise for detaining the House at such length. I had no idea that the remarks I rose to make would extend over so long a period, but I have been assisted and encouraged by a number of interruptions, for which I thank hon. Gentlemen, as they have been of the greatest value to me. I will conclude as I began. I rest this Amendment upon the arguments and facts which were so powerfully and convincingly marshalled by my hon. Friend (Mr. MacCallum Scott). This Clause is intended to undermine the separate Scottish administration. If fully carried out, it will have that effect. It will also injure the interests of a large number of insured persons in Scotland. It is being carried through the House without any notice to the people affected by it. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are so opposed to the rushing of legislation through this House, who have denounced the Government time and again for rushing through the Insurance Act, not to give their assistance to the worst piece of rushing which has ever been done, namely, the rushing of Clause 15.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The House has had an oratorical treat in the speeches to which we have just listened from the hon. Gentlemen. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is that meant sarcastic?"] I never heard the case put with more force than it has been put by these hon. Gentlemen. If ever I should attempt to rival them I certainly should not attempt to rival them on this last occasion. The only criticism that I would make, perhaps, is that I think we must take the matter on a lower level than the level on which they have put it, and deal with this thing as a business proposition, and not as a somewhat vast attempt to smash a people's national sentiment or to create some immense bureaucracy in some

  1613
  part of the country. Let me just say a ward or two to express my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks for his intervention in connection with what happened in Committee in connection with this Clause. The necessity for dealing with this subject did not quite arise first in Committee; it was raised on the Second Reading of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer then promised to see if he could meet the very difficult question of simplifying the accounting arrangements, and dealing with the international societies without impairing the condition of the Scottish, Irish, and Welsh Commissions. When we came to the Bill in Committee we had a long Debate on the proposal of the hon. Member that brought it forward in the House again to-night, advocating the complete abolition of the Scottish Commission. By leave of the Committee I gave an outline of what I thought, without the abolition of the Commission, would meet the special difficulty which was being felt. I think I am right in saying that but for that statement the four Commissions would have been abolished by the Committee. I outlined the compromise.
  No one is very proud of compromises, but compromises have to be made in politics. After outlining that compromise I stated I would put a Clause down next day. I was asked by members of the Committee on all sides not to put it down the next day, because if I did so, as a Government Clause it was bound to take precedent of others, and, therefore, it would be rushed through without any time for consideration. I was asked to leave it over till the Monday or Tuesday and to circulate the Clause to the members of the Committee. The Scottish as well as the others all received the Clause and a memorandum explaining the Clause. It was not until the last day that we realised that we had to finish the Committee stage if the Bill was not to be lost. I then put down the Clause as a Government Clause after having given full opportunity to every member of the Committee for a week to consider it in all its bearings. I say this also, that neither in public nor private in connection with this Clause did I receive a word of remonstrance from any of the Scottish Members.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I think the right hon. Gentleman's memory has perhaps just failed him. One day at the end of the proceedings I rose and asked him if he would nut this Clause, which had
  1614
  been circulated, down on the Order Paper so that I might put Amendments down to it. The right hon. Gentleman said, in reply, "I will put it on the Paper to-morrow." He put it on the Paper to-morrow, and he took it to-morrow; so that I had no opportunity of putting down alternative Amendments. It was no use circulating alternative Amendments or written Amendments, as the Members could not then have appreciated them.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It was really not my fault; it was the procedure of the Committee. I left it to the last day possible. I should have been very glad to listen during the intervening five or six days to any remonstrance of any Member of the Committee concerning the Clause. Another point was this: Hon. Members specially representing Scotland who have spoken to-night have made some rather violent attacks upon the Labour party. I do not think that is the way in which we should approach the consideration of a question of this sort. After all, what have the Labour party done to-night? The Labour party have voted to save the four Commissions, and to save the Scottish Commissions. Therefore, I think it would be far better if we could not see that some arrangement should be made rather than indulge in mutual recrimination over a non-controversial Bill. Another point I should like to make clear is this: The opposition to this Clause has been largely argued by my two hon. Friends from the point of view that it will lead to the destruction of the National Commissions, or that it will remove from the National Commissioners the bulk of their administrative action. I can assure them from the knowledge at my disposal that the facts are quite different. It is the existence of the present grievance that enables the hon. Member for Colchester to get support for his Motion all over the country for abolishing the separate Commissions, and he would never be able to get any, except for that, and it is solely with the idea of removing this grievance and making it impossible for that support to be given in the future, and in order that the National Commissioners may be maintained that I recommend this Clause to the House. The hon. Member who has just sat down thinks there is something derogatory to the local Commissions in this arrangement, and that it is against the spirit of nationalism, and that every-

  1615
  one who works for the spirit of nationalism should protest against it. Hon. Members on the Nationalist benches would, I think, be prepared to challenge the hon. Member as being more concerned with the spirit of nationalism than they are themselves. The Irish Commission has accepted this Clause as perfectly fair, and not in the least removing any of their administrative authority and, as far as I know, that opinion is endorsed by the people who have a right to represent Ireland. I say without any hesitation at all, that I agree with the excellent argument advanced by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh in the earlier part of the evening as to the manner in which the National Commissioners have thrown themselves into the adaptation of the National Insurance Act to national needs, and as to the services they rendered, and as to the importance of their continuing full administrative authority over all the insured persons resident within their areas. I support that in every possible way, but I see nothing in this accounting Clause that takes away in the least degree from that authority. If I did I should not be asking the House to support this matter.
  The next point is this—and here, I think, the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down was a little inconsistent with himself. He first suggested this Clause would operate over the greater part of Scotland, and that half the people of Scotland would be withdrawn as far as accounting arrangements are concerned by this Clause in order to pool with the societies in England, but in the end he prophesied not one would be withdrawn, because he said the feeling was so strong in Scotland in favour of this national arrangement that the societies would find they had to continue the national arrangement, and that the Labour Members were making the greatest mistake of their lives in thinking that the members of their trade unions would assent to the change. If that is so, then I may remind the House that the effects of this Clause are perhaps a little overstated. I want to secure this—and I believe the whole House will agree with me—that every member who is an insured person now who wishes to come under the Scottish system of valuation and take only Scottish risks should be able to do so as under the original Act. On the other hand, I am appealing for freedom, and I do not think we ought to prevent branches
  1616
  of members who wish to take other risks and who say, "I would rather come in with my own trade union, and not the Scottish national system," from doing so, and I appeal to hon. Members representing Scotland to accept that proposition. All that remains now is, How are we to get at the real and genuine expression of opinion on the matter? An appeal was made to me saying, "Supposing a man goes in under the new arrangement, and ceases to have his valuation made as a Scottish valuation and has his own valuation in other parts of the country, is it not a hard thing for that man, thinking he is going to be valued with Scotsmen, to find himself valued with some other part of England?" That matter is met by the Act, and the interpretation the Scottish Commissioners put on any demand for changing a society. Any member of any society can ask to cease to be a member of that society and join another, and permission cannot be refused except on unreasonable grounds. The decision rests in this particular case with the Scottish Commissioners, and I have no doubt in my own mind that no one would say it was an unreasonable ground because a member desired not to go in with the valuation of his society in England, but wished to pass on to a Scottish society for a Scottish valuation. I can assure hon. Members that that will be accepted as a reasonable ground for transfer in every case, because it is in the Act as it stands.
  I know hon. Members opposite realise that there are difficulties in the way, and everyone who has had anything to do with the working of this quadruple system knows that the case cannot really be met by statements that a few more clerks or a little better education would meet the case. The difficulty is much deeper than that, and it means a very great drain on the resources of some societies, and especially those belonging to trade unions. We were unable to provide either through the State or by means of insured persons' contributions any large increase in the administrative account, and I must ask hon. Members to do all they can to see that administrative expenses are reduced as low as possible. I have not the slightest doubt that this arrangement will effect an enormous reduction in those expenses. If the minority leave those societies, and join purely Scottish, Irish, or Welsh societies, and if the expression of opinion is a genuine one as to the change,

  1617
  I think I ought to be able to carry Scottish Members with me, and say this change ought to be allowed. The sole question then that remains is whether the proviso which the hon. Gentleman who first spoke thought was put in merely as window-dressing, is genuine. I am prepared, in any way, to make it genuine, except that I do not think the time during which this decision has to be made ought to be widely extended, because during the period of waiting no one will be certain what is actually happening. Take a large centralised society like a linked industrial society. I believe that they are willing to continue under the present system, but it is very difficult for them to get a poll one way or the other. I have not the slightest desire, if they wish to remain under the present system, that they should be squeezed into any other system.
  I am willing to assure the hon. Gentleman that the satisfaction of the Joint Committee shall be a genuine satisfaction, tested really by a knowledge of what the members want. If the Scottish members of any trade union, after consideration, declare that they do not want to be pooled with the other members of their trade union, they ought not to be pooled with the other members of their trade union; but, if they do want this change—I believe that this is largely a trade union question, and that in the majority of cases the trade unions will take advantage of it—then everyone ought to agree that it is a change that ought to be given. I am prepared to give any assurances that are necessary. I would accept any form of words, if I could find them, to ensure that this shall be a genuine Clause. I am willing to put in after the word "requirements" the words "by a poll" if necessary. I am willing to put in the word "subject to regulations made by the Commissioners," or I am willing to put in the words "after consultation with the National Commissioners," though, of course, they would always be consulted in such matters. I want the Clause to be a genuine Clause, but the trade unions have the right to make this choice considering the very difficult position they are being put in under the Act. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen, and especially to the Members from Scotland, after the explanation I have given, that we are not to touch the administrative work of the Scottish Commissioners, that this Amendment, so far from making for the destruction of the Scottish Commissioners, will destroy the chief oppo-
  1618
  sition to the Scottish Commissioners, that when any branch wishes to come into the pool of its own society any individual member will be able to transfer to another society in the national pool, and that the examination whether a branch desires this transference or not shall be a real, and not a sham examination, and that the transference will only take place when the Commissioners are assured that the majority of that branch really need it. I would submit that under those conditions hon. Members might see their way to allow this compromise to go through, which compromise, as a matter of fact, saved the Commissioners from being abolished so far as the Committee stage of this Bill was concerned.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I agree with the opening remark of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I do not propose to follow the oratorical efforts of the hon. Member who proposed this Amendment, because I recognise that it would be impossible for me to do so. Everybody knows, nobody better than the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. MacCullum Scott) and the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) that we are engaged in a sham fight. It really has not any substance in it. Everybody knows that the Government will carry their way, and this gives an exact illustration of how legislation, and particularly legislation for Scotland, is now carried on. Reference has been made more than once in the course of these discussions to what happened when Clause 83 was put into the Bill. It was a case of log-rolling: the Radical Members got the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put down his Amendments so that they appeared on the Paper on Saturday and were disposed of on the Monday; no one said a word; there was no time for discussing them. I confess they seemed to me to be a typical example of how Scottish Radicals allow themselves to be jockeyed out of what they think to be the rights of Scotland; and then, if I may borrow a phrase either from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the First Lord of the Admiralty, squeal when somebody else gets it. To my mind this is a sham fight, and the less time we spend on it the better. Let us get to business at once.
  We on this side appreciate the lesson in Home Rule legislation which this affords us. We quite understand that you have had a few months of Home Rule in Scotland. You have found it will not work and so you

  1619
  transfer the Home Rule view to the trades union view, and you give up national sentiment to trades union bookkeeping. These long benches of convinced Home Rulers do not hesitate to sacrifice Home Rule to the Labour Members. That is quite as it should be so far as the importance of Scottish Home Rule is concerned. It shows the appreciation in which it is held by right hon. Gentlemen and their supporters who profess to be such keen Home Rulers. I join in the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman—let us get to business; let us stop this fooling; let us cease wasting time.
  Mr. FALCONER: I have taken an active part in connection with the consideration of these questions, and I should like to state my position on this question of insurance. I have always taken the view that it is not a matter of party controversy at all. I have had experience of a society which has 600 different branches spread all over Scotland. It is formed of men of all political sections, and I have never re-regarded its affairs as subjects for party controversy; they have appealed to me purely from the point of view of helping the wage earner when he is laid up with sickness. It is not right to introduce party controversy into these questions. I am not going to enter into the general controversy stated by my hon. Friends on this side. In the formation of that society, which has now 65,000 or 66,000 members in Scotland, gathered probably under the most difficult conditions, with 600 branches, with an average of 100 members in each branch, we have had real experience of all the difficulties in connection with the carrying out of the Act. I endorse entirely what fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in the evening, that if we had had to appeal to a Commission, whose Chief Commissioners were resident in London, in connection with every difficulty that arose, it would have been absolutely impossible to carry out the Act as has been done in Scotland.
  11.0 P.M.
  My reason for taking a strong attitude towards the Clause now before the House was that I was afraid that it might be so used as to interfere with the authority and powers of the Scottish Commission over Scottish insured persons. That was my main objection to it. I also thought that if there was to be a change so radical as is proposed with regard to valuation, it should only be brought about if the insured resident in Scotland who were in a
  1620
  particular society really desired it, and after that fact was carefully ascertained. I am dealing only with Scotland. Other Members will deal in other parts of the United Kingdom. I have also advocated throughout that if any member had his position compusorily changed, it ought to be open to him to transfer to another society, if he so desired. I am bound to say I have great sympathy with the view of members of a particular trade that this should be allowed to stand together upon all matters of this kind, and share their surpluses and bear their deficits generally together. Wherever you have an approved society composed of members of one trade there is a natural feeling of comradeship among them. If I were a member of a trade union that is how I should regard it. I should desire to share the surplus and deficits with other members of the trade, particularly in cases where they move to and from one country to another. It is a legitimate desire on the part of trade unions that they should be allowed to do so. I doubt whether any Member of this. House would argue strongly against that. It is a reasonable demand, and I feel bound to consider it. For that reason, although I share the strong national feeling, I approach this question with the feeling that it is desirable, in the general interests of the insured persons, that the difficulty should be met. Upon that I think we on this side of the House are all agreed. My view of the changes proposed in this Clause is that if the pledges which have been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury are effectively carried out in the Bill, they will legitimately meet the aspirations of the trade unions, without seriously upsetting the general situation in Scotland, because if the societies and the members of trade unions are properly consulted, and effect is given to their views, I do not believe they will adopt the change. Upon that ground I would recommend my hon. Friends—my own view is quite clear and distinct—not to divide upon this Amendment, but to apply themselves to carrying into practical effect the principles which I have suggested and which the Government have indicated they are prepared to adopt, for the purpose of ensuring that members of a society should be properly consulted, and that any member who dissents shall have the choice of going to another society.

  1621
  A reference was made to the way in which this Clause was brought before the Committee, and my name, I think, was mentioned. It seemed to me rather that when the Committee was sitting we were treated with rather exceptional consideration in having this Clause given to us four or five days before we might have had it. It is true there was no opportunity of putting down Amendments, and it is also true that I was not able to be there. I have no complaint, at any rate, of the manner in which I was treated as a member of the Committee. For the reasons I have given I express my clear opinion that the best way in which to consult the interests of the insured persons is by doing our best to meet the legitimate desire of the trade union people without imperilling the interest of the insured persons throughout Scotland generally.
  Mr. F. WHYTE: The reply which the Financial Secretary has given us goes a certain distance, but before we strike a bargain with him we should like to have the statement in somewhat clearer terms. I do not see why a moderately satisfactory arrangement could not be made on the lines suggested. At the same time he suggested a way out in his own remarks. He told us this was a trade union question. Why not get rid of the undoubted Scottish discontent to the situation, as it is at this moment, by saying so in your Act? The right hon. Gentleman in recommending the Clause to the Committee said it was the result of negotiations which had been conducted with great care, and in which representatives of approved societies had taken part. Representatives of approved societies in Scotland generally, and especially the insured persons who will come under Clause 15, had not time to consider exactly in what way and how far their vital interests were affected by Clause 15, and though I am not going to enter into a wrangle over the question of the notice which was given across the table to the Committee, the fact remains that whether the notice given to Members of the House on Clause 15 was adequate or not the notice given to the people of Scotland was totally inadequate, and that has been one of the great difficulties which we have laboured under—the difficulty of discovering exactly how matters stood in Scotland. I think the most forcible criticism I have heard put forward against the introduction of the Clause, and one
  1622
  which abundantly justifies the attitude which was taken up by my two hon. Friends is that the Clause is premature. I think there is a legitimate pre-supposition that Scotland will stand well when we come to the first triennial valuation, and believing, as I do, that that is the case, it seems to me a mistake that we should prejudge that question by allowing this Clause to stand in its present form. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he had the advantage of reading the "Scotsman" newspaper of this week, must have been rather interested to find that he has made a very notable convert, and I am not sure that we shall not see the spectacle of the leading Unionist organ in Scotland, in other questions by no means friendly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, engaged in pulling him out of his own difficulty; and if the right hon. Gentleman had scrutinised the composition of the "No" Lobby on the last Division, he would have been somewhat surprised to find certain Gentlemen who did not adopt his view regarding Scottish National questions when the question was originally before the House in 1911.
  Therefore, it seems to me that the question has acquired, ever since it arose a week ago, an added significance every day, because the newspapers in Scotland, and consultations in this House also, have shown that Scotland is practically unanimous on this question, and that while she has no interest whatever of standing in the way of a legitimate part of trade union activity in Scotland, in this matter we believe that a way out of the difficulty can be found which does not prejudice—we think prematurely prejudice—the interests of those members of international societies who are in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that the Irish Commission had accepted the Clause. He omitted to make any reference to the Scottish Commission. Are the Scottish Commission in favour of the Clause as it stands, and are they prepared to accept it? Do they accept his interpretation of its effect on their activities in the future? I think there is more in the argument put forward by my hon. Friend than the right hon. Gentleman will allow. I think this sets a dangerous precedent for any gentleman not friendly disposed to the Scottish Commission, for you remove from the sphere of the activity of the Scottish Commission so vital a question as the valuation of some-

  1623
  thing like a majority of Scottish insured persons. Then you most undoubtedly enormously detract from the importance and value of the Scottish Commission, for, after all, though we have discussed important questions on this Bill, I do not think that we have discussed any question more important than the valuation. The valuation will really be the triennial turning point which will govern the whole of the operations of the societies during the subsequent three years. If there is any reason to suppose that Scotland will stand better than England when the valuation is made, surely we may claim that the putting forward of this change now is somewhat premature. I have no desire in what I have said to bring unnecessary acrimony into the Debate, but I repudiate the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow (Mr. Scott Dickson) that this is a sham fight. I wonder why a Unionist should have chosen to take up a purely partisan attitude on this question. I am sure that there is a great deal to be said for the attitude taken up by my two hon. Friends. This is not a sham fight, but a matter of business which affects vitally the interests of many thousands of Scottish insured persons, and I hope the House will continue to treat it as such to-night.
  Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Scott Dickson) tried to insinuate, or rather frankly declared, that this is a "sham fight" of the Scottish Liberal Members in regard to the Amendment. Since then he has disappeared. I do not know whether that is a sham flight. If he desires to make it an absolutely real fight, we invite him and his colleagues to go into the Lobby with us. We are going into the Lobby against the Government on this particular Clause, and as many of you as will come with us are cordially invited. We shall have evidence after this discussion whether it is a sham fight or a sham flight. I observe that in this Debate there has been no speech from the Labour Benches. There is a conspiracy of silence. We want to know what arrangement is possible by which Labour Members can get their way of the Government when Scottish Liberal Members cannot get it? There are few Members like those who occupy these benches who can, in face of the strongest national feeling which exists with regard to this matter, get their way from a Government, and a party which has
  1624
  been maintained for the last quarter of a century by the support of Scottish Liberals. You call this a Coalition Government. What is our share of the coalition? What are we to get? Do you think that we are afraid to go into the Lobby against this Government? I pity the man who is too weak to go into the Lobby against a Government which is prepared to pander to the trade unions against the national sentiment of a people who are in favour of another course. The Secretary of the Treasury says that this is a trade union matter.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I said that it was a compromise.
  Mr. HOGGE: If this is a compromise, how many people have been engaged in the compromise? Is it a compromise between the Labour party and the Front Bench or between the Labour party and the Liberals? Whose compromise is it? Were we given any consideration by anyone? What are we offered by the Secretary to the Treasury? Here are the points which he offered in his speech—the only ray of hope held out to the Scottish Liberal Members. We were to get those things after inquiry under regulations by our own Commissioners, and we were to get a poll if necessary, and, forsooth, we are to agree to this Clause standing part of the Bill without any explanation at all as to what those things mean. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the Division let us know if he wants our votes, or if he prefers the votes of other people? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that great exponent of nationalism in this country, the man who has stood by Scotsmen before, get up and say that there is no way out of this difficulty, when the whole sentiment of the Scottish Members of the House wish for another scheme. The Secretary to the Treasury pointed to the Irishmen and said that in spite of their adherence to the principle of Home Rule they had offered no objection to this. Will the Leader of the Irish party get up and say that it is his suggestion on the part of Irishmen to deny to them, who have supported them in their Home Rule fight, a natural solution of this difficulty? I would like to see the Irishman who is going into the Lobby against the Scottish Liberal Members.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Plenty.
  Mr. HOGGE: Shall we? I would like to hear what the Leader of the Irish party

