Commons Sitting of 15 August 1913

Preamble
The House met at Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS (IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 15th March; Mr. Ginnell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 299.]
ESTATES IN LAND JUDGE'S COURT (IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 13th March; Mr. Ginnell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 300.]
IRELAND (GRANTS AND LOANS).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 17th June; Mr. James Mason]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 301.]
MARCONI WIRELESS TELEGRAPHIC COMPANY (PATENTS).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 14th August; Mr. Frederick Hall (Dulwich)]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 302.]

ADVISORY COMMITTEES (SELECTION OF JUSTICES).
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I beg to move, "That a Return be granted showing the Constitution, on the 1st day of January, 1914, of the Advisory Committees for Counties and Boroughs appointed to inform and advise the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Lieutenant with regard to the selection of Justices, pursuant to the Recommendations of the recent Royal Commission."
Mr. Booth:May I ask if the Return Cannot include the Duchies, or will a
2816
supplementary Return be moved in regard to them?
Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): It is the same Return as was moved in the other House last year, and it was thought advisable that the Return should be granted in this House also. It is in exactly the same form as last year. If the hon. Member will look at the Return dated 14th January, perhaps he may next Session move for a Return in regard to the Duchies. This Return only affects the districts under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor.
Mr. BOOTH: In this Return Lancashire is omitted altogether.
Mr. KING: Is it not the fact there were a number of Advisory Committees—
Mr. SPEAKER: If the Return is opposed—
Mr. BOOTH: I do not oppose it.
Question, "That the Return be granted," put, and agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    DOCKYARDS (PETITIONS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state when he expects to be in a position to give answers to the petitions presented from His Majesty's dockyards?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): On 9th May last concessions in respect to rates of wages were announced in reply to the Petitions. The consideration of the great number of other questions raised has taken somewhat longer than was anticipated, but the replies to the whole of the Petitions are practically complete, and will be issued with the least possible delay.

  Government Contracts (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make inquiries into the wages and hours and conditions of employment at the New Explosive Works, Stowmarket, now that there is a general resumption of work?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to read his reply as follows: I understand that since the commencement of the strike at the works of the New Explosives Company, Stowmarket, the firm have made certain advances in rates of wages previously in force, and that the employes who have resumed work are being paid in accordance with the new schedule of wages. I propose to see whether that satisfies the Fair-Wages Clause.

  Ministers.
  A question stood on the Paper addressed to the Postmaster-General (Mr. Herbert Samuel) by Mr. W. Thorne, but the right hon. Gentleman was not in his place.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is there any obligation on Ministers to answer questions on this or any other Friday?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no obligation to answer questions on Fridays.

  Badentarbet Pier.
  Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that a larger boat than was contemplated when the Government gave a Grant for the erection of Badentarbet Pier has now to get access to that pier and that for this reason as well for its state of disrepair it is now useless, he will urge upon the Board of Agriculture to give a Grant to pay for part of the cost of properly repairing the pier if the county council also bears a share of the cost?
  Mr. GULLAND: My right hon. Friend has requested me to read his reply as follows: I would refer my hon. Friend to the detailed answer which I gave him on this subject on 14th February. Until the county council indicate their willingness to recognise their statutory liabilities, I shall not be in a position to consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

  Cadder Colliery Disaster.
  Mr. PRINGLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) the terms of reference in the inquiry into the Cadder Colliery disaster; and (2) if he will publish the correspondence between the Home Office and the Scottish coalowners, regarding the provision of safety and rescue appliances in mines?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr.McKenna): I am circulating the answers to these two questions.—[See Written Answers this date.]

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message received to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went, and having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:—

1. Appropriation Act, 1913.

2. Finance Act, 1913.

3. Extension of Polling Hours Act, 1913.

4. Children (Employment Abroad) Act, 1913.

5. Crown Lands Act, 1913.

6. Herring Fishery (Branding) Act, 1913.

7. Government of the Soudan Loan Act, 1913.

8. Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act, 1913.

9. Post Office (London) Railway Act, 1913.

10. Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Act, 1913.

11. Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1913.

12. Fabrics (Misdescription) Act, 1913.

13. Public Health (Prevention and Treatment of Disease) Act, 1913.

14. Mental Deficiency Act, 1913.

15. Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913.

16. Bankruptcy and Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1913.

17. Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1913.

18. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1913.

19. Local Government (Adjustments) Act, 1913.

20. Public Buildings Expenses Act, 1913.

21. Education (Scotland) Act, 1913.

22. Education (Scotland) (Glasgow Electoral Divisions) Act, 1913.

23. Post Office Act, 1913.

24. National Insurance Act, 1913.

25. Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Grant Act, 1913.

26. Forgery Act, 1913.

27. Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1913.

28. Companies Act, 1913.

29. Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913.

30. Bishoprics of Sheffield, Chelmsford, and for the County of Suffolk Act, 1913.

2836

31. Telegraph (Money) Act, 1913.

32. Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1913.

33. Public Works Loans Act, 1913.

34. Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act, 1913.

35. Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cardigan, etc.) Act, 1913.

36. Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1) Act, 1913.

37. Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 2) Act, 1913.

38. Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 3) Act, 1913.

39. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1913.

40. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1913.

41. Tramways Orders Confirmation Act, 1913.

42. Gas Orders Confirmation Act, 1913.

43. Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1913.

44. Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act., 1913.

45. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (Gas) Act, 1913.

46. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Act, 1913.

47. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Act, 1913.

48. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1913.

49. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Act, 1913.

50. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Act, 1913.

51. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Act, 1913.

52. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 10) Act, 1913.

53. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 11) Act, 1913.

54. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 12) Act, 1913.

2837

55. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 13) Act, 1913.

56. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 14) Act, 1913.

57. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 15) Act, 1913.

58. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 16) Act, 1913.

59. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 17) Act, 1913.

60. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 18) Act, 1913.

61. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 19) Act, 1913.

62. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 20) Act, 1913.

63. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 22) Act, 1913.

64. Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1913.

65. Pier and Harbour Order Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1913.

66. Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1913.

67. Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1913.

68. Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (N o. 2) Act, 1913.

69. Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1913.

70. Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Act, 1913.

71. Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Act, 1913.

72. Electric Lighting Order Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1913.

73. Electric Lighting Order Confirmation (No. 7) Act, 1913.

74. Dunfermline District Water Order Confirmation Act, 1913.

75. Dunfermline Corporation Water Order Confirmation Act, 1913.

76. Wemyss Tramways Order Confirmation Act, 1913.

77. Kirkcaldy and Dysart Water Order Confirmation Act, 1913.

78. Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water Order Confirmation Act, 1913.

79. Airdrie Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Act, 1913.

80. Trade Boards Provisional Orders Confirmation Act, 1913.

2838

81. Local Authorities Contributions (Crystal Palace) Act, 1913.

82. Ribble Fisheries Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1913.

83. Pilotage Order (London) Confirmation Act, 1913.

84. Wibsey (Bradford) Independent Chapel Scheme Confirmation Act, 1913.

85. Padiham Horeb Union Church Scheme Confirmation Act, 1913.

86. Hulme Trust Estates Scheme Confirmation Act, 1913.

87. Roe Street (Macclesfield) Congregational Chapel Scheme Confirmation Act, 1913.

88. Hatfield (York West Riding) Calvinistic Chapel Scheme Confirmation Act, 1913.

89. Kingswood Chapel Scheme Confirmation Act, 1913.

90. Great Haywood and Tompkin Congregational Chapels Scheme Confirmation Act, 1913.

91. Bosden Wesleyan Trust Property Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1913.

92. Preston, Southport, and Gatley Chapels Scheme Confirmation Act, 1913.

93. Bournemouth Hospitals Scheme Confirmation Act, 1913.

94. Alfriston Chapel Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1913.

95. Redcar, Coatham, Manske, and Saltburn Gas Act, 1913.

96. Lymm Urban District Council Act, 1913.

97. Swanage Urban District Water Act, 1913.

98. Richmond (Surrey) Electricity Supply Act, 1913.

99. Barry Railway Act, 1913.

100. Chesterfield Corporation Railless Traction Act, 1913.

101. Mid Kent and East Kent District Water Act, 1913.

102. Wimbledon and Sutton Railway Act, 1913.

103. Midland Railway (Superannuation) Fund) Act, 1913.

104. Westgate and Birchington Gas and Electricity Act, 1913.

105. United District Gas Act, 1913.

106. Port Talbot Railway and Docks Act, 1913.

107. Greenock Port and Harbours Consolidation Act, 1913.

108. Leeds Corporation Act, 1913.

109. Tottenham and Edmonton Gas Act, 1913.

2839

110. York Corporation Act, 1913.

111. Brighton Corporation Act, 1913.

112. Hull and Barnsley Railway Act, 1913.

113. Metropolitan District Railway Act, 1913.

114. Coventry Corporation Act, 1913.

115. Blyth and Cowpen Gas Act, 1913.

116. West Hampshire Water Act, 1913.

117. Halkyn District Mines Drainage Act, 1913.

118. Hove Corporation Act, 1913.

119. Metropolitan Railway Act, 1913.

120. Tynemouth Gas Act, 1913.

121. Great Western Railway Act, 1913.

122. Titchfield District Gas Act, 1913.

123. West Bridgford Urban District Council Act, 1913.

124. Manchester Ship Canal Act, 1913.

125. Great Northern Railway Act, 1913.

126. Rhondda Tramways (Railless Traction) Act, 1913.

127. Llantrisant Gas Act, 1913.

128. Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Council Act, 1913.

129. North Eastern Railway Act, 1913.

130. Bournemouth Gas and Water Act, 1913.

131. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Act, 1913.

132. Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Railless Traction) Act, 1913.

133. Pontypridd and Rhondda Water Act, 1913.

134. West Bromwich Corporation Act, 1913.

135. Kent Electric Power Act, 1913.

136. Worthing Gas Act, 1913.

137. Arundell Estate (Closing of Arundell Street and Panton Square) Act, 1913.

138. Central London Railway Act, 1913.

139. Edinburgh Corporation Act, 1913.

140. Grays and Tilbury Gas Act, 1913.

141. Great Eastern Railway Act, 1913.

142. Southgate Urban District Council Act, 1913.

143. Oxford University (St. Edmund Hall and Gatcombe Rectory) Act, 1913.

144. London County Council (Money) Act, 1913.

145. Dundee Boundaries Act, 1913.

146. Liverpool Corporation Act, 1913.

147. Southampton Harbour Act, 1913.

148. Watney, Combe, Reid, and Company, Limited, Act, 1913.

149. Ascot Authority Act, 1913.

150. Ebbw Vale Water Act, 1913.

151. Leicester Corporation Act, 1913.

152. Leith Harbour and Docks Act, 1913.

153. South Western Railway Act, 1913.

154. North British Railway Act, 1913.

2840

155. Southend Waterworks Act, 1913.

156. Dover Harbour Act, 1913.

157. Derby Corporation Act, 1913.

158. Southport Corporation Act, 1913.

159. Heathfield and District Water Act, 1913.

160. Huddersfield Corporation Act, 1913.

161. Bradford Corporation Act, 1913.

162. London Electric Railway Act, 1913.

163. Metropolitan Water Board Act, 1913.

164. Barry Urban District Council Act, 1913.

165. Belfast Corporation Act, 1913.

166. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1913.

167. London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Act, 1013.

168. Metropolitan Electric Tramways (Railless Traction) Act, 1913.

169. Silloth Gas Act, 1913.

170. Southend-on-Sea Corporation Act, 1913.

171. Ipswich Dock Act, 1913.

172. Reading Corporation Act, 1913.

173. Limerick Harbour (Bridge) Act, 1913.

174. Aberystwyth Corporation Act, 1913.

175. City and South London Railway Act, 1913.

176. Alexandra Park and Palace Act, 1913.

177. Morley Corporation Act, 1913.

178. Nottingham Corporation Act, 1913.

179. Westminster Hospital Act, 1913.

180. Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Rilless Electric Traction Act, 1913.

181. Conyngham Heirlooms Act, 1913.

182. Gomm Heirlooms Act, 1913.

183. Lord Wirnborne's Estate Act, 1913.

184. Aldbar Trust Estates Act, 1913.

185. Carolin's Divorce Act, 1913.

186. Dooner's Divorce Act, 1913.

187. McBride's Divorce Act, 1913.

PROROGATION.

  HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have also to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, being one of the High Commissioners, delivered His Majesty's most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of His Majesty's Command, as followeth:—
  My Lords, and Gentlemen,
  The recent visit of the President of the French. Republic to My Capital was a source of great gratification to me, and the manifestations of goodwill to which it gave rise afford a fresh guarantee for the continuance of the cordial friendship which unites the two countries.
  The Special Mission sent to this Country by the President of the Argentine Republic to convey to Me the thanks of the Argentine people and Government for the warm interest manifested by My beloved Father in the recent commemoration of the first centenary of the Argentine Republic cannot but strengthen the good relations which have happily existed so long.
  The Conference of Delegates of the States at war in the Balkan Peninsula resumed its sittings in London earlier in the year, and agreed upon the terms of a Treaty of Peace. I much regret that hostilities between different nationalities again created a state of war accompanied by many deplorable incidents.
  It is satisfactory that the Conference of belligerents at Bucharest has led to a cessation of hostilities, which I hope will be permanent.
  It is a cause of great satisfaction that the Great Powers have kept constantly in touch with each other, and My Government has done all in its power to facilitate the interchange of views and co-operation in action through the Ambassadors in London.
  Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
  I thank you for the liberal supplies which you have granted in order to mains fain the full efficiency of the Public Service in its various branches.
  My Lords, and Gentlemen,
  I view with satisfaction the passing, by agreement between the two Houses, of a Scottish Temperance Act, which will, I sincerely hope, advance the cause of Temperance in that Country, and thereby conduce to the general welfare of the community.
  I have watched with sympathy the passage of Measures which have now been placed upon the Statute Book for making
  2842
  further and better provision for the care of Feeble-minded and other Mentally Defective Persons.
  The National Insurance Act has been amended and supplemented in some of its' provisions, where experience showed that alterations were desirable.
  I have had pleasure in assenting to the Bill guaranteeing from the Imperial Exchequer a loan by the Government of the Soudan, which will, I confidently hope, not only add to the prosperity of that territory, but also afford increased sources of supply to the cotton industry of this country.
  I have sanctioned the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, which will ensure that the Supreme Tribunal of the Empire will be fully and adequately constituted so as to meet the growing requirements of My Indian Empire and of My Dominions Overseas.
  Important measures have been passed dealing with the public health, the employment of children abroad, and other domestic reforms from which I anticipate beneficial results.
  It is My earnest prayer that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon all your labours.
  Then a Commission for proroguing the. Parliament was read.
  After which the Lord Chancellor said:—
  MY LORDS, AND GENTLEMEN,—By virtue of His Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in His Majesty's. Name and in obedience to His Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Monday the' Third day of November One Thousand nine hundred and thirteen, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Monday the Third day of November One thousand nine hundred and thirteen.
  End of the Third Session of the Thirtieth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in the Fourth. Year of the Reign of His Majesty King George V.

PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
The following Petitions were presented during the week, and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
TUESDAY.
Cotton Weaving Sheds (Use of steam or artificial humidity)—Two Petitions from organised Weavers of Lancashire, for legislation.

WEDNESDAY.
George Lansbury—Petition of Mr. George Lansbury, for redress of grievances.
Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill—Petition from Watford, for inquiry.
Parliamentary Franchise—Petitions for extension to women, from Bridgwater,
2844
Coombe, Corsham, Glastonbury, Kingston, Richmond (two), Rotherham, Street, and Surbiton.
Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays Bill—Petition from Bardney, and other places, in favour.

THURSDAY.
Parliamentary Franchise—Petitions for extension to women, from Banbury, Bangor, Belfast, Clapham, Conway, Ealing, Knowle, Maidenhead, Newbury, Oxford, Reading, Slough, Solihull, Thame, and Twyford.
FRIDAY.
Parliamentary Franchise—Petition for extension to women, from Battersea, Chester (two), Ewell, Hanley (three), Islington (two), Kennington, Southwark, Stone, Sutton, Tarporley, Wallasey, Walthamstow.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  [Mr. J. W. WILSON in the Chair.]
  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
    A BILL TO AMEND PARTS I. AND III. OF THE NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
    Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    CLAUSE 1.—(Provision of Additional Money by Parliament.)
    (1) In addition to the moneys which under Part I. of the National Insurance Act, 1911 (in this Act referred to as the "principal Act") are required to be contributed out of moneys provided by Parliament towards defraying the cost of any of the benefits conferred by Part I. of that Act or the expenses of administration of any of those benefits or otherwise for the purposes of that Act, there shall be contributed out of moneys provided by Parliament towards such cost expenses and purposes, such additional sums as Parliament may from time to time determine, and the provisions of the principal Act as to the manner in which the cost of benefits and the expenses of administration are to be defrayed shall be construed as applying only to the balance of such cost and expenses after such additional sums have been applied for the purposes for which they have been provided.
    (2) Any additional sums so contributed for the purpose of medical benefit shall be applicable towards the payment of medical attendance and treatment of members of societies who are not insured persons mentioned in Paragraph (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the principal Act as amended by this Act in like manner and to the like extent as if such medical attendance and treatment were medical benefit.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "towards such cost, expenses and purposes," and to insert instead thereof the words, "for the purpose of medical benefit."
    I desire to explain to the Committee the exact objects I have in view in the various Amendments to this Clause which I have placed on the Paper. If I make that clear in moving this Amendment, I do not think it will be necessary for me to occupy the attention of the Committee at any length on the other Amendments which I have put down. Generally I may say that my object is to introduce some limitation on the generality of the words of this Clause. As it stands at present it is absolutely general, without any limitation whatever either as to the purposes to which the moneys can be devoted, or as to the amount of the moneys which can be voted in this way. The Committee will remember the reason why this Clause has found its way into the Bill. This is not a Clause which finances the Amendments in the rest of the Bill. It does not do that at all, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me as to that. It is a Clause intended to carry out a pledge given by the Prime Minister during last Session to regularise what was done then. On the 11th February of this year a Supplementary Estimate was brought forward by the Treasury for the amount of £1,825,000, mainly intended to cover the two and six pence per head per person extra for the doctors. When that Supplementary Estimate was brought forward objection was at once taken on the ground that this was in conflict with Section 3 of the National Insurance Act of 1911, which laid down the provisions under which the employer and employed on the one hand, and the State on the other were to provide the moneys required for the benefits and cost of administration of those benefits. That objection was taken as a point of Order, and Mr. Speaker ruled on it on the 11th February, 1913, and it is that which has really led to this Clause being inserted in the Bill. Mr. Speaker on that occasion said:—
    "I do not think it is really a question for me to rule upon. The matter has been very clearly put in the debate we have had. I think it must he evident that this procedure does vary Section 3 of the Insurance Act. The question then arises does it vary it to such an extent as to become illegal. That would he a question of law—as to whether the Appropriation Act when it appropriates this sum will over-rule the Insurance Act or not, and upon that the House will receive the report and advice of the Comptroller and Auditor General who is the officer appointed by the House to consider and to