  1625
  has got to say. We have been here for many years supporting what is represented on the Front Bench to-night. What have we been here for otherwise? Let the Government take off their Whips; let the Irishmen act freely, and let us see the result. If we cannot have a sham fight, let us have a free fight. I beg the Government, I beg the Irishmen who depend largely on the support which Scotchmen have given them ungrudgingly, to consider this matter. I do not ask them to take up a position which cannot be receded from. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In addressing the Irish party why should I not speak in the language of Irishmen? What do I mean by that? I mean this: Surely it is not in the least necessary to proceed with this Clause at this moment in order to get the Bill. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said this is a trade union difficulty. There is not a Scottish Member who is not willing to meet his trade union colleagues on this particular question. We are prepared to meet the Labour party. If the Labour party wish the members of trade unions in Scotland to be valued separately for their purposes under the Insurance Act we, as Scottish Liberals, would have no difficulty at all in conceding them that. They can have that so far as trade unions are concerned, if we have the rest. If the trade unions want to maintain the solidarity of their organisations let them agree to this Clause applying to them alone, while the other interests of Scotland are represented by us. The Labour party cannot claim to represent any other interests in Ireland than those represented by their three Members on questions of this kind. I am not asking much. I am only asking supporters of the national system to come along with us into the Lobby and support us in that in which we have a great deal of credence, which we believe in, and which we do not want to see destroyed in this Bill. If the Government will not delay proceedings, I beg Irishmen to come into the Lobby with us against the lot of them.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: The whole question which arises in connection with trade unions in Scotland affects only 9.4 per cent. of the total number insured in Scotland. It is a grossly unfair thing to make a bargain with those men and leave all the rest out. Let us take the Labour representatives. The hon. Member for the Black-friars Division is identified with the engineers, who have a society which covers
  1626
  Scotland, and naturally he is in favour of the proposal. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie) also represents a society which has members in Scotland and in England, and it is perfectly natural he should take up that position; but we have another hon. Member, the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson), who does not want this. His union is opposed to it, and he represents the biggest union in Scotland. I say, therefore, it is grossly unfair to make an arrangement which only affects two Labour Members in Scotland and go to them, and come to an understanding and never say a single word to the men who were the strongest supporters of the Government. I say that is unfair, and if the Government expect loyalty by treatment of that kind, all I can say is we shall be in the Lobby against them.
  Mr. DENNISS: I confess I am profoundly disgusted with the tone which this Debate has taken. I understand that this Clause applies to England and Wales and Ireland as well as Scotland, and it has been treated as a matter for bargaining between the Scottish Members, the Labour party and the Financial Secretary, and not a word about the interests of the rest of the country. We heard appeals made by two of the Scottish Members, one to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who replied by making in auctioneer fashion what he was pleased to call a genuine offer. Then we had the appeal of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) to the three Members of the Labour Party, a huxtering proceeding, and, considering the interests of fourteen millions of people of this country are at stake, is a disgrace, if I may be allowed to say so. Is this the way in which the Liberal and Radical and Labour party treat the interests of the people under the Insurance Act.
  The Financial Secretary said two things which brought me to my legs. The first thing was that the abolition of the four Commissions would have been carried in Committee but that he frustrated that by means of a compromise which is Clause 15, a compromise for the purpose of defeating what was the genuine opinion of that Committee, and which, if it had come up on Report, would have been carried tonight, and the four Commissions would have ceased to exist. At the end of his speech he said that the opposition to the four Commissions if it continued would ultimately destroy those four Commissions.

  1627
  Does he dare to say that that opposition was not based upon genuine grievances and genuine difficulties, and that, therefore, the four Commissions ought to cease to exist. He went on to say this Clause 15, this compromise, was entered into in order to save, if possible, the existence of the four Commissions, which, according to him, the opposition was so strong, ought to cease to exist, and must cease to exist except for this compromise that he made with some Members of the Labour party.
  I do not rise really to criticise the details of Clause 15, but I do rise to make a very strong protest, and I hope it will be echoed in the country, against this way of treating great interests of the people in this country under the Insurance Act. Then he made a second observation, to my mind a scandalous observation, and I will tell you what it was. I owe my seat here to the fact that the Insurance Bill was hurried through the House of Commons with indecent haste to the great detriment of insured persons in this country. The Secretary to the Treasury to-night had the assurance to say that Clause 15 was brought in in a hurry, that perhaps it was not properly considered, but it was the best he could do under the circumstances, otherwise this amending Bill would not pass this Session. That is the very evil which underlies the whole failure of the Insurance Act. The interests of 14,000,000 people are sacrificed to the exigencies of the Government, and to the particular day upon which they intend to take their holiday. It is right that the attention of the country should be called to these two statements. In the interests of 14,000,000 people I say that the conduct of the Government is disgraceful.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The Scottish Liberal Members are extremely anxious, if they can, to find some way by which they will not have to oppose the Government in this matter. Any Member of any party would be anxious to find means by which he could support his party. As far as we have been able to ascertain, the Scottish Liberal Members are perfectly unanimous in resenting what has been done in this Clause. We know that owing to the combination of forces here, owing to the Tory dictatorship, owing to the alliance with the Tories, if we go to a Division we shall be defeated. Therefore I want to ascertain whether the Government can do anything to mitigate
  1628
  somewhat the harshness of the proposal. The Financial Secretary said that they would give administrative guarantees that any individual member who resented being grouped with members in other countries where he had originally joined on the other understanding would have a right to transfer if he so desired. That assurance we regard as satisfactory. We are also anxious that the option given to any society of remaining as at present should be made somewhat more substantial. The right hon. Gentleman said he was willing that there should be some inquiry. He made an appeal to us. If anything definite were offered us in these directions we should be willing to respond. We have had nothing definite yet, but I think that something might be agreed to on these lines as far as we are concerned. There is one other point I wish to mention: Supposing a society—and there will be many societies—decides that they will remain as at present, and retain their separate organisation in Scotland, are you going to do anything to free that society from the disabilities that are agreed to exist? How about questions of pooling or grouping? That is admitted to be a real grievance. I think we are entitled to ask that if any society remains as at present separately organised in the different countries it should be freed from these difficulties with regard to pooling or grouping. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he will take that question into consideration.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have just risen to address myself to the question of my hon. Friend and to another point raised earlier in the Debate by my hon. Friend the Member for one of the divisions of Edinburgh. The latter suggested that we had thrown over our Scottish friends and supporters in this House for the benefit of another section, without taking into consideration at all those who have been so loyal to the Government. That is not so. I think if the hon. Member considers he will find that he has been very unfair. The proposition of the Labour Members was the abolition of the four Commissions. We resisted it strenuously right through, and this is the proposal in which we are now considered to have held the balance even between the Labour Members and those that presented the view which the Scottish Members presented. So far from throwing over the Scottish Members we refused absolutely to support the proposition opposed by them.

  1629
  I think it right to say that. The main point put to the Government was this: Whether we meant that this inquiry should be a reality and not a sham? It is said that we have not consulted the Scottish Members. That is not true! On the contrary, I myself have had the opportunity of seeing several Scottish Members, and I am perfectly aware of what is in their minds. It is this: that they rather suspect that this proviso will be simply so many lines in an Act of Parliament that will not come into operation: that it is so drafted as to make it impossible for Members themselves to act in such a way as to take advantage of an option. They want to make it a reality. The Scottish Members are certainly entitled to claim that every opportunity shall be given to them to present their case and to make it effective. My right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury intimated that we proposed to introduce words which would have that effect. The words we propose to move at the end of the proviso are as follow:—
  "And the Joint Committee for the purpose aforesaid shall in each case consult with the Commissioners for the part of the United Kingdom in question, and hold an inquiry, and where, in their opinion, the wishes of the members cannot otherwise be properly ascertained, they shall cause a poll to be taken in the prescribed manner."
  That means—though it cannot be in every case, unless it is impossible to ascertain the opinion of the society without a poll—because a poll is a very expensive thing—
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: At whose expense?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member is naturally opposed to anything in the nature of an arrangement being arrived at. In this case the poll will be taken at the expense of the Scottish Commissioners who will take the initiative in the matter; they will have to bear the expense of taking a poll in that case.
  Mr. FORSTER: Out of moneys provided by Parliament?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot answer that question without having an opportunity of looking into the matter. I can give my immediate impression, but I must not be bound by that impression without having an opportunity of consult-
  1630
  ing. My impression is that the expenses would have to fall upon the Commissioners who ordered the poll to be taken.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to recommit the Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It does not commit the Commissioners at all. My hon. Friend has asked me what our idea is. That I will have to consider, but these words do not commit the Commissioners. In the absence of any committal it would have to be the society. These are the words I propose to insert, and I think they ought to meet the criticisms that have been directed against the Clause, and not so much against the Clause itself as against the fact that as it stands it will not carry out the intention of the Government, but I think with this guarantee it will.
  Mr. FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman I think was singularly unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. We have listened in silence to the Debate which has taken place and we admired the ingenuity of the Scottish Members below the Gangway opposite in pressing their case upon the attention of the Government. As far as I can see the Government have carried the matter no further than it stands in the Bill. The Commissioners are to be satisfied under the provisions of the Clause before they can give their assent. They are now to be satisfied possibly by a little more complicated machinery and additional expense entailed by the representations of hon. Members from Scotland. We look at the matter solely from the point of view of the insured people. It is quite true we wish to abolish the four Commissions because we think it would simplify the procedure, but having failed in our object we were prepared to support the compromise reached between the Government and hon. Members opposite. We recognise that as the next best step both in the interests of simplification of machinery and in the interest of the insured persons. We are the last to deny to the insured persons the right to say whether they belong to this society or to that, and if the form of words proposed by the Government give any additional right then I think they are entitled to it.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I confess I do not understand what the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to

  1631
  add to this Clause which is any sort of safeguard to the approved societies. The Secretary to the Treasury has treated this as if it was a sort of trade union difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has addressed the House upon it and asked the Scottish Members to withdraw their Amendment on the strength of something he will propose presently and I have no doubt the Scottish Members will in due course agree with the Government. But before they do that it would be interesting to know at whose expense the consideration that is to be given to them is being made. I want to know is it to be at the expense of the international societies on whose behalf I have already tried in the course of the evening to simplify the administration by abolishing the four Commissions? I am surprised the Leader of the Labour party did not get up and see that the approved societies were protected. It seems to me now that the Joint Committee are to hold the inquiry, or are to consult the Scottish National Insurance Commissioners and hold an inquiry and if necessary cause a poll to be taken. A poll is to be taken at the expense of the Scottish Commissioners which was the right hon. Gentleman's first answer. I think he rather answered that on the spur of the moment because he had to placate the Labour party at the expense of the approved societies, and he was not sure whether the Labour party would be willing that that consideration should be handed over to the Scottish Members. I would like to know if the poll is to be of Scottish members only, or is it to include their English co-members as well? Why the Scottish members only? Are the Irish members not to share in this advantage?
  Who will raise the standard of Wales on this question? This bargain is only for Scotland, and it is to be made simply because four or five Scottish Liberal Members have taken up a couple of hours discussing this question to the inconvenience of the Government. Later on it occurred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if the Scottish Commissioners had to pay for this toll the money would have to come from somewhere, because they have no money except that which is provided by Parliament. Is the Leader of the Labour party willing that trade union societies should bear the expense of a poll? This is not a trade union question at all. All the big socie-
  1632
  ties, including the National Conference of Friendly Societies, the National Union of Deposit Societies, the National Union of Holloway Societies, the National Federation of Dividing Societies, in addition to the General Federation of Trade Unions, have members who will be vitally affected by anything which is done in this matter. The Labour party have no right to accept a bargain of that sort, and they cannot do so without deserting the other societies who have stood by them on this question. They have no right to accept a bribe of that sort. If the Scottish Members are now going to get the consideration which they have been asking for so pitifully out of consideration for the loyal way in which they have supported the Chancellor of the Exchequer on other subjects, they might have saved us this sham fight for the last two hours.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I have been somewhat amazed during the last hour or two as to what all this trouble is about. Upstairs this new Clause was inserted to meet certain objections we raised to the existence of four Commissions and a proviso was put in saying that where the Commissioners are satisfied that the members of any particular societies desire certain things to be done they were to be done. I am bound to confess that upstairs in Committee I assumed that it was an effective proviso. I thought I knew—but apparently if there has been any purpose in all this trouble I was quite wrong—that the opinion of the members of the society was to be ascertained. I have got no objection to offer so far as the machinery for taking the opinion is concerned, but we shall not accept any compromise, or bargain, or suggestion that gives special treatment in this respect to trade unions. I want that to be perfectly clear. It does not, and therefore I have not got to choose. Secondly, we will not accept any proposal which will put the cost of a ballot or poll upon the trade unions or friendly societies. With those two safeguards, I am quite willing to agree to this proposal, because up to about an hour-and-a-half ago I certainly lived under the assumption and belief that all these things were properly provided for in the proviso.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he undertakes to insert those two provisions before the Amendment is withdrawn?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words "and the Joint Committee for the purposes aforesaid shall in each case consult with the Commissioners for the part of the United Kingdom in question and hold an inquiry, or where, in their opinion, the wishes of members cannot otherwise he ascertained, cause a poll to be taken in the prescribed manner."
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) that there is nothing here which was not within the power of the Joint Committee before. It simply makes it absolutely clear what are the proceedings. Under the proviso all this has been done, but it makes it quite clear, and to that extent it is a very considerable improvement upon the words as they appear. It is the method by which to ascertain the opinions of the members. When the words are inserted there will be nothing in substance which will really involve an alteration of the words as they were before. There is no new question with regard to expense. The expenses will fall on the administration expenses which are already provided for in the Act, and if the funds should prove insufficient I promise that the societies will see that the societies are not damnified by having; to pay the expenses of the poll. They will in fact make the necessary provision.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have to ask whether this is in order. Under the Clause as printed in the Bill there is permissive power which might, of course, cause the expense to be incurred. Under the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman that power is no longer permissive but mandatory, and the Commissioners are obliged to take steps which necessarily involve incurring an expense. The House has heard the right hon. Gentleman say that the expense is to be paid by the Commissioners, and that of course involves payment out of moneys provided by Parliament. The Commissioners have no other income except moneys provided by Parliament, and if the expense, as the right hon. Gentleman says, falls on the Commissioners, I submit that this is increasing the charge and cannot be moved on Report.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is nothing here except an elaboration of
  1634
  words already contained in the Bill, "Provided that the Joint Committee is satisfied, on representations made within six months after the passing of the Act." Whatever expense may be incurred in order to satisfy the Joint Committee that the Members wish to remain a separate branch for valuation purposes those expenses can be incurred under that proviso. This simply elaborates the methods by which they may be satisfied, and if they think fit they can order a poll. The proviso indicates clearly that they must be satisfied on representations made, and the method of ascertaining is simply indicated here.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is power already in the Bill to take a poll—at any rate there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Commissioners taking one. The Amendment certainly sets out in more definite terms the power of the Commissioners.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I venture to suggest that there is no power in the Act to enable the Commissioners to take a poll. No such power exists so far as I know. I may be wrong, and if I am there is nothing more to be said on the point. But if I am right this gives an additional power to the Commissioners to that which they at present possess, and as we have heard the expense of taking a poll may be considerable, the money is to be provided by Parliament. If the Commissioners already have the power of taking a poll that may be an answer, but as far as I know there is no such power in existence under the Act and certainly there is no power to take a poll with reference to this particular question at the expense of the Commissioners. I shall be glad to be referred to any section which gives that power.
  Mr. SPEAKER: How is the Joint Committee to be satisfied?
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I submit that except for this condition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer although the Joint Committee are to be satisfied—as provided in the Bill—the hon. Gentleman had no power to order a poll. There is no power anywhere in the Act of Parliament or in this Bill, unless this provision by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is added, for the Joint Committee to order a poll. A poll can be taken by the society under the provisions of the Bill, but in

  1635
  that case it is taken at the expense of the society. There is no power for the Commissioners to order the society to take a poll even at its own expense, much less at the expense of the Commissioners.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Do not the words "are satisfied" cover that? The Joint Committee may require to send out circulars or institute inquiries. Who is to pay the expense of that? Or they may employ persons to go round and canvass. Who is to pay for that? The hon. Member might say there is no distinct Parliamentary power for either of these courses, but surely they are covered by these wide words.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the words last inserted, to add the words,
  "Where a society, not being a society with branches, has amongst its members persons resident in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, or in more than one such part of the United Kingdom, the members of the society in any such parts of the United Kingdom who are treated as if they formed separate societies under Section 83 of the principal Act, may form an association with a central financial committee for the purposes of Section 39 of the principal Act, notwithstanding that the society in any such part of the United Kingdom may have more than five thousand insured persons as members, and notwithstanding any other provision of the principal Act."
  12.0 m.
  I submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that as the Clause stands, the injustice which almost every speaker has pointed out remains unremedied in some particular cases. It is conceivable, indeed, we believe it is certain, that a considerable number of societies would prefer not to come under the Clause, but to remain as at present, and that members in England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales should be treated as members of a separate society. But if a society remains as at present, it will not escape one of the most serious difficulties and grievances which have been pointed out. Let me take as an illustration the case of a particular society—not because I think it will adopt the method which I am suggesting—the Steel Smelters Society, which has 12,000 members in England and 3,000 in Scotland.
  1636
  Societies of that kind might possibly desire to remain as at present with their members in England and Scotland. If so they will remain under one of the most serious disabilities in the present state of affairs—the disability with regard to grouping. The 3,000 members in Scotland would be forced to group with some other society with less than 5,000 members in accordance with the original Act which requires that all societies having less than 5,000 members should group together. The natural thing would be for them to group up with their fellow members in England but they are prevented from doing that because there are more than 5,000 members. This grievance has already been remedied for those societies which prefer to consider themselves one unit, but it is left to its full extent upon those societies which prefer to remain national in their organisation. It is not fair to impose this disability on the societies which prefer to remain national. It is handicapping them in their choice. It is, in fact, using the present grievance, which we all admit, to drive the societies out of their national organisation into one united society for the whole of the United Kingdom. We give them the option of remaining national and we have secured to them that that option shall be a real one, but unless we do this we are really depriving them of that option and weighting the scales against them and saying, "If you prefer to remain national you shall remain under this very serious disability of being forced to group with some society other than yours." I think the Labour Members might accept this because it really does not affect what has already been done.
  Mr. HOGGE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope my hon. Friend will see his way to withdraw this Amendment. I think we have met very fairly, as far as we could, the main objections of the Scottish Members in reference to this Clause and I think there is a general feeling that on the whole, although, of course, they would have preferred that it should have gone further, we have met them fairly. The Amendment reopens the controversy. My hon. Friend has done very well with the substantial concessions he has had.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: As the right hon. Gentleman has not said anything at all against the merits of this proposal I take it he admits them. If he will not give it to us it is useless to challenge a Division.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 19.—(Woman of British Nationality Married to an Alien.)
  "(1) Sub-section (3) of Section 45 of the principal Act shall be amended so as to read as follows:—
  An insured woman who, having been a British subject before marriage, has ceased to be a British subject by reason of marriage with a person not being a British subject, shall not be subject to the provisions of this Section:
  (2) Where the wife of an alien insured person was before marriage a British subject the maternity benefit payable in respect of his insurance shall, subject to regulations to be made by the Insurance Commissioners, be increased by two-sevenths, and the amount of such increase shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament."
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "person" ["alien insured person"], to insert the words "subject to the provisions of Section 45 of the principal Act."
  This is consequential on an alteration made in Committee. The Clause seeks to remove a disability by furnishing, under Sub-section (2), an additional two-sevenths State aid towards maternity benefit, but in the case of certain areas that is not necessary, because if they are under seventeen or have been for five years since 4th May, 1911, insured they will already have got full benefit.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 22.—(Provisions as to the Mercantile Marine.)
  (1) In Section 48, Sub-section (1) of the principal Act, the following proviso shall be inserted:—
  Provided that in respect of that part of such period as aforesaid during which the owner of the ship is not liable to pay wages to the master, seaman, or apprentice so suffering from disease or disablement, sickness benefit may be paid in whole or part if such master, seaman, or apprentice has dependents, and the
  1638
  benefit so paid shall be paid to or applied for the relief or maintenance of such dependents in such manner as the society or committee by which the benefit is administered, after consultation whenever possible with such person, thinks fit.
  (2) The rules of the Seamen's National Insurance Society may, notwithstanding anything in Sub-sections (4) and (8) of Section 48 of the principal Act, provide for the admission to the society of masters, seamen, and apprentices to the sea service or sea-fishing service who are entitled to be or become voluntary contributors and for allowing a member who leaves the sea service and who is or continues to be a voluntary contributor to remain a member of the society.
  Mr. McGHEEhad given notice of the following Amendment: To move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "the" ["owner of the ship is not liable"] and to insert instead thereof the word "any."
  This Amendment must be read with another, of which I have given notice, namely, to insert after the word "ship" the words "engaged in the home trade." The Amendment is similar to one of which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty has given notice, to insert after the word "dependents" the words "and was serving on a home-trade ship" ["or apprentice has dependents"]. This is intended to correct what I think was a serious mistake made in the Committee when Clause 22 was discussed. It restores to foreign-going seamen the full benefits which are due to those engaged in the home trade. While the Committee upstairs restored full benefits to foreign-going seamen they made no provision for the payment of the benefits. There are a large number of foreign-going seamen, and the approved societies will be quite unable to meet the obligations imposed upon them by the Clause as it now stands. Not only are they without funds to pay those benefits, but further, it would be quite impossible for any approved society to exercise supervision over their members in foreign ports. It may be taken that the dependents of any member who falls sick in a foreign port will be able to draw from the approved society the full twenty-six weeks of sickness benefit.
  When the original Act was before the House as a Bill, Section 48 specially provided different benefits and different contributions for the two classes. Those who

  1639
  were engaged in the foreign trade were supplied with certain benefits under the Merchant Shipping Act. I never could understand why the shipowner was on that account relieved of 6s. per member of his contribution, but the fact is that the ship-owner was so relieved. The insured person was relieved of 3s. 4d. I notice that the actuary of the Department has reported to the Government that those benefits cannot be paid under present conditions, and that he recommends the reconsideration of the Clause. In view of the fact that the actuary has made that report and that the Government have seen fit to put down an Amendment similar to mine, I do not think it is necessary to occupy the time of the House with any further argument. I think that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is a better one than mine and if he is willing to make it a substitute for mine I do not move mine.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "dependents," to insert the words "and was serving on a home trade ship."
  The man in the home service pays full contributions and so does his employer. Therefore he ought to get full benefit. In the Committee the hon. Member for Derby had an Amendment which I would have accepted, but the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (Mr. W. Boyle) had an Amendment down designed to secure full benefit in all circumstances for members, whether in the home or foreign service. We all sympathise with the dependents of these men when no wages are coming in. I made what inquiry I could at the moment and I accepted the form of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk, which applied not only to the home but to the foreign service men. Very strong representations were then made to me that it was actuarially impossible to give the sick benefit in the case of the men on foreign service vessels, whose four contributions were counted as five and whose employers paid 1d. less. Therefore, if we pay full benefit, for full contributions in the home service I am afraid that we cannot give full benefit for reduced contributions in the foreign service. The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. McGhee) puts the matter back into the original form proposed by the hon. Member for Derby, and we are bound, I
  1640
  think, to bring it back to that form if we are to keep faith with the approved societies. Where there are full payments there may be full benefits, but where there are reduced contributions both from the person employed and the employer in the case of foreign service then we cannot give full benefits. I know that the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk will be disappointed, but at any rate his action has not been futile because he will get full benefits for the men in the home service, and also the assurance that next year, when we have to consider the whole question, we will certainly consider whether it is possible to meet the case which he presented to us.
  Mr. GERSHOM STEWART: As I was not on the Committee and as an Amendment was supplied to me by the foreign going men, I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk to endeavour to have it accepted. The action of the Government will be a great disappointment to all those foreign-going seamen who thought that they were going to be brought under the beneficent action of this Bill. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is sympathetic, but sympathy does not represent pounds, shillings, and pence to men out of work. The foreign-going seamen may not pay as much as men in the home-going trade, but any rate they do pay something. It is not fair that the foreign-going seaman should be asked to pay as much, because when he is sick on board ship he may be maintained at the expense of the owner for a long period. In any case he pays 3d. a week, which means a certain amount per annum, and if he cannot have full benefit, at least meet him in some way, instead of cutting him out of benefit altogether. As I understand, he gets nothing at present. If you cannot give him 10s. a week, give him 5s. a week, or 1s. a day. I am sure the House must feel sympathy for the foreign-going seaman in the circumstances in which he is placed, and the small opportunity he has to enforce his own claims. We have had an illustration to-night of Scottish Members agitating a point relating to them, and of a bargain being made with them by the Government.
  I ask that at the eleventh hour the Government should see whether they cannot do something for foreign-going seamen. You are giving preferential treatment to home-going ships, and that will discourage men from joining foreign-going ships, while we want as many sailors as we can possibly

  1641
  get We are not asking for this benefit in respect of the man, but in respect of his dependents, his wife and children, who suffer. I ask the Government to consider whether even yet they cannot make some proportional payment to these men, who after all are deserving of consideration and sympathy at the hands of the Government. I do not know whether it is possible at this time of day, but I am sure that there will be very great disappointment among the foreign-going sailors when they find that they were in the Bill last week, and that they are now quietly excommunicated because the hon. Member below the Gangway says he finds difficulty in paying their benefit.
  Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: The right hon. Gentleman is right in observing that sentiment is not pounds, shillings and pence. It is perfectly easy to suggest that this and that should be paid to a perfectly deserving class and to their dependents, but the hon. Member cannot have studied the Clause in the principal Act or the Clause in the Bill. If he had done so he would have known that under the Act, Section 48, sailors are exempt and their employers from paying anything for a period of ten weeks in the year. In addition to that the sailor is only required to pay 3d. a week for forty-two weeks in the year. The Amendment suggests that though there is no contribution at all forthcoming in respect of ten weeks, nevertheless during that period the dependents of the sailor may be provided for either in food or in part benefit as though that period were covered by the contribution. In other words, what is asked is this, that the approved society which embraces within its ranks the foreign-going sailor shall be required either directly to the sailor himself or to his dependants to provide precisely the same scale of benefits as those approved societies which have fifty-two sevenpences per year. I tell the hon. Member if this proposal were carried it would lead to the absolute bankruptcy of the approved societies which embrace sailors. Personally, I think there is a good deal to be said for a larger humane treatment of the seafaring class, and a great deal to be said for some special provision being made in regard to their dependants during that period when they are abroad and are not earning wages.
  To ask that that should be done out of the existing diminished contributions is to break faith with the approved societies, and is to lead to the bankruptcy of those
  1642
  approved societies. More than that, we have heard a good deal to-night about the importance of not breaking faith with any section of the community in regard to this Act. May I point that the present scale of benefit provided by the approved societies embracing the sailors has been based upon the contributions paid in full by the home sailor and the reduced contributions paid in respect of the foreign-going sailors? If this proposal were carried it would mean one of two things, either the entire bankruptcy of the seafarers' society or a complete revision of the existing scale of benefit which has been fixed after careful calculation by the actuaries appointed by the Commissioners. For those reasons, much as I sympathise personally with this class and with their dependants, I do ask the House not to break faith with the approved societies concerned, and not to ask them out of 21s. contribution per year to provide, or to attempt to provide, a scale of benefits which is provided by other societies out of a contribution of £1 10s. 4d. per year. I therefore hope that the Amendment which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman will be accepted without a Division.
  Major MORRISON-BELL: The right hon. Gentleman used the expression "foreign ports in the home trade." What did he mean by that?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: If a man on the home service who pays full contributions should be in hospital, say in Antwerp, then under the law as it now stands he would not get sick benefit or, I mean, his dependents. We desire he should and we should like to go further and do so for those who are in the foreign service and who do not pay full contribution. When the whole case of the deposit contributors and others is under consideration I hope the case of those men will be heard.
  Mr. McGHEE: The hon. Member desires to know what is meant by a foreign port in the home trade. In the home trade it is between the River Elbe and Brest. Those are the home ports. The hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Liverpool was quite wrong in saying that the foreign seamen get no benefit. They get sickness, medical, disablement, and maternity benefits when they are in the British Isles and not on board ship.
  Question "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
  "In Sub-section (5) of Section 48 of the principal Act, after the word 'proportions,' insert the words 'and representation of the local medical profession of the United Kingdom to the extent of one-tenth, as nearly as possible, of the committee to be appointed as to one-half by the Insurance Commissioners and as to one-half by the British Medical Association.'"
  The object of this Amendment is to give to the Seamen's National Insurance Society the advantage of having a representation of the medical profession upon the Committee. There is a complete analogy between the Seamen's National Insurance Society and the insurance societies under the principal Act. When the principal Act was passing through Parliament it was understood that the medical profession should be duly represented upon the insurance committees, and there can be no reason why they should not be represented also to some extent—I am not particular to what extent—upon the Seamen's National Insurance Society. I believe that the society would welcome the co-operation and assistance of the medical profession. For these reasons I move the Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Section 48 provides that international societies shall be managed by a committee of representatives of the Board of Trade, shipowners, and members of the societies in equal proportions, and in the scheme prepared under the original Act there are seven representatives of each of those parties. That represents a very carefully adjusted balance between the three interests, arrived at after delicate negotiations, and I would urge the hon. Member not to press his Amendment which would have the effect of disturbing this balance. I would press upon the hon. Member, if he will allow me, the undesirability of making the alteration. I take it that the desire for representation arises in respect of administration of medical benefit. If this is so I am advised that satisfactory arrangements have been made between the societies and the profession in this matter. That being so, I am afraid I must ask the hon. Member
  1644
  not to disturb the balance of representation which has been arrived at after very careful consideration.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, although I must repeat that I think there is reason for the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 27.—(Joint Committee and Insurance Commissioners.)
  (1) Regulations made by the Treasury under Section 83 of the principal Act may incorporate the joint committee constituted under that Section.
  (2) All documents issued before the commencement of this Act by the joint committee, either alone or jointly with any of the bodies of Insurance Commissioners appointed for the purposes of Part I. of the principal Act shall be deemed to have been validly issued if issued under a seal purporting to be the seal of the joint committee, or under the hands of any four or more of the members of the committee countersigned by the secretary or clerk to the joint committee.
  (3) The Documentary Evidence Act, 1868, as amended by the Documentary Evidence Act, 1882, shall apply to each of the said several bodies of Insurance Commissioners, and to the said joint committee, as if each of those bodies and the joint committee were included in the first column of the Schedule to the first-mentioned Act, and the chairman or any other member or the secretary or clerk or any person authorised to act on behalf of the secretary or clerk, of the body or committee, were mentioned in the second column of that Schedule, and as if the regulations referred to in those Acts included any document issued by any of those bodies or that committee.
  Mr. BECK: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Middleton Division of Lancashire (Sir Ryland Adkins) I desire to move at the end of Sub-section (3) to insert as a new Sub-section:
  "(4) Where the Insurance Commissioners have before the passing of this Act granted a certificate under paragraph (b) of Part II. of the First Schedule to the principal Act as respects any employment under a local or other public authority that the terms of the employment are such as to comply with the

  1645
  requirements of that paragraph, the certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the authority has power to engage and employ persons on the terms in respect of which the certificate was granted."
  Mr. CASSEL: Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, to move an Amendment standing in the name of another hon. Member, and is this Amendment within the scope of the Bill, as it proposes to give entirely new powers to local authorities? The mere fact that a certificate is granted by the Insurance Commissioners on certain terms is to empower any local authority in the United Kingdom to make a contract in those terms. I submit that the Amendment is not in order on both grounds.
  Mr. BECK: On the second point of Order, I submit that the Amendment is within the scope of the Bill. Sub-section (3) of Clause 27 deals with documentary evidence with which this Amendment also deals. It is a very small matter.
  Mr. SPEAKER: On the first point, an hon. Member is certainly entitled to move an Amendment standing in the name of another hon. Member. It is only in the case of new Clauses that an Amendment cannot be moved by another hon. Member. With regard to the second point, I should like to hear the hon. Member before expressing an opinion.
  Mr. BECK: The point is that it is a matter of evidence. I may say that if there is any doubt I do not move it, but I understand it will facilitate the working of the Act. If hon. Members opposite take the responsibility of objecting I do not move.

  CLAUSE 28.—(Insurance Committees.)
  (1) Every insurance committee constituted or to be constituted under Section 59 Sub-section (1) of the principal Act shall be a body corporate by the name of the insurance committee for the borough (or county) of …, and every such insurance committee shall by such name respectively have perpetual succession and a common seal, and may sue and be sued, and (subject to the consent in every case of the Insurance Commissioners) have power and authority (without any licence in mortmain) to take, purchase, and hold land for the purposes of the principal Act and this Act.
  (2) After the words "Provided that if the special circumstances of any county" in Section 61 Sub-section (2) of the principal Act, shall be added the words "or county borough."
  Amendment made: Leave out Sub-section (2) and insert instead thereof,
  "(2) At least one woman shall be on every sub-committee formed by an insurance committee for dealing with the administration of any benefit, and Section 59 of the principal Act shall be varied accordingly."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

  CLAUSE 29.—(Expenses of Insurance Committees.)
  (1) In addition to any allowances for travelling expenses which may be paid under Sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the principal Act an insurance committee may pay to the members of the committee subsistence allowance and compensation for loss of remunerative time in accordance with a scheme prepared by the committee and approved by the Insurance Commissioners, and there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament towards the expenses of an insurance committee under such scheme, such sum (if any) as the Insurance Commissioners with the consent of the Treasury, may determine so, however, that the aggregate amount so paid shall not exceed £30,000 in any one year.
  (2) An insurance committee may pay as general expenses incurred by them in the execution of their duties any sum, not exceeding £10 in any one year, as a subscription to the funds of any association of insurance committees whose objects are approved by the Insurance Commissioners, as well as any reasonable expenses of the attendances of representatives, not exceeding in any case four, at meetings of such associations, on a scale to be approved by the Commissioners.
  (3) At least one woman shall be on every sub-committee formed by an insurance committee for dealing with the administration of any benefit, and Section 59 of the principal Act shall be varied accordingly.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) at the end insert,
  "(2) After the words 'Provided that, if the special circumstances of any county' in Sub-section (2) of,Section 61 of the

  1647
  principal Act, there shall be added the words' or county borough.'"
  Leave out Sub-section (3).—[Dr. Macnamara.]

  CLAUSE 30.—(Consultation with Practitioners who have Entered into Agreements with Insurance Committees.)
  Where it is made the duty of an insurance committee under the provisions of this Act or of the principal Act, or of regulations made thereunder, to ascertain, in respect of any matter affecting the administration of medical benefit in the area, the opinions and wishes of the medical practitioners who have entered into agreements with the insurance committee for the attendance and treatment of insured persons whose medical benefit is administered by the committee, they shall do so through a committee appointed by such practitioners in accordance with regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners, and such committee shall perform such duties and shall exercise such powers as may be determined by the Insurance Commissioners, and in any area in which within six months of the time of the passing of this Act no local medical committee has been recognised under the provisions of Section 62 of the principal Act, a committee elected in the manner hereinbefore provided may be recognised as the local medical committee for that area.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I beg to move, after the word "Commissioners" ["by the Insurance Commissioners, and such"], to insert the words, "provided that such practitioners shall be entitled to appoint the medical committee for their area as the committee."
  It will be seen that Clause 30 really con-consists of two parts, the second beginning with the words, "and in any area." Now, when this Clause was being considered in Committee, the Secretary of the Treasury was good enough to accept an Amendment which I proposed with regard to the second part of this Clause, and I have, therefore, no alteration to suggest in that part; but the first part is of a very different character. It proposes to set up a new committee to be appointed by what I may call the panel doctors, and it does seem unnecessary that that should be done in an area in which there already exists a local medical committee. The Amendment that I am proposing is that where the panel doctors—that is to say, the doctors who have come to an agreement with the Com-
  1648
  missioners—are satisfied that the existing local medical committee can be trusted to discharge the duties which are to be entrusted to them by this Clause, they should be entitled to propose that the local medical committee should be the committee to be appointed under this Clause. It only gives permission to the panel doctors to recognise this particular committee instead of a new committee.
  I need scarcely point out that the object of the Amendment is to simplify the procedure under this Clause. Already the Act is sufficiently complicated and anything we can do to prevent the appointment of additional committees where other committees already exist which are capable of doing the work properly is, I submit, undesirable. The local medical committee is much more important than the committee which it is proposed to appoint would be, because it represents the whole of the medical practitioners in a particular area, whereas the Committee proposed to be set up under the Clause will only represent practitioners who happen at the time to be on the panel. I cannot help thinking that if the panel practitioners are themselves satisfied that their interests can be entrusted to the local medical committee, they might at least be allowed to appoint that Committee in place of the one suggested in the Clause. I did not think the matter was sufficiently considered in Committee upstairs and I therefore thought it desirable in the interests of simplifying the Act to bring the subject before the notice of the House on the present occasion.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to press the Amendment. This was an agreed Clause in Committee after we had made considerable concessions to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir Henry Craik) who have a special right to speak for the medical profession.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: That only referred to the second part.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If an alteration were made in Clause 30 it would also involve an alteration in the scheme laid down in Clause 31. May I point out that there is not in the Clause a suggestion that

  1649
  there should be any rival to the local medical committee in connection with any medical question, but the suggestion is that the panel doctors themselves should be allowed to have a committee which can agree with a similar committee appointed by the chemists on the panel as to arrangements for checking the chemists' fees and other matters. May I, as an example, remind the House of the case of Manchester, where they are not working exactly on the panel system. There a local medical committee of the panel doctors is essential, because they are engaged on the work of checking the bills of each other and of the chemists. It is for the sake of the work which the panel doctors have to do that this has been proposed and I thought it was agreed to unanimously by the Committee upstairs.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move to leave out the words "and such committee shall perform such duties and shall exercise such powers as may be determined by the Insurance Commissioners, and in any area in which within six months of the time of the passing of this Act no local medical committee has been recognised under the provisions of Section sixty-two of the principal Act, a committee elected in the manner herein-before provided may be recognised as the local medical committee for that area."
  The right hon. Gentleman has first stated that this Clause was wanted in order that there may be a committee of panel doctors able to check the bills of panel doctors, to deal with the druggists.' accounts, and to look into various other items which affect the panel doctors. There is, I admit, some force in his argument that there ought to be a committee of panel doctors for that purpose. My Amendment will leave the committee of panel doctors for the purpose for which the right hon. Gentleman says he wants it, but by striking out the words which I propose to omit the House will prevent the committee being used for the purposes of the local medical committee under Section 62 of the principal Act. Section 62, I may remind the House, provides for the creation of a local medical committee, which is to be representative of the medical practitioners residing in the area, whether they are on the panel or not. That committee was particularly designed to embrace all classes of medical practitioners, as it was intended to be a com
  1650
  mittee to advise the Commissioners and the Insurance Committees on all affairs relating to the public health of the country so far as they were touched by the National Insurance Act. Upon that committee in many cases now, where it has been formed, are the medical officers of health, and it is highly desirable that they should be on the committee, so that they may be able to keep in close touch with the other practitioners in the neighbourhood.
  On that committee are to be found also the consultants now attached to various hospitals throughout the country. It is highly desirable that they, too, should be represented on the local medical committee, because to the hospitals the insured people owe a great deal of the health treatment that they may be expected to obtain. The result of my Amendment would be to leave the proposed committee in the shape the right hon. Gentleman wants it, namely, a committee representative of the panel practitioners, but it would prevent that committee being used for any purpose other than those for which it is intended. It could not be used, that is, say, as a local medical committee, which ought to be constituted in a totally different way. If the Amendment is agreed to—and I have a faint hope that the right hon. Gentleman may accept it—it will, I think, meet both cases in a very fair way.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This question was argued in Committee upstairs when the hon. Gentleman was present. In the Standing Committee two persons who have a special right to speak for the doctors, and whose opinions I value greatly—the Member for London University and the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities—both at first took exception to the Clause, but I think they were convinced by the arguments which were advanced that it was essential in cases where there was no local medical committee that some committee of this sort should, in the interests of the insured persons, be taken into consultation by the Insurance Committee. On my agreeing to extend the time which must elapse before committees of panel practitioners may be formed from three to six months and substituting the word "may" for "shall" the hon. Gentlemen to whom I have referred said that they were satisfied with the com

  1651
  promise and withdrew their objection. In these circumstances I feel that I must ask the House to stand by the decision of the Committee upstairs which went closely into the subject.
  Mr. FORSTER: I think the account given by the right hon. Gentleman of the proceedings in the Committee upstairs on this point was substantially accurate, but I should like to say that I was not the least satisfied with the alterations made in the latter part of the Clause. I did not press the matter at the time, because we were working in the Committee under such extraordinarily high pressure, and it, was really impossible to do so without prolonging the proceedings of the Committee to an undue length, but I did look forward to raising an objection on the Report stage. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is desirable that there should be a committee of panel doctors in order that the Insurance Committee may consult them on various questions, but I do not at all agree that to this new committee of panel doctors there should be entrusted any of the interests of the local medical committee. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to meet the point by extending the period during which the local medical committee might still be formed for another three months. I look forward to the time when there will be established a local medical committee for every area, and if you are going by means of altering part of this Clause to allow the
  committee of panel practitioners to be substituted for the local medical committee, then you will shut the door against the formation of any local medical committee which is not established within the next six months. I should regret that as a great pity, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman realises that if this Amendment were accepted all this Clause would do would be to give the Insurance Committee power to ascertain the opinion and wishes of the medical practitioners on the panel. In that case the very duties that the Insurance Committee would wish the committee of panel doctors to do, they could not do under the Clause as it would then stand. All the Insurance Committee could do, as I have pointed out, would be to ascertain the wishes of the panel practitioners. There are matters contained in regulations which really make it the duty of the committee of practitioners on the panel to check accounts. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment, because I feel quite certain that there are very useful functions which this committee and this committee alone can perform, and there need be, in carrying them out, no encroaching on any of the functions and duties of the local medical committee.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 34.