    2847
    see whether all sums paid out are paid out under proper authority. The House would be advised by him in due course."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1913, col. 898, Vol. XLIII.]
    Upon that the Prime Minister said that he was prepared to take steps to regularise what had been done, and put it formally into an Act of Parliament. He accepted the principle that it should not be done merely with an Estimate and Appropriation Bill, but that it ought to be done by Act, of Parliament. This is in order to carry out that—
    Mr. BOOTH: Do I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman is addressing you on a point of Order, or speaking on this Amendment?
    The CHAIRMAN: I am awaiting his conclusion.
    Mr. CASSEL: I am speaking of my Amendment and explaining the reasons for bringing it forward. After Mr. Speaker's ruling, the Prime Minister promised that the procedure should be regularised, and it is to carry that out that this Clause has been put into the Bill. But the Clause goes very much further.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is in order to elaborate too far the past history of the point which the hon. Member has raised. As I understand it this point is that he wishes to argue that this Clause must be limited. That question is not a point of Order. He has a perfect right to move the omission of these words but he need not elaborate that.
    Mr. CASSEL: I was not going to elaborate it any further, as I had come to the end of my explanation of the genesis of the Cause, which goes very much further than what was necessary to carry out what the Prime Minister then said he was going to do. In fact, it goes so far, as I read the Clause, that it would enable the whole Act to be made non-contributory by a mere Estimate and Appropriation Bill. There are some Members of the Committee who think it would be an advantage that the Act should be non-contributory, but I am not going, for the moment, to discuss that question. Whether it be an advantage or a disadvantage we think it is a thing which ought to be done by Act of Parliament and not by mere Estimate and Appropriation Bill. As the Clause stands at present the whole of the provisions in the original Insurance Act are made subject to this Clause. The original Act by
    2848
    Section 3 provides that two-ninths is to be provided by the State and the remaining seven-ninths by the employer and the employed, and it then goes on to provide how the employer and the employed respectively are to contribute, but in the words of this Section all that is made subject to additional moneys being provided. If you read the latter part of this Section you will see that the provisions of the original Act are only to apply to any balance that remains over and above what has been provided by Estimate and Appropriation Bill. So that assuming the total required from employer and employed is 20 millions per year, and assuming that by Estimate and Appropriation Bill you vote a sum of 20 millions, the result will be that there will be no balance at all to which the provisions of the original Act could apply. If the 20 millions voted by Estimate and Appropriation Bill is sufficient to meet the total expenditure, in that case what balance will there be to which the whole of the original provisions of the Act can be applied. There will be none, because there will be no balance upon which those provisions will have any effect at all. What I propose is by these words, to limit the generality of this Clause. I was endeavouring to explain before the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd George) came in that the Clause as it stands is so general that the whole Act could be made noncontributory by a mere Estimate and Appropriation Bill. I do not think that is the intention of the Government, and I think if they had realised that that is the effect of the Section they would not have framed it in the way in which it has been framed. My proposal will limit the moneys which can be provided in that particular way by an Estimate and Appropriation Bill to the case of medical benefit, because that was the purpose—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has already explained that to the Committee and I do not think he is entitled to go aver the argument again. We must have it explained by the Minister in charge of the Bill.
    Mr. CASSEL: This is the first time I have had the privilege of serving on Grand Committee, and I am not so familiar with its procedure.
    The CHAIRMAN: Therefore I wished to explain to the hon. Member we are not accustomed to repetition.
    Mr. CASSEL: I wish to make it quite clear that the object of the Amendment is to limit the Clause for the particular purpose for which the Supplementary Estimate, out of which it all arose, was brought in. But I am willing to extend the words which I have put down, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks they are not wide enough in the case of Ireland, to moneys voted in lieu of medical benefit for the purpose of medical certificates, because I think under the original Estimates of the 11th February, 1913, in addition to medical benefits there are also moneys provided in Ireland for the purpose of defraying the cost of medical certificates on sickness, and the expenses of administration arising owing to the absence of medical benefits in Ireland. I am quite willing to add those words to the words of my Amendment. I do suggest to the Committee that there ought to be, either as to the nature of the medical benefits, or the amount of money, some limitation on the generality of this Clause. I submit that regularity of financial procedure is a most important thing in a Democratic country, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be the first person to welcome a continuance of the safeguards which regularity of financial procedure provide. The temptation to vote money for purposes that may be considered temporarily popular is undoubtedly very great, and one which it is difficult even for any Government to resist, and therefore, I submit to the Committee that it is of the utmost importance that we should maintain regularity in our financial procedure, and that so vital a question as to whether the Act is to be contributory or not ought not to be determined upon an estimate. I believe there is no precedent whatever where a Clause of this kind is so general in its character, and so unlimited in its scope, has been inserted in any Bill, and, therefore, I beg to move the Amendment in my name.
    The CHAIRMAN: Before proposing the Amendment to the Committee, I will call upon the clerk to read the Money Resolution.
    Mr. COLOMB (Acting Clerk)read the Resolution, which was as follows:—
    "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of Moneys to be provided by Parliament, of such additional sums as may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend Parts I. and III. of the National Insurance Act, 1911."
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just
    2850
    spoken is proposing that the Committee should limit the powers of Parliament and really impose the new rule upon the House of Commons. The House has always from the beginning taken what course it pleases in voting Aids and Supplies for the Crown. It has not only done so in connection with Bills every day, but it has done so from time to time in direct contradiction of Bills. It is the one fundamental principle that Parliament has always determined it shall possess. What is the history of this Clause? This Clause is put into the Bill practically in response to the request of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Parliament voted last January, by a Supplementary Estimate, which was afterwards included in the Appropriation Bill, a sum of money for doctors, and special purposes connected with the Act. It was then suggested that the Public Accounts Committee had criticised from time to time, or brought before the attention of the House for criticism, moneys voted in contradiction of a Statute, and the point was whether this was or was not in contradiction of the National Insurance Act. But in any case the Prime Minister said, in order to make this quite clear in the future, that in addition to gathering up these Supplementary Estimates in an Appropriation Bill, he would propose at the first convenient opportunity that the moneys voted for the National Insurance Act should be placed in exactly the same position as money votes voted for any other of the various purposes for which Parliament voted money. Money is not voted to any great extent in. Bills or Acts; it is voted through Estimates and the Appropriation Act. Take, for example, education. All Estimates increasing from time to time the money voted for Education are voted on Estimates, and the Appropriation Act without any special Act. All the Navy expenditure, all the Army expenditure, and practically, I should think, three-fourths of the expenditure required by the House of Commons or which ought to have the approval of the House of Commons, is so voted. We could not consent to any such limitation as this Amendment proposal placed in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in stating that two-ninths was the limitation in all cases in the Act.
    Mr. CASSEL: I did not say in all cases.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There are provisions that do not refer to two-ninths, and there was a Supplementary Estimate

    2851
    brought forward, at the request of hon. Gentlemen opposite, while the Bill was in Committee. This Bill does not commit us to half-penny expenditure beyond that in the estimates of the year, but as more experience of the Act is realised, it is well that it should not be necessary for Parliament to reopen the whole Insurance Act in alteration or amendments on all kinds of clauses, with the opportunity of unlimited expenditure of time, if it simply wants to add a small sum to the administration of other expenses of the Act. We have done nothing more or less than carry out the promises made by the Prime Minister, and I therefore invite the Committee to reject this Amendment.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Treasury, said this Clause was put into the Bill at the request of the Opposition, and he proceeded to say the Government would not accept any limitation on the powers of Parliament. This Clause was never put in these words at the request of the Opposition. What the Opposition did was this: They pointed out to the Government the irregularities of which they were guilty when they were voting a Supplementary Estimate of £1,800,000, and they challenged that position in the House, and the Prime Minister himself, differing from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, thought the position we had taken up was quite right, and that it was an irregular procedure, and in consequence of that he made a promise at the earliest possible moment to regularise the procedure. The right hon. Gentleman is also unfortunate as regards the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night stated this first Clause simply regularises the vote of £1,800,000 already made by the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had no doubt about the necessity for this Clause for the purpose of regularising the vote already made. The Secretary to the Treasury, unfortunately, I suppose did not hear what the Chancellor said last night in the House. The point really of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is this: What is intended by the first Clause? Does the Government intend it to cover more than medical benefit, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night, upon the financial Resolution, assured the House it was intended to cover? The
    2852
    Chancellor was asked what is intended by the Financial Resolution? Is it or not intended to give powers to do anything beyond regularising the Supplementary Estimate? and the right hon. Gentleman said: This first Clause simply regularises the vote of £1,800,000. If it is intended to regularise this Vote, it ought to be so stated in the first Clause of this Bill. My hon. and learned Friend pointed out it could be made to cover something much more than medical benefit as the Clause now stands, and the Secretary to the Treasury admits that, because he says that the Committee has no right to limit the power of Parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last night said it was merely intended to regularise the vote already given, and the Secretary to the Treasury this morning says: "We cannot be expected to accept that limitation. We are going to use this for any purpose we think fit in the future." The Committee ought to have before it a definite statement of what the Government do really want this power for. If it is simply to regularise something, there seems to be no reason why the powers should not be limited to dealing with medical benefits If it is not for that purpose, the Government ought to tell us, and not leave us in doubt as to what is intended to be done by the first Clause. The Secretary to the Treasury says: "We could do it at a future time by a Supplementary Estimate giving us the aid for the Crown, without coming down to the House."
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Without coming down to the House?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: For an Amending Bill but coming simply for an Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman knows there is a very great difference. A Supplementary Estimate is put down by the Government and the Government choose the Amendment to be made. The House does not, in fact, choose them. If, on the other hand, the Government brings in a Bill to amend the National Insurance Act, everybody interested in insurance throughout the country immediately considers what can best be done with the money. If the sum is £500,000 the various approved societies and organisations can say: "We would prefer it used in this or that manner." If, on the other hand, it is done by estimate by the Government then the Government can choose the objects for which that money is to be applied, and can in effect prevent the House, or those

    2853
    most interested in National Insurance, from choosing how that money ought to be spent. I think my hon. Friend has made a good case which has been in no way met by the Government, except by a mass of contradiction, and before the Committee rejects this Amendment, I think there should be some better argument from the Government.
    Mr. CASSEL: I would like to correct the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. When he stated that I said the Insurance Act provided that in every case only two-ninths should be found out of State Funds. I do not think I said anything of that kind. The cases where more than two-ninths are found by the State are specifically set out in the Act of Parliament. Just in the same way, we want specifically set out in the Act the purposes for which more than two-ninths are to be found. The other point that the right hon. Gentleman made was to express a doubt as to whether this really was contrary to section three of the National Insurance Act.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I did not say that.
    Mr. CASSEL: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that, but if there is any doubt upon the subject, I would refresh his memory by reminding him of the fact that Mr. Speaker said: "I think it must be evident this procedure does vary Section 3 of the National Insurance Act." Then the right hon. Gentleman said that I am trying to limit the powers of Parliament. Nothing of the kind. It is quite impossible to limit the powers of Parliament. What I am trying to do is to limit the effect of this section, which is introducing a novel procedure into Parliament, and which the Speaker thought to be an irregular method. It is for that purpose that I have moved this Amendment, and in no way with the intention of limiting the powers of Parliament, but to limit the powers of imposing new burden's by a mere estimate and Appropriation Bill, so as to vary the terms of an Act of Parliament, a procedure which I think has hitherto been regarded as irregular.
    Mr. H. W. FORSTER: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the Committee some clear indication of what method he really intended to pursue. It is pointed out by my hon. and learned Gentleman that this Clause gives to the Government of the day far wider powers than they now possess with regard to amending or providing funds for the
    2854
    purposes of the National Insurance Act. My hon. and learned Friend behind me points out that if the Government do so desire they really ought to lay Estimates before Parliament; if they desire to substitute a non-contributory for a contributary basis of National Insurance. I am sure that nobody wants to make so drastic a change in the Insurance Act without the full discussion in the House with all the details of the proposals before the Members. My hon. and learned Friend raised this question in this House when this Financial Resolution was under discussion, and the Chairman of Committee then said that although my hon. and learned Friend would not be in order in going into the matter fully on that occasion, his contentions were sound, and it did appear to him (the Chairman) that some amendment of the Bill ought to be made.
    Mr. BOOTH: No.
    Mr. FORSTER: I am speaking from my own recollection.
    Mr. BOOTH: And I from mine.
    Mr. FORSTER: If the hon. Member for Pontefract wishes to lay his recollection before the Committee, I should have thought he would have been able to take the regular opportunity of doing so without interrupting me. I do not want to labour the point, but I do think that we ought to have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some reason for the extraordinary width of the Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that as this is the first sitting of the Committee I might appeal to hon. Members, especially those beyond the Gangway [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, Oh!"], that we should conduct ourselves in a businesslike way so far as possible, and avoid interjectory remarks. It is very difficult in this room to hear what Members are saying, and particularly for the public and for the Press at the other end of the room. Unless we consider these matters it will not conduce to peace.
    Mr. FORSTER: The only point I wish to make is this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself said in the House that this Clause was simply to regularise what had been done. My hon. and learned Friend points out that the Clause, as drafted, goes a great deal further than that. What I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer is: Is it the intention of

    2855
    the Government to go further than what he undertook to do? If it is not the intention of the Government to go further, to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot see his way to accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I rise in response to the appeal of the hon. Gentleman; not because I do not think the position has been clearly stated by my hon. Friend, but because I feel bound to answer the courteous appeal made to me. I think I really have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend has said. This is, in my judgment, an attempt to restrict the powers of Parliament, a very futile attempt, as the hon. and learned Gentleman admits. Suppose you incorporated this in the Bill to-day, that would not prevent your voting a sum of money which would make the scheme noncontributary in spite of it. Why should you put words of this kind in? If these words, or similar words, had been inserted in the Education Bill of 1870 and the Education Bill of 1876 for every additional grant for education, you would have required an Act of Parliament. [An HON. MEMBER: No!] Just imagine how that would have hampered the work of education in this country; not merely the work of education which had been engaged in by our party, but by the party opposite. When they were in power they were constantly making new grants. It is true that they embarked upon a policy which involved not merely additional sums of money but something like a new departure. I refer to free education. The party opposite then had a Bill. But I cannot conceive any Government attempting to introduce a non-contributary scheme merely by means of the Appropriation Act. That, I agree, of course, would really be an outrage upon precedent. But you cannot limit the powers of Parliament. We are simply pursuing the same policy in regard to this. The hon. Member has asked me what the view of the Government is. The view of the Government is that we should pursue exactly the same course in regard to National Insurance as has been pursued with regard to education. Where you are spending small sums in order to improve and extend in certain directions you ought to be free to do it without having to go through this (indicating the Amendment Paper) because the moment you introduce an Act of Parlia-
    2856
    ment every conceivable Amendment is germane, and the Committee will have to sit for long and late and every day in order to get through all sorts of Amendments, while the one thing you want for the time being is in jeopardy for that very reason. That is really what you want. I will give an illustration. Suppose you wanted a little more money for Sanatoria services? You are getting pressure from local authorities constantly. Suppose you want £40,000 or £50,000 for the purpose of improving Sanatoria service in this country?
    Mr. FORSTER: We have the power already.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We have only got the power by putting the sum down in the Estimates, that is all! You have to put the sum down in the Estimates and then you have the power, and unless you do put it down and have your Appropriation Bill, you have not got the power. If you are going to do that with Sanatoria, why not do it to ease some other branch of National Insurance Administration? I think Parliament ought not to be restricted in that way. I think it is exceedingly undesirable. The proposition is always stated in this form and would have been so stated by the hon. Member if I had not interrupted him: "The Government can of its own will always put down £50,000 or £100,000 without consulting Parliament"! It can do nothing of the kind. The Government cannot spend a single penny without taking sanction of Parliament. If we claimed to extend the provisions of the National Insurance Act or to increase the sum of money which is necessary in order to make it effective, we would have to put the sum down. It would have to be voted in Committee. It would have to be voted by the whole House, and be incorporated in the Appropriation Bill. You would have to discuss it on Second and Third Reading. The Appropriation Bill is an Act of Parliament. I do hope that we will not, by any action of ours, restrict the freedom of Parliament to vote sums of money from time to time for the purpose of supplying any deficiencies which experience may discover in the working of the National Insurance Act.
    Mr. CASSEL: I do not propose to press my Amendment to a Division. In view of what has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman that this matter would be treated on a somewhat similar footing as

    2857
    to education, and that no such large proposal as, for instance, making this scheme non-contributory would be introduced without an Act of Parliament. In view of that, I think I need not press my Amendment. May I just answer one point that the right hon. Gentleman made? I think he will find there is a provision in the original Act.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
    Mr. CASSEL: Under the circumstances I felt it my duty as a matter of procedure to bring the matter to the attention of the Government.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: The other Amendments of the hon. and learned Gentleman are consequential.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANShad an Amendment on the Paper, in Sub-section (1), after the word Parliament ["Parliament may from time to time determine"], to insert the words "have already been granted and."
    This is really a drafting Amendment. I do not care whether it is moved or not, if the Section as it now stands regularises the payments referred to. It is a matter for the Government and not for me.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think it is necessary.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If not I withdraw it, but I trust the Government will reinsert it on Report if they find that I am right.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. CASSEL: I think, Mr. Chairman, you have left out the last of my Amendments, to the effect that the Section shall be deemed to have been in force on and from the 11th day of February, 1913.
    The CHAIRMAN: I consider that that is absolutely consequential on the Amendments of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Colchester. I must put the Amendments in the order on the Paper, and the Amendment has already been disposed of by the previous ones.
    Mr. CASSEL: I do not think it has.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am very sorry, but I cannot go back to the Clause. Hon. Members will kindly observe when I say
    2858
    other Amendments are consequential, and proceed to put the Clause. Provided I have not taken the vote, I will, of course, go back to any matter to which my attention is called. It is quite possible to overlook an Amendment, but I do not think I have overlooked it in this case.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Abolition of Reduction of Benefits in Certain Cases.)
    (1) The rate of sickness benefit shall not be reduced in the case of an insured person who became an employed contributor within one year after the commencement of the principal Act by reason that at the date of so becoming an employed contributor he was of the age of fifty years or upwards, and accordingly Sub-section (3) of Section 9 and Table C in Part I. of the Fourth Schedule of the principal Act shall be repealed.
    (2) Part I. of the principal Act shall apply to persons who at the commencement of the principal Act were of the age of sixty-five or upwards and under the age of seventy, and to persons who have since the commencement of the principal Act attained or may hereafter attain the age of sixty-five in like manner as it applies to other persons, and accordingly Sub-section (4) of Section 1, Paragraph (a) of Subsection (4) of Section 4, and Section 49 of the principal Act shall be repealed.
    Provided that a person who is of the age of sixty-five or upwards at the time of entering into insurance shall not be entitled to medical benefit after he attains the age of seventy unless the number of weekly contributions paid by or in respect of him exceeds fifty.
    (3) This Section shall come into operation at such date not later than the 14th day of January, 1914, as the Insurance Commissioners may appoint, and the Insurance Commissioners may make such regulations as they may consider necessary, for providing, in the case of any such classes as aforesaid, for the transition from the provisions of the principal Act, affecting them to the provisions of that Act as amended by this Section.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), although apparently they seem to come within the title of the Clause "Abolition of Reduction of Benefits in Certain Cases," appear to open up a very large question, and I think it would be more suitable that

    2859
    those matters should be dealt with as a new Clause. I therefore call upon Mr. Goulding.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I should like to ask if my hon. Friend is not in order at this point, because this Clause is for the abolition of reduction of benefits in certain cases? Under the Act I think the same Clause deals with the reduction of benefits in cases of those under twenty-one as in the case of those over fifty. At any rate, it is under the same part of the Act.
    The CHAIRMAN: I quite understand that, and of course, if the Committee consider it more convenient to take these Amendments here, I shall be quite ready to do so. In my survey of the matter it seemed a different question to that which is dealt with in Clause 2.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Of course I cannot deal with the point of Order, but I think it would be more convenient for the Committee to consider this question as a new Clause, because it is the first of the Amendments designed to very much increase the expenditure of money on the Bill.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Not designed.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It would be better for us to deal with the Government's suggestions as to the Amendments which do not involve an increase of expenditure, and then deal as new Clauses with the various Amendments which are being brought up by hon. Members opposite as proposals for increasing expenditure in addition to the Government Clauses. I therefore make an appeal to the Committee to consider these Amendments as a new Clause.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There are many at great new Clauses already down, a before the Committee has and probably gone half or three-quarters way through the Bill there will be a great many more new Clauses put down. When you come to the end of the Committee stage and approach the new Clauses there is very little time left, and a proper discussion is hardly ever given to the new Clauses. It seems to me that this question comes in at the point of the Bill where we ought to discuss the principle whether benefits ought to be given to these young people. The right hon. Gentleman says these Amendment are designed to increase the
    2860
    cost. There was a consequential Amendment put down on the Paper last night which does not throw the cost of these benefits on the State at all, because the cost is covered by a very short prolongation of the Sinking Fund period. The Amendment provides that the whole of the cost shall come out of the Sinking Fund period, consequently there will not he any cost thrown upon the State at all. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if at this early stage of the Bill we could get some pronouncement upon the attitude the Government intend to take up with regard to this class of Amendments. I am quite certain in my own mind that when we come to the new Clauses, we shall be told that the time is very short, that there is no time to discuss many of them, and we shall not be able to give them that discussion which they require. For these reasons I think it will be far more convenient to discuss the subject at this point.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On the point of convenience I strongly support the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend. I certainly shall not oppose the suggestion which has come from the Chair, but I may say that I shall strongly oppose the insertion of Amendments of this kind. This means an additional expenditure of £275,000 a year. I think when we come to consider such suggestions we ought to consider them altogether. I hope the Committee will first of all dispose of the suggestions to which the House of Commons has generally given its approval on the Second Reading, and which no one has criticised, before we consider suggestions which are open to very serious objection, and which as Chancellor of the Exchequer I shall have to state that I cannot possibly accept. When the times comes I should like to make a statement with regard to the whole of these demands, but this is not a proper opportunity. I therefore urge the Committee to deal first of all With the proposals that have not been objected to in any quarter of the House, and then consider the other alternatives.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think we must go into a general discussion now. I have given my ruling that for the general convenience it is better that this question should be dealt with as a new Clause. The hon. Member has protected himself by saying it should have been an Amendment to Clause 2, and I think he is justified in having put it down. I do not, however, think it comes within the limits of Clause 2.
    Mr. FORSTER: You rule that it is a matter for the general convenience of the Committee?
    The CHAIRMAN: If they wish it.
    Mr. FORSTER: In Clause 9 persons under twenty-one are dealt with at the same time as persons over fifty, but here in Clause 2 of the amending Bill you are dealing with persons over fifty, and I submit it is in order that the question relating to persons under twenty-one should be dealt with here. It seems to me that we are bound to consider the question as a whole. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admits that we have to deal with this question. He has already given us some indication of the view he takes with regard to it, and I think we had much better get it over rather than postpone it to the end of the Committee stage.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I am bound to say that I think the hon. Member for Salisbury would be wise in insisting upon discussing the matter here unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a general statement more or less explaining what the Government mean to do in respect to the extra demands made in the additional Clauses. So far as my experience of Grand Committees goes, it is a general thing for the Minister in charge of the Bill to make such a statement. No such statement has been made, and when these Clauses come on, the practice is to use the argument that you cannot add these proposals because they have already been settled in the Clauses of the Bill. If a statement was made in the nature of a compromise it would alter the whole condition of things. It is an unusual and a very undesirable thing in Grand Committee to postpone Amendments to come on as new Clauses because that would be used as an argument against them afterwards. Under these circumstances I think my hon. Friend would be well advised to press his Amendments.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Do you rule, Mr. Chairman, as a matter of Order, that these Amendments are not in order? I am not quite sure what the Committee are discussing. May I call attention to the fact that this is an Amendment of Section 9 of the original Act? The first provision of that Section relates to those under twenty-one and the third provision relates to those over fifty. On a strict point of Order I should like to know
    2862
    whether your ruling is that my hon. Friend's Amendment is out of order? If it is not, and my hon. Friend does not choose to give way, I presume we may insist upon moving the Amendment now before the Committee, and I would like your ruling on that point?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has very much expressed the way in which I look at it. I still think that, as a matter of convenience, it would be better it should come as a new Clause, but, having regard to the point which the hon. Member has raised, I do not insist on that view if the responsible Members present wish to proceed with it.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "sickness" ["The rate of sickness benefit"].
    The whole of this batch of my Amendments is practically one Amendment, the others really being consequential, so that the Committee need only divide once, because in that Division the whole of the Amendments will be decided upon. I propose this Amendment because I feel that minors, persons under twenty-one years of age, are extremely hardly dealt with under the existing system. Under the existing system, they pay full contributions, and, as everybody knows, they get reduced benefits. What makes it all the harder really is that while they are paying full contributions and getting reduced benefits you are now proposing to give additional benefits to persons at older ages. It will be found as a matter of fact that practically the whole of those additional benefits which you are now suggesting to persons of over fifty years of age will very largely come out of the funds which ought to be at the disposal of persons under twenty-one years of age. I should like to point out—I did point it out before to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that I do not propose that any of this cost should fall upon the State. I have put down a consequental Amendment to the effect that the whole of this cost, so far as it relates to persons under twenty-one years of age, shall be paid out of the sums retained by the Insurance Commisiosners for discharging their liabilities in respect of reserve values. I am not able at the moment to say exactly what the extension of the Sinking Fund period would be if this Amendment were accepted by the Government, but I believe that it would be

    2863
    a very small extension, and the important point is that it would not fall upon the State at all. The Government may say that it is very inadvisable to extend the Sinking Fund period, but I should like to point out that under their own Bill they are extending the Sinking Fund period over and over again for the benefit of people over fifty years of age. They will find that on the last page of the Actuary's Report. I really do not see why, if you extend the Sinking Fund period for the benefit of persons of over fifty years of age, you should not go a little further and extend it in this very hard case of young persons under twenty-one.
    Mr. BOOTH: Very hard case!
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, I think that it is a very hard case. I have been in touch lately with a great many officials and members of friendly societies, and they tell me that a great many of these persons under twenty-one years of age are young men who come up to our great towns and who to start with earn very low wages. They have to keep themselves; they are not living with their families; they have to pay for their board and lodging, and, when they fall ill, the low benefits which they get are really not sufficient to provide the necessaries of life. I think that it is an extremely hard case. I may say also in support of thy Amendment that I believe the whole of the friendly societies, without exception, are in favour of additional benefits being given to young persons under twenty-one years of age.
    Mr. BOOTH: No.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I say "all the large friendly societies." I am not referring to the collecting societies, but rather to societies like the Ancient Order of Foresters, the Manchester Unity of Odd fellows, and big societies of that sort. I am only referring to them, but I do not think that the desire for this Amendment is restricted to them. The whole of those big friendly societies are in favour of this Amendment, and I would commend it to the favourable consideration of the Government, especially as practically it is not going to cost the taxpayer anything at all.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: This is the first of a series of Amendments which would very greatly increase the cost of National Insurance, but that to a certain extent is
    2864
    hidden by a suggestion which I think is unprecedented, and which I do not think the Committee could adopt, that not only the reserve values but also the normal yearly expenditure for which the State now provides two-ninths should be put upon the Sinking Fund. No one has attacked us, courteously but more violently, in the House than hon. Gentlemen opposite for endeavouring to give additional benefits by enlarging the Sinking Fund. The present proposition would lengthen it by from one and three-quarters to two years. The whole company of insured persons would have to wait for one and three-quarters more years before obtaining the additional benefits, including these very young persons who would then be about the age of thirty-four or thirty-five, in order that additional benefits might be given to these young persons, and the State would have to provide £65,000 or £75,000 per year in perpetuity. The hon. Gentleman is raising a question which was really settled in the National Insurance Act and I know nothing that has happened in connection with this particular matter which would lead us to re-open the question at this time. There have been certain changes in connection with other matters, and experience has been gained which has led us to re-open questions even of finance, but not in this particular matter. I would ask the Committee to remember, first of all, that in spite of this limitation every boy or girl who enters at sixteen years of age receives from the beginning insurance to the full amount of the employer's and their own contribution, so that it is absurd to talk as if we were robbing these young persons of their insurance. Secondly, those hard cases where these young persons have dependants upon them are fully met by full insurance being given when dependants exist. Thirdly, although this may be asked for by some friendly societies, it certainly is not asked for by all the approved societies, and there are other things for which the friendly societies ask which they regard as of far greater importance. If we had to reduce some other expenditure in proportion to the amount which we gave to this, then I do not believe that any of the friendly societies would ask us to reduce any expenditure we suggest in the Bill. Fourthly, and this is a new question which I should like to put seriously to the Committee, there have been widespread complaints as to the demand for excessive sickness, and those complaints we hope to investigate

    2865
    with a Committee during the autumn. If there is one thing which is absolutely proved it is that where the amount received in sick pay approaches or in some cases even exceeds the amount earned, then it is almost certain that you will get large claims for excessive sickness.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should have thought that would have applied to the old people.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: You have, for instance, boys of sixteen earning 5s., 6s., or 7s. per week, and, if you are going to give them 10s. per week when sick, you are going to have a state of affairs which must lead to a tremedous artificial demand on the friendly societies. We do not want to increase the Sinking Fund period by one and a half years, and in addition we do not want in any way to do anything to encourage the excessive sickness which it is alleged exists. It may be difficult in the future, without investigation into excessive sickness claims, to see that they do not exceed too much. We give these young people the full benefit of their employers and employed contributions, and we meet the hard case in which they are dependent, as well as giving other advantages. I strongly urge the Committee to support the Government in this matter.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I think that there is a very strong reason for this Amendment, namely, that it is desired by, at any rate, the older and larger friendly societies. I should also like to impress this fact upon the Committee, that if we pass this Amendment there is no extra payment put upon the public purse, and that being the case, surely it is a matter upon which the approved societies ought to be consulted. I am not at all satisfied that the Government go the right way about getting information from the approved societies in these matters, and I venture to suggest that if my hon. Friend is beaten upon this Amendment, the Government should seek the opinion of the approved societies, and particularly of the friendly societies, and should be prepared to deal with the matter on the Report stage, after they have found out what are the real opinions of the approved societies. If the Government find out that, after all, the approved societies are in favour of something being done for the younger men in this respect, they should be prepared to accept on the Report stage an Amendment which will not put any
    2866
    drain upon public funds. I have only one other thing to say, which is that there is a very strong feeling amongst the members of approved societies that this amelioration of the lot of the older men, which we all desire to see carried out, will, in effect, give an unfair advantage to the older men, as compared with the younger members of approved societies, particularly as the Sinking Fund is being interfered with under Section 3. When the Government is doing this, in order to remove certain acknowledged grievances, in the interests of the older men, it necessitates some alteration of the system so as to redress the balance between the older and younger members of friendly societies. I venture to suggest to the Government that this is essentially a matter upon which the opinion of the approved societies ought to be taken.
    Mr. BOOTH: I am very much astonished that hon. Members opposite should come here and attempt to voice the opinions of the friendly orders, or of the general run of approved societies, because if they had inquired into the matter, they would have found that these societies were diametrically against them. I hold in my hand an official document. The hon. Member claims for his Amendment the virtue that it does not increase the charge upon the State, and then he says the friendly orders are in favour of it. I will read the exact words as supplied officially to me:—
    "The Amendments proposed by Mr. Locker-Lampson to Clause 2, with the above object, might therefore be accepted"—
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Who is this?
    Mr. BOOTH: If the hon. Member will wait, I will give the name.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: On a point of Order. Should not the hon. Member give us the name first?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member ought to say from what he is quoting.
    Mr. BOOTH: I have already done so. I said it was an official document handed to me. I will read it, and will give hon. Members far more than they want perhaps.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Are we not entitled to know the exact source from which this emanates?
    Mr. BOOTH: Certainly, and I shall state it. That is what I got up for. It reads:—
    "Extension of benefits to persons under twenty-one The Amendment proposed by Mr. Locker-Lampson to Clause 2, with the above object, might therefore be accepted, subject to the inclusion of the words: 'The cost of this extension of benefit shall be met by moneys provided by Parliament.'"
    It is entitled:—
    "Observations of a Joint Committee of Approved Societies representing the following bodies:—

    National Conference of Friendly societies;

    General Federation of Trade Unions;

    National Union of Deposit Societies;

    National Union of Holloway Societies;

    National Federation of Dividing Societies.

    National Association of Approved Societies."

    Hon. Members say that the friendly societies are in favour of this Amendment. I think that shows that they are not.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I want to explain that I think the hon. Member is rather unfair. I put down the Amendment and framed it in such a way that the expenses would come out of the Sinking Fund, so that I might bring it in order within the terms of the Financial Resolution. That was the whole object I had in placing it on the Sinking Fund, and I must say in answer to the hon. Member that in regard to the principle of these young persons under twenty-one having those additional benefits, it is agreed to by every big friendly society in England.
    Mr. BOOTH: It is said that I did not read the whole of the particular paragraph. Perhaps I had better do so. It begins:—
    "Extension of benefits to persons under twenty-one. There is no objection to the normal rate of benefit being given to those under twenty-one as well as to those over fifty if the societies are given adequate financial compensation for the additional burdens imposed upon them."
    It then goes on: "The Amendment proposed by Mr. Locker-Lampson, etc.," which I have already read.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think we have had enough of those personal explanations.
    Mr. CASSEL: I propose to address myself to the Amendment generally. I am very strongly opposed to the Reserve Fund being trenched upon, but if you are going to do it at all, then I say it is only fair to do it in this case, so as to counterbalance the other. I say that to trench upon the Reserve Fund is equivalent to a breach of contract by Act of Parliament. Assuming, however, you are going to do it, you ought to give young men the benefit as well as the older ones. You have put a provision in the Bill to give
    2868
    additional benefit out of the Reserve Fund to older men, although it was the intention of Parliament that the Reserve Fund was specially to provide additional benefits for younger entrants to insurance. It does not seem fair to provide it for the older members and not for the younger ones. Those who contribute the same contributions ought to get the same benefit. I fully recognise what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said, that if the wages are low we are likely to get a larger number of sickness claims according as the sick pay approaches nearer to the wages, but that cannot be a reason for refusing people equivalent benefits when they pay equivalent contributions. Unless you do that, you ought to have lower contributions for these young people. If they pay the same amount, I think they have a legal and equitable claim to the same benefits. If you are going to make a raid upon the Reserve Fund for one thing, I warn you that once you begin, the example will be followed in numerous cases. The danger is in starting the precedent of raiding the Reserve Fund. I think it is really a breach of contract to raid the Reserve Fund at all, but assuming you are going to do it in one case, I see every justification for my hon. Friend moving that the matters should be equalised, so as to give young men the same benefit.
    Mr. O'GRADY: I wish to say that, so far as we are concerned, we are opposing this Amendment, because it does not provide the money from the State for the purpose, and I can assure the Committee that that is the common view held by all the friendly societies. We are not against the principle of the matter, but we think the whole question ought to be discussed at a proper time and that in this matter we ought to have the money provided by the State at the proper time. But as to the merits of the Amendment before the Sinking Fund itself we cannot agree to the extension of the Sinking Fund in order to provide the money.
    Sir RANDOLF BAKER: I rise only because the remarks of the hon. Members for Pontefract and Leeds have led the Committee to suppose that all friendly societies are against this proposal unless the money is provided out of Parliamentary funds. I want to point out that the Member for Salisbury has considerable justification. I received to-day this document from the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, which says, "It is also desirable

    2869
    to press for full benefits to be given to minors when the contributions paid on behalf of whom are sufficient to pay for these benefits without any Government subsidy." That shows that one of the most important, if not the most important of all the great friendly societies in this country is desirous of this being done; and I think, therefore, my hon. Friend has made out a very sound case indeed and that we aught to support the Amendment.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I only intervene because I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has been quite fairly dealt with by the hon. Member for Pontefract. My hon. Friend said that the friendly societies were in favour of this Amendment. They are. I do not think there can be any doubt about it—both the Manchester Unity and the Foresters. My hon. Friend, the member for a Dorset division, has just read what the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows say. The hon. Member for Leeds said that he was Chairman, I think, of the Joint Committee of the Approved Societies, from whose manifesto or statement the hon. Member for Pontefract has already read. Their attitude seems to be this: We should agree to full benefits to those under twenty-one, but we are quite conscious that the approved societies, having no funds to spare, cannot possibly pay for it out of their existing funds, and that, therefore, the only way in which it can be got without an additional contribution is for the State to come in and give an extra Grant." We may say, I think fairly, that they are neutral, but inclined to be in favour of the Amendment if they could see their way to finance it. I do not suppose there is any doubt about this: that if we could persuade the Government to find the funds they would be only too delighted that this Amendment should be made. Well, then, do not let us have any more talk about the friendly societies being against this as a matter of principle; they are not at all. As long as the Committee understands where we are let us get to the real position. Where is the money coming from? That is really the question. The right hon. Member the Financial Secretary said, "Oh, we cannot raid the Sinking Fund"; but it has been done. It is going to be done under this very Clause we are considering. He is going to raid the Sinking Fund to a large extent, equivalent to something like six hundred thousand a year for the purpose of paying for other benefits under this Bill. He pretended
    2870
    just now that there was no sort of precedent for the proposal that my hon. Friend, the Member for Salisbury, has put down upon the Paper. As regards seven-ninths of it, it follows exactly the precedent set by the Government themselves in this Bill. As regards two-ninths, I agree it is a new precedent. Why is it put down in that form? The Government can very easily alter it if they like. If they say "now we will find two-ninths out of moneys provided by Parliament," then my, hon. Friend will accept their offer at once and will bring his Amendment into line exactly with the proposals of the Government. With regard to the men over fifty, there is no point. Let us clear away any cobwebs that may be overlaying this Amendment. There is no point in a want of precedent, because so far as he has been able to do it, he has followed the precedent set by the Government. As regards the two-ninths, that, I agree, is beyond precedent. But the Government have it in their own hands. All they have to say is "We will find the necessary £65,000 a year to give this additional two-ninths out of State funds." As to the question of merits, the Government are themselves raiding the Sinking Fund, and they are doing so at the expense of the young men, and this is a balancing or compensating Amendment. To say that a decision on this was come to on the original Bill and that therefore it cannot be opened now, as the Secretary to the Treasury has just said, is really to say that we are not going to amend the National Insurance Act at all; and it is a reason for not considering the Amendments which the Government themselves have put down just as much as for not considering this particular Amendment. The Government are going to take some £600,000 a year from the Sinking Fund for the purpose of other Amendments, the bulk of it going to men over fifty. In consequence they are postponing the time when the younger men under this scheme are to get the additional benefits. Hon. Members will remember that in the original Bill brought in two years ago there was a wonderful Clause, Sub-section 8, I think, which said that as soon as the Reserve Values had been redeemed, which was then estimated at about eighteen years, that the money then set free (some two millions a year or so) would be brought forward to the credit of the younger men. I remember very well the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer telling us why that