  Division No. 265.]

  AYES.

  [12.55 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Crumley, Patrick

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cullinan, John

  Hackett, John

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

  Barnes, George N.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hancock, John George

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Delany, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Devlin, Joseph

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Boland, John Pius

  Doris, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Duffy, William J.

  Hayward, Evan

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Falconer, James

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  John, Edward Thomas

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Field, William

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Clough, William

  Gill, A. H.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Clynes, John R.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Joyce, Michael

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Keating, Matthew

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Scott, A MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  King, Joseph

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Sheehy, David

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Shortt, Edward

  Lardner, James C. R.

  O'Dowd, John

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  O'Grady, James

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Lundon, Thomas

  O'Malley, William

  Sutton, John E.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lynch, A. A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicestesr)

  O'Shee, James John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Wadsworth, J.

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Ward, John (Stake-upon-Trent)

  McGhee, Richard

  Pointer, Joseph

  Waring, Walter

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Manfield, Harry

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Webb, H.

  Markham, Sir Basil

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Radford, G. H.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Reddy, Michael

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Meagher, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Molloy, Michael

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Muldoon, John

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Munro, Robert

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Rowlands, James

  Neilson, Francis

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Scanlan, Thomas

  NOES.

  Baird, J. L.

  Henderson, Major H. (Barks, Abingdon)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Cassel, Felix

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cator, John

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Worthington-Evans and Mr. Gold smith.

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 32.—(Offences and Legal Proceedings.)
  (1) If any employer deducts, or attempts to deduct, from the wages or other remuneration of an employed contributor the whole or any part of the employer's contribution, as defined in the Second Schedule of the principal Act, he shall be guilty of a contravention of the provisions of Part I. of the principal Act.
  (2) The time within which proceedings may be taken under Sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the principal Act against an employer charged with an offence of failing or neglecting to pay any contribution in respect of an employed contributor shall be one year from the date of the commission of the alleged offence, and where an employer has been convicted of such an offence then, if notice of the intention to do so is served with the summons or warrant, evidence may be given of failure or neglect on the part of the employer to pay other contributions in respect of that
  1654
  employed contributor during the year preceding the date when the information was laid, and on proof of such failure or neglect the employer shall be liable to pay to the Insurance Commissioners a sum equal to the total amount of all the contributions which he is so proved to have failed or neglected to pay.
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: I beg leave to move to leave out the Clause.
  The effect of this and the following Amendment in my name is almost entirely consolidation, but there is one new and important point providing that if any employer or his servant or agent makes an improper deduction from the pay of an employed contributor he shall be liable to conviction unless he can prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he was not a party to the commission of the offence. I think there is general agreement that this provision which is in the Factory Acts should apply also in the administration of

  1655
  the Insurance Act. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. There is no other point; all the rest is consolidation.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member move a second Amendment?
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: I will move the first; all the rest is consequential.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am anxious not to enter into a very difficult subject and a very important Clause at one o'clock in the morning. I will consider specially upon this matter whether it would be desirable to introduce it in another place. I could not ask the House to enter into a subject of consolidation at this time and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion.
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: If the Government will consider the insertion of this Amendment which is regarded as a point of great importance I will consent to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move after the words, "If any employer" ["If any employer deducts"], to insert the word "knowingly."
  I moved this Amendment upstairs, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury insisted upon refusing it. He seemed to think it was right that a man should be punished for an offence which he had committed unwittingly, and in order to test the view of the House upon that I have renewed the Amendment to-day. I quite agree that if an employer willingly and knowingly attempts to deduct too much he ought to be punished. Supposing, however, that in fact he deducts too much without knowing it I think he ought not, to be punished. It is quite easy to make a mistake as to a man's rate of remuneration, especially where cash wages are not the only things to be taken into account. In the estimation of the rate of wages the Commissioners have been called upon in case after case to settle disputed points as to earnings, and the correct contribution to be paid by the employer. The Bill, as it stands, allows the employer to be prosecuted and convicted perhaps because by accident, or in the bonâ fide belief that he is deducting the correct sum he, in fact, deducts an incorrect sum. The Financial Secretary to
  1656
  the Treasury said that in such cases no Court would ever convict. There ought to be no such provision in an Act of Parliament which would place an employer or any man in the position of being charged with an offence when he does not know and could not know that he had committed such an offence. In the Act there are many other provisions for penalties where a thing is done knowingly, but there is no Clause which imposes a penalty upon a matter of opinion unless it is done knowingly and this word ought to be here included in order not only to make it sense but in order to do a small act of justice towards those who might otherwise be prosecuted.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): The discussion of the question whether the word "knowingly" should be inserted is a discussion which from time to time crops up when we reach a penalty Clause in a proposed Act of Parliament. It is not the first time this Session that the House has had to consider it. Let me just point out the principal considerations which should be borne in mind. Do not let us fall into the error of illustrating our argument by assuming instances where there is the least degree of culpability coupled with the assumption that there is the maximum amount of punishment. That is not how the thing works. The Act provides a maximum punishment in order that the tribunal may impose a penalty in a bad case, but it is well understood by those who administer the law that they have full discretion within the limits of that maximum to impose such portion of that punishment as they think suits the case. And moreover it is not merely that no Court would ever convict in the sense that a man runs no risk in the matter. It is a recognised part of the Summary Jurisdiction Act that if a case comes before a magistrate, and that case, in his view, is either trumpery in its character or ought not to be brought before him, he is by statute entitled to consider that there may be a technical breach of the law, to decline to deal with it, and to dismiss the whole matter. Whether with this provision well known to our law it is really desirable to introduce the word "knowingly" into this Section is the question, and I suggest it is not for this reason.
  It is impossible to suppose that if you leave out the word "knowingly" then a person, if such there be, who from every

  1657
  point of view is completely innocent, runs the risk of conviction. Evidently the true construction of this and any similar Section would be to presume guilt only if you got a guilty mind in the sense in which lawyers use the term; it would make a great difference if you put in those words "knowingly," because you find yourself faced with this difficulty—that the accused is under no obligation to say anything at all, and if he is a person whose explanation will do him damage and he is well advised he will not say anything, he will sit still, because then you cannot prove anything from his answers. After the prosecution has finished some ingenious adviser will get up and say that the prosecution have not proved their case, they have only proved certain facts, and they have not proved that he knew of them. If you leave the word "knowingly" out the tribunal will infer that the necessary facts have been proved, and that the person knew what he was about; and they may presume, also, that if he had given evidence there would be special circumstances that would excuse him. In that situation the prosecution will succeed in a case, but if you put in the word "knowingly" the prosecution will fail because the person sits still and refuses to give evidence. From the point of view of the administration of this statute, which of the two situations is best? I suggest that the better situation, that in the ordinary course of events, we must expect citizens to obey this law precisely in the way in which it is laid down. It is quite true that in certain cases excuses may be offered, and may turn out to be valid excuses, but they must be offered, and they must be proved, and we secure that when the word "knowingly" is left out; and the penalty may then be in accordance with the facts as presented. If you look at Section 69 in the principal Act you will find that the word "knowingly" occurs in Sub-section (1), which is not analagous to this, but it does not in Sub-section (2), where it says that if any employer has failed to pay any contribution to which he is liable in respect to an employed contributor, he shall be liable to conviction.
  The question whether he has got to pay or not depends upon whether the man he employs is an employed contributor, and the question we have discussed is whether curates and Nonconformist ministers are employed contributors or not. The Statute at this moment says it is an offence not to pay if you employ an employed contributor. For these reasons I suggest the
  1658
  position taken up by the Committee upstairs is perfectly right, and it would not conduce to the fair working of this Statute which we all want to secure to put in that word; on the contrary, it would give an opportunity to the very people who ought not to get off, while at the same time it would not allow that elastic administration of the law which is one of the best features of summary justice.
  Mr. FORSTER: The explanation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given is, I think, one that the House will accept. I only regret that the Committee upstairs lacked the services of so distinguished a gentleman. Had we had the advantage of his complete and authoritative explanation as to the desirability of not incorporating this word "knowingly," it would not have been necessary for my hon. Friend to have moved his Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I beg to move, after Sub-section (1), to insert,
  "(2) Every person who buys, exchanges, or takes in pawn from an insured person, or any person acting on his behalf, on any pretence whatever, any insurance card or insurance book shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds."
  The Amendment seems to me to require very little commendation to the House. I am afraid the practice of pledging cards will spread, and it is the pure purpose of the Amendment to prevent that. Just a few words from the Report will cover the point at issue. The only inspectors who have discovered this practice, curiously enough, are inspectors in Ireland, which I suppose, will be taken as evidence of their greater vigilance in these matters. On page 472 they say:—
  "An inspector in Cork discovered that a popular method of obtaining money in that city was by pawning partially or fully-stamped contribution cards. The fact that the cards are the property of the Commission, and that the regulations provide that any assignment of cards is void, did not deter some enterprising pawnbrokers from advancing as much as 1s. 6d. on a fully stamped card."
  And it went on to say that some workmen obtained the cards of others and pawned a batch. I venture to say that if that is the case all over the Kingdom as a result of the poverty problem, I think the House would be well-advised in incorporating this Amendment in the Bill.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Those who were in Committee will remember that this is one of the Amendments I agreed to insert, and I think it would have passed without controversy. Unfortunately, through an error, it could not be discussed, but I understand it is quite uncontroversial. There seems to be in certain places some amount of pawning. I can imagine no worse custom, and I should be very glad if it is stopped.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) is one for the alteration of the Criminal Law, and I think that is outside the scope of this Bill.
  The Amendment mentioned was as follows:—
  ["Where an offence against Part I. of the principal Act, or the regulations made thereunder, is committed within the jurisdiction of a justice in Ireland, and the person alleged to be guilty of the offence is an employer who is or resides in England or Scotland, or in any place in Ireland outside the limits of the jurisdiction of the justice, a summons issued by the justice may be served at any place within those limits upon any foreman or other person having the oversight of any employed contributors in the employment of the alleged offender, and if so served shall be deemed to have been duly served upon the alleged offender."]

  CLAUSE 37.—(Agreements with Metropolitan Asylums Board.)
  Notwithstanding anything in any Act, it shall be lawful for the managers of the Metropolitan Asylums district, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, to enter into agreements with any county council or, with the consent of the county council, with any authority in a county for the reception of insured persons and their dependents suffering from tuberculosis or any such other disease as the Local Government Board, with the approval of the Treasury, may appoint under Section 8 of the principal Act, into hospitals provided by the managers, and for this purpose the managers shall not be deemed to be a poor law authority. Any such agreements may provide that the cost of the treatment of the patients so received, or some part thereof, shall be borne otherwise than as
  1660
  provided by Section 80 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891.
  Amendment made: After the word "hospitals" ["into hospitals provided by the managers"] insert the words "or sanatoria."—[Mr. Goldsmith.]

  CLAUSE 38.—(Revocation and Amendment of Orders and Extension of Time for Making Orders under Section 78 of Principal Act.)
  (1) Any order or special order made under the principal Act may be revoked, varied, or amended by an order or special order made in like manner as the original order.
  (2) The time within which the powers of the Insurance Commissioners to make orders under Section 78 of the principal to the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2)
  This Sub-section gives powers to the Insurance Commissioners for an extra year in which to make orders to remove difficulties. I think the arguments against giving that power are fairly familiar to the House, and, therefore, I do not think I need repeat them. I hope, however, the Secretary to the Treasury may have relented since the last occasion, and that he will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We are merely doing what we did in the original Act—allowing the continuance of Orders as they stand, and allowing an extra year owing to the fact that a new Act is passed.
  Mr. FORSTER: I object very strongly to the retention of this Section, but the right hon. Gentleman knows my views on the matter and I will not press them further.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 39.—(Special Provisions as to Scotland.)
  (1) For the purpose of providing institutions for the treatment of tuberculosis or any such other disease as the Local Government Board for Scotland, with the approval of the Treasury, may appoint, a county council in Scotland shall have power to borrow in terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, on the security of the general purposes rate, as applied by Section 80 of the principal Act,

  1661
  such sums as may be required, and shall have power to acquire, purchase, or take on lease any land; and the provisions of Section 5 of the Local Government. (Scotland) Act, 1908, shall apply accordingly as if this Act were specified therein.
  (2) Expenses of a district committee defrayed out of the public health general assessment within the district in pursuance of an agreement under the principal Act or this Act, or in the exercise of any power of dealing with tuberculosis as an infectious disease, shall not be reckoned in any calculation as to the statutory limit of that assessment.
  (3) A county council in Scotland that has been authorised by the Board to provide an institution in terms of Section 64, Subsection (2) of the principal Act shall have the same powers of providing treatment for all persons suffering from tuberculosis as are possessed by local authorities under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, for the treatment of infectious diseases.
  (4) At the end of Sub-section (4) of Section 80 of the principal Act, the following shall be added:—
  And provided further that for the purposes of Sub-section (3) of Section 64 of the principal Act, relating to the provision of sanatoria, burghs, and police burghs so held to be within the county shall be entitled to direct representation on the joint committees, joint boards, or otherwise, therein referred to, in such manner as may be determined by the Board.
  (5) All proceedings for any contravention of or non-compliance with any of the provisions of Part I. or of Part III., so far as relating to matters under Part I. of the principal Act or this Act, or the regulations made thereunder, shall in Scotland be instituted and carried on under the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Acts, and may be taken at the instance of the procurator fiscal or of the Scottish Insurance Commissioners.
  (6) Where an employer in Scotland has failed or neglected to pay any contributions which, under Part I. of the principal Act, he is liable to pay in respect of an employed contributor the amount which he has so failed or neglected to pay shall be a debt due from the employer to the Commissioners, and shall be recoverable by the Commissioners summarily as a civil debt: Provided that the powers conferred by this Section on the Commissioners shall be deemed to be in supplement of and no-
  1662
  wise in restriction of the powers conferred upon them or upon members of approved societies by the principal Act.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "if" ["apply accordingly as if this Act"], insert the words "the principal Act and."
  In Sub-section (2), after the word "tuberculosis" ["dealing with tuberculosis as an infectious disease"], insert the words "or such other disease as aforesaid."
  In Sub-section (3), after the word "tuberculosis" ["suffering from tuberculosis as are possessed"], insert the words "or such other disease as aforesaid."—[Mr. Ure.]
  Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (3) to insert the words. "Provided that where a local authority under the last-mentioned Act have a duly approved, scheme for dealing with tuberculosis, these powers shall not be conferred on the county council with reference to the area to which the scheme applies."
  As the law at present stands certain local authorities in Scotland have powers with reference to the provision for treatment of poor persons suffering from tuberculosis under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897. This Sub-section provides that where a local authority has taken advantage of those powers the powers conferred in this Sub-section shall not be exercised with reference to the area to which such a scheme would apply. I am assured that this proviso is not required, but I should like some assurance from the Government.
  Mr. URE: The information my hon. Friend has received is quite correct. His Amendment is unnecessary and for the reason that the powers which are conferred upon the county council will be confirmed after the county council has been authorised by the Local Government Board to erect sanatoria in the area. There is no chance of overlapping.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (4) leave out the words "shall be entitled to direct representation on the joint committees, joint boards, or otherwise, therein referred to," and insert instead thereof the words "may receive direct representation in groups or otherwise on any joint

  1663
  committees, joint boards, or other bodies thereby constituted."
  At the end of the Clause add the words, "The reference in this Act to the Lord Chancellor shall, as respects Scotland, be construed as a reference to the Lord President of the Court of Session."—[Mr. Ure.]

FIRST SCHEDULE.

  MATTERS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH REGULATIONS MAY BE MADIC.
  (A) The manner and conditions in and upon which the following matters may be carried into effect:—

  (i) The amalgamation for the purposes of Part I. of the principal Act of any two or more approved societies, or of an approved society with a society which is not an approved society, or of any two or more branches of an approved society:

  (ii) The transfer by an approved society of its engagements under Part I. of the principal Act, or of such of those engagements as relate to members resident in a particular part of the United Kingdom, to any other approved society which undertakes to fulfil these engagements, and the transfer from one branch to one or more other branches, or to the society of such engagements as aforesaid.

  (iii) The financial adjustments to be made on any such amalgamation or transfer.

  (B) The manner and conditions in and upon which the dissolution of approved societies may be carried into effect, and for that purpose providing for the valuation of the assets and liabilities of dissolved societies under Part I. of the principal Act, and the reduction (either permanently or temporarily), in the event of a deficiency being disclosed, of the rates of benefits payable to members and the periods during which those benefits or any of them are payable, and for the establishment of a special fund to which contributions of such members are to be paid, and out of which their benefits are to be paid, and the application, subject to the prescribed modifications, adaptations, and exceptions to such funds and the members thereof, of the provisions of Part I. of the principal Act relating to approved societies and the membership of and transfer to and from approved societies.
  (C) Authorising the Commissioners to withdraw approval from a society on account of maladministration of its affairs under the principal Act in cases where it appears expedient in the interests of the members of the society to do so.
  (D) The crediting or variation (whether by way of increase or decrease) and cancellation of reserve values.
  (E) Applying to the Navy and Army Insurance Fund and to members of that fund such of the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act, relating to approved societies and to membership of and transfer to and from approved societies, as the Commissioners think necessary for facilitating admissions to and transfer from the fund and for the proper administration of the fund, and for enabling a man entitled to the payment of maternity benefit from that fund to continue to be so entitled until transferred to an approved society or until he becomes a deposit contributor, and for extending any of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 46 of the principal Act to seamen, soldiers, and marines who are not members of an approved society.
  (F) For enabling the sums to be paid or credited in any year to insurance committees under Sub-section (1) of Section 61 of the principal Act, instead of being paid or credited at the commencement of the year, to be paid or credited at such time or times and in such instalments and in such manner and proportions as may, with the consent of the Treasury, be prescribed.
  (G) Enabling approved societies and insurance committees, and in the case of persons entitled to benefits out of the Navy and Army Insurance Fund, the Admiralty or Army Council to appoint a person to exercise on behalf of any insured person of unsound mind any right of election which that person is, under Part I. of the principal Act entitled to exercise, and to appoint a person to receive on behalf and for the benefit of such person any sums by way of benefit which would otherwise have been payable to him.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in Schedule 1, to leave out paragraph (D).
  This Schedule deals with matters with respect to which the Insurance Commissioners may make regulations, and the paragraph which I propose should be left out has to do with the crediting or variation (whether by way of increase or de-

  1665
  crease) and cancellation of reserve values. The provision of reserve values for insured people is, I need hardly say, the basis of the whole of the insurance. Were it not for the provision of the reserve values amounting to nearly £70,000,000 the insurance benefits could not possibly be given. This House is authorising the Commissioners by regulation to reduce or to cancel those reserve values. We have, it will be admitted, given pretty wide powers to the Insurance Commissioners, but we are now asked to give them powers to take away the whole of the capital of the insurance scheme. The Schedule also gives the Commissioners power to increase the reserve values if they choose so to do. It is quite true that is not exactly the same as giving them powers to tax the subject, but it is nearly the same thing, for if they increase the reserve values by a considerable sum, and because of that fact additional benefits are able to be given—a thing which, I would remind the House, is quite feasible—then the State would have to pay two-ninths of the cost of the benefit, and an additional charge would fall on the people. We are giving the Insurance Commissioners these great powers, which if used to the full would, on the one hand, enable them to destroy national insurance altogether—although, of course, nobody for a moment expects such a use to be made of them—and, on the other hand, would increase the charge on the people. I move my Amendment so as to take that power from them.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. MASTERMAN: May I say that I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester, who really does know the Act, does not sometimes think it necessary to exhibit that knowledge? If you leave out the Schedule, as he knows full well, the Act, as it is proposed to amend it, cannot be worked. Almost every change that we are making in the Act involves altering the reserve values, and in the case of one so familiar with the Act as the hon. Gentleman, I need not specify what those alterations will amount to. But I would remind him and other hon. Members that regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners have to be laid before Parliament, and can be changed by Parliament, if it is so desired. There is, therefore, an ample safeguard against anything being done by way of
  1666
  regulation of which Parliament disapproves.
  Mr. FORSTER: At this late hour of the morning I do not propose to argue the case for my hon. Friend's Amendment, but I rise because I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to ask the Government if they can now give us some indication of the course they propose to adopt in reference to the Third Reading of this Bill. I think it must be quite obvious to the right hon. Gentleman, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that it is quite out of the question to take the Third Reading to-night, and I am supported in that belief by a sentence that fell from the right hon. Gentleman when dealing with an Amendment moved from the Benches behind him only a few minutes ago. The right hon. Gentleman said that lie was unwilling to enter into the discussion of the details of so important an Amendment at one o'clock in the morning. If one o'clock in the morning is too late for the examination of an important Amendment, as the right hon. Gentleman himself admits, I think the House will agree that it is too late an hour at which to enter upon the Third Reading of so large a Bill as this. What I suggest is that the right hon. Gentleman should allow some fair opportunity —we do not ask for a lengthy one—to enable us to review as I say, shortly, what has taken place in connection with this very important Bill, and I hope he will see his way to do so in connection with the Third Reading stage.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks and his Friends know, I had hoped very much to get this Bill through its remaining stages to-night. All our arrangements were, in fact, made with that idea, in order that the Bill might be sent to another place in time to allow free opportunity for discussion there. On the other hand, I cannot for a moment deny the force of what the hon. Member has said about the course of the proceedings to-day. Through no fault of his or of the hon. Gentlemen whom he represents—I will not say through any fault of anybody at all—progress has not been quite so rapid or easy as we had hoped it might be. The fact is that we have consumed some four or five hours to-day in what I may term internal combustion in our own party. The matter is now, I am glad to say, settled, but it is impossible to deny