    2871
    was so. "Oh," said he, "these younger men are getting no part of the benefit of the State subsidy for the next eighteen years, but see what we have for them at the end of eighteen years. We are to give them two millions a year, and they will have it all to their direct benefit." But now he is taking away that two millions a year for a whole year and a-half, or two years, and giving it to the older men who are already getting a much larger amount in proportion than the younger men under the scheme. It is to redress that balance, to redress the very inequality caused by that Amendment, that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has put down his Amendment. He says you are going to postpone the benefits which would have been given to the younger men. Give these younger men something now. That seems to me to be a businesslike compromise which any two business men would come to if they were considering what was to be done with the funds. What has been the answer to this? The answer of the Secretary to the Treasury has been, "Oh, but if you go on giving the young men under twenty-one the full benefit of 10s. you are going to have malingering by these men. Sick men lately have come on for sick claims which they ought not to come on for." But it is much easier, as anyone knows, to check malingering on the part of young men than on the part of old men, and the risk is nothing like so great in regard to young men under twenty-one as in regard to men over fifty. There is a provision under the Act by which societies can reduce the amount of sick pay to two-thirds of the wages. They could do so if they chose—I do not advocate it—in connection with these young men, but hen they would be obliged under the Act to apply the difference in giving these young men some other or additional benefits. If that were done it would meet the suggestion that undue claims would be made on behalf of these young men, and it would also be preserving to them a fair compensation for the raid which has been made upon the Sinking Fund and which directly affects them, and puts them in a worse position than they were in when the Act became law.
    Sir W. BYLES: I am discouraged immediately I get on my feet by the Government trying to shut me up. I am not going to occupy the time of the Committee more than two minutes. I want to say I propose to support the Government
    2872
    upon these Amendments if they go to a Division because they tell us that financially they are impracticable; but I should not like to give a vote which would be interpreted to mean that I do not agree with the hon. Member who has moved the Amendment that an injustice is done, or at any rate that an inequality is imposed, on these young men of sixteen. I should not have said anything, only during the last week or two I have been in my own Constituency. [Laughter.] I know it is rather unusual for one to go there, but I should not have thought that a visit of a Member to his own Constituency would have produced so much hilarity as this statement has done. While I was there I used every endeavour to find out what my working class Constituents were thinking about the details of the Insurance Act, its operation and administration, and one of the things that was prominently brought to my notice by my friends there who have seen the working of the Act was that these boys of sixteen were unequally treated, inasmuch as they are called upon, out of a very low wage, to pay the full insurance fourpence, and only receive a restricted benefit, if sick, of six shillings instead of ten shillings. The Government must know that the Insurance Act is creating a certain amount of friction and uncomfortable feeling even among their own supporters in the various constituencies of the Kingdom. I think it is right that one of their most loyal supporters, who is now addressing the Committee, should tell them plainly what their own supporters in the country are feeling about this matter. The very point which has been brought up by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) is one of the points which is causing soreness.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There are no votes for those under twenty-one.
    Sir W. BYLES: I agree also with the remarks which were made about the undesirability of touching the reserves. I do not like these reserve funds to be tampered with at all, and so far as that goes I disapprove of the proposition which has been made, but I do hope that some day and as soon as possible, when a real amending Bill is proposed by the Government, they will try to equalise the burden which is laid upon these lads of sixteen who get very low wages, with the contributions that are made by older men.
    Mr. FORSTER: I only desire to say one word upon this matter. So far as I under-

    2873
    stand it, if we go to a vote now we shall be voting whether or not we are going to do something to extend full benefit to people under twenty-one. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]
    Mr. MASTERMAN: And deal with reserve values.
    Mr. FORSTER: We are not now settling the precise way in which the cost is to be met. [HON. MEMBERS:" Yes, we are."] The reason I have risen to speak is that I want to make my position perfectly plain, that in voting for this Amendment, as I propose to do, I wish to look very anxiously at the source from which the money is to be derived. I do not want to commit myself to anything that will throw an increased burden upon the funds of the societies. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I take a rather serious view as to the burdens which are likely to be placed upon the funds of the societies in the future. Throughout the Debate in this Committee, I propose, for my own guidance at any rate, to watch very anxiously that no increased burdens shall be thrown upon the societies funds. Subject to that, I propose to vote for the Amendment.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: It seems to me that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) has very peculiar ideas as to how to benefit these young men. He proposes to increase their benefits at this early age, when they are under twenty-one, at the expense of their benefits at a later age. He has already made a strong point against the Government for the raid they have made, as he says, upon the sinking fund and the reserve values. He proposes to make a further raid.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Hear, hear.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: This raid is to benefit the young men at an early age at the expense of their later benefits. I am quite sure that this is not in the interests of the young men. I am in favour of increasing the benefits of these young men, I am in favour of giving them the ordinary benefits, and I am in favour of doubling anybody's benefits. I will support any Amendment for increasing benefits if there is any chance of getting them out of the Government. But if the Government assure me they cannot find these funds, then I am not going to help to carry an Amendment which will wreck the benefits already provided in this Bill.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I desire to say a word or two as to what fell from the bon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) as to why he proposed to vote for the Amendment. He seemed to think it possible at this stage to split up the proposition of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). I think he has forgotten the hon. Member's speech. He commended the proposition to us as a single proposition, and referred to the Amendments as a batch constituting a single proposition What I am voting against is the proposal of the hon. Member for Salisbury, and I do it with a very clear conscience.
    Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: Like the hon. Member who has just spoken, I am not going to have hon. Members on the other side stating in the country that we are voting against the principle. I am voting in the interests of the friendly societies and the trade unions, who, while they will gladly accept the abolition of the reduced benefits in respect to young persons under twenty-one, are strongly resentful of that being done at the expense of their sinking fund. We have to choose here between the extension of the benefit in respect to young persons under twenty-one or the extension of the benefit in respect of aged members of friendly societies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the point with which we are really concerned here. For my own part, I say that having regard to the limitations of the financial possibilities, the case of the old men is by far the most urgent. I have had some experience of the friendly societies, who recognise that there is some need for inquiry into this matter before we definitely depart upon this new venture. We have desired to inquire as to whether it is necessary to pay the full benefit in respect to young persons, say, of seventeen years of age. You may find it expedient, as a result of your inquiry, that you shall grade the benefits. Therefore I apprehend that the time is altogether inopportune. Further, I do not think the grievance is so widespread as some people contemplate. As a matter of fact, so far as my experience has gone, the friendly societies and the trade unions have turned this limitation to very fine propagandist account. They have induced young men to join as full members of their respective societies, and these young men are having the benefits made up to the full ten shillings out of the general payment that they make to these friendly societies. Therefore I do not think the grievance is so widespread,

    2875
    but, having regard to the fact that the financial resource is very limited at this stage, and that we have to choose between extensions at one or the other, for my own part I have a preference for the case of the old men. I trust that before we decide upon the removal of this restriction in the original Act we shall fully inquire into what it will involve, what is desired by the friendly societies, and whether some grading is not essential to protect the friendly societies and the members themselves.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: The hon. Member who has just spoken and the two previous speakers both referred to the limitation of financial possibilities. I do not know on what grounds they assume that the Government cannot, if they wish, increase their financial responsibilities, because, during the discussion on Clause 1, the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly refused to accept any limitation, and last night in the House, on the Report stage, he again, in answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, said he could not possibly assent to any condition, because the Committee might upstairs be giving a wide discretion if necessary to spend money. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will not be able to satisfy their constituents by going back and saying they could not possibly vote for this because they were tied hand and foot in the matter of spending money. It is entirely within the discretion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend these limitations, and, if he does not do so, hon. Gentlemen must themselves take the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Act.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: May I say one word on the subject raised by my hon. Friend? It is quite true that the Government is not absolutely limited with regard to finance, but, although I do not like to appear even to differ from my hon. Friend, I think we, on this side of the Committee, ought to resist any temptation there may be to put any sort of pressure on the Government to extend the amount of the cost of the Insurance Scheme. For my own part, in the discussions in Committee, I intend to look very closely at any proposals, whether they come from my own side or from hon. Gentlemen opposite, which will have the effect of increasing the cost, and I shall be very chary indeed in supporting any Amendment which
    2876
    will have that effect. I want to know very much what is our exact position with regard to the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I am inclined to agree with what fell from the hon. Member opposite that the whole of this batch of Amendments must stand or fall together. I want to know whether we are in the position taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, that we can support this Amendment, at the same time keeping a perfectly free hand with regard to the method by which the finances may be arranged. So far as I understand what has been said in the Committee hitherto, there are only two possible methods open to the Committee for financing this Amendment. One is that it should be done by the State, and that is, as we said just now, impossible. If the proposal were to carry this Amendment and to finance it at the expense of the State I should vote against it. On the other hand, is it impossible to do it in the method proposed by the hon. Member for Salisbury by a further raid on the Sinking Fund? I quite agree that of the two proposals that is much less objectionable. The matter which will weigh with a great many Members of the Committee is whether or not an Amendment financed in that way by a raid on the Sinking Fund would meet the desires of the great friendly societies. On that point there seems to be a certain conflict of evidence before the Committee. I confess I should very much like to know the truth about that matter. For myself, I will only say that, as at present advised, I do not think I can support my hon. Friend in his Amendment. I would suggest that the Government should give some sort of promise that they will find out by bonâ fide inquiry from the friendly societies whether they would like to see the Amendment carried at the expense of their Sinking Fund or not. If the friendly societies really desire that then the Government could consent to put the Amendment in the Bill at a later stage. But under the present circumstances, and speaking for myself, being most anxious not to press the Government in any way to increase the financial cost, I feel unable to support the Amendment.
    Mr. FORSTER: I think this might be a convenient time to find out what is in order and what is not. Will it be competent for any Member of the Committee to move an Amendment which would throw an increased obligation on the State? I do not know whether any Member desires to do so, but. I should like to ascertain if it would be in order.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is usual in these cases for the Chairman to reserve his opinion until he sees the particular Amendment. It is very difficult to give a general ruling.

    Division No. 1.]

    AYES.

    Addison, Dr.

    Esmonde, Dr.

    M'Neill, Mr. Ronald

    Ainsworth, Mr.

    Gwynn, Mr. Stephen

    MacVeagh, Mr.

    Alden, Mr.

    Harcourt, Mr. Robert

    Masterman, Mr.

    Beck, Mr.

    Harvey, Mr. Edmund

    Money, Mr. Chiozza

    Booth, Mr.

    Hinds, Mr.

    O'Grady, Mr.

    Boyle, Mr. Daniel

    Jones, Mr. Glyn-

    Pearce, Mr. William

    Bowerman, Mr.

    Jones, Mr. Haydn

    Roberts, Mr. Charles

    Byles, Sir William

    Keating, Mr.

    Roberts, Mr. George

    Carr-Gomm, Mr.

    Lardner, Mr.

    Samuel, Mr. Jonathan

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Lynch, Mr.

    Sandys, Mr.

    Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr.

    Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

    Scott, Mr. MacCallum

    Davies, Mr. Ellis

    M'Laren, Mr. Henry

    Thomas, Mr.

    Dawes, Mr.

    Macnamara, Dr.

    Wing, Mr.

    Devlin, Mr.

    NOES.

    Astor, Mr.

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Locker-Lampson, Mr. Godfrey

    Baker, Sir Randolf

    Forster, Mr.

    Newman, Mr.

    Bathurst, Mr. Charles

    Goulding, Mr.

    Newton, Mr.

    Boyle, Mr. William

    Gwynne, Mr. Rupert

    Nield, Mr.

    Clay, Captain

    Hamilton, Mr.

    Tryon, Captain

    Cooper, Mr.

    Lawson, Mr. Harry

    Worthington-Evans, Mr.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Mr. GOULDING: I beg to move to leave out the second paragraph of Subsection (2)—"Provided that a person who is of the age of sixty-five or upwards at the time of entering into insurance shall not be entitled to medical benefit after he attains the age of seventy unless the number of weekly contributions paid by or in respect of him exceeds fifty."
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Before this Amendment is taken may I ask what is to be done with my proviso It has not yet been put. Is it to come at the end of the new Clause?
    The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I understood the hon. Member to explain that the proviso refers "to the foregoing provisions of the Clause."
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The reason I put it down was because I thought it very likely that the first Amendment would be out of order. But you have now allowed me to move it.
    Mr. GOULDING: I understand that the proviso, as stated in the memorandum explaining this Bill, has been put in for the protection of approved societies. I want very shortly to ask the Government is it really worth while to force this on these old people? It seems to me it is a very poor proposal. There is little or nothing to be saved by it, and it is perfectly clear that it will cause a great deal of trouble. At the present time the
    Question Put, "That the word 'sick-ness' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 19.
    societies complain of the enormous amount of clerical work that is imposed upon them by the issue of innumerable Regulations from time to time. It seems to me this is a piece of niggling economy. The whole cost is very small, and you are enforcing it only on a very limited number of people, who, by the way, are old people. I see from the Actuary's statement that last July there were somewhere near a quarter of a million of people of the age of sixty-five. It may be reckoned as a very fair estimate that 10 per cent. of these would be sixty-nine, or thereabout last July, so that really it would be only an attempt to deal with some 24,000 people. As regards cost I do not want, unless the right hon. Gentlemen desires, to enter into a lot of particulars. But as I make it out the cost can only be a capital sum of something like £17,000 or £18,000, while the cost of administration will be considerable. When you adopt and send round these new regulations to all the approved societies, you will see at once it is going to be a continuation of that continual trouble and friction of which friendly societies complain so much at the present time. I want to put this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not in any hostility to the Bill, Is this real economy? Is this piece of economy going to be worth the candle, or worth the trouble it will entail? Surely this is an occasion where, under the very wide terms of the Financial Resolution

    2879
    which has been passed in the House of Commons, the Government can themselves incur a capital liability of £17,000 and accept the Amendment. I do most earnestly put this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and also to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, are they not aware that one of the things at the present moment that is causing the unpopularity and criticism of this Bill in the country is the enormous number of Regulations sent out from time to time, and the quantity of clerical work that is put on the staff. If you are going to impose this benefit on people above the age of seventy is it not best to do it in a whole-hearted manner, and with a free hand, and not in a niggling way in order to effect an economy which can in no way be justified? I hope the Government will give favourable consideration to the Amendment.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out—'Provided that a person who is of the age of sixty-five or upwards at the time of entering into insurance'—stand part of the Clause."
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of the proviso is in no sense of a niggling character. It is designed to protect the general body of insured persons who have redeemed their reserve, and also the societies themselves. Under the original Act, these people pay their fourpence or threepence, and the State pays twopence, and then they are entitled to such benefit as these contributions will secure, and if they are deposit contributors, to such benefit as the Insurance Committees desire. We say that they should be entitled to medical benefit for life, but not after seventy, unless they have made fifty contributions. If we strike the proviso out, the full medical benefit would be open to a person which has made one contribution. I do not think it is fair to a society that that should be possible, and it is entirely on the basis that other people have twenty-six weeks as a waiting period. I think it is a fair thing to consider whether we could not put that in the Bill in order to avoid enforcing on a society a person who would get benefit after making one contribution. The proposal is to put them on the same footing as other people with regard to medical benefit, and we would say that instead of having made fifty payments, they should make twenty-
    2880
    six payments which all other people have to make. That would avoid, so far as possible, the inflicting on a society of persons who have not made the necessary contributions. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether that would not be a compromise which would fairly meet him. We would say that the insured person should have to make twenty-six weeks the waiting period.
    Mr. GOULDING: The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to meet the case. My object is to reduce the friction in the working of the societies. I do not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, after the word "insurance" ["at the time of entering into insurance shall not be entitled to medical benefit"], to insert the words "if the date of such entry be after the fifteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirteen."
    This Amendment is in order to safeguard those older people who have entered into insurance during the first year after the coming into operation of the Act. I think it is a sound Amendment, because I feel that under the Insurance Act these old people have been very unfairly treated in the past. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember that certain regulations were issued by the Commissioners in the first instance, and two alternative tables were held out to approved societies for their adoption in reference to members between sixty-five and seventy years of age. One of these tables provided for benefit of 6s. for thirteen weeks and 5s. for thirteen weeks. The other table provided for the payment of a small sum per year in the shape of an annuity during the insured person's life. The second table proposed that the amount per year should be utilised by the insured person in part. payment of his contributions to any insurance made by him at the time of sickness. These were alternative tables. Another provided for no medical benefit at all. This was considered such a grievance by all the approved societies throughout the country that the Commissioners brought out a third alternative table under which medical benefit might be secured to these old people if the sickness benefit was reduced to 4s. 6d. per week in place of 6s. Now we have this fourth alternative before us at present. I only mention that to show that these old people have been in suspense for

    2881
    a whole year, and I think they have been very badly treated by the Government. This Amendment is in order to safeguard these people who have entered into insurance during the first year of the coming into operation of the Act. I should like to recommend this Amendment to the Committee on one of the grounds in its favour, that it will really cost very little indeed. I do not believe that the charge will be anything considerable, and as a matter of fact, medical benefit is so enormously valuable, as I think the hon. Member opposite (Dr. Addison) will admit, to the older people especially, that it is essential they should have it. Supposing medical benefit is not given under the Act to these people, the cost in the end will fall upon the Poor Law. During the debates on the principal Act the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out over and over again that under the Act in all probability the cost to the Poor Law would be very largely decreased, and therefore, I feel that he would do anything in his power to prevent the cost of the Poor Law increasing more than is absolutely necessary. I think this Amendment would really remove a considerable grievance. Take the case, for instance, of a man sixty-eight and a half years of age at the commencement of the Act. He was too ill to work at the time, but he got well enough to do a little work, say, this spring. If he stamps his card every available week, he cannot possibly make fifty payments, and so he would be debarred medical benefit at seventy years years of age.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will remember that the period is to be made twenty-six weeks.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That rather alters the case. I was not sure whether the Government concession covered this.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's Amendment is substantially covered by the Government Amendment.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It does meet it in part but not altogether. In view of the tact that the Government have met a considerable part of my Amendment, I will not press it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON had on the Notice Paper an Amendment to leave out the words in the proviso "unless the number of weekly contributions paid by or in
    2882
    respect of him exceeds fifty," and to insert instead thereof, "a sum equal to not less than the amount of fifty weekly contributions have been paid by or in respect of him."
    The CHAIRMAN: That Amendment is consequential.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is quite different.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not understand it unless it is consequential upon the Amendment which has been withdrawn do not quite understand the meaning of the words proposed to be inserted by the hon. Member. The Government mean that the insured person will have to pay fifty contributions for fifty weeks.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Twenty-six weeks.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does it mean that he will have to pay for twenty-six weeks twenty-six contributions, or a capital sum representing twenty-six weeks contributions? I think it might incur a considerable hardship if he had to wait twenty-six weeks. My proposal is that he should be able to pay a capital sum equivalent to twenty-six weeks contributions without having to wait. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is a very dangerous thing to do."]
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can really mean that.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should like to get an answer from the Government on the subject.
    The CHAIRMAN: So that this discussion may be in order, I had better put the Amendment.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should like to make it twenty-six weeks.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not know that the hon. Member wants to anticipate the Amendment of the hon. Member for Worcester.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope the hon. Member will feel that we have met this Amendment very fairly in the proposal which my right hon. Friend made in reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding). It is a very dangerous thing. I am perfectly certain the doctors will threaten another strike if this be carried. It means that all a man has to