  1667
  that it has prolonged the period during which we hoped both to conclude the consideration of the Bill on Report and to obtain the Third Reading. I assure the House that I wish to give as much publicity as possible to the acknowledgment which I gladly make of the way in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks and his hon. Friends have done everything in their power, both to improve the Bill and to help us to get through it as rapidly as possible. As regards the proposal he has advanced that we should not proceed with the Third Reading to-night, I may say that I have consulted those who are responsible for the arrangement of business in this House and they tell me that there is no time available to take the Third Reading in the ordinary course of the proceedings of the House. The suggestion I would therefore make to the hon. Gentleman is that the Third Reading of the Bill might be put down for to-morrow night as the second Order of, the day. The first Order, as the House knows, is the Indian Budget, which, I suppose, will take the greater part of the day. We should be prepared, however, to put down after that the Third Reading of the present Bill and to give hon. Gentlemen the opportunity, which they quite fairly wish to take, of making any general explanations concerning the Bill and, I hope, of expressing general satisfaction with the Bill as it emerges after the consideration we have devoted to it.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The whole cause of the situation with which we find ourselves faced in not being able to discuss this Bill during proper hours is due to the very late period of the Session at which the Government brought the measure before the House. The difficulties really are not even due to the Scottish Members—not that I have a great admiration for people who put up a sham fight and then run away—but are due to the action of the Government themselves, as the Government ought to have taken care that such an important Bill as this was not delayed until such a late period of the Session. I do not think the offer to take the Bill at Eleven o'Clock to-morrow night is very much good, though that hour certainly is a little better than half-past one in the morning. Nor can I feel very much impressed by the new-born solicitude displayed by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as spokesman for the Govern-
  1668
  ment, that the House of Lords should be allowed plenty of opportunity to consider the Bill. I do not think that in the present condition of the House of Lords—a condition to which they have been reduced by the Government—fit matters very much whether they have the Bill to-morrow, or on Monday, or even on Tuesday,
  Indeed, if the House of Lords take the Bill seriously into consideration there is nothing to prevent them, should further time be required, sitting on for another week. In that case this House could adjourn and receive the Bill at the end of the following week, when it had been carefully considered by the House of Lords. At any rate I think it is a very unfortunate suggestion that we are to consider this Bill under very disadvantageous conditions in order to enable the House of Lords to consider it carefully, when the real difficulty is due to the late period of the Session at which the Bill was brought forward. I venture to suggest that the proper course is to put this Bill down as first Order on Monday. That means a certain delay, I know, but if it is done the House will have a real opportunity of considering the Bill which it will not have if it is taken at Eleven o'clock to-morrow night. By that time the House could not have considered the Amendments made today or anything else. I do not think that is an unreasonable suggestion, and I venture to make it to the Government and ask them whether they cannot so arrange their business as to take this Bill first on Monday.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid we could not do that. It has been agreed by both sides that the Revenue Bill is to be taken as the first Order on Monday. If the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. H. W. Forster) thinks the offer I make to him useless—I am only anxious to meet his wishes—I am quite willing to take the Third Reading now. As to the question of the House of Lords I would remind the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) that it is not this Government who sent up a Bill of 103 Clauses and asked the House of Lords to consider it in twenty-four hours.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I never thought that was a precedent which should be followed.
  Mr. FORSTER: Without embarking on these controversial topics, all I can say is that beggars cannot be choosers. The whole of our proceedings

  1669
  on this Bill have been conducted under such extreme pressure as regards time that we are almost accustomed to accepting any disadvantage we cannot avoid. The offer of the right hon. Gentleman to take the Bill to-morrow as second Order is some degree better than taking it now, and I suppose as we cannot get anything better we shall have to be content with that. I reserve anything I may have to say with reference to the procedure of the Government in bringing this Bill on so late until to-morrow night.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: With regard to the Amendment before the House, may I ask leave to withdraw it, with a view to immediately moving that the words should be added at the end of this paragraph in the Schedule, "necessary for the purposes of this Act." If the right hon. Gentleman will assure me that all that is wanted is merely to carry out the provisions of the Act, I have nothing more to say. I should prefer to discuss it, but at this late hour we are all tired out, and we are all sick of insurance.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot give quite that undertaking because I am informed that in some societies the reserve values have to be adjusted. But the whole regulations will come before the House of Commons for consideration and nothing will be done to vitiate or prejudice the interests of insured persons.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these regulations do not come before the House until they have been brought into effect and acted on, and the House of Commons is really not in a position to effectually annul them because of the contracts that have been made on the strength of them?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst)—after the word "enabling" ["and for enabling a man entitled to the payment of maternity benefit"], to insert the words "the wife or widow of." We have decided that the maternity benefit should be the mother's benefit, so that the words of the Schedule will have to be altered.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Member's object is to make this Schedule follow the new form of Clause 13. The phrase "for enabling a man entitled to the payment of
  1670
  maternity benefit" will have to be modified in some way in order not to run counter to the new form of the Clause. Whether the proposal in the Amendment is the right one I do not know, and I hope it will not be passed; but I will give an undertaking that nothing shall appear in the Schedule which will be in conflict with the new form of Clause 13.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read the third time tomorrow (Thursday).

  MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: It seems to me we might have a statement from the Government now as to how far they intend to proceed with the Bills on the Paper. The same reasons which actuated the Government in not proceeding with the Third Reading of the Insurance Amendment Bill bear with increased force on the other Bills which stand later on the Paper. The first is the Mental Deficiency (Scotland) Bill, which will not detain the House very long when we get the Amendments to it that we desire. The Highlands and Islands Bill will not take much time, nor will the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Bill, my Amendments having been withdrawn. I hope the Government will be content with these three and not press the rest. The Industrial and Provident Societies Bill has got a considerable amount of opposition to it. The Public Health Bill is also a controversial measure. If the Government insist on trying to force these Bills through the House there will be more time taken up with the first three Bills than would otherwise be the case. There is opposition to the Revenue Bill, which will probably lead to that Bill being withdrawn on Monday, so that there will be more time for the discussion of these other measures. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said awhile ago that it had been arranged to take the Revenue Bill first on Monday, but he could not have been aware of the new phase which has overtaken the Revenue Bill, the proposal to withdraw the Valuation Clause owing to the opposition from these Benches, which I understand will be fatal to the Bill. Therefore there will be

  1671
  the whole of Monday to deal with these other measures. I hope we may have peace and not a sword. Speaking for myself, I am quite content to let the first three Bills through without discussion.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am glad to see that the hon. Member is willing to allow us to get the three Bills about which I think there is no contention at all; but there are three other smaller Bills, the Misdescription of Fabrics Bill, the Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill, and the Public Health (Prevention and Treatment of Disease) Bill. I hope he has no objection to these.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I have a great objection to one of them. It seems to me unnecessary to force them through tonight.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Special Provision for Dumfries District.)
  "(1) Without prejudice to their obligation under and in terms of Section 60 of The Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1857, the directors of the Crichton Royal Institution at Dumfries shall provide to the satisfaction of the Board, either in the Crichton Royal Institution or elsewhere, duly certified accommodation for all defectives who may be sent to a certified institution (other than defectives of criminal propensities and defectives of less than sixteen years of age) for whom parish councils or school boards in the counties of Dumfries, Kirkcudbright, and Wigtown, are responsible as the local authorities concerned, and for whom the district board of the Dumfries district may desire the said directors to provide accommodation.
  (2) In respect of each defective for whom accommodation is so desired and provided the said district board shall pay to the said directors the cost of maintenance of such defective as approved by the Board, and if any difference as to the application of this provision to any defective, or as to the amount of the cost of maintenance or otherwise as to the interpretation of this Section, shall arise between the said district board and the said directors it shall be, determined by the Board.
  (3) If at any time after the commencement of this Act the total accommodation provided by the said directors for pauper lunatics and defectives is in excess of the accommodation appropriated to pauper lunatics in the Crichton Royal Institution at the passing of this Act (the amount of
  1672
  which shall be deemed to be four hundred beds), they may apply to the said district board to make such payments as the said directors and the said district board shall agree to be equitable towards the cost of providing duly certified accommodation for defectives, such payments in no case to exceed those which would have been exigible for providing such accommodation wholly at the Crichton Royal Institution.
  (4) If the said directors and the said district board fail to agree, the directors may apply to the Board to determine, after hearing parties appearing to have an interest who desire to be heard, whether any such payments should be made and the amounts thereof; and, without prejudice to any other power or duty vested in or imposed on them by this Act, it shall be lawful for and incumbent on the said district board to pay out of the assessment authorised by the Lunacy Acts and this Act any sums so fixed by agreement between them and the said directors or so determined by the Board."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD:I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time." I understand that it is a matter of local interest and has been agreed to by the Crichton Royal Institution at Dumfries and the local authorities.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Protection of Lunatic Women or Girls.)
  "The Section of this Act relating to the protection of defectives from acts of sexual immorality shall have effect for the protection of women or girls who are lunatics duly certified as such under the Lunacy Acts and while they remain so certified, with the substitution of such women or girls for defective women or girls, of an asylum or other place of lawful detention for lunatics for an institution or certified house, of pass or probation for licence, and of the Lunacy Acts for this Act."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time." It relates to the protection of women and children, and is also applicable to lunatic women and girls.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I do not propose to move the new Clause, of which I have given notice, relating to defilement of female lunatics, if I have the assurance from the Lord Advocate that his Clause fulfils the same object.
  Mr. URE: Yes, I can offer that assurance.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Special Provision for Parish of Greenock.)
  "For the purposes of this Act, so far as relating to defectives, the parish of Greenock shall be deemed to be a lunacy district and the parish council to be a district board, subject to such conditions or restrictions as the Board may, with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland, prescribe at any time after the passing of this Act, and subject as aforesaid the parish council shall have the same power of assessment for such purposes as they have for the purpose of defraying expenses under the Lunacy Acts. Provided that nothing herein contained shall prejudice or affect the power of the Board to appoint the parish council to be the district board for all purposes under the Lunacy Acts."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. GODFREY COLLINS: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time." It is of purely local interest, and I understand that the Government are prepared to accept it.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I accept the Clause.
  Clause added to the Bill.

PART I.—POWER AND MANNER OF DEALING WITH DEFECTIVES.
Powers of dealing with Defectives.

CLAUSE 1.—(Definition of Defectives.)
The following classes of persons who are mentally defective shall be deemed to be defectives within the meaning of this Act:—
(a) Idiots; that is to say, persons so deeply defective in mind from birth or from an early age as to be unable to guard themselves against common physical dangers;
(b) Imbeciles; that is to say, persons in whose case there exists from birth or from an early age mental defectiveness not amounting to idiocy, yet so pronounced that they are incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, or, in the case of children, of being taught to do so;
(c) Feeble-minded persons; that is to say, persons in whose case there exists from birth or from an early age mental defectiveness not amounting to imbecility, yet so pronounced that they require care, supervision, and control for their own protection or for the protection of others, or, in the case of children, are incapable of receiving proper benefit from the instruction in ordinary schools;
(d) Moral imbeciles; that is to say, persons who from an early age display some permanent mental defect coupled with strong vicious or criminal propensities on which punishment has little or no deterrent effect.
Amendments made: In paragraph (b) leave out the word "are" ["are incapable of receiving proper benefit"] and insert instead thereof the words "that they by reason of such defectiveness appear to be permanently."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]
In paragraph (d) leave out the word "has" ["has little or no deterrent effect"] and insert instead thereof the word "had" [Mr. McKinnon Wood.]
Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Duty of Parents and of School Board and Parish Council to Provide for Defectives.)
(1) (a) It shall be the duty of the parents or guardians of children between five and sixteen years of age who are defectives within the meaning of this Act, to snake provision for the education or for the proper care and supervision of such children as the case may require, and where the parent or guardian of a defective child is by reason of the attendant expense unable to make suitable provision as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the school board (except as hereinafter in this Section provided) to make such provision in terms of this Act.
(2) It shall be the duty of the school board to make ararngements, as the local authority concerned under this Act, and

1675
subject to the approval of the Scotch Education Department—

(a) for ascertaining what children within their area are defectives within the meaning of this Act;

(b) for ascertaining which of such children are incapable by reason of mental defect of receiving benefit or further benefit from instillation in special schools or classes, or of receiving such instruction without detriment to the interests of the other children and for notifying to the parish council and the General Board of Control hereinafter constituted (in this Act referred to as the Board) the names and addresses of such children:

(3) In the case of doubt as to whether a child is or is not capable of receiving such benefit as aforesaid, or whether the retention of a child in a special school or class would be detrimental to the interests of the other children, the matter shall be determined by the Scotch Education Department.
(4) When the name and address of a child have been notified to the parish council under this Section the duty of the school board to make suitable provision in regard to such child in terms of this Act shall be transferred to and imposed on the parish council, which shall thereafter in the case of such child be the local authority concerned under this Act.
(5) It shall be the duty of the parish council, as the local authority concerned in terms of this Act and subject to regulations made by the Board with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland, to ascertain what persons of sixteen years or over within their parish (not being persons who can be dealt with as lunatics under the Lunacy Acts) are defectives subject to be dealt with under this Act otherwise than at the instance of their parents or guardians, and to take steps for securing that they shall be dealt with by being sent to institutions or placed under guardianship in accordance with this Act.
Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), leave out the words "in terms of this Act," and insert instead thereof the words "either in virtue of their powers under the Education of Defective Children (Scotland) Act, 1906, as read with the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, or in terms of this Act as
1676
the local authority concerned."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

CLAUSE 3.—(Circumstances Rendering Defectives Subject to be Dealt with.)
(1) A person who is a defective shall be subject to be dealt with under this Act as herein provided—

(a) at the instance of his parent or guardian, if he is an idiot or imbecile or is under the age of twenty-one; or

(b) at the instance of a school board or the parish council, as the case may be, if he is a person under the age of sixteen for whom it is the duty of the school board or the parish council to make suitable provision; or

(c) if in addition to being a defective he is a person—

(i) who is found neglected, abandoned, or without visible means of support, or cruelly treated; or

(ii) who is found guilty of any offence at common law, or under any public and general Act of Parliament, or who is ordered or liable to be ordered to be sent to a certified industrial school; or

(iii) who is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment (except imprisonment under civil process), or penal servitude, or is undergoing detention in a place of detention by order of a court, or in a reformatory or industrial school, or in an inebriate reformatory or who is detained in an asylum or other lawful place of detention for lunatics or a criminal lunatic asylum or criminal lunatic department of a prison; or

(iv) who is an habitual drunkard within the meaning of the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900; or

(v) in whose case such notice has been given by the school board as is hereinafter in this Section mentioned; or

(vi) who being a woman and unmarried is in receipt of poor relief at any time during her pregnancy, or at the time of giving birth to a child; or

(vii) who during any consecutive period of six months in the year immediately before the commencement of proceedings under this Act has been in receipt of poor relief in a poor-house on three or more than three several occasions:

Provided that in the case of persons under the age of sixteen, referred to in paragraph (c) of this Sub-section, the local authority concerned shall be the school board, unless such persons are, or have been, notified to the parish council under the immediately preceding Section; and in the case of persons of sixteen years or over referred to in paragraph (c) of this Sub-section, the local authority concerned shall be the parish council.
(2) Notice shall, subject to regulations made by the Scotch Education Department, be given by the school board to the parish council, and to the Board in the case of all defective children for whom the school board have made provision, and whose discharge from a special school or class. or from an institution, or from guardianship is impending by reason of their attaining the age of sixteen, in whose case the school board are of opinion that it would be to their benefit that they should be sent to or remain in an institution or be placed or remain under guardianship.
Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), after the word "or" ["or is under"] to insert the words "at the instance of his parents if he."
I have handed in my Amendment in manuscript. I have no intention of delaying the House, but I understand it is the intention of the Government that this Bill in its definitions should be the same as the English Mental Deficiency Bill. I hope the Government will accept it.
Major MORRISON-BELLseconded the Amendment.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have not seen the Amendment, and am afraid I cannot follow it.
Mr. GOLDSMITH: Sub-section (a) reads, "at the instance of his parent or guardian, if he is an idiot or an imbecile or is under the age of twenty-one." This Amendment restricts it to the parent. That was accepted in the English Bill. I thought the right hon. Gentleman would have looked at the English Bill after it had passed the Third Reading. If he has not I have got it here
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member is quite right in thinking that it was the intention that the Definition Clauses should be precisely the same, but
1678
that does not explain the other Clauses. There is a good deal of difference in the two Bills, and I think that must apply to this Clause. I do not see any advantage in those words. It seems to me it is desirable that both the parent and the guardian should be included.
Mr. GOLDSMITH: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has seen the point of my Amendment and perhaps I had better explain it. Under the Idiots Act which is the law at present, a parent or a guardian can lock up an idiot or imbecile, but they cannot do that with a defective person. Under this Bill the parent or guardian can deal with a defective person under the age of twenty-one. The Home Secretary, in the English Bill, accepted an Amendment that the power to lock up a person under the age of twenty-one should only be given to the parents and not to any person who calls himself guardian, and therefore that was inserted. I think it is desirable that also should be inserted in this Bill. I think this Clause is a definition Clause more or less, as it has to be read in conjunction with Clause 1 of the Bill. I hope he will now see his way to accept it.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment. It was accepted on the Report stage of the English Bill by the Home Secretary and it is a very important point whether he will give power to the parent or guardian to lock up children or young people who are under their charge. It is an entirely new power. It is a dangerous power to give to both parents and guardians, but it is much more dangerous to give it to a person like a guardian, who might have pecuniary reasons for getting rid of a ward, and in the hands of an undesirable guardian it will be a very powerful weapon. The House knows perfectly well their may be cases in which a child or ward acts in an undesirable way to the guardian. They may fall in love with the wrong person or something of that kind, and from eighteen to twenty-one they are in danger of being put away by parents or guardians.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD:I will consider whether I cannot put it in in another place. I cannot undertake to deal with an Amendment at this time in manuscript.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I suppose that is the same.
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 7.—(Procedure on Presentation of Petition.)
(1) Upon the presentation of the petition the sheriff shall, unless cause to the contrary shall be shown to his satisfaction, grant warrant to cite the person to whom the petition relates to appear personally to show cause why an order should not be made against him.
(2) The sheriff may before disposing of the petition adjourn the case for such time as he shall fix in order that evidence may be adduced or further information may be procured, and he may remit to any suitable person to make such inquiries as the sheriff shall direct and to report to the sheriff, or may remit to a suitable person to visit and examine the person to whom the petition relates, or to take evidence on commission, and may order the person to whom the petition relates to submit himself to medical examination; or the sheriff may himself visit the person or take such other means as he shall think appropriate, in order to satisfy himself as to the expediency of granting or refusing the petition.
(3) Proceedings before the sheriff may in any case if the sheriff thinks fit, and shall, if so desired by the person to whom the petition relates, be conducted in private, and in that case no one except the petitioner, the person to whom the petition relates, any two persons appointed for the purpose by the person to whom the petition relates, and the persons signing the medical certificates and the statutory declaration accompanying the petition shall, without leave of the sheriff, be allowed to be present.
(4) If the sheriff is satisfied that the person to whom the petition relates is a defective, and is also satisfied that he is subject to be dealt with under this Act, the sheriff may make an order either ordering him to be sent to an institution, or appointing a suitable person to be his guardian, and the order shy11 state the class of defectives to which belongs, and the circumstances which render him subject. to be dealt with under this Act: Provided that where the petition is not presented by the parent or guardian the order shall not be, made without the consent of the parent or guardian unless, in the opinion of the sheriff, such consent is unreasonably withheld, and the withholding of such consent is calculated to prejudice the best interests of the defective; and provided further that nothing in
1680
this Section shall prevent an order bung made, notwithstanding that the person to whom the petition relates does not appear to the sheriff to belong to the class of defectives to which he is in the petition alleged to belong.
(5) The sheriff shall, in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by this Act, have the same jurisdiction, and the same power as regards the summoning and examination of witnesses, the administration of oaths, the awarding of expenses, and otherwise as if he were acting in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction.
Amendments made: In Sub-section (4), after the word "guardian" ["guardian unless"], insert the words "unless the sheriff is satisfied that the parent or guardian cannot be found or."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]
In Sub-section (5) after the word "ordinary" ["ordinary jurisdiction"] insert the word "civil."
Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Duration of Detention under Orders.)
(1) An order made under this Act that a defective be sent to an institution or placed under guardianship shall expire at the end of one year from its date, unless continued in manner hereinafter provided:
Provided that in the case of any institution the Board may fix four quarterly dates in each year and direct that orders that persons be sent thereto shall, unless continued as hereinafter provided, expire at the quarterly date next after the day on which the orders would have expired under the above provision.
(2) An order shall remain in force for a year after the date when under the preceding provisions of this Section it would have expired, and thereafter for successive periods of three years, if at that elate and at. the end of each period of one and three years respectively the Board, after considering such special report and certificate as is herein-after mentioned, intimate to the defective, and his parent or guardian, if any, and to any local authority concerned, that the continuance of the order is required in the interests of the defective.
Provided that where a defective was, at the time of being sent to the institution or placed under guardianship, under twenty-one years of age, the case shall be reconsidered by the Board within three months after he attains the age of twenty-one years.
(3) On such consideration or reconsideration the Board, if it appears to them that further detention in an institution or under guardianship is no longer required in the interests of the defective, shall order him to be discharged:
Provided that if the Board do not order his discharge the defective or his parent or guardian or the local authority concerned may within fourteen days after intimation of the decision of the Board appeal to the sheriff, who shall hold such inquiry and subject to the provisions of this Act shall dispose of the appeal by discharging the defective or otherwise as he shall think fit.
(4) The special report above mentioned shall be a special report as to the mental and bodily condition of the defective made, in the case of a person detained in an institution, by the medical officer of that institution, and in any other case by a duly qualified practitioner, and shall be accompanied by a certificate under his hand that the defective is still a proper person to be detained in an institution or under guardianship, and the person sending the special report shall give to the Board such further information concerning the defective to whom the special report relates as they may require.
(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Section contained, an order made upon a petition presented by a school board shall cease to have effect when the defective attains the age of sixteen; but without prejudice to his being further dealt with as in this Act provided.
(6) A certificate under the hand of the secretary to the Board that an order has been continued to the date therein mentioned shall be, sufficient evidence of the fact.
Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "mentioned" ["certificate as is herein-after mentioned"], insert the words "and the means of care and supervision which would be available if he were discharged."
In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "and to an" ["his parent or guardian, if any, and to an local authority concerned"] and insert instead thereof the words "or any other person who presented the original petition and to any."
In Sub-section (3), after the word, "guardian" ["or his parent or guardian or the local authority"], insert the words "or
1682
any other person who presented the original petition."
In Sub-section (4) after the word "qualified" ["a duly qualified practitioner"], insert the word "medical."—[Mr. McKinnon wood.]