    2883
    do is that immediately he is ill is to get somebody to pay the twenty-six weeks' contributions, and then he is going to claim medical benefit.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: After the age of sixty-five.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think this is a very dangerous thing. I think the hon. Member, if he considers, will realise that we have met him very fairly.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask how that will affect the payment of arrears of contributions?
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I am bound to say that I find it a little difficult to support this Amendment which seems to be in the nature of a gamble.
    HON. MEMBERS: "Gamble?"
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Well, a very rash speculation, if I may say so. The drafting of this is most unsatisfactory. If the right hon. Gentleman desires that it shall be incorporated in the way he wants, I venture to suggest that on the Report stage that the word "weekly," should be added after the word "pay."
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider that.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will not keep the Committee for more than a moment, but I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say where the money is to come from to pay these benefits to the old men on this particular proviso. We are altering it now, and putting a greater liability somewhere. We are saying that the old men shall get benefits after twenty-six weeks' contributions instead of after fifty. If that liability is upon the approved societies, it will make a very considerable difference to them. If, on the other hand, the Government are paying this, I have nothing to say to it. But I want to know what is done in regard to the suggestion that the limit shall be twenty-six contributions to get additional benefits.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Not at any age!
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Of course that will not do.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: At any age beyond sixty-five.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman must not put it quite
    2884
    so bluntly. These men have first to be employed cont1ibutors before they can get the benefit of the Clause. Here is some additional liability put somewhere. I hope the Government will consider that and say whether it is in the right form.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We will deal with it when we get to Clause 9 which deals with finances.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. GOULDING: I beg to move, in Subsection (2) to leave out the word "fifty" exceeds fifty"] and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty-six."
    Question, "That the word 'fifty' stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
    Words "twenty-six" inserted.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Salisbury has, on the Order Paper, the next Amendment, which is not intelligible, but he has handed to me a MS. with certain words.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That will take rather a long time.
    Mr. FORSTER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee some indication as to how often he proposes to ask the Committee to sit?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: And when?
    HON. MEMBERS: And for how long?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: To put ourselves in order, I understand that I have to move That the Committee do continue to sit this day, notwithstanding the Sitting of the House."
    The CHAIRMAN: If that is moved, it is put without Amendment or Debate, but perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would wish to make a statement.
    Sir W. BYLES: Mr. Chairman—
    The CHAIRMAN: This Motion is non-debatable.
    Sir W. BYLES: I have not accepted that. On a point of Order. Will you tell me what right the Government or anybody else has to impose this duty upon hon. Members?
    The CHAIRMAN: This Motion simply carries the Members over 2.45 when we should otherwise absolutely have to stop on the stroke of the clock. It does not oblige the Committee to sit till four o'clock. It gives elasticity to the Committee.
    Question, "That the Committee do continue to sit this day, notwithstanding the Sitting of the House," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In reply to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, who wanted to know what are the ideas of the Government with regard to the immediate procedure, I am sure that those who have looked at the Order Paper must realise that in order to get through the Bill at all we must invite members of the Committee to make exceptional sacrifices, otherwise it will be quite impossible to get through. I am sure there is a general desire that at any rate these old people for whom the benefits are proposed in the measure should get them as soon as possible. It would be quite impossible for us to do that and get through the enormous list of Amendments which have been put down, running over twenty pages, if the Committee do not sit late and often. There is only another three weeks of this Session.
    Sir W. BYLES: That is your business.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It really is not. It is the business of hon. Members, and we are trying to meet the convenience of everybody. I do not believe anybody wants to stay later than another three weeks. It is entirely a question for Members of the House. We are endeavouring to meet their convenience. It is very much better to sit late here in order to get through this work and to get away at the earliest possible moment. Our suggestion to the Committee will be that we should meet every day—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!" "And Friday?"]—every Parliamentary day, in order to get through these Amendments. If we find that we get through easily then we shall be able to reconsider the matter later on. But take the progress we have made this morning. I am not at all complaining of it. But at the rate of progress we have made this morning it will be quite impossible to get through this Bill unless we are prepared to sit late and every day. Quite impossible! Therefore the Government invite the Committee to do this. The Prime Minister has given notice of a Resolution this afternoon in the House—it is in the Orders for the day—that this Committee shall sit notwithstanding the fact that the House is sitting at the same time. It is the precedent set in the case of Unemployment Insurance; that was got through by this means.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Is it intended to sit on Mondays? There are a large number of Members who have to go into the country at the week-end.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think after what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, the question of sitting on Mondays or Fridays can be raised subsequently. There is no Resolution which pledges the Committee to sit on any day.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It simply means that we must make this appeal to the Members. They have to decide between sitting often and making these sacrifices and losing the Bill. That is really what it means.
    Mr. REMNANT: Does the Motion to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred mean that we can sit after four o'clock?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: After to-day, yes.
    At twenty-two minutes before Two o'clock, the Committee adjourned for lunch till 2.15 p.m.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move in Sub-section (3) to leave out the words "at such date not later than the fourteenth of January, nineteen hundred and fourteen, as the Insurance Commissioners may appoint," and to insert instead thereof the words "immediately after the passing of this Act."
    The Sub-section would then read, "This section shall come into operation immediately after the passing of this Act." I have two reasons for moving this Amendment; one is I do not see what reason the Government have for postponing the operation of this Sub-section possibly until January, 1914. I do not in the least see why, if this Amending Bill is passed into law in the next few weeks, we should postpone the operation of these benefits for old persons over fifty for six months. I see that there may be some difficulty in bringing it into operation immediately according to the text of my Amendment, but I do not see why the Commissioners should have power to wait for six months before giving the benefit of this Bill to the old people. After all, such a postponement is far more important in the case of old people than in the case of young people. These old people in many cases will have but few years to live, and to postpone the benefits for such people especially is serious. There is another point. I cannot help feeling that the Com-

    2887
    missioners have far too much power under the Act as it already exists. I have got nothing whatever to say against the ability or against the conscientiousness of the present Insurance Commissioners. Everybody knows that they have done their utmost to work this Act, and no people could have shown more ability in working it, but I feel it is most undesirable to give the Commissioners still further power. Under the Act, as everybody knows, they can practically legislate upon any question. If you look at the various Clauses dealing with regulations and powers of removing difficulties at the present moment, the Insurance Commissioners can practically alter the whole of the Insurance Act without coming to Parliament at all, and here you are now giving them additional power, which seems to me very undesirable. I think the Committee should make up its mind as to when it wants these benefits for the old people to come into operation. I do not see in the least why it should be left to the option of the Commissioners to postpone these benefits, if they thought fit, for six months.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think we shall be able to meet in substance the desire of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment, and I shall ask him, after I make some explanation, if he is satisfied to withdraw his Amendment in order that we may move a Government Amendment omitting certain words. I agree with him that it is far better to fix a date which can be known by the Insurance Societies than to leave it in uncertainty. The only thing is we may have to put in a number of different dates for the different portions of the Act coming into operation. For instance, the doctors are under certain contracts with the Insurance Societies until the end of the year. This Act will put fresh obligations upon the doctors, and I think it would be a breach of the contract with them if Parliament tried to put this obligation upon them while their existing contracts are still running. As for sickness benefits, the actuarial calculation is from 13th of October next, and I should be quite prepared to agree with the hon. Gentleman, that the 13th of October should be put in as a definite date for the bringing into operation of the extra sickness benefits for those old persons. The hon. Member must realise that the words "immediately after the passing of the Act" is an impossible proposition. We could not communicate with the societies, especially in those remotei
    2888
    districts by that time. I think, by putting in the 13th of October we will meet his case without leaving too much to the Commissioners. If the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment I propose then to move an Amendment to omit the first three lines of the Sub-section, namely, "This Section shall come into operation at such date not later than the fourteenth day of January nineteen hundred and fourteen, as the Insurance Commissioners may appoint, and" and to leave the Clause to read, "the Insurance Commissioners may make such regulations, etc." Then I propose to bring up a new Clause at the end giving the various dates at which the various parts of the Act will come into operation, and I shall propose sickness benefit shall be from the 13th of October. In these circumstances I would ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Before the Amendment is withdrawn I should like to ask a question. We hear many claims for gratitude made on behalf of the Insurance Act, and I think the old people ought to be very grateful to my hon. Friend (Mr. G. Locker Lampson) for the benefit he has obtained for them by this concession. The question I want to ask is, what exactly is the financial difference which this Amendment will make in the figures supplied by the Actuary?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In the actuarial figures the calculation is as from the thirteenth day of October next, and that is the date I propose.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move in Sub-section (3) to leave out the words "This Section shall come into operation at such date not later than the fourteenth day of January, nineteen hundred and fourteen, as the Insurance Commissioners may appoint, and"—
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (3) to add the words "and for increasing the reserve values so that no loss shall fall on any society or branch." I do not propose to press this Amendment to a Division if the. Government can assure me that members of approved societies will be safeguarded. It is possible that after the actuarial calculations these reserve values are going to be ncreased, but it is quite clear if they are

    2889
    not going to be increased you will be affecting the solvency of the approved societies affected by the provisions already dealt with. I should like to have an assurance that these reserve values will be increased so that no loss shall fall upon the societies.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Member has anticipated the purport of our proposal. The new benefits we are now proposing to confer are met partly by monies from Parliament, and partly from the reserve values. Clause 9 of the Bill provides that—
    "The Insurance Commissioners may make regulations with respect to all or any of the matters specified in the Schedules of this Act."
    If the hon. Member will look at the Schedule, Sub-section (d), he will find the following provision:—
    "The crediting or variation (whether by way of increase or decrease) and cancellation of reserve values."
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The Clause says, "may make regulations."
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is optional.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There is no need for this Amendment, because we have taken power already under Clause 9, and under the Schedule of this Bill.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: We have just had another characteristic reply from the Government. They say because it is laid down that the Commissioners may do something, the Government asks us to assume they are going to do something. That is the attitude of the Government towards anybody who attempts to criticise anything they do with regard to insurance, but I am not satisfied to leave the matter in that way. There is no statement before the Committee as to how these medical benefits are going to be met. Is there going to be a reserve value attached to these older men with respect to medical benefit? We have not even had that stated. We do not know whether there is to be a reserve value or how much it is. Up to date I believe no reserve value has ever been given for medical benefit. I should like to know whether that is really so, and perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury will tell us now. I think the Committee is entitled to know if there has ever yet been any reserve value created for the purpose of meeting medical benefit. I do not mean an accumulation of contributions by individual members. I believe
    2890
    it is true that there has never been any reserve value attached to any man for medical benefit. If that is the case the Government ought to tell us now whether there is to be a reserve value and how much it is, or they ought to assure us that it is sufficient, so that there shall be no draft upon the funds of the societies for the extra benefits we are now asking to be given. What has the Government done? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty gets up and says the Commissioners have power to make regulations, which they may make or may not make. See what the difference is. If they do not make any such regulations, the society has to bear the cost. If they do make regulations, the society may have the expense taken off them. My hon. Friend moves an Amendment with the object of providing that societies shall not have to bear any part of this cost, and the answer of the Government is that the Commissioners have got power to make regulations which they may or may not exercise, and if they do exercise that power, the societies will not have to bear any part of the cost. I would like an answer to my question, whether there has been created a reserve value anywhere in connection with anybody for medical benefit except out of their own contributions? and I want to know whether the Government has done so in this case.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first question is "Certainly, yes!" The reserve values already created include medical benefit for those over seventy years of age. I am very glad the hon. Gentleman said that he was only raising it in order to get a definite statement, which my hon. Friend has already given, and which we are very pleased to give. It is proposed to meet all the proposals under this Clause by the reserve values created. We have already issued an Actuarial Memorandum stating the exact amount that will be required, and we have no intention under any circumstances that a farthing of this expenditure should fall upon the approved societies. I cannot give now the calculations in reserve values, but they will be issued in due course by our Actuarial Staff, and will be revised by the Actuarial Committee, but either out of contributions from the State or out of reserve values the whole expenditure under Clause 2 will be met, and, unless there is some error in calculation against which no prudence could guard, nothing will fall upon the approved societies.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) has been arguing under a complete misapprehension. His hon. Friend does not propose to make the Commissioners do anything. It is a permissive Clause. It says "The Insurance Commissioners may" do so-and-so, and the hon. Member adds "they may" do something else. His Amendment, in other words, is entirely unnecessary, and so was the speech of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As the Government has now made it clear that none of this expenditure will fall upon the approved societies, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONhad given notice of an Amendment at the end of the Clause to add the words, "A woman who has been an insured person before marriage shall not be suspended from the ordinary benefits of the principal Act until three calendar months have elapsed after her marriage, and Section 44 of the principal Act shall be amended accordingly. The cost of this extension of benefits shall be met by moneys provided by Parliament."
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member is not in order on this Clause.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I wonder why?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is not within the scope of reduction of benefits.
    Mr. FORSTER: Surely women who were fifty and upwards at the time of entering into insurance would come under this Clause?
    The CHAIRMAN: No, this Amendment refers to Section 44 of the original Act.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Arrears of Contributions.)
    (1) Where an employed contributor who is a member of an approved society pays to the society such part of any arrears which have accrued due by or in respect if him during any period of unemployment as would have been payable otherwise than by the employer had he continued in employment, the part which would have been so payable by the employer shall be excused, and the amount of the member's arrears shall be reduced accordingly.
    For the purpose of calculating the parts which would have been payable by the employer and otherwise than by an employer had an employed contributor continued in employment, the rate of his remuneration shall be deemed to exceed two shillings and sixpence a working day, unless he proves to the satisfaction of the society that his normal rate of remuneration was two and sixpence a working day or less, in which case his rate of remuneration shall be deemed to be such normal rate.
    (2) Where in any year a society, or in the case of a society with branches a branch of a society, proves to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners that the total number of weekly contributions which accrued due as arrears during the preceding year in respect of all its members who were employed contributors exceeded the standard number (that is to say three weekly contributions for every such member) then, for the purpose of recouping to the society the loss it will suffer, there shall be paid to the society, or to the society on behalf of the branch, as the case may be, out of the sums retained by the Insurance Commissioners for discharging their liabilities in respect of reserve values, the prescribed amount for every week by which the standard was so exceeded, but not exceeding the total amount so excused as aforesaid:
    Provided that if the aggregate amount so payable in any year exceeds one hundred thousand pounds the excess shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
    (3) The Insurance Commissioners may make regulations for carrying this Section into effect.
    Mr. W. PEARCE: I beg to move in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "who is a member of an approved society."
    The object of this Amendment is to include deposit contributors in the great boon which this Clause gives. During the passage of the Parent Act through the House of Commons all sorts of promises were ma de to consider the position of deposit contributors, and, if something of advantage is to be given, it does seem to me very hard that deposit contributors should be left out. After all they need it most. They are the least regularly employed of any class of contributors, and, presumably, then have a larger quantity of arrears than any other class coming under the Bill.
    Dr. ADDISON: On a point of Order. Would the Amendment of the hon. Member be in order on this Clause, seeing that deposit contributors could never be in arrears.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that is so. Unless the hon. Member can explain how they can be in arrear, the Amendment will not be in order. It might perhaps be put in the form of a new Clause.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALL: May I ask this question? If there is no use in this Amendment, it is to be understood that a deposit contributor is, to all intents and purposes, an uninsured person? I should line to get from the Government some expression of opinion as to the position of the deposit contributor in this regard.
    The CHAIRMAN: There is no question about that before the Committee.
    Mr. PEARCE:Shall I be in order in bringing this up as a new Clause? Cannot the Government see their way to do anything for the deposit contributors in this connection?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the proper course for the hon. Member to take is to put down a new Clause. I cannot express any opinion on the point, neither, I suppose, can the Government.
    Mr. PEARCE: I give notice that I shall bring up a new Clause dealing with the matter.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I beg to move in paragraph (2) Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "normal" ["normal rate of renumeration"] and to insert instead thereof the word "average."
    My object in moving this Amendment is to meet the case of the person who is in discontinuous employment in our rural districts. It is very difficult indeed in such a case to arrive at what is his normal remuneration, and I want to substitute the expression "average rate of remuneration" for the expression of "normal rate of remuneration." There are many cases of poorly paid labour in rural districts, where it would be extremely difficult to discover what is a man's normal rate of remuneration, because he has to turn his hand to several different kinds of agricultural employment. That is the case particularly during the winter months in purely rural areas, and it might be much more easy to discover what is the average rate of remuneration if he can show how fie has been actually employed during the previous six or twelve months. "Normal," after all, is a very ambiguous term. I am
    2894
    not quite sure what, on the face of the Bill, the word is intended to mean. If, as I think is quite possible, you are going to interpret it to mean the rate of remuneration when the man was last in continuous employment, you are going to do a serious injustice to a very deserving and somewhat badly treated body of men who are to be found in our rural districts. A very large number of men, as the Committee know, turn from one class of employment to another, and are only too glad to get any kind of employment during the winter months, when there is no continuous employment to be found on a farm. This particularly applies to areas in which there is a large amount of pasture as compared with arable tillage. These men, in ordinary employment, do not get more than an average of, say, 2s. or 2s. 6d. per day, and if you are going to say that the basis of their remuneration is going to be taken to be the amount which they receive when they cease to be continuous labourer and become discontinuous or casual labourer, or even labour employed by the piece, I venture to suggest to this Committee that you are going, in many cases, to do serious injustice to the most helpless body of men you will find in the whole country. In moving this Amendment, I only want to suggest that the expression "average" is more easy of interpretation than the word "normal." The only effect of it would be to secure fairness for the person concerned, whereas "normal" is difficult of expression, and the use of it in many cases will operate to the disadvantage of the persons whose position I have described. I came in at the last moment unprepared to make a long speech, but if I have conveyed my meaning to the Committee, that is sufficient for my purpose.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he has made his point quite clear. What he is asking, I think, deserves consideration, but it is 'not a point relevant to this Clause: This particular reference to normal rate of remuneration in this Clause is really only a reference to the general conditions under Clause 4 of the original Bill, which deals with the reduced rate of remuneration for persons who are under a certain amount of wages, and the hon. Gentleman says, quite rightly, it may be desirable more clearly to define what is meant by "rate of remuneration." He wishes to substitute the words, "average rate of remuneration," but you cannot deal with this—which here is merely a point of reference—without dealing with the question of what is meant by "rate of

    2895
    remuneration"—2s. or 2s. 6d. a day, whether calculated over the week, month, or year, is a subject which has given a good deal of difficulty to the Commissioners. It is one with which the hon. Gentleman himself, in the very courageous speech which be made in the House on the Second Reading, dealt. These insured persons are to a certain extent being, I will not use the word "swindled," but the Committee will know what I mean when I say that they are being treated unfairly in some cases, because the rate calculated, 2s. per day or 2s. 6d. per day, is not as a matter of fact calculated fairly. We want to see that is shall be calculated fairly in the Penalty Clause of the new Bill. For the first time we allow the Commissioners and the Inspectors to see that 2s. 6d. as a rate of remuneration shall be a real rate of remuneration, and that, for example, such a thing as harvest money, given specially for a few weeks in the year, shall not be calculated as being the ordinary rate of remuneration for the agricultural labourers. I would ask the hon. Gentleman if be cannot, after consultation with anyone he cares to consult, bring up a Clause dealing with this point, not with the point of arrears, but with the point how the "normal rate," or "average rate" or "rate of remuneration" should be calculated when you are allowing for a reduction to 2s. 6d. or 2s. per day. Then, if that were brought up and carried by general consent, we could make the words in this Clause the same as in the new Clause, so that the arrears should there be calculated on the men who were paid reduced payments at a rate of remuneration the reckoning of which will be fixed. I think if that could be done and if the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment here, it would be better as it would be useless to put it in here without having a general provision covering all the Clauses of the Act.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: In connection with that I quite agree to what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, and I daresay, in conjunction with friends of mine on both sides, we may be able to come to some arrangement which would satisfy him and ourselves. I do not see, however, that he is justified in including for the first time the word "normal." I am not going to propose an alternative for it in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but he himself has pointed out the word "normal" does not appear in the original Section in the original Act, and I think the use for the first time of the word "normal" will tend to a different meaning of the expression "re-
    2896
    muneration" when it comes to be judicially interpreted than has been put upon it hitherto. Therefore, I think if he wants the meaning to remain the same and not be interpreted to the detriment of the employed person, I would ask him to be good enough to leave out the word "normal" here and leave the question open as to what we shall insert in its place, if anything.
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: I am in hearty sympathy with the desire of my hon. Friend, but I want also to point out that his proposal might possibly have the very reverse effect of that which he desires. His proposal would certainly tend to ease the lot of those persons who suffer long periods of unemployment, but in respect of the low paid man who is fairly regularly employed, I do not think his proposal would bring any benefit at all. As I understand the word normal, if you mean to say that a rate of 2s. or 2s. 6d. applies to the whole of the year round, if you take the word "average" it means that you include all the extras which enter into the remuneration of the agricultural labourer. Therefore you would at any rate extend the Clause there to people who would get no release whatever under the provisions of the Act and who would thus be penalised. I find myself in hearty sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's motives, but I respectfully suggest that he should adopt the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and, with a few who are in accord with aim, endeavour to frame such words as would undoubtedly carry out his aims. At the same time I express my fear that the proposal which he has made might have the very reverse effect from that which he desired.
    Mr. FORSTER: I hope the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken may be able to cooperate with my hon. Friend in finding such a solution as was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I wish to support the suggestion made by my Iron. Friend that even if we do not include the word here which he has suggested, we should at any rate leave out the word "normal" now. It is used here for the first time since there is nothing in the original Act about normal rate of remuneration. I should not think it is a wise thing to put in a word that is not found in the original Act.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Ordinary rate of remuneration.
    Mr. FORSTER: Leave it now rate of remuneration. I am always told by lawyers that it is a very dangerous thing to use fresh

    2897
    language if you want to deal with the same problem, and I should think, therefore, that is very much better to leave out the word "normal." Then if we come to a general agreement as to the substituted words for a new method of calculation suggested by my hon. Friend behind, then if it is desirable, as the right hon. Gentleman has already suggested himself, we can put those words in here. Until some other word is agreed upon, we had better leave out the word "normal."
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I also find myself in hearty agreement with the intention of the hon. Members opposite, but I do not think it would be advisable for them to press their proposal to leave out the word "normal." I think they will see it if they look at it for a moment. If the expression is left that "his rate of remuneration was two and sixpence a working day," that might be interpreted to mean that his rate of remuneration within a reasonable period of time was over two and sixpence a day. The word "normal" is not very satisfactory, I know, but it suggests this, that in making calculations under this Section, some idea must be taken of a period of time, and so long as the expression "normal" is in, it will be impossible to say that in a particular week a man got a certain sum of money which he alleges did not represent an average run of income. If we keep in "normal" the idea of an average must be in the minds of the Commissioners or of any other authority in making this calculation. It is altogether to the benefit of the insured person that this word should remain in. If it comes out, it is to his detriment.
    Mr. CASSEL: I suggest that the word "normal" ought to be cut out, for the reason that it does not find a place in the second Schedule of the original Act. This Section clearly ought to follow precisely the wording of the second Schedule of the original Act, which provides that—
    "In the case of employed contributors of either sex of the age of twenty-one or upwards whose remuneration does not include the provision of board and lodging by their employer, and the rate of whose remuneration does not exceed 2s. 6d."
    Obviously, we ought to follow the same wording here. There cannot be any possible excuse for adopting a different wording in this Section from that which was adopted in the original Act. I could understand the argument that it ought to be altered in both, but that you should adopt a different wording from that in the original Schedule seems to me wholly illogical.
    Dr. ADDISON: I sincerely hope this word will not be omitted. The hon. and learned Gentleman is, I am afraid, a little outside the facts. The facts are that in a good many cases, especially in the case of casual workers, who would be those most likely to be in arrear, they would be employed at, we will say, five or six shillings a day at a good time, and they would have deductions made according to that, unless you leave in some such word as this which introduces some reference to their general earnings throughout the whole year, and it is a serious difficulty in the second Schedule of the original Act that some such word is not in, and that is why I sincerely hope, although I quite agree with the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bathurst) that perhaps the word "normal" is not on the whole the most suitable; still it expresses what we mean, and until we find a better, I hope it will be left in.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There is nothing very much between us. We are all trying to help to get a right Clause. I have made a promise that later on, on Report, if "normal" does not seem to be the right word, we will alter it, I am a little afraid of the word "average," because "average" may include such things as harvest money, which we do not intend to include. If the Committee will accept that promise, we will try and unite on a new Clause, defining rate of remuneration, and leave "normal" in meanwhile.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cassel) suggests that in this Clause we should follow the wording of the second Schedule. There is all the difference in the world between the object of this Clause and that of the second Schedule. The second Schedule is dealing with a specific week during which a definite wage is paid, and therefore there is no question of "average," or of "normal," or of spreading it over a period of time. Here we are dealing with a period during which no wage is paid, and in order to arrive at some hypothetical sum, we have to consider what wages the man was earning before the period of unemployment arose. Therefore you have to insert some word—not the word "average"—but some word indicating that a period of time is to be taken into account.
    Mr. GEORGE HAMILTON: Do you think the word "usual" substituted for the word "normal" would get over the difficulty, and meet with everybody's approval?
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I do not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move after the word "rate" ["shall be deemed to be such normal rate"] to insert,
    "(2) An employed contributor shall not be deemed to be in arrear in respect of any period during which his employer is not required to contribute on his behalf, nor authorised to make any deduction from his wages, by reason of the fact that such employed contributor is in employment outside the United Kingdom."
    I have been asked to move this, particularly on behalf of the domestic servant class who may be taken by their employers outside the United Kingdom, as many of them are, from periods which may vary from a few weeks, to say, six months or more, and during that time nothing is being contributed on their behalf, and no benefit is being obtained on their behalf either. It is not a question of financial charge in this case because one factor will balance the other. Nothing is being paid and nothing received, and as both employers and employed feel that there is some injustice in the present arrangement, I ask, to meet the case especially of domestic servants, that this Amendment be carried in order to include them in the Section which will relieve them of any arrears during the time when they are receiving no benefit, and cannot by any possibility receive a benefit, from their contribution.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: This involves a question which is raised in principle in a number of succeeding Amendments, although this deals with persons who go out of the United Kingdom for any length of time. It does not specify any time during which they may be away. There is another Amendment which restricts the absence to twelve months. This Amendment proposes that a man who leaves this country for any length of time should be absolved from paying his contribution and, of course, from the payment not only of the employer's contribution but his own. Let the hon. Member consider the effect of that upon the societies. This man is away for any length of time. He comes back and is entitled to full benefit on his return, no matter how long he is absent, no matter how long they stay out of any contribution on his behalf. I do not think you can contemplate that. I assume that the reason is, although it was not stated, that while he is away, he gets no benefits. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will he get
    2900
    benefit if he is away temporarily?"] He can get sickness benefit, and, if his wife is confined at home, she may get maternity benefit. What he cannot get while he is away is a doctor. He cannot get medical attendance.
    Mr. GOULDING: He cannot get his own benefit.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, yes, he can. The friendly societies for years have sent Postal Orders to people who are abroad who are insured with them.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can they do that as approved societies
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am speaking of the ordinary friendly societies. He can get his sickness benefit.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Where is that provided for?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will show the hon. Member presently. The wife can secure the maternity benefit.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: He cannot get medical attendance.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is quite true that he might not be able to secure medical attendance, but the hon. Gentleman should remember that he gets his wages. The man we are dealing with has to pay his own contributions, but he is getting no wages. I think this puts the man who is abroad, who is getting his wages, in a position more favourable than the man who is at home with no wages, and who has to pay his contributions. I think the point with regard to medical attendance requires consideration.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I think the right. hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. May I refer him, before he goes further, to Subsection (4) of Section S of the Act, which says—
    "No Insured person shall he entitled to any benefit during any period when he is resident either temporarily or permanently outside the United Kingdom."
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Read the proviso.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: There are provisos limiting the benefit. The Sub-section says—
    "Provided that, if a person is temporarily resident in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, he shall not, whilst so resident, be disentitled to benefits other than medical benefit, and that, if with the consent of the society or Committee by

    2901
    which the benefit is administered a person is temporarily resident outside the United Kingdom elsewhere than in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, the society or committee may allow him, whilst so resident, to continue to receive sickness or disablement benefit, and that a person resident out of the United Kingdom shall not be disentitled to maternity benefit in respect of the confinement of his wife, if his wife at the time of her confinement is resident in the United Kingdom."
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I tried to say that. I referred to the societies, and stated that it had been their practice, before this Act came into operation, to make these payments. The original Act gives them the power to make these payments under the provisos the hon. Gentleman has just read. What I feel about the matter is that this puts the man who is away for a period of time with wages in a better position than the man at home with no wages. If we could ascertain what these people think would be the best way to arrange for their cases, some Consideration is due to them. I am not prepared at the present time to say what we should do, but it is a matter to which we shall give attention. We certainly could not adopt the proposal that the man who is probably getting full wages shall be absolved of his payments.
    Mr. GOULDING: I have Amendments on the Paper dealing with this question which are an extension of what my hon. Friend has moved by introducing the word "temporarily," and at the end of the suggested Amendment saying that "in the course of employment which is ordinarily carried on in the United Kingdom." I think the right hon. Gentleman makes less of this Amendment than it deserves. It affects far more people than domestic servants. For instance, there is a class of people who are sent abroad to erect buildings or for other classes of employment, and it equally affects them. You have to recollect that the employer is not legally liable to pay any part of the contribution. That is specifically laid down in the First Schedule to Part I. of the principal Act. He is entirely exonerated from all liability, but these individuals, if they come back, are legally liable not only to pay their own contributions, but their employers' contributions as well.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Not under the new Bill.
    Mr. GOULDING: Of course, it will be limited to that extent, but they will be liable to pay the whole of their own, though not their employers' contributions.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSindicated dissent.
    Mr. GOULDING: I think I am correct in saying that they will be liable to pay both, which certainly cannot be claimed to be just. During the period they are thus liable to pay the whole contributions themselves, for benefits which they may not be able to receive. It is undoubtedly a two-fold liability to which—
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not wish the hon. Gentlemen to argue under a mistaken apprehension. If they are employed out of the United Kingdom, that is not employment under the Act, and this Clause exempts them from paying the employers' contributions.
    Mr. GOULDING: Surely if they come back into this country they are liable for the employers arrears. [AN HON. MEMBER: "They are not."] Why should they be liable even for their own arrears if they have had no possibility of receiving any benefit from the Insurance? I have been trying to remove a grotesque injustice. No one is going to claim that it is not a grotesque injustice that these people should be liable for contributions from which they cannot get benefit because they are employed abroad. Take the case of domestic servants. A person has to go abroad for employment, and servants during this precarious time, be it weeks or months, have this liability. I do urge upon the right hon. Gentleman to look upon this in a considerate way, and see whether he can meet us by some modification of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.
    Dr. ADDISON: I sincerely hope that the Government Will not accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend opposite. He said he spoke on behalf of domestic servants of which society I am a co-trustee with himself.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I did not say "Society."
    Dr. ADDISON: Well, I will not say society either. His proposal is quite a mistake because it proceeds upon a wrong assumption. Why do insured persons go abroad? They go abroad because they are employed abroad, during which time they are receiving their wages. If a person is likely to come under this Clause at home, why does he come under the Clause? It is because he is unemployed. If an insured person is in arrears, it is because he is unemployed and getting no wages. This Amendment would place a person who goes

    2903
    abroad, and who is receiving good wages all the time, in a better position than an insured person who remains at home and does not receive any wages at all. I do not see how the proposal can possibly be defended, for it would make an unfair inroad on the funds of societies. The right hon. Gentleman says, with respect to medical benefit that he will consider the matter. The Amendment as moved would be grossly inequitable both to persons insured and to the societies.
    Mr. BOOTH: I do not think the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) would claim that in this idea he is representing the general opinion of approved societies. As far as I have been able to learn an overwhelming majority of them hold a view against him on this point. It is in no sense a hardship. It is the better class of servants who will go abroad. People do not take servants abroad if they are sick. Apart from that, I want to put this: If societies are in the utmost difficulty to preserve their funds and keep solvent, they are entitled to this contribution. The hon. Member opposite tried to impress upon the Committee that a man would get no benefit, but really, that is a very exaggerated way of putting it. He would be entitled to definite benefits under the Act, only one of which would be stopped. The society has paid the doctor, paid the contribution for sanatorium benefit, and is liable for permanent invalidity and for maternity benefit. The only possible thing you can say that the society is relieved of, for a short time, is temporary sickness. I do not think the domestic servants would expect to have two per cent. of these people on the funds for temporary sickness. Certainly, they would not have more than two per cent. of the people who would be well enough to go abroad. Therefore, because they are gaining one-fiftieth part of the sickness pay, they are to lose the man's contribution. I am perfectly certain it would be admitted, in view of the fact that the man wants to keep in benefit for all the benefits of the Act, which last him until after he is seventy, it is too narrow a view to take about temporary sickness pay, which it is very unlikely he will ever claim.
    Mr. ASTOR: The last speaker said that this Amendment had not the approval of the approved societies.
    Mr. BOOTH: The general approval.
    Mr. ASTOR: At a meeting on 21st July, of the Amendments Committee of the Association of Approved Societies, it was
    2904
    resolved heartily to endorse and support this Amendment. Therefore, I think we may take it that the approved societies do support the Amendment. The Secretary to the Admiralty said just now that persons temporarily out of the United Kingdom continued to receive sickness or disablement benefit.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: They might.
    Mr. ASTOR: The point I wish to put is that they "continue" to receive it. Unless they are receiving it before they go abroad, they do not get it when they are out of the United Kingdom.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that that is so.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I do not know what was the representative character of the body whose Resolution the hon. Member has quoted. Let me assure him that it does not represent one-tenth in comparison with the representative body who uses the following words in reference to this Amendment:—
    "The difficulty of calculating arrears is at present very great, but the calculation would be impossible if Amendments of this character were introduced."
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Read on.
    Mr. THOMAS: (reading)
    "Since societies are unaware when the member is absent front this country, and no notice need be given by the member of the society of such absence."
    Mr. ASTOR: By whom is that statement made?
    Mr. THOMAS: This is a society representing the National Conference of Friendly Societies, the General Federation of Trade Unions, the National Union of Deposit Societies, the National Union of Holloway Societies, the National Union of Dividing Societies, and the National Association of Approved Societies. Seven millions out of thirteen millions insured persons were represented at the Conference which expressed the opinion that I have just quoted. Apart from that, a moment's consideration of the case ought to prove to hon. Members how impossible this proposal is. In the first place, no one who supports this Amendment can suggest that the people whom it is intended to benefit are really in difficulties. They are neither sick nor unemployed. I think it will be generally conceded that they are in the most advantageous position they can possibly be in. If they are domestic servants abroad with their families—I do not know anything about them myself,

    2905
    because I neither take servants nor have I been a servant abroad, but I conclude that servants under these circumstances would certainly be not less favourably situated than in this country. But let us keep in mind that this will apply not merely to domestic servants. Take the thousands of people who, at this period of the year, leave this country for the Channel Islands for the summer service there. They earn better wages during that period than they do here. They will be exempt from their contributions while they are away. They will then come back, and perhaps immediately go on the fund. I submit that it is an outrageous proposal. It is not in the interests of the insured persons. It must create enormous difficulties for the approved societies who have to calculate the arrears, and any benefit that is obtained will be at the expense of the people who themselves have to pay it in the end. For these reasons, I would urge the hon. Member opposite to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "period" to insert the words "after notice to his approved society."
    I think the point made by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), can be met.
    I quite appreciate the difficulty there would be in regard to the calculation of arrears. The arrears question is quite difficult enough without adding any fortuitous or, so to speak, accidental difficulties. But that would be met if notice were given to the approved society before the person left the United Kingdom, and from that date only the arrears should not accumulate against the insured person. The difficulty is notice. The Joint Committee of Approved Societies have given their reason for objecting to this proposal. They say:—
    "The difficulty of calculating arrears at the present moment is very great. The calculation would be impossible if Amendments of this character were introduced since societies are unaware that a member is absent from the country."
    That is the reason.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: One of them.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is the only reason given. I want to meet it if I can. That somebody else has to pay for the benefit is a totally different point. The only difficulty here is the question of notice. I propose to insert the words, "after notice to his approved society," and then, with a subsequent Amendment, the Amendment as amended would read:
    2906
    "An employed contributor shall not be deemed to be in arrear in respect of any period after notice to his approved society during which his employer is not required to contribute on his behalf, nor authorised to make any deduction from his wages, by reason of the fact that such employed contributor is in employment outside the United Kingdom, in the course of the employment ordinarily carried on in the United Kingdom and for a period not exceeding one-fifth of the time during which he has been in Insurance."
    There is another point there. If a man were to be in insurance for a short time, say a few months, then went abroad for many years, and came back perhaps in broken health, it might be a serious draft on the funds of the Society.
    Mr. THOMAS: There are men who go away annually.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will deal with that in a moment. I want to deal with the difficulty by giving leave of absence without contribution limited to one-fifth of the time that the insured person is in insurance. I am dwelling on this somewhat in detail, because I hope the Government will consider it. If they say that they will consider it seriously, I do not say that I should be disposed to press the Amendment. There is a grievance, and it does not rest only on domestic servants. There are miners, engineers, and others who go abroad. For instance, there are engineers who go abroad with machinery to try and start. They come back and take out other machinery to various parts of the Continent, or perhaps further abroad. Every time they go abroad they get into arrears, and when, they come back they have to pay up their contributions.
    That is a case and a real case which ought to be met, and under the Act as it stands to-day cases of that kind are not met, and it is no answer to the point to say that there are difficulties. It is our duty to meet those difficulties if we can. The first difficulty we can meet by saying that the period of exemption shall only start after notice to the societies. The second point is, you can prevent any exceptional case of men being abroad a long time and then coming back on the funds by limiting the period for which they could go to one-fifth of the time that they are in insurance. I know that that would cut out some people who ought to be in, but at the same time it does provide against any gross case; and the other limitation would be such people as go