CLAUSE 13.—(Duration of Detention not under Orders.)
(1) Where under this Act a defective has been placed by his parent or guardian in an institution or under guardianship it shall be lawful for his parent or guardian to withdraw him from the institution or guardianship at any time on giving notice in writing for the purpose to the Board, unless the Board, after considering what means of care and supervision would be available if he were discharged, determine that the further detention of the defective in the institution or under guardianship is required in the interests of the defective, and where the Board have so determined no further notice by the parent or guardian shall be allowed till after the expiration of one year from the last previous notice.
(2) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section a defective who under this Act has been placed by his parent or guardian, or by a parish council with the consent of his parent or guardian, in an institution or under guardianship, shall be detained in the institution or under guardianship, and the case shall be reconsidered by the Board at like intervals, and subject to the like right of appeal, as if he had been ordered to be sent to the institution or placed under guardianship, and the provisions of the foregoing Section shall apply accordingly.
(3) Where a defective has been placed by a school board in an institution or under guardianship with the consent of his parent or guardian, the authority for his detention shall cease when he attains the age of sixteen; but without prejudice to his being further dealt with as in this Act provided.
Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) after the word "determine" ["determine that the further detention"] insert the words "within fourteen days."
In Sub-section (2) leave out the word "shall" ["or under guardianship shall be detained"] and insert instead thereof the word "may."
In Sub-section (2) after the word "the" ["provisions of the foregoing section"] insert the word "last."
After Sub-section (3) insert as a new Sub-section, "(4) The managers of any certified institution or house may discharge any defective placed there by his parent or guardian on giving seven days' notice to the Board,"—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

SUPPLEMENTAL CLAUSE 14.—(Power to Recover Expenses.)
(1) Where an order that a defective be sent to an institution or be placed under guardianship has been made under this Act, whether by a sheriff or otherwise, any sheriff having jurisdiction, may on the application of the petitioner, or of the managers of the institution or the guardian, as the case may be, or of the local authority concerned, make an order requiring the defective, or any person liable to maintain him, to contribute such sum towards the expenses of his maintenance in the institution, or of his guardianship or, in the event of his death in the institution, of his funeral expenses, and any charges incidental thereto as, having regard to the ability of the defective or person liable to maintain him, seems reasonable.
(2) Any such order may, on the application of the managers of the institution in which the defective is for the time being detained, or of the guardian, or of the local authority concerned, be enforced against any property of the defective or person liable to maintain him in the same way as if it were a decree in the sheriff small debt court.
(3) An order made under this Section may be varied or revoked by any sheriff having jurisdiction.
(4) Where a defective has been placed by, or with the consent of, his parent or guardian in an institution or under guardianship any sum which the parent or guardian has agreed to contribute towards the expenses of the maintenance or guardianship of the defective shall be recoverable as a civil debt.
Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) after the word "of" ["on the application of the petitioner"] insert the words "the local authority concerned, or where there is no local authority concerned of."
In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "as the case may be, or of the local authority concerned."
In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "on the application of the managers of
1684
the institution in which the defective is for the time being detained, or of the guardian, or of the local authority concerned."
Leave out Sub-section (4)—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

DISTRICT BOARDS OF CONTROL.

  CLAUSE 22.—(Constitution, of District Boards of Control.)
  (1) As from the fifteenth day of May in the year nineteen hundred and fourteen a district board of lunacy shall cease to be so called, and shall be designated a district board of control.
  (2) The Board may, by regulation, from time to time alter the number of members of district boards, and make provision as may be necessary for all matters arising out of or connected with such alteration, including provision for varying existing enactments as to the representation of any authority on a district board (not being the district board of a single parish) and any consequential provision, so far as such variation is necessary to meet the circumstances of any district where, owing to the number of authorities, difficulty would arise in constituting a district board.
  (3) One-third as nearly as may be of the total number of members of a district board (not being the district board of a single parish) shall be elected annually by the chairmen of parish councils of parishes within the district in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Board, and from and after the date named in such regulations.
  (4) A regulation under this Section shall not take effect until approved by the Secretary for Scotland.
  (5) Nothing in this Section contained shall authorise the Board to make provision for the representation on a district board of any authorities other than county councils, town councils, or parish councils.
  (6) Nothing in any statute contained shall operate to prevent the election to a district board, if the authority having the right to elect so determine, of persons who are not members of that authority.
  (7) If a district board as constituted in pursuance of this Section contains no women, the district board shall co-opt not more than two women to be members of the board, and the number of the board shall be increased accordingly.
  (8) The disqualifications for membership of a county council prescribed by Section

  1685
  9 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, shall, with the necessary variations, apply as disqualifications for membership of a district board, not being the district board of a single parish.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (5), at the end, insert the words "or to vary the proportion of the members to be elected by chairmen of parish councils."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

  CLAUSE 25.—(General Powers and Duties of Board as to Defectives.)
  (1) Subject to regulations made by the Secretary for Scotland, the Board shall—

  (a) exercise general supervision, protection, and control over defectives;

  (b)co-ordinate and supervise the administration by school boards, parish councils, and district boards of their powers and duties in regard to defectives under this Act;

  (c)certify, approve, supervise, and inspect institutions and houses for defectives, and private dwellings for the reception of defectives under guardianship, and all arrangements made for the care and control of defectives therein;

  (d) visit, either through one or more Commissioners or through Deputy-Commissioners, or inspectors, defectives in institutions and certified houses, or under guardianship, or (with a view to their certification) elsewhere, and persons who have been placed under the care of any person as being defectives;

  (e) take such part in the provision, maintenance and management of institutions for defectives of criminal, dangerous, or violent propensities as this Act requires;

  (f) take such steps as may be necessary for ensuring suitable treatment of cases of mental deficiency;

  (g) make annual reports and such special reports as the Secretary for Scotland may from time to time require;

  (h) administer grants made out of money provided by Parliament under this Act, if so required by the conditions of the grants.

  (2) Without prejudice to their powers and duties under any regulations which the Secretary for Scotland may make for further or more frequent inspection and visitation, it shall be the duty of the Board,
  1686
  through one or more Commissioners or Deputy Commissioners or inspectors, to inspect every certified institution and certified house for defectives, and to visit every defective under guardianship, at least twice in every year, and the Board shall have power to discharge at any time any person detained as a defective in a certified institution or certified house or under guardianship under this Act:
  Provided that no power of discharge conferred on the Board or the sheriff by this Act shall be exercised without the consent of the Secretary for Scotland in the case of a person sent to such an institution or placed under guardianship by order of the Secretary for Scotland from a prison, criminal lunatic asylum, place of detention, reformatory or industrial school, or inebriate reformatory, so long as the term for which he was committed to the prison or other place from which he was transferred remains unexpired.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), at the end, insert the words, "and where they are of opinion that any such person is not, or is no longer, a defective, shall take such steps as may be necessary to secure the discharge of such person without any unnecessary delay."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

  CLAUSE 26.—(General Powers and Duties of District Boards in Regard to Defectives.)
  In addition to the existing powers and duties of a district lunacy board, a district board of control are hereby empowered, and it shall be their duty, subject to the provisions of this Act and to regulations made by the Board, with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland,—

  (a) to provide suitable and sufficient accommodation for defectives when sent to certified institutions by orders under this Act or by school boards or parish councils within the, district with consent of parents or guardians, to contribute towards the expenses of maintenance in an institution of defectives so sent to the extent hereinafter provided, and to provide for the conveyance of such persons to and from such institutions;

  (b) to contribute towards the expenses of maintenance of defectives placed under guardianship by orders under this Act or by school boards or parish councils within the district, with consent of parents or guar-

  1687
  dians, to the extent hereinafter provided; and

  (c) to make to the Board such reports as the Board may require:

  Provided that nothing in this Act relating to defectives shall affect the powers and duties of district boards under the Lunacy Acts, with respect to any defectives who may be dealt with under those Acts, nor shall district boards have any duties or powers under this Act with respect to defectives who for the time being are, or who might be, provided for under the Lunacy Acts except to such extent as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Board with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland:
  Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing any obligation on a district board of control, or a parish council, or a school board, to contribute towards the maintenance of defectives in institutions or under guardianship, where the contribution out of moneys provided by Parliament under this Act towards the cost of maintenance of the said defectives is less than one-half of the net amount of the cost of such maintenance.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (3), after the word "guardians" ["with consent of parents or guardians"], insert the words "and to provide for the conveyance of such persons to or from guardianship."
  In the second proviso: Leave out the words "towards the cost of maintenance of the said defectives is less than one-half of the net amount of the cost of such maintenance," and insert instead thereof the words "is less than one-half of the net amount (as approved by the Board) of the cost of maintenance of the said defectives, or of the annual expenditure on providing institutions for defectives, as the case may be, including in such expenditure any expenditure out of income by the district board by way of interest on or repayment of capital raised, or by way of rent or other similar payment for the purposes of the provision of the institution."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

  CLAUSE 27.—(Expenses of Maintaining Defectives for whom School Boards and Parish Councils are Responsible.)
  (1) A school board or a parish council shall account for and pay annually to the district board in respect of each defective for whom they are responsible as the local authority concerned, and who is placed by them respectively in an institution for
  1688
  defectives or under guardianship, with consent of parents or guardians, or is so placed by order under this Act, all contributions received by them (whether under an order or otherwise) in respect of the defective from the defective or his parent or guardian, or otherwise on his account; and shall also pay annually to the district board in respect of each defective as aforesaid a sum equally as nearly as may be to one-half of the cost of maintenance as hereinafter defined; and such last-mentioned payment shall be charged to the school fund or the poor rate as the case may be. Such payments shall be made by periodical instalments or otherwise in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Board.
  (2) The balance of the cost of maintenance, and the expense of providing the institution as hereinafter defined, shall be paid by the district board in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Board, and such payments shall be charged to the assessment authorised to be levied by the district board under the Lunacy Acts and this Act.
  (3) In this section the expression "cost of maintenance" means the annual expense incurred in maintaining a defective of the class dealt with, at rates fixed with approval of the Board, in an institution for defectives or under guardianship, as the case may be, including the expense of certification and (where required) of obtaining a judicial order, and the expense of conveying the defective to or from an institution or to or from guardianship (but not including the expense of providing the institution) after deducting all contributions as aforesaid made in respect of the defective by the defective or his parent or guardian, or otherwise on his account, or out, of moneys provided by Parliament; and the expression "expense of providing the institution" means, in the case of an institution for defectives provided by the district board, the like expenses in relation to such institution as are specified in Section 54 of the Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1857, in relation to a district asylum, and means, in the case of an institution which is not provided by the district board, such payment for each defective of the class dealt with in respect of the like expenses as the Board may approve with consent of the managers of the institution.
  (4) Nothing in this Section contained shall require or authorise a school board, parish council, or district board to incur

  1689
  any liability or make any payment in respect of a defective placed or to be placed in an institution or under guardianship by order under this Act, where the defective or any person on his behalf is willing to incur such liability or make such payment.
  Amendments made: In Sub-Section (1) leave out the words "for and pay" ["parish council shall account for and pay annually"].
  In Sub-Section (1) after the word "Act" ["is so placed by order under this Act"] insert the word "for."
  In Sub-Section (2) leave out the words "to be levied by the district board."— [Mr. McKinnon Wood.]
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (4) to add:—
  "Provided that any expenses incurred by a district board of control or a parish council or a school board in the exercise of their powers under this Act for purposes other than the fulfilment of their obligations under this Act shall not in any one year exceed an amount equal to that which would be produced by a rate of one halfpenny in the pound on the property liable to be assessed for the purpose as assessed for the time being for the purposes of that, rate."
  The position stands thus: there was some discussion about this matter in Committee upstairs, and although the Amendment I now propose was not brought forward, it was suggested that the Scottish ratepayers should have the same protection that English ratepayers have. The hon. Member for Midlothian had an Amendment on the Paper to the effect that local authorities, so far as maintenance was concerned, should not be required to provide more than one-half the amount, the State having to provide the other half, and that Amendment was accepted by the Government. Subsequently the right hon. Gentleman, when discussion as to capital expenditure came up, agreed that the Government should pay half the expenditure, so far as it was obligatory upon local authorities, not only in regard to maintenance, as my hon. Friend had proposed, but also to capital expenditure, and I agree that the Amendment he moved on Clause 26 carries that out. In addition to the protection given in the English Bill, that local authorities should not be bound to pay more than an equal sum to
  1690
  the Government's contribution, there was inserted in Clause 32 a proviso to the effect that local authorities, in the exercise of the powers which they had, as distinct from fulfilling the obligations they were under, should not be required to contribute more than the amount of a halfpenny rate. Several attempts were made to ascertain what the probable cost was likely to be to the ratepayers in carrying out this Act. Figures were given by Members on the Government side as to the probable cost, and I think some suggestion was made by the right hon. Gentleman that he would endeavour to ascertain in some way what the estimated cost was. We have not yet had the figures, but I cannot see why, if the English ratepayers are not to be subject to a higher rate than a halfpenny in the £, so far as the optional as distinct from the obligatory powers of the local authorities are concerned, the Scottish ratepayer should not have the same benefit.
  2.0 A.M.
  I cannot understand why that should not be done. The reason I am making my Amendment is in order to ensure that the Scotch ratepayer shall not be liable to have a higher rate put upon him than the English ratepayer is. I want to know why the Scotch ratepayer is not to have protection similar to that given to the English rate-payer. We in Scotland have three rating authorities—namely, the District Board of Control, the Parish Council, and the School Board, and my Amendment proposes that none of these three bodies shall be entitled to impose upon the ratepayers a higher rate than a halfpenny in the pound in order to discharge the expenses which may be caused by the rating authority exercising a power, as distinguished from discharging an obligation. Why that limitation should not be given in favour of Scottish ratepayers, as it has been given already in favour of English rate-payers, I do not know. I quite see that the Amendment I am proposing may be open to the construction that it may allow three halfpennies to be levied on the Scottish ratepayer, but even that would be some limitation. It may, that is to say, allow the District Board to put on a half-penny, the Parish Council to put on a halfpenny, and the School Board to put on a halfpenny. But even that, as I have already indicated, might be some limitation, because though definite figures are not forthcoming, the figures put forward in Grand Committee upstairs by Members

  1691
  sitting on the Government side went to show that if these optional powers were to be exercised so as to make this a really workable Bill, the rates might run up to threepence, fourpence, or even fivepence in the pound.
  It is out of the question, I submit, that the ratepayers of Scotland should be made liable for such a burden as that unlimited charge would put upon them. I have no hope, I confess, of carrying the Amendment, but I want to have it on record that the Government's attention was distinctly called to the matter, not only upstairs in Grand Committee, but in the House during such consideration of the Bill on Report as we are able to give it at this hour of the morning. I would not for a moment like it to be thought that the Bill was passed without that matter being placed before the Government. I want also to hear the reason why the Government consider it necessary to protect the English ratepayer by putting on this limitation that not more than a halfpenny in the pound is to be imposed for the purpose of these optional charges. The Government, so far as Scottish ratepayers are concerned, do not consider it necessary to have that limiting provision. According to my information which, I say again, I have derived almost entirely from the supporters of the Government, the rate required to carry out the Bill, if it is to be made properly workable, will be very much higher than a halfpenny rate. What justification is there for the Government putting the English ratepayer in a protected position and refusing the Scottish ratepayer a similar measure of protection?
  Captain GILMOUR: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that it is not very safe to draw comparisons between the English Bill and the Scotch Bill in reference to financial questions, because the system of administration provided in the Scotch Bill is quite different from that in the English Bill. Moreover, let me say that the system laid down under the Scotch Bill has been approved by the Grand Committee upstairs largely composed of Members from Scotland and also by the local authorities in Scotland. We are making less change in the system of Government than is proposed in the English Bill. The fact that
  1692
  we are dealing here with hundreds of authorities—900 parish councils and school boards—renders it extremely difficult to carry out such an operation as the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes. Nor do. I think that anybody who believes in local government and is prepared to trust the local authorities will consider it at all necessary to adopt a limitation like that proposed in the Amendment. The local authorities are directly responsible to the ratepayers, and I cannot see any necessity for restricting their actions as the Amendment would do, whilst I think also that it is not desirable from the point of view of the local authorities themselves. A very important deputation from the local authorities who saw me expressed their views on the subject, and I would point out that in the Amendment which I have put down to Clause 35 there is very complete protection for local authorities. These authorities really are not compelled to spend more than they think right, and there is the proviso that there is no obligation on them of any kind, unless they receive half the amount from the Treasury. That is quite a sufficient protection. It would not be possible, without complicating the finance of the Bill unduly, to put in this provision, and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not press the Amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I will not press the Amendment to the extent of dividing the House upon it, but I do desire to point out that every one of the arguments the right hon. Gentleman has used is equally applicable to England, and it is no novelty at all to limit the power of assessment, even so far as optional measures are concerned. Therefore, while I will not press the Amendment to a Division, I cannot say that I am convinced by what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that there is this great difference which, from an administrative point of view, is of considerable importance. In England we are setting up new authorities to deal specially with this subject, but in Scotland the authorities which will deal with the defectives are the authorities which are already dealing with the lunatics, the idiots, and the imbeciles, as well as those who are feebleminded. In these circumstances it might easily be profitable in certain cases for a local authority to spend more than the proceeds of a half-penny rate, because

  1693
  merely by transferring an obligation they may actually be lessening the cost of the total obligation.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.