    2907
    abroad in the course of their employment, which they are ordinarily carrying on in this country. I believe that with those three limitations the acceptance of this Amendment would be perfectly safe from the approved societies' point of view, and also that it would be a real advantage to the people who come under this Act. I beg formally to move this Amendment to the Amendment of my hon. Friend. But I say at once that if the Government will say that between now and the report stage they will seriously consider this, and if there is any other limitation necessary they can put that limitation in—I do not think there will be—then I will not press it now because I quite feel that there may be some other limitations also required before this is actually watertight, although I do not believe that there is.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that it might be for the convenience of the Committee to have those verbal Amendments to the Amendments made now, as otherwise the discussion cannot he general.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment made: After the word "period" the words "after notice to his approved society," inserted.
    Further Amendment made: At the end of the proposed Amendment add the words "in the course of employment ordinarily carried on in the United Kingdom, and for the period not exceeding one-fifth of the time during which he has been in insurance."
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I shall be very happy, of course, to consider anything between now and the Report stage with a view to any future Amendment of the Bill. But I want the Committee to be very clear as to what is the point, and when they are clear as to what is the point, I think that they will agree with me that we want certainly far more experience of the actual working of Clause 8 before we can really come to the conclusion as to what is the best way of treating these Amendments. It is a grievance that persons who are abroad should during the time they are abroad, not receive benefits that they now receive when they are at home, and it was to meet that grievance we put in the original Clause, as my right hon. Friend has described Clause 8, which gives them the right to maternity benefit and allows the society to give them sickness or disablement benefit while they are abroad. As my right hon. Friend says it has been the practice largely of friendly societies to give such
    2908
    sickness and disablement benefit on evidence that sickness and disablement benefit is really required by these persons, and we cannot at this stage on the six months working of the Act know whether the societies have followed the practice or not of giving sickness benefit—disablement benefit has not yet come on—to persons abroad, and I think that we want at least another six months or year of information as to how it deals with the finances of the various societies before we set ourselves lightly to change the provisions of the principal Act. On the other hand hon. Gentlemen must also remember this: If when members of approve societies are abroad they pay no contributions at all and they come back perhaps after three, four, or five years and join the societies under similar conditions, they will be on the way towards bankrupting the societies because they will receive a transfer value which then have not paid for appropriate to their age which has been passed abroad. That is a very serious matter for the approved societies to consider. A third point, which has also been pointed out, is that these men have really no claim for exemption from payment of arrears
    Ex hypothesi they are in employment, probably good employment. Ex hypothesi, these people who have been abroad in employment have no difficulty in saving up their own fourpences which is all that is required, which is paying up their arrears. Therefore, I submit there are only two ways of approaching this thing, either you should say every man who goes abroad must contract out of the benefits of Section 8, or maternity benefit must not apply to him, and when he comes back he must put on the full transfer value. That is one possible method. The other method is to say: "No, we will as far as possible while he is abroad, give him what benefits can possibly be given." That is what the friendly societies are setting themselves to do. Under these conditions, I submit in view of the enormous complications of administration which the hon. and learned Gentleman himself realises may be involved in his Amendment that the Gentlemen who are promoting this Amendment should be prepared to withdraw it until some further experience has been gained in the matter.
    Mr. GOULDING: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the approved societies, and more especially the friendly societies were accustomed to send these benefits abroad.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In the old past
    Mr. GOULDING: We are not dealing with the old past, we are dealing with the present, and under the present Act, they continue if they are in receipt of the benefits, to send them abroad, but I say you ought to apply some remedy for the fact that these young fellows who are liable to pay, if they fall ill while they are abroad, are absolutely prohibited from receiving any benefit whatever.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, no!
    Mr. GOULDING: The Act says so.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly, under Clause 8, Sub-section (1) as we interpret it, sickness benefit is not the same as sickness payment. Members can continue to receive sickness benefit; that is, if necessary, receive payments if they are sick under Clause 8. If that is not quite clear, I am prepared to accept an Amendment to make it clear.
    Mr. CASSEL: I understand the right. hon. Gentleman to accept the position that while they are abroad persons in the position of domestic servants or engineers ought not to have to pay the employers' threepence. He has suggested that, on the interpretation of the amending Act, they would not have to pay the employers' benefit, but I hope, at least, he will before the Report stage consider words that will make that clear. I venture to suggest to him, notwithstanding the provision of the first Schedule, that it really is not clear. I think it is very doubtful whether it would be regarded as a period of unemployment. I hope, at least, the right hon. Gentleman will before the Report stage consider an Amendment which would make that clear.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not propose, if my hon. Friend agrees, to press this Amendment. There is, un-
    2910
    doubtedly, a grievance, and I think it ought to be met. I am conscious that it is not an easy matter to meet this one grievance without creating others. I do think the Government ought to give it very serious consideration before Report.
    Question proposed, "That the proposed words as amended, be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The next Amendment opens up a new series of Amendments, and I propose to move now "That the Committee report Progress." It is half-past three; the Prime Minister is making a very important statement in the House this afternoon, and I feel that members of the Committee besides myself desire to hear that statement. I think it is abominable treatment on the part of the Government to postpone bringing in this amending Act until the end of the Session, and then to come here and say "We have no time, and you must sit clay after day and day after day, notwithstanding that the House of Commons itself is sitting." I think the earliest opportunity ought to be taken to make a strong and vigorous protest against the way in which the Government is treating the Members of the House. At any rate, I limit myself to moving to report progress for this afternoon, so that we may hear what the Prime Minister has to say.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will not deal with the "abominable" way in which the Government have treated us, and I am not going to refuse a Motion of this sort if it is the wish of the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying the next Amendment opens up a series of Amendments, and perhaps it would be better to go on with them to-morrow.
    The Committee adjourned at 3.30 p.m. till 11.30 a.m. to-morrow (Wednesday).

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  [Mr. J. W. WILSON in the Chair.]
SECOND DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.
Bill further considered.
SECOND DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Arrears of Contributions.)
  (1) Where an employed contributor who is a member of an approved society pays to the society such part of any arrears which have accrued due by or in respect of him during any period of unemployment as would have been payable otherwise than by the employer had he continued in employment, the part which would have been so payable by the employer shall be excused, and the amount of the member's arrears shall be reduced accordingly.
  For the purpose of calculating the parts which would have been payable by the employer and otherwise than by an employer had an employed contributor continued in employment, the rate of his remuneration shall be deemed to exceed two shillings and sixpence a working day, unless he proves to the satisfaction of the society that his normal rate of remuneration was two and sixpence a working day or less, in which case his rate of remuneration shall be deemed to be such normal rate.
  (2) Where in any year a society, or in the case of a society with branches, a branch of a society, proves to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners that the total number of weekly contributions which accrued due as arrears during the preceding year in respect of all its members who were employed contributors exceeded the standard number (that is to say three weekly contributions for every such member) then, for the purpose of recouping to the society the loss it will suffer, there shall be paid to the society, or to the society on behalf of the branch, as the case may be, out of the sums retained by the Insurance Commissioners for discharging their liabilities in respect of reserve values, the prescribed amount for every week by which
  2912
  the standard was so exceeded, but not exceeding the total amount so excused as aforesaid:
  Provided that if the aggregate amount so payable in any year exceeds one hundred thousand pounds the excess shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
  (3) The Insurance Commissioners may make regulations for carrying this section into effect.
  The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Worthington-Evans.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Before you call upon Mr. Worthington-Evans, might I be allowed to make a protest of which I hope the Government will take notice, namely, that there are two Grand Commitees meeting at 11.30 to-day, in which to a certain extent the same interests are affected?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think we can go into that. The Committee decided yesterday to meet at 11.30 to-day, and that would have been the proper time to have put any points of that sort. It cannot affect our proceedings.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words, "Where in any year a society, or in the case of a society with branches a branch of a society, proves to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners that the total number of weekly contributions which accrued due as arrears during the preceding year in respect of all its members who were employed contributors exceeded the standard number (that is to say three weekly contributions for very such member) then." I have a series of Amendments which are very complicated as they stand on the Paper. I think it will be to the convenience of the Committee if I read the Clause as it would stand if the Amendments were accepted. The Amendments refer to Clause 2, Sub-section (2). If they were incorporated in the draft of the first few lines of the Sub-section it would then read as follows:—
  "For the purpose of recouping to the society the loss it will suffer under the foregoing provision, there shall be paid in each year to the Society, or in the case of a Society with branches, to the Society on behalf of the branches, as the case may be, out of the moneys retained by the Insurance Commissioners to dis-

  2913
  charge their liability in respect of reserve values the total amount so excused as aforesaid."
  The object of this Amendment is to prevent the funds of the approved societies from being depleted by reason of the provisions introduced into this amending Bill relating to arrears. This first Amendment and the Amendments in the Bill generally have my hearty support; but I am asking that the Government should provide that the employed contributor who is out of work, need not, in order to get out of arrears pay up the amounts of the contributions which are attributable to his employer. In doing that I want the Government to be careful that the approved societies do not make a loss owing to this provision. The cost of Clause (2) is paid for in three ways. First, out of the society's funds. I believe the 'Secretary to the Treasury denies this. He did in the House of Commons. I believe I can persuade him that I am right, and if I am right I hope he will accept the Amendment I am moving. The cost is payable first out of the different societies' funds. Secondly, it is paid for out of the Sinking Fund to the extent of £100,000 per year. Then, if those two funds are not sufficient to pay State funds come in, and it is estimaed that the largest amount the State is likely to be ailed upon to pay is £20,000 a year. There will be no question that the Sinking Fund or State funds do have to pay a portion of the cost of making this Amendment. Where dispute will arise, if it arises at all, is whether the societies' funds are to be called upon to pay any part of this expense. I have to try to prove this point to the Committee before I can ask them to accept this Amendment.
  The whole question of the arrears, and bow they are paid for, is exceedingly complicated. I shall have to ask Members of the Committee to follow rather carefully if I am to succeed in making my point good. Under the financial provisions of the Act, fifty-two weekly contributions are treated to be of the value of forty-eight, and there is the allowed arrear and a permissive arrear, averaging three weeks in every year, in respect of all contributors. That was arrived at by taking the average of unemployment all over the Kingdom, and making a slight addition to it, and all the actuarial calculations are based upon, not fifty-two weeks contribu-
  2914
  tions, but either forty-eight or forty-nine, at any rate, three weeks arrears are allowed. The provisions of the Act with regard to benefits are not quite in accordance with these provisions; that is to say that if a man has over an average of three weeks in arrears his benefit is reduced. The average estimate by the Actuaries was an average of all employed people, and if I may, I will try and give an example. Suppose there is a society of 1,000 members. Let us assume for the moment that 900 of those members are one week in arrear. Let us assume that the other hundred of those 1,000 members are so many weeks in arrear that the average of the hundred is three weeks. These societies gain at the present moment two weeks' contributions in respect of the 900 members who are only one week in arrear. As regards the hundred who are many weeks in arrears, in order to get the average of three weeks as regards those hundred, the societies do not lose, because the benefits are reduced for all periods that those members are in arrear in excess of three weeks. So that at the present time there is a considerable sum accruing to these societies on this three weeks' average period. The Government Bill proposes only to reimburse the societies such sum as they may lose by the provisions of this Clause 3 in excess of the total average of three weeks. Therefore in the case I am assuming of the 900 members one week in arrear, but for this provision, the societies would have two weeks contributions in respect of each of those 900 members as a margin over and above these sums that the Actuaries have found necessary originally to provide for benefits. This Bill takes away that margin to that extent, and makes the amendment which is in this Clause paid for partly out of the societies' funds. I do not know whether I have made that clear to the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope the Financial Secretary will admit those margins are being absorbed by this Bill for the purpose of paying for the arrears. I know there is a contrary argument. I will put that to the Committee. The contrary argument is this: If you were to continue to charge men out of employment 7d. as a contribution in order to enable them to go back into full benefits, that 7d. would be a barrier and not many men would pay up the arrears in order to get full benefits; but if, as this Bill proposes, it were reduced to 4d. or 3d. or even lower, some people would come in and pay

  2915
  these various sums, and that, on the whole, it is likely that fourpences or threepences would balance what would have been received in respect of the arrears had the arrears remained on the 7d. basis. That is the argument, and that is, I believe, the only argument which in any way tends to disprove the statement I make that the societies' funds axe being drawn upon in this Clause to make good the Amendment which is being proposed. I do not believe anybody can say—certainly, I do not pretend to say—that the aggregate fourpences and threepences will not equal the sevenpence. I do not know. I do not believe anybody can say, certainly without a great deal of experience, whether at any time we will ever be able to say positively or relatively the affect of the amendment on the original provision. This is certain, that the Actuarial Advisory Committee state in the Blue Book recently issued by the Commissioners, p. 555:—
  "The Advisory Committee are firmly of opinion that the contributions as fixed by the Act contain no margin beyond what is required as Knell provision against increased rates of sickness and disablement."
  They are sure that there is no more money in the Act than is required for the benefits. I say that this Committee ought not to take away one of these sources of income of the approved societies even for the good of an Amendment such as this is, because if they do, they are running grave risks of putting a large number of Societies into insolvency. I hope very much that the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. If the Government's contention is right, that the fourpences in future, being more numerous, will balance the sevenpences of the past, then they need have no hesitation at all in accepting this Amendment. In any event it must be a relatively small sum. But then the small sums in some societies may make all the difference, because we do not know what is the distribution of the members between the societies. We may have a society of one class, and that class much affected by unemployment, and in that society, at any rate, this Amendment that I am now proposing would be of extreme importance. Where you have a society with every class represented in it, and you have a real average of unemployment, it would not be, I agree, as important as I think it will be in some cases. But it is just in those cases of societies which have members who do suffer from unemployment, that it is very essential that we make
  2916
  no inroad on their funds. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to see their way to accept this Amendment.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The hon. Gentleman has explained his Amendment with his customary lucidity, but I think I can show to the Committee that this Amendment might lead on the one hand to an excessive demand on either the Sinking Fund or the Government, and that on the other hand the fear he expresses that the societies will be to any material extent called to pay, or rather damnified by the extra demand upon their funds, is an illusion, or at all events a mistaken argument. In order to do that, I must ask the Committee for a few moments to bear with me while I explain the exact meaning of the Clause as it stands. The whole actuarial calculation on which the Bill is based is the fundamental assumption that if forty-nine contributions per year on the average are paid to an approved society, that the approved society is actuarially sound, and any additional money which may be obtained through the payment up of arrears by men who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed is outside that calculation altogether, and is so much gain to the society at the expense of its unemployed members. I think hon. Gentlemen will not object to that description, and though I do not think it is an illegitimate gain, it is not a gain of which a society should be particularly proud when it is gained, as it is gained at present, by the payment of the employer's contribution under the Act. It is gained to the members at the expense of those who were unemployed and who have to pay up, not 4d. as we are proposing under this Bill, but 7d., that is the employer's contribution and their own. It is quite true that this new Grant is confined to societies—that is the Government Grant and the £100,000 from the Sinking Fund—to societies that have less than forty-nine contributions on the average paid. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) argues that this means there must be some loss to approved societies which receive none of this new Grant where the. unemployment standard is low. He mentioned one possibility which is quite an incalculable possibility, but which certainly operated in the mind of our chief actuary, and also in the minds of the Actuarial Advisory Committee when they state on the whole they think there would

  2917
  be no loss to the approved societies at all under the new scheme. The possibility of men being able to pay fourpence when they cannot pay sevenpence will, no doubt, operate to a very large extent in two ways. First, the men outside resent, as everyone in this Committee knows, the demand to pay their employer's contribution as well as their own, and whereas they regard the demand to pay their own as more or less a just demand, they regard the other as unjust. Therefore it is quite likely for that reason they will say, "We will not pay the sevenpence," and also it is easier to pay, in the case of fourpence or a calculation of fourpences than in the case of sevenpence or a calculation of sevenpences. Therefore, as the hon. Gentleman quite fairly said in putting his argument, if more fourpences are paid up to compensate for the sevenpences that are paid up, or supposing that two fourpences are paid up instead of one sevenpence, there will be no loss to the approved societies.
  The second point is of still greater importance. The approved societies at the present moment are allowed to excuse the threepence of the employer's contribution, and I believe that certainly some of the trade unions and some of the other great friendly societies are considering whether they will not as a general policy and as part of their method of getting new members, declare that they will excuse the employer's contribution in all cases. They are able to do so in those cases because the actuarial calculation on which the Bill is based did not include the payment up of those arrears. If that is done by any societies, all societies would have to do it in the competition, and in that case, this Bill comes to give help to societies to the extent of £100,000 per year, and the Government contingent guarantee that they would not have got if this Bill had not been passed. Therefore, so far from laying a fresh charge on the friendly societies, it gives them help in meeting a charge which probably I think they would all have to meet in the very near future. Our chief actuary in his actuarial report announces that he thinks under this system no extra charge will be laid on the friendly societies. The report of the Actuarial Advisory Committee is necessarily of a cautious character, but it is quite definite as far as it goes. As regards the probable
  2918
  annual cost of the proposed Amendment in the Bill it is impossible to make any exact estimate, but Mr. Watson's conclusion is that he thinks it will probably not exceed £120,000. It is only fair to add that that is calculated on normal conditions, and probably under conditions of bad trade, the guarantee would have to go up higher.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is irrespective of anything that may be paid by the societies.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The actuary continues:—
  "With regard to the effect of the proposed Amendment upon the finances of the Approved Societies it is possible that Societies in which the average of arrears falls below the three weeks per annum would, in some instances, be deprived of the small profit at present arising from payment in full of the employer's share in those cases in which arrears are paid up. Against that must be set the probability that under the arrangement now proposed there will be greater inducement to contributors to pay up arrears in those cases in which no such reduction of benefit is operative. On the whole we do not consider that the financial position of the Societies will to any material extent be affected by the proposed change."
  When we had to deal with those societies we should have to take money either from the Sinking Fund or from the Government Grant to the societies whose average rate is less than forty-nine. I will show how we are actually dealing with the money which is being given from the Sinking Fund of £100,000 a year. It is for those societies whose average rate of contribution is less than forty-nine, that is those who have abnormal unemployment and who are consequently deserving of special help to raise their average up to forty-nine. Then when their average is raised to forty-nine they come within the ordinary actuarial calculations on which the whole Bill is based. We are thus doing two things; we are laying £100,000 on the Sinking Fund which represents all the insured persons, and by so doing we are making an extension of the time of redemption of the Sinking Fund. We are doing it in order that all insured persons should give some kind of contribution towards the societies which have an abnormal lack of employment due to no fault of their own. We are averaging the unemployment disability to the extent of the £100,000 laid on the Sinking Fund of all societies, and I think everyone will agree that that is a fair thing to do. Some societies will have from the very nature of