  CLAUSE 30.—(Power of District Board to Establish or Contribute to Institutions, etc.)
  (1) A district board may, subject to the approval of the Board and of the Secretary of Scotland—

  (a) undertake or combine with any other district board in undertaking, or contribute such sums of money upon such conditions as they may think fit towards, the establishment, building, alteration, enlargement, rebuilding, or management of institutions certified or intended to be certified as institutions for defectives under this Act or the purchase of any land required for the use of a certified institution or for the site of an institution intended to be certified under this Act; and

  (b) contract with the managers of any certified institution for defectives for the reception and maintenance in the institution of persons for whose reception and maintenance the district board are by this Act required or authorised to make provision.

  (2) The expenses incurred by a district board under this section shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be charged to the assessment authorised to be levied by the district board under the Lunacy Acts and this Act.
  Amendment made: Leave out the words "to make provision.
  (2) The expenses incurred by a district board under this section shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be charged to the assessment authorised to be levied by the district board under the Lunacy Acts and this Act."

  CLAUSE 31.—(Regulations as to Management of Institutions for Defectives, etc.)
  The Board, with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland, may make regulations as to—

  (a) the granting, transfer, renewal, revocation, and resignation of certificates for institutions;

  (b) the management of institutions, the number of patients to be received
  1694
  therein, the number of private patients (if any) to be received in institutions provided by a district board, and the conditions under which they may be received;

  (c) the number of the different grades of the staff of institutions in proportion to the number of patients therein, their remuneration, and the regulation of their hours and duties;

  (d) the classification and treatment of patients in institutions, their instruction, and their employment in suitable occupations, and the reports to be made as to their mental condition;

  (e) the inspection of institutions and the visitation of patients therein by the Board and Deputy Commissioners and other persons;

  (f) the notification to the Board of the admission of a patient to an institution or under guardianship;

  (g) the transfer of patients from one certified institution to another, and from a State institution to a certified institution, and, in special cases, from a certified institution to a State institution;

  (h)the discharge of patients from institutions;

  (i) the absence of patients from institutions under licence or temporarily without licence;

  (j) the notifications to be made by the managers in the event of the outbreak of an infectious disease in an institution and in the event of the death of a patient in an institution or absent therefrom under licence;

  (k) the conveyance of persons to and from institutions or under guardianship;

  (l) the powers and duties of persons appointed guardians of defectives under this Act; the reports to be made by such guardians as to defectives under their guardianship; the visitation of such defectives; and their discharge from guardianship;

  (m) the granting, renewal, and revocation of licences for private dwellings for the reception of defectives under guardianship, and the number to be-received in any such dwelling;

  (n) the holding of inquiries;

  1695

  (o) any other matter necessary or proper for the carrying into effect of the provisions of this Act with respect to institutions, and the inmates thereof, and to guardianship; and

  (p) the application as respects defectives, of any of the provisions of the Lunacy Acts for the greater protection of lunatics, subject to the necessary modifications and adaptations.

  Mr. GLADSTONE: I beg to move in paragraph (c) to leave out the words "number of the different grades of the staff of institutions" and to insert instead thereof the words "staff of institutions and of the different grades thereof." This is a drafting Amendment, and the point is a very small one. The present wording of the Clause does not seem to carry out the intention of the Bill, which I presume is to give the general board power to make regulations not only as to the number of different grades of the staff of institutions, but as to the numbers in these grades as well. My Amendment simply makes it clear that both objects are covered by the Bill.
  Captain WARING: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I see no objection to this Amendment, and I will accept it.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Words, "staff of institutions and of the different grades thereof" inserted.

  CLAUSE 32.—(Apprehension, of Defectives Escaping.)
  If a patient in an institution for defectives, or absent from such an institution under licence or without a licence, or any person under guardianship as a defective escapes, he may be apprehended without warrant by any constable or by the managers of the institution or guardian or any person authorised by them in writing, and brought back to the institution or other place of safety or under guardianship.
  Amendment made: After the word "may" ["he may be apprehended"] insert the words "at any time within three months thereafter."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

  CLAUSE 35.—(Legal Settlement to Determine Liability.)
  Where a parish council or a school board making any payment on account of a defective in pursuance of this Act, or of an order thereunder, is not the parish council or school board of the parish in which the defective has his legal settlement for Poor Law purposes—

  (1) the first-mentioned parish council or school board shall be entitled to reimbursement in respect of any such payment from the parish council or school board of the parish in which such defective has his legal settlement; and

  (2) if the first-mentioned parish council or school board establishes a claim for reimbursement as aforesaid, the district board of the district in which its area is comprised shall be entitled to the like reimbursement in respect of any payment made by that board on account of such defective from the district board of the district comprising the parish of legal settlement:

  Provided that no liability to reimburse under this Section shall accrue unless written notice claiming reimbursement shall have been given by the first-mentioned parish council or school board, or in respect of any period prior to the date of such notice; and provided further that nothing herein contained shall be deemed to constitute the reimbursing authority the local authority concerned under this Act.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) after the word "board" ["from the parish council or school board of the parish"], insert the words "as the case may be." —[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]
  At the end of the Clause insert the words,
  "(2) Where this or any other statutory provision confers upon a school board a right to relief or reimbursement as against the school board of the parish of legal settlement of any person, and there is no school district coterminous with the parish of legal settlement, the school board of the school district comprising that part of the parish of legal settlement in which the birth or residence determining the settlement took place shall be liable, except where the settlement has been acquired by residence within the districts of different school boards within the parish, in which case such school boards shall be jointly

  1697
  liable in such proportions as, failing agreement, shall be determined by the Local Government Board for Scotland, whose determination shall be final.
  (3) In any case where parish councils or school boards differ as to the legal settlement of a defective but are agreed as to the facts on which such settlement depends, it shall be lawful for them, to refer the case for determination by the Local Government Board for Scotland, whose determination shall be final."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

  CLAUSE.37. —(Contributions by the Treasury.)
  There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament such sums on such conditions as the Secretary for Scotland may, with the approval of the Treasury, recommend towards the expenses of any persons detained in certified institutions or placed under guardianship as defectives, including the expenses of removal in the case of any such person ordered to be transferred from one institution or guardian to another:
  Provided that, unless Parliament otherwise determines, the aggregate amount so paid in any financial year shall not exceed. £20,000, but for the purpose of this limitation there shall be excluded all sums paid towards the expenses of persons sent to such institutions or placed under guardianship—

  (a) by order of the Secretary for Scotland;

  (b) after having been found guilty of an offence, or having been ordered or found liable to be ordered to be sent to an industrial school.

  Amendments made: After the word "another" ["transferred from one such institution or guardian to another"], insert the words "and towards other expenses incurred by local authorities under this Act."
  At the beginning of paragraph (b) insert the words "under a judicial order."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

  CLAUSE 39.—(Provisions as to Certified Houses.)
  (1) A person desirous of receiving defectives at his house for private profit may apply to the Board for a certificate, and the Board, if satisfied of the fitness of the premises and of the applicant., may, if they think fit, on payment by the applicant of the prescribed fee, which shall not exceed ten pounds, grant a certificate to the
  1698
  applicant subject to conditions prescribed by regulations made by the Board under this Act, and a certificate so granted shall continue in force for the period for which it is granted or until revoked or resigned under this Act, and a house in respect of which such a certificate has been granted is in this Act referred to as a certified house, and the person to whom such a certificate is granted is referred to as the owner of such house.
  (2) Any defective who may be ordered to be sent to, or may be placed in an institution under this Act may be ordered to be sent to or may be placed in a certified house, and all the provisions of this Act relating to institutions for defectives and the patients therein shall, unless the contrary intention appears, apply to certified houses for defectives and the patients therein.
  Provided that—

  (a) no part of the money provided by Parliament under this Act shall be applied towards the expenses of defectives in certified houses; and

  (b) a school board, parish council, or district board shall have no power or duty to contribute towards the expenses of defectives ordered to be sent to or placed in a certified house or to provide for their conveyance to, and reception and maintenance in, a certified house; and

  (c) the provisions of this Act with respect to the recovery from defectives or the persons liable to maintain them of contributions towards the expenses of their maintenance shall not apply in the case of defectives in or ordered to be sent to certified houses.

  Amendment made: At the end of the Clause, add the words, "and
  (d) a special report under Section 12 of this Act as to the mental and bodily condition of a defective detained in a certified house shall not be made by the medical officer of the house, or by any medical practitioner directly or indirectly interested in the house."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

  CLAUSE 43.—(Protection of Defectives from Acts of Sexual Immorality, Procuration, etc.)
  (1) Any person—

  (a) who unlawfully and carnally knows, or attempts to have unlawful carnal

  1699
  knowledge of, any woman or girl under care or treatment in an institution or certified house, or whilst placed out on licence therefrom or under guardianship under this Act; or

  (b) who procures, or attempts to procure, any woman or girl who is a defective to have unlawful carnal connection, whether within or without the King's dominions, with any person or persons; or

  (c) who causes or encourages the prostitution, whether within or without the King's dominions, of any woman or girl who is a defective; or

  (d) who, being the owner or occupier of any premises, or having or acting or assisting in the management or control thereof, induces or knowingly suffers any woman or girl who is a defective to resort to or be in or upon such premises for the purpose of being unlawfully and carnally known by any man, whether such carnal knowledge is intended to be with any particular man or generally; or

  (e) who, with intent that any woman or girl who is a defective should be unlawfully and carnally known by any man, whether such carnal knowledge is intended to be with any particular man or generally, takes or causes to be taken such woman or girl out of the possession and against the will of her parent or any other person having the lawful care or charge of her;

  shall be guilty of a crime and offence, and shall he liable upon conviction on indictment to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding two years.
  (2) Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, shall apply in the case of a woman or girl who is a defective in the same manner as it applies in the case of a girl who is under the age of sixteen years.
  (3) No consent shall be any defence in any proceedings for an indecent assault upon any defective if the accused knew or had reason to suspect that the person in respect of whom the offence was committed was a defective.
  (4) If on the trial of an indictment for rape the jury are satisfied that the accused is guilty of an offence under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of this Section, but are
  1700
  not satisfied that he is guilty of rape, the jury may acquit him of rape and find him guilty of such offence as aforesaid, and in that event he shall be liable to be punished as if he had been convicted on an indictment for such offence as aforesaid.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), after the word "girl" insert the words "who is a defective."
  In Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), leave out the words "whilst" ["or whilst placed out on licence."].
  In Sub-section (1), paragraph (a) after the words "Act" ["under guardianship under this Act"], insert the words "under circumstances which do not amount to rape, but which prove that the offender knew at the time of the commission of the offence that the woman or girl was under such care or treatment or so placed out or under guardianship."
  In Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), after the word "any" ["with any person or persons"] insert the word "other."
  In Sub-section (1) paragraph (c) leave out the words "causes or encourages the" and insert the words "having the custody, charge or care of any woman or girl who-is a defective, causes or encourages her."
  In Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), leave out the words "of any woman or girl who is a defective."
  Leave out Sub-section (3) and insert "(3) Section 4 of the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, shall have effect as if this section of this Act were included in the Schedule to that Act."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

  CLAUSE 48.—(Plans to be Approved by the Board.)
  Plans, specifications, and estimates of all public, district, and private asylums, and lunatic wards of poorhouses shall be transmitted to the Board when called for, and no such asylum or lunatic ward shall be erected, added to, or altered, except on sites and in accordance with plans approved by the Board: Provided that in the case of a public asylum this section shall only apply when the ward or dormitory accommodation for patients is, directly affected by the proposed erection, addition, or alteration.
  Amendment made: Leave out the word "district" ["public, district, and private asylums"].—[Major Hope.]

  CLAUSE 60.—(District Board to Pay Half Maintenance Charge for Pauper Lunatics.)
  As from the 15th day of May in the year 1914, in lieu of the sums hitherto in use to be fixed and paid or which might be fixed and paid under Section 73 of the Act of 1857, as amended by any subsequent Act, as the charge payable by parish councils to the district board for pauper lunatics in district asylums, there shall in each year be paid to the district board one-half of the said sums; and the balance of the cost of maintenance and other expenses and salaries referred to in the said Section, together with one-half of the like charge payable by parish councils for pauper lunatics maintained by them otherwise than in a district asylum, as ascertained and intimated to the district board in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Board, shall be paid by the district board, and such payments shall be charged to the assessment authorised to be levied by the district board under the Lunacy Acts and this Act: Provided that, in the case of a lunatic on whose account any such payment is made by a district board other than the board of the district comprising the parish of legal settlement of such lunatic, the first-mentioned district board shall be entitled to reimbursement in respect of any such payment from the district board of the district comprising the parish of legal settlement as from the date from which the parish council at whose instance the liability of the parish of legal settlement has been established is entitled to recover its expenses incurred in relation to such lunatic.
  Amendments made: Leave out the words "said sums" ["to the district board one half of the said sums"], and insert instead thereof the words "cost of maintenance as hereinafter defined of pauper lunatics."
  Leave out the words "to be levied by the district board."
  At the end of the Clause add,
  "(2) The definition of the expression cost of maintenance' contained in the Section of this Act relating to the expenses of maintaining defectives shall apply to the same expression in this Section, with the substitution of pauper lunatic' for 'defective' and of 'contributions out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account to the cost of maintenance of pauper lunatics' for moneys provided by Parliament,' and with any other necessary substitutions.
  (3) A parish council shall account annually to the district board in respect of each pauper lunatic who is placed by them in a district asylum or maintained by them otherwise than in a district asylum for all contributions received by them in respect of such lunatic, from such lunatic, or otherwise on his account."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

  CLAUSE 61.—(District Board to Levy Lunacy and Mental Deficiency Rate.)
  (1) As from the fifteenth day of May in the year nineteen hundreed and fourteen the expenses declared by this Act to be chargeable to the assessment authorised to be levied by the district board under the Lunacy Acts and this Act shall be ascertained and apportioned within the lunacy district upon the landward parts of counties and upon burghs, respectively, as provided in Section fifty-four of the Act of 1857, as read with Section sixty-two of the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877, and shall be assessed, levied, and collected by the district board as provided in the said Sections.
  (2) This Section shall apply to the case where the district board of control is the parish council, with the substitution of the parish for the landward parts of counties and for burghs, and with any other necessary variations; provided that the assessment hereby authorised shall be separately set forth and demanded in the demand note, and shall be levied upon the like valuation in all respects as the assessment hitherto leviable within the parish under the Lunacy Acts by the town or county councils, but shall be collected along with the poor rate, and with the same remedies and modes of recovery; and provided also that the consent of the Board shall be required to any assessment levied by the district board; and provided further that moneys levied and collected by a parish council acting as district board shall be kept separate and distinct from moneys levied and collected by the parish council for other purposes; and for purposes of audit the accounts of the parish council shall be deemed to include the accounts of such moneys and of the expenditure thereof.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "authorised to be levied by the district board under."
  In Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["and this Act shall ascertained and apportioned"], insert the word "be."
  In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "in Section fifty-four of the Act of 1857, as read with Section sixty-two of the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877, and shall be assessed, levied, and collected by the district board as provided in the said Sections," and insert instead thereof the words, "the Act of 1857, as amended by any subsequent Act, and shall be assessed, levied, and collected as provided in the said Acts."
  In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "hereby authorised" ["provided that the assessment hereby authorised,"] and insert instead thereof the words "levied by a parish council acting as a district board."
  In Sub-section (2), after the word "respects" ["the like valuation in all respects"], insert the words "and subject to the like deductions and exemptions."
  In Sub-section (2), after the word "the"
  ["any assessment levied by the district board"], insert the words "parish council acting as a"—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

  CLAUSE 63.—(Audit of Accounts of District Boards.)
  The provisions regulating the making up and auditing of the accounts of a parish council shall, with the substitution of "district board of control" for "parish council," "clerk to the district board of control" for "clerk of the parish council," and "lunacy district" for "parish" apply to the making up and auditing of the accounts of a district board of control not being a parish council: Provided that before making a disallowance or surcharge affecting the accounts of a district board (whether a parish council or not) the Local Government Board for Scotland shall consult with the Board.
  Amendment made: After the words "Provided that," insert the words "a surcharge of disallowance shall not be made in respect of any expenditure which has been sanctioned by the Board, and provided that."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

  CLAUSE 64.—(Powers for Acquisition of Land and Borrowing by a District Board.)
  (1) A district board of control may, with the consent of the Board, from time to time for the purpose of any of their powers and duties under the Lunacy Acts or this Act (including, as incidental to the
  1704
  provision of an asylum or of an institution for defectives, the open-air exercising of patients and their occupation in agricultural or other works), acquire, purchase, or take or lease and hold any land.
  (2) For the purpose of such acquisition of land, the Lands Clauses Acts shall be incorporated with the said Acts, except the provisions of those Acts relating to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement.
  (3) For the purpose of such acquisition of land otherwise than by agreement, Section one hundred and forty-five of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, shall, with the substitution of the assessment authorised to be levied by the district board under the Lunacy Acts and this Act for the assessments therein mentioned, and with any other necessary substitutions, apply as if it were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to a district board of control; provided that a district board shall not without the consent of the Board make an application to the Local Government Board for Scotland under that Section.
  (4) A district board of control may, with the sanction of the Board, sell, let, or feu any surplus land, and shall apply the proceeds thereof towards the reduction of debt, or in such other manner as the Board may direct.
  (5) In this Section and in the Lands Clauses Acts as hereby incorporated the expression "land" includes water and any right or servitude over water.
  (6) The provisions for enabling a district board to acquire and hold lands and heritages or to acquire additional ground contained in the Acts of 1857 and 1862 shall cease to have effect.
  (7) The expression "purpose of this Act" in Section sixty-two of the Act of 1857 shall be construed as meaning any purposes of the Lunacy Acts or this Act involving capital expenditure; and a district board may, with the consent of the Board, borrow money for such purposes on the security of the lunacy and mental deficiency rate; provided that all money so borrowed shall be repaid by equal annual instalments of principal within a period not. exceeding sixty years from the date of borrowing the same, such period to be fixed by the Board in each case with due regard to the nature of the expenditure and the probable time during which it will remain effective.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "to be levied by the

  1705
  district board under the Lunacy Acts and this Act for the assessments therein mentioned and with any other necessary substitutions, apply as if it were herein reenacted and in terms made applicable to a district board of control; provided that a district board shall not without the consent of the Board make an application to the Local Government Board for Scotland under that Section."
  In Sub-section (7), leave out the words "lunacy and mental deficiency rate," and insert instead thereof the words "assessment authorised under the Lunacy Acts and this Act."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

  CLAUSE 68.—(Subscriptions to Pathological Investigations.)
  District boards shall have power, with approval of the Board, and for the purpose of obtaining instruction and assistance in pathological investigation for the medical officers of asylums under their charge, to contribute annually towards any pathological laboratory, having for its object or one of its objects investigation into the pathology of mental diseases, and such contributions shall be paid out of the assessment authorised to be levied by the district board under the Lunacy Acts and this Act.
  Amendment made: Leave out, the words "to be levied by the district board."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood].
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I begin to understand now why the Scotch Members wish Home Rule after the farce which has just taken place. I defy anyone who wanted to amend this Bill on the Report stage to get an Amendment accepted. The official Amendments were put from the Chair at such a pace that no one could follow them, and if anyone had put an Amendment on the Paper he would not have been listened to at half-past two in the morning. In the English Bill we had safeguard after safeguard put in which do not find a place in the Scotch Bill. We had a valuable proviso in the English Bill that a parent should have the right to prevent his child being sent to these institutions. This was put in in Committee and improved on the Report stage at the instance of the hon. Member for Oxford University, so that the onus of proof lay on the Board and not on the
  1706
  parent. In the Scotch Bill the onus of proof lies entirely on the parent, and I wish the parent luck of his chance of keeping his child out of an institution if he does not want it to go there. The English Bill has not it in writing and here nothing is said about it. You have only part of the Clause in this Bill. The Clause similarly set out to the English Bill would give better treatment to England than it does to Scotland. That is owing to the rushing through of the Bill at this time of the morning. I do not propose to make a speech in opposition at this stage on the subject of perpetual imprisonment of the people who are least able to take care of themselves. Perhaps I had read one of the numerous letters which I have received from parents who have feeble-minded children, thanking me for my opposition to this and to the English Bill. It happens to be a letter from Scotland, and I think that to read it is the best way of showing the necessity there is for this Bill. It begins: —
  "Dear and hon. Sir—Pray forgive my presumption in addressing you—"
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I observe those ironical cheers, but Gentlemen will have something to cheer about before I reach the end of the letter—
  "But I feel I must write to thank you for your gallant and determined stand against the Scottish Mental Deficiency Bill. I may tell you my reason for being so deeply interested in this measure is that I have a little daughter nine years of age who is what some medical gentlemen term a sporadic cretin; her speech is rather defective and she is very far behind for a child of her years. Her birth was rather more than two months premature. She goes to our village school, but is taught nothing by the teacher, but she imitates her companions in playing games, and from the lessons of the different classes, she comes home and recites to her mother parts of their lessons. Now, Sir, let me say that she is a most lovable and obedient child, in a respectable and clean home (though I am only a rural postman), and if she is taken away to a special school or institution I fear it will break the heart of her mother and herself, and we are in great trepidation. I have no doubt but that the gentleman who introduced the Bill had the best intentions of benefiting the country, but for the life of me I cannot see how such children can be helped by being herded together, beside others as mentally defective, or more so, than themselves, whereas being among normally minded ones would surely be to their best advantage. Another thing, their governors and teachers will be at best only paid Government officials, so how in the name of reason can they exercise the love and care and deep interest towards their unfortunate little ones."
  That is not the end of the letter, but I do not think I need read any more. I think the House will understand from that the feeling that there is in the country on the part of parents, that children whom they love may be taken away and placed with children of the same or worse class in an institution. I think that when the Bill becomes properly known the country will

  1707
  view the Bill and the people who passed it in a different way.
  Mr. PRICE: I have received a large number of letters from women associated with this work, some of them engaged in the medical and nursing profession, asking me to introduce a provision into the Bill regarding women among the officials. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will be able to give us some undertaking upon this. These women have rendered a great service to the people of Scotland. I have a large number of letters on the subject.
  Mr. McKINNON WOODwas understood to assent.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I just want to say that the case to which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has referred would not be taken from that home under this Bill. I hope he will reassure his correspondent and tell him that there is no danger whatever of that child being taken away against the parents' will under the Bill. There is no power to take that child away, and I hope my words will reach the correspondent, as his alarm is probably due to the fact that he has read some of the mistaken speeches about the Bill. The second observation I have to make is that if the child is a sporadic cretin, it is curable. It is not a case of being feebleminded or of brain disease, or of arrested development, and it is absolutely curable. I should like the hon. Member to understand that the condition of that child can be cured and that it would not come under the Bill at all.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I think I said "The Nees have it"quite loudly.
  The CHAIRMAN: I understood that the last time I put it, he allowed it to go unchallenged.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I say that I do not intend to move any of my Amendments until I come to the Schedule?

CLAUSE 2.—(Appointment of Board.)
(1) For the purposes of this Act it shall be lawful for His Majesty, by warrant under his sign manual, to appoint a Board consisting of not less than five and not more than nine members, one of whom shall be a woman, to be called the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Board. One of the members of the Board shall be appointed by His Majesty to be chairman of the Board.
(2) The Board may act by any four, or if the total number of the Board is six or less, by any three of their number, and notwithstanding any vacancy in their number.
(3) The Secretary for Scotland may appoint a secretary to the Board and the Board may, with the consent of the Treasury as to numbers, appoint and employ such officers and servants for the purposes of this Act as they think necessary, and may remove any officer or servant so appointed or employed, and there shall be paid to the secretary, officers, and servants such salaries or remuneration as the Board, or in the case of the secretary, the Secretary for Scotland, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine.
(4) The salary of the secretary and the salaries or remuneration of the officers and servants, and any expenses incurred by the Board in the execution of their duties under this Act, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
(5) The Board shall make an annual report of their proceedings to the Secretary for Scotland, and that report shall forthwith be laid before Parliament.
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "one of whom shall be a woman," and to insert instead thereof the words "two of whom shall be women."
I believe this matter has been considered by the Government. My object in moving would be to get the Secretary for Scotland to tell us that there may be some women upon this Board. They have done a lot of organising work and district nursing, and I think they should be able to do good work under this Bill.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think it is desirable to meet this case by appointing representatives of the profession of nurses.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SCHEDULE.

  Highlands and Islands.
  The counties of—Argyll, Caithness, Inverness (excluding the Burgh of Inverness), Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Orkney, and Zetland.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I beg to move, after the word "Zetland," to add the words,
  "The Highlands of Perthshire, that is to say, the Highland district of the county of Perth and the parishes of Aberfoyle, Balquhidder, Callander, Comrie, Killin, and Kirkmichael.
  The Highlands of Forfarshire, that is to say, the parishes of Lochlee, Edzell, Lethnot, Glenisla, Lintrathen.
  The Highlands of Aberdeenshire, that is to say, the parishes of Crathie and Braemar, Blenmuick, Strathdon, and Glenbucket.
  The Highlands of Banffshire, that is to say, the parishes of Glenrinnes, quoad sacra of Mortlach, Glenlivet, quoad sacra of Inveravon, Kirkmichael, and Cabrach.
  And such Highland portions of the counties of Moray and Nairn as the Board may from time to time determine."
  This is one of the cases which was in the original Bill, and that shows the necessity of those particular districts. I would simply say that so far as Perthshire is concerned it is one of the most mountainous districts in all the Highlands, it is the most mountainous part of Scotland. With regard to the other, the Highland districts of the county of Perth, practically the same thing may be said. One is on the western side of the and the other on the eastern side of the hill. I would point out that a place like Kirkmichael, a district which is 29 miles across, with 21,000 acres, and which has not got a doctor. I think these necessitous parishes ought to be put into the Bill. I think I am entitled to point out to hon. Members who are appealing for other districts such as Aberdeenshire and Morayshire that many other parts of the Highlands and Islands are necessitous. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an undertaking that if he cannot take this Amendment as it stands he will at least give us some assurance that he will be able to put many of these districts into a Bill of a similar nature next year. So far as Perthshire is concerned, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman
  1710
  is prepared to make an offer with regard to it, and, if the right hon. Gentleman will tell me what he proposes, I shall only be too glad to come to some agreement, as I am quite sensible of the way in which the Government has met me in this matter. We have not always agreed on the details of the Bill, but I would say this: I do know that our object and our aim are really the same, and I do not see really why we should quarrel about any particular place, but that we should go together hand in hand for the benefit of our own country.
  Captain WARING: I beg to second this Amendment, for the reason that it concerns one of the districts which I happen to represent, and I am very glad to learn that the right hon. Gentleman has some statement to snake later which will render it unnecessary to enter into any long argument on the subject. There is not the slightest doubt that the district I represent is one of the most necessitous in Scotland. Anyone who has visited it in the winter would see that some provision should be made for special medical service. If any hon. Member will refer to the report of the Insurance Commissioners for 1912–3, and look at the reference made to this district, he will see the district mentioned as being fully as necessitous as any district, and for that reason I wish to second this Amendment; but I trust that the statement which the right hon. Gentleman is about to make will render it unnecessary to press the Amendment to a Division.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think the recital of the names from the Chair shows this to be an Amendment which the Government could not possibly accept. The considerable uprising of Scottish Members two minutes ago is another indication of the difficulty. It was found, when we came to consider the matter, that every Scottish Member had a necessitous district. The fact of the matter is, that it is perfectly obvious if all these proposals were assented to, the £42,000 would be of very slender assistance to anybody. I would remind the House that the Committee's Report has resulted in a very generous Grant from the Treasury to deal with specific cases in Scotland, first, those of the Islands which, not merely from geographical circumstances, but by reason of the smallness of the rateable value, were unable to obtain a doctor, and also the Highland districts. So that the Grant

  1711
  was intended to deal with what was understood generally as the Highlands and Islands.
  We find in the Report of the Committee that there is no recommendation of all the districts named in the proposal of the Noble Lord. The only one mentioned is the Highlands of Perthshire, quite a vague description. I am prepared to meet what appears to be an indication, although not a recommendation, in the Report of the Committee, by adding to the Schedule "the Highland district of the county of Perth as at present constituted under the terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889." We cannot go further, but I may say that I have had a communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that the Government recognise there are other necessitous parts of Scotland, although they are partly dealt with by the Mileage Grant already given, and it is proposed that those other parts of Scotland which would come under the description, but which could not possibly be put in this Bill, shall be considered, and that the necessary money for dealing with them shall be provided next year. I have the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for making that announcement and I understand it will meet the view of my colleagues in the representation of Scotland. Perhaps, in these circumstances, the Noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment and will allow me to substitute the one I have suggested to the House.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this involves the introduction of a new Bill, or whether the Grant for other districts can be given without an Act of Parliament?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I should like notice of that question, but I think if it deals with places of inaccessibility, it can be dealt with as before without an Act of Parliament.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I beg to withdraw my Amendment, and to thank the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I congratulate the Noble Lord on getting something for Perthshire out of the Government. We understood, first of all, that this Grant of £42,000 was to be for the crofting counties in the North of Scotland, and we never understood that Perthshire, or the High-
  1712
  lands of Perthshire, were included in the Amendment.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Did not the hon. Member move an Amendment of that description?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no recollection of such a thing. I am concerned about the money we are getting for the North of Scotland. At this hour of the night I will not detain the House because, although I regard this as a serious question indeed so far as the Highlands are concerned, provided I get the assurance of my right hon. Friend that the Highlands counties as we know them in the North are not to be severely handicapped by the inclusion of the Highlands of Perthshire, I will not proceed any further with my speech. The only thing is that we must be satisfied that the Highland counties, which are really in great need of a Grant of this sort, are not to be caused any discomfort by the inclusion of the Highlands of Perthshire. I am greatly dissatisfied with the Government for having at this hour of the night come forward with a proposal to include the Highlands of Perthshire within the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. MUNRO: I shall only occupy the attention of the House for a few moments, but I desire to register my emphatic protest against the decision of the Government to include parts of Perthshire within the ambit of this Bill. In the first place, I should like to say that the Highlands and Islands of Scotland have again and again been defined in measures which have passed on to the Statute Book, and in no Statute which exists at the present moment is any part of Perthshire included within that definition. A second reason for opposing the course which the Government propose now to take is that even in the Dewar Report there is no recommendation whatever that any part of Perthshire should be included within the ambit of this Bill. I challenge anybody to controvert the statement which I make that there is no recommendation whatever in that Report to include any part of Perthshire in the Bill. But the most important reason of all for opposing the course proposed to be taken is this: We discussed this matter at considerable length in Grand Committee upstairs, and the decision of the Committee—I admit frankly that it was arrived at by only a small majority—was that no part of Perthshire should be included. In favour of

  1713
  that Amendment, which I had the honour of moving, I had the support of two Members of the Government—the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate. Both voted for the exclusion of Perthshire from the Bill, and were supported by the majority of the Scottish Members on the Committee. Now, when the Bill comes downstairs again, my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland proposes deliberately to reverse the decision of the Scottish Grand Committee upstairs. He proposes, that is to say, that part of Perthshire should be included, and I suppose if the matter were pressed to a Division he would put on the Government Whips with the object of voting down the very Members whom he supported in the Division which took place on the same question in Grand Committee upstairs. The attitude the Government have adopted in these circumstances is a very extraordinary one and one that I feel bound to protest against in the strongest possible manner.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I wish to ask you whether it is in order for an hon. Member to wear his hat when seated in the side Gallery.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): The place which the hon. Member in question is occupying is within the House, and the hon. Member is as much entitled to wear his hat there as if he were on the floor of the House.
  Mr. MUNRO: I have only one further observation to make to the House. I do not think it is fair to other counties in Scotland, who have an equally good, if not, in some instances, a better claim than Perthshire to be included in the Bill, that they should in the meantime be excluded from the benefits of the Bill while Perthshire is included. I am very much mistaken if that view is not shared by a number of my hon. Friends sitting on this side of the House, but, of course, there is no desire to endanger the safety of the Bill. The master fact of the situation is that we all want the Bill, but at the same time I do desire to register an emphatic protest against the decision of the Government.
  Mr. PRICE: I am very sorry that the Secretary for Scotland has seen fit to give way on this question after the decision which was come to in Committee upstairs. I have the advantage of knowing every district which the Noble Lord represents
  1714
  in Perthshire, and, in fact, there is hardly any part of Scotland that I do not know. Therefore I can say, speaking with every confidence, that there are many other parts of Scotland that are infinitely worse off than these districts of Perthshire. I think it is very unfair, after the decision which was come to in Committee upstairs, where the Scottish Members were fully represented, that the Government should have given the Noble Lord the only Amendment which has been asked for. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) wanted to include the districts of Strathdon and Glenbucket. I agree with the hon. Member for Inverness when he said that if he stood in Perthshire he could not, looking at it from the purely Highland point of view, tell whether he was in Perthshire, or Aberdeenshire, or Inverness.
  I have no hesitation in saying that there are districts in Kirkcudbrightshire, Peeblesshire, and Lanarkshire, which are quite as bad as any in the Western Islands. Therefore, the basis of the Bill from the very first should have been that it should have applied to necessitous areas in Scotland wherever they exist. There are some portions of the Highlands that are as good as any other parts of Scotland. Therefore, I regret very much that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland should have given way to one Member, when Members for other parts of Scotland representing necessitous areas whose claims were rejected were quite satisfied when the usual definition was applied to the Highlands and Islands. The only thing which comforts me is this: We have the pledge that next year something will be done to deal with the other necessitous areas. In these circumstances I think West Perthshire could have afforded to have waited until next year and not have set up a preferential claim to be regarded as a necessitous area. Moreover, if West Perthshire had waited and joined hands with other parts of Scotland, there would have been a better opportunity of carrying some legislation applicable to the whole of Scotland.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I have risen for two purposes. In the first place, I wish to commiserate with my hon. Friends in their desertion by the Secretary for Scotland, although in view of the history of this particular Bill I do not think they need be surprised. I would remind the House that the Bill as introduced contained West Perthshire, and my right hon. Friend was

  1715
  responsible for it in the form in which it was introduced. In Committee the right hon. Gentleman voted against his own proposal and I do not see that the hon. Member for Wick Burghs (Mr. Munro) need now be surprised that on the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman should be willing to vote for his original proposal. At the same time, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Munro), who made an admirable and eloquent speech in Committee, may, of course, now feel surprised that the effects of that admirable speech should have been of such short duration. I wish in the main to deal with two points. I think everybody who represents Scottish interests will regret the unseemly scramble which has taken place for these Grants by representatives of different parts of Scotland. I myself have not asked for anything. The cause of the trouble has been that when the Committee was appointed no definite agreement was made indicating the areas which were to be dealt with.
  That is the first statement which the Committee make in their Report, and it was on account of the indefinite nature of their instructions that they decided to take evidence from the areas which were originally included in the Schedule of the Bill. It is unfortunate, I think, that in giving an elastic interpretation to the term "Highlands and Islands" they only included one district outside what has been hitherto included in other Statutes as Highlands and Islands—I mean the district of West Perthshire. That brings me to my other point. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen, who, unfortunately, has had to leave London to-night, wished to include Strathdon and Glenbucket. I should like to state very briefly the grounds on which I think this area, with which I am personally acquainted, should be included in the Bill. It is a very widely scattered area. It includes 334,500 acres, and there is a sparse population of 3,300 scattered over it. Many of these people reside in very inaccessible parts, which it is almost impossible to reach, especially in winter, and it is of the utmost consequence to them that there should be telephonic communication and the provision of a nurse. In view of the statement which the Secretary for Scotland has been able to make on the authority of the Treasury, that the claims of this area will be favourably considered next year, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend, who was to have moved the
  1716
  Amendment, would consent, under the circumstances, to the exclusion of West Perthshire.
  Mr. HOGGE: I should like to know what position the Government intend to take up with regard to giving us the names of the Board before the Third Reading of the Bill. It is the usual practice of the House that we should know the constitution of such a Board before we agree to pass the Bill. I quite appreciate, at the same time, the difficulty in which the Secretary for Scotland finds himself at the moment with regard to these names. The second thing I want to say is this: Are we to understand that all the Amendments on the Paper dealing with what are called necessitous areas in other parts of Scotland will be dealt with next year? If these areas get money, or if they are included under this Act, will the people who administer the money be the Board appointed under this Act? It has to be remembered that this is an unpaid Board, and it is one thing to confine their activities to certain defined areas, but quite another thing if their activities are to be spread over all the counties in Scotland. I do not think it is fair to place that amount of work on this Board, and it. seems to me that in a great number of the areas mentioned in the Amendments the circumstances are not the same as obtain in the Highlands and Islands. In most of these areas the main difficulty is one of inaccessibility, but the real reason why this Grant was given was in aid of necessitous people in the Highlands and Islands. If Grants are to be given to areas merely on the ground of inaccessibility and not on the ground of necessitous circumstances, whom are you going to ask to administer them? Would it not be better in that case to make this part of the work of the Insurance Commissioners?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: With regard to the second point raised by my hon. Friend. I do not think it would be advisable to decide the exact form of administration until we have formed the districts. With regard to the names I had hoped to be able to give them before the Bill left this House, but the Treasury is very much occupied during the last day or two. They have not quite made up their minds whether they should appoint a representative of the Insurance Commissioners, and besides that one or two of the people who have been asked have not yet given their assent, so that I am not able now to give

  1717
  the names. I promise to give them as soon as I can arrange, perhaps in answer to a question, before the House rises.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD:I beg to move, at the end of the Schedule, to add the words—
  "The Highland District of the County of Perth as at present constituted under the terms of the Local Government Act (Scotland), 1889."
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL.
Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [14th July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I was interrupted in the middle of my speech, and I think I have a right to finish.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): Yes.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I do not propose to prolong the opposition to this Bill. The Minister for Education has kindly met me half way and has put in a Clause giving to parents the right to refuse to have the child sent to a residential school. I should have preferred that the parents had the right to refuse to send them to any school, but I accept the compromise that they may not be compelled to send a child to a residential institution. I understand that the opposition to the Bill on the other side is so considerable that it may not become law, but still it may be given a Second Reading, and the Minister for Education may see when the Amendments are put on the Table what arrangements can be come to.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I would like to say that I understand that the
1718
Opposition are prepared to consent to the Second Reading on the understanding that, if after my Amendments have been placed upon the Paper, they still think it necessary to discuss the Bill to a substantial extent we shall not proceed further with the Bill this Session. I need hardly express my hope that when they see my Amendments they may realise that the criticisms in connection with the Bill have been fairly met, and that even at the last moment the Bill may pass into law.
Mr. MOUNT: May I ask whether the Minister for Education has considered what attitude he would adopt in regard to this Bill, and whether he will take some steps to increase the Grant to local authorities in order to carry the Bill through.
Mr. PEASE: The Amendments will show that.
Mr. MOUNT: I should only like to point out that the expenses must be very heavy, they will have to set up residential schools, and they ought to have a further Grant from the Treasury for that.
Mr. PEASE: These are the very points which will be covered by my Amendments.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Thursday).—[Mr. Gulland.]

MISDESCRIPTION OF FABRICS BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 5.—(Powers and Duties of Local Authorities.)
(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to enforce the provisions of this Act within their district, and for that purpose any male or female person or officer whom the local authority may appoint shall have power, if so authorised by the local authority, to institute and carry on any proceedings which the local authority is authorised to institute and carry on under this Act.
(2) In this Act the expression "local authority" means—

as respects the City of London, the common council;

as respects any municipal borough, the council of the borough;

as respects any urban district, the district council;

elsewhere, the county council:

Provided that the London County Council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, make arrangements with the council of any Metropolitan borough for the exercise by the Metropolitan borough as agents for the London County Council, on such terms and subject to such conditions as may be agreed on, of any powers of the London County Council under this Act within the district of the Metropolitan borough, and the council of the Metropolitan borough may, as part of the agreement, undertake to pay the whole or any part of the expense incurred in connection with the exercise of the powers delegated to them.
(3) The expenses of a local authority under this Act shall be defrayed—

in the case of the common council of City of London, out of the general rate;

in the case of the council of a borough, out of the borough fund or borough rate;

in the case of a district council, as part of the general expenses incurred in the execution of the Public Health Acts;

in the case of a county council, as expenses for special county purposes;

in the case of a Metropolitan borough council, as part of the expenses of the council.

Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "Acts" ["in the execution of the Public Health Acts"] to insert the words "in the case of the London County Council, as expenses for general county purposes." I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment. The object is not to put the charge on a special county rate, which the City will not have to pay.
Mr. BOOTHseconded the Amendment.
Mr. CAWLEY: I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment. The hon. Baronet who represents the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) was interested in it, and I believe he understood that it would not come on.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): The point is whether or not the assessable value of the City of London should come under this Bill. I understood from a statement made to me that the hon. Gentleman was not going to proceed with the Amendment.
Mr. GOLDSMITH: I told the hon. Member that if there were any opposition I would not press the Amendment, as I did not want to endanger the Bill. I have moved it because I was asked to do so by the London County Council, but in the face of the opposition I am quite ready to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
As amended, considered, read the third time, and passed.
PUBLIC HEALTH (PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF DISEASE) BILL.
As amended, considered; title amended; Bill read the third time, and passed.
GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
Resolved, That the Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers) Foundation for the year 1913–14 be approved.—[Mr. Lambert.]

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (REMISSION OF DEBTS).
Committee to consider of authorising the Remission of certain Debts in pursuance of any Act of the present Session relating to Local Loans (King's Recommendation signified), this day.—[Mr. Gulland.]
The remaining Government Orders were read and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 22nd July, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Adjourned at Ten minutes after Three o'clock a.m., Thursday, 7th August, 1913.