  2919
  their occupation far more unemployment than others. Some societies will have practically no unemployment at all, but it is right that the societies which have an enormous amount of unemployment should receive, not from the approved societies, but from the Sinking Fund, some help. In thus averaging we are taking on a contingent liability for the State, and we estimate that immediately at £20,000 annually. But of course in times of bad trade that might rise to a considerable extent, and it is quite impossible to estimate the amount. Under those circumstances the State ought not to be asked to take on any further liability or the Sinking Fund asked because, even if in times of bad trade the liability laid on the State rose to £50,000 or £100,000, we should still have to deal with it as we are taking it on whatever it is under this Bill. I have to apologise for making what is longer than a usual Committee speech. I therefore submit that, fortified with the actuary's report and the report of the Actuarial Committee, and with the explanation I have given, the Committee can legitimately extend this very great boon to the friendly societies without being under any apprehension that any material cost will be laid on the approved societies whatever.
  Mr. FORSTER: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman need not apologise for the length of his observations. We are dealing with an extremely important point, and although nobody wants to occupy the time of the Committee unduly, yet it is only fair to the Committee itself that the arguments on both sides should be placed fully before the Committee. I confess that the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just made does not convince me that his view of the matter is right as opposed to that which has been expressed by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans). One of the concluding observations of the right hon. Gentleman rather confirms me in my preference for the proposal which my hon. Friend has laid before the Committee. The Secretary to the Treasury said that in view of contingencies in the future, additional liability may be thrown on either the Sinking Fund or the State.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That on the Sinking Fund is limited to £100,000, and the contingent liabilities are on the State only.
  Mr. FORSTER: That there might conceivably be additional liability thrown upon the State which the right hon. Gentleman was unwilling that the State should undertake, and surely then—
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am sorry to interrupt, but my argument was just the opposite. I said it was because we were bound to take that contingent liability that we did not want to increase any further liability on the State by alteration of the Clause.
  Mr. FORSTER: I do not see how the proposal of my hon. Friend is going unduly to increase the liability thrown on the State unless the liability which may be thrown upon the margin of the friendly societies is going to be very much heavier than any of us have any reason to suspect.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is either one or the other
  Mr. FORSTER: If there is any possibility of a contingent increase of liability, it must fall either on the margin of the societies or the State. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we must do everything that we can to protect the funds of the friendly societies. We are, to a certain extent, I think, from first to last in this matter rather groping in the dark. We are arguing upon what may happen, and not upon facts. Really, it is a matter upon which each Member of the Committee must form his own opinion. The object which my hon. friend has had in bringing the matter before the Committee is a genuine desire to see that the funds of the societies shall be protected. It is admitted by the right hon. Gentleman that there is in the present arrangement of the Act a margin in favour of the societies. It is admitted in the Report of the Commission that every margin which is given to the societies now is needed for the provision of benefits. We do not want, and we ought not in any way to entrench upon any margin the societies may now possess, and it is because we feel that very strongly that we shall support the proposal of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. BOOTH: I agree with almost every word that has fallen from the hon. Member for the Sevenoaks Division (Mr. Forster) except that it does not quite lead me to the conclusion to support this Amendment. At the same time I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that this is one of the points that does not operate evenly

  2921
  on the various societies, and the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury refers more to some of the trade unions and some of the old friendly societies and some of the specialised approved societies. But those societies which have organized people who were not previously in the habit of providing for sickness stand to have a worse experience in this matter of unemployment. We are not at all convinced that there will not be some loss to approved societies owing to this present Bill. It is quite true that we gain with regard to the employers' contributions, because it must be obvious to all who have gone about the country that competition will force the various societies to forego the employers' contributions. Therefore, it is no good reckoning that that is anybody's loss. I advanced that view in public meetings nearly two years ago. I am perfectly certain that societies could not enforce it. There would be no heart in the job on the part of the officials, and competition would prevent it. But I want to make this appeal to the Government. Whilst we are prepared to take their scheme and try to make it work, if it is found that their calculations are seriously out, I think we have a right to approach them, say, next year. We have some misgiving that there will be a little more loss than the right hon. Gentleman has anticipated, but we do not think that that is sufficient to object to the Bill. We are still more uneasy about the Amendment of the hon. Member for Colchester. It does not put the matter right at all. Therefore, after sounding the warning note that we think there will be a little more loss than the right hon. Gentleman anticipates, we are prepared to give the proposal a trial, and to try to make it go. But if our anticipations are confirmed, we think we should have a right to approach the Government in regard to an amending Bill.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. Member for Colchester has proved, certainly to my mind, that a great deal of liability will fall upon the societies. There is one other item of loss to the approved societies which has not been mentioned. For the purpose of the weekly deduction of 1 5–9d. for the Sinking Fund, the reduced payments of 4d. a week to be made by insured persons, are to be treated as full payments. I do not think there is much doubt about that, because in the Actuary's Report, page 6, Section 16, it is stated that out of the full weekly contri-
  2922
  bution, the sum of 1 5–9d. in the case of men, and 1½d. in the case of women, applied towards the redemption of reserve value contributions, although the employer's portion has been excused, will presumably be deemed a full contribution for this purpose. I do not think there is the slightest doubt that that means a great deal of loss to approved societies, because not only are they going to receive reduced payments from their members, but they are going to have 1 5–9d. taken away, not from 7d. but from 4d. The affect of that will be that you will prolong the period of the Sinking Fund. You will prolong the period of the ultimate solvency of approved societies. If you do that, it means the extension of the period before the additional benefits will be paid. I think that point has been overlooked by the Government.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman in his reply dealt with the main point made by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend told us very clearly and fairly that he did not think that in many circumstances there would be a heavy loss to certain societies, but that in cases of abnormal unemployment the loss might be serious and heavy. It is to protect societies against this that he has brought forward his Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman adduced three arguments against accepting the Amendment. The first was that if we accepted the Amendment, it might lead to excessive demands on the Sinking Fund or the Government. Those were the right hon. Gentleman's words. He went on to say that the Actuary's report stated that it was not likely that the funds of the approved societies under the Clause proposed by the Government, would, to any material extent, be affected. I would ask which of the two he means. He cannot have the argument both ways. It cannot be both cheap and dear at the same time. It cannot be going to cost both a lot and a little. His remaining argument was that he understood—he admitted that was very much in the air—that certain trade unions and societies might take it into their heads to excuse the employer's contribution, and in that event the funds of the societies would not suffer. But have we a right to reject an Amendment of this sort if admittedly there might be a grievance in certain cases to certain societies, merely because the right hon. Gentleman thinks or has heard a rumour that certain societies may do something in

  2923
  the future? Unless we have some further and better argument than has yet been put forward, I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: I am not quite clear as to whether the Amendment submitted by the hon. Member for Colchester quite meets the case, as I understand it, although I am free to confess that, so far as the argument has advanced, I am convinced there is something in the case which he has submitted. If I am able to construe aright the Amendments on the Paper, I think those standing in the name of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson) would better meet the case in the particular that I want to advance. I have had statistics taken out in respect of one of the large trade unions in the country.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The British steel-smelters?
  Mr. ROBERTS: Yes. They have very carefully calculated the possibilities of this Bill, and they estimate that it will cast an increased liability upon them. At the same time, the fact that men will be induced to pay the 4d. who previously were unable to pay the 7d., or, as the right hon. Gentleman may have put it, unwilling to do so because of the sense of the injustice of being called upon to pay the employer's portion of the contribution, may, in the ultimate, actually balance or even increase their income; but because of the fact that the average of the whole membership payment may work out, on the forty-nine weeks per year basis of the actuarial calculation, very slightly under, that society, although their liabilities are increased far in excess of the estimated possible increase of income, will get no relief whatever under this amending Bill. Everybody has been concerned as to how far it would be possible and politic to relieve unfortunate members of approved societies of that portion of the contribution termed the employer's part. I have always felt that either by the method of a charge upon the Sinking Fund, or preferably by a direct State Grant, an allowance ought to be made to each approved society in respect of those numbers of weeks affecting their members who have been unemployed over a given period. If I understand aright the Amendments of the hon. Member for Salisbury, that is the purpose he has in view.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is so.
  Mr. ROBERTS: They are the Amendments that I would prefer. I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will not tell us that he has said his last word, because I am convinced that he will find amongst the trade unions and friendly societies a great apprehension that, although in the ultimate they may secure an apparent increase of income, nevertheless the liability is so large that it must involve a demand upon the ordinary funds of the society, and they fear that ultimately the triennial valuation may also compel them to impose a levy upon their members. Therefore, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give some further consideration to the point, and see if it is not possible to meet us on the lines of the propositions of the hon. Member for Salisbury, which, if they are moved, I shall feel compelled to support.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us a little further information with regard to the words "which accrued due as arrears during the preceding year." Does that mean that the quarter has been allowed to elapse without stamps being placed on the card, and that therefore that period counts as arrears? At present, if a man is unemployed, and places a 7d. stamp upon his card, I understand that that is not counted as arrears. Supposing he places a 4d. stamp on his card: would that week be included as arrears, when the card was handed in? It has not been in arrear; it has been paid at the time. What I am anxious to ascertain is the method by which it is proposed to pay the arrears. Can they be paid week by week, by placing a stamp on the card, or must they, under the new system, be left over until the end of the quarter, and then be paid by some arrangement?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member had better raise this point on the question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." It does not arise on the Amendment.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: It affects the calculation as to the amount of arrears, as to whether a person has been in arrears for the standard period during the quarter. I think it directly arises on the Amendment.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), clearly admits that at any rate he fears there will be a draft upon the funds of the societies if this Amendment is not ac-

  2925
  cepted. I hear an hon. Member say he does not admit it. I think the hon. Member for Pontefract will say now, as he said before, that it is not clear that loss will not fall upon the funds of the approved societies. Indeed, he said that so much did he fear that, that he reserved his liberty to approach the Treasury or the Insurance Commissioners next year—not this year, not now, but next year—to make good the loss which will then have occurred.
  Mr. BOOTH: No, not that we would approach them next year to make good the loss which might have occurred. We are quite willing to accept this and work it until the time comes; but if we find that it involves loss, it should not be permanent for the future, but that an amending Bill should be considered.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I should like to know for whom the hon. Member for Pontefract speaks in these circumstances, because those who have considered the real effect see that there will be a loss. We know what coming back next year means. Next year never comes. We have to try now to protect the funds of the societies and in my view we would be foolish and not only foolish but criminal not to protect these funds now. With regard to what the hon. Member (Mr. George Roberts) said as to the terms of the Amendment I have no pride of parentage. I do not mind which of the Amendments are accepted if the Government will accept either one or the other. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury I will withdraw mine. As a matter of fact, I believe, both Amendments carry out exactly the same thing, and, they are merely alternative words. It does not matter to me which Amendment is accepted so long as the matter is now dealt with. I ask the Secretary to the Treasury will he accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend and if he does I will withdraw mine, otherwise I must ask the Committee to divide.

  Division No. 2.]

  AYES.

  Addison, Dr.

  Dawes, Mr.

  Macnamara, Dr.

  Ainsworth, Mr.

  Devlin, Mr.

  Masterman, Mr.

  Alden, Mr.

  Falconer, Mr.

  Money, Mr. Chiozza

  Beck, Mr.

  Harcourt, Mr. Robert

  Pearce, Mr. William

  Booth, Mr.

  Harvey, Mr. Edmund

  Roberts, Mr. Charles

  Boyle, Mr. Daniel

  Jones, Mr. Haydn

  Samuel, Mr. Jonathan

  Byles, Sir William

  Lardner, Mr.

  Scott, Mr. MacCallum

  Carr-Gomm, Mr.

  Lynch, Mr.

  Wing, Mr.

  Davies, Mr. Ellis

  Mr. MASTERMAN: I would like to give way if I could but I am afraid it is impossible in the circumstances. I agree with the hon. Member for Pontefract that if it was proved any loss fell upon the societies it would be necessary to take immediate steps to see that they should suffer no loss. He also made the very pregnant statement which I think the Committee ought to keep in mind, and that was from his experience the societies will be forced to excuse the employer's contribution. And if that is so every farthing given under this Bill is a pure gain to the approved societies, and the distribution of the money is such that those societies with the greater amount of unemployment get more than those with less, and that is a fair distribution of the money at our disposal either from the Sinking Fund or from the State Grant. Every society will be helped out of this money that has less than forty-nine contributions. The socities which have more than forty-nine contributions, if they were to lose anything by this—and it is purely a factor that must be worked out in practice, would not lose under the actuarial calculation.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In the margin.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It was not in the actuarial calculation at all.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman say the societies do not now get that money?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: They do not get money at all at present because we have not put into operation the Arrears Clauses. In these circumstances, I must only ask the members of the Committee to support the Government and reject the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 22.

  NOES.

  Baker, Sir Randolf

  Lawson, Mr. Harry

  Ormsby-Gore, Mr.

  Boyle, Mr. William

  Locker-Lampson, Mr. Godfrey

  Parkes, Mr.

  Clay, Captain

  Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

  Roberts, Mr. George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  M'Neill, Mr. Ronald

  Sandys, Mr.

  Forster, Mr.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Thomas, Mr.

  Goulding, Mr.

  Newman, Mr.

  Tryon, Captain

  Gwynne, Mr. Rupert

  O'Grady, Mr.

  Worthington-Evans, Mr.

  Hamilton, Mr.

  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON had given notice of the following Amendment. After Sub-section (2) to insert the following Sub-section: "(3) In the case of a deposit contributor there shall be credited to his account at the end of each quarter on the surrendering of his current insurance card such a sum as will increase the balance to his credit by the amount representing the total suns that would have been paid by an employer had the contributor remained continuously in employment. All such sums credited as above shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, provided that, in the event of the death of a deposit contributor or where a deposit contributor proves to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners that he has permanently ceased to reside in the United Kingdom, the sum payable under paragraphs (f) and (g) of Section 42 of the principal Act shall be based upon the amount to the deposit contributors credit less any sums credited to his account out of moneys provided by Parliament under this section, and such amount so credited shall accordingly be repaid to Parliament."
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member is, in my opinion, out of Order.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I might explain that these arrears, of course, will not affect a deposit contributor, and that is why I put in a special Clause saying that as arrears will not affect a deposit contributor, therefore, the employer's contribution should be paid to the deposit account. I do not intend the arrears Clause here to affect the deposit contributor at all. The object of this Amendment is to put the deposit contributor on the same sort of basis that they would be supposing they were insured persons, members of approved societies, and in order to do that I am trying to allow for the payment of the employer's contribution into the deposit account, and therefore I submit it will be in order to discuss it here.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: On a point of Order. I do not want to stop any discussion at all, but I think this would be quite proper as a new Clause. It deals not with arrears but with deposit contributors, which is a totally different part of the Act, therefore, I submit it would be quite proper as a new Clause but not as art Amendment at this stage.
  The CHAIRMAN: So far as my judgment goes, there are no arrears such as we are considering for deposit contributors; the hon. Member himself admits that, and therefore the Amendment is outside the scope of this part of the Bill. He can bring it up in the form of a new Clause.
  Mr. GOULDINGhad given notice on the following Amendment, after Sub-section (2) to insert the words, "Where it is necessary for an approved society to be recouped in respect of the arrears of a woman re-entering insurance upon the death of her husband, being at that time aged fifty years or over, there shall be transferred from the sums retained by the Insurance Commissioners for discharging their liabilities in respect of reserve values the proper reserve value calculated according to tables to be prepared by the Insurance Commissioners, and Section forty-four, Sub-section (1), of the principal Act shall be read accordingly.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Worcester is in the same category as the one with which we have just dealt. It should form a new clause dealing with married women's re-entry. It is not dealing with arrears in the sense that we are now dealing with them.
  Mr. GOULDING: These women to whose grievance I direct attention in this Sub-section are dealt with when they would be in arrear and therefore the question of arrears undoubtedly arises. If the women's position is dealt with at all they would come in under the Clause on being in arrears, and therefore entry would only be possible if their position was dealt with here.
  The CHAIRMAN: This seems to me to raise the question of re-entry. At any rate the hon. Member by raising the question here has protected himself in bringing it up as a new Clause. I think it is practically a new subject outside this particular Clause.
  Mr. GOULDING: Supposing it came up as a new Clause that was favourably received by the Committee, would that enable these women to come in and obtain the advantage under this arrears Section?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman desires to modify Clause 44 of the principal Act?
  Mr. GOULDING: That is it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That has nothing to do with arrears at all. The arrears Clause is a totally different Clause. Any modification of Clause 44, I submit, such as the hon. Gentleman suggests, would be in order.
  Mr. GOULDING: If the transfer value was dealt with as suggested, then these women would come into the category of being in arrears, because they are only kept in a state of not being in arrears by the holding up of this third value. Once the third value was dealt with they would come into that category.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I want to preserve the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. Clause 44 (1) deals with married women being suspended, and the conditions of re-entry, and really the appropriate time to deal with any question of arrears is on that re-entry. It is a special provision dealing with married women, and has nothing to do with the general arrears Clause.
  The CHAIRMAN: After what the right hon. Gentleman has said there will be no difficulty in bringing it in afterwards.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to propose in Sub-section 3, after the word "may," to insert the words, "after consultation with the Advisory Committee."
  I hope that this Amendment will be accepted by the Government. I feel more or less justified in my hope because I see that various hon. Members are supporting me in this Amendment. I do not want to say anything about the Commissioners as a body, but I do feel that under the present system the Commissioners have got an enormous amount of power. Everybody agrees that the existing body of Insurance Commissioners are doing their
  2930
  duties most ably, and I think that everybody would agree that the existing body of Commissioners can be thoroughly trusted, but we do not in the least know who the Commissioners are going to be in future, and I think it is most inadvisable to increase the powers of the Commissioners in the amending Act. Everybody knows that under the original Act the Commissioners can practically legislate on National Insurance, and without Parliament saying that they want the Act amended they can in Buckingham Gate practically bring Amendments within the scope of the National Insurance Act without Parliament really knowing anything about it. For that reason I do feel that we ought to put a certain amount of check upon these Insurance Commissioners in making regulations under this section. I also think that it is most advisable, as the Advisory Committee has been appointed a Committee composed of a great many expert persons who know more about the subject of Insurance than I suppose any other people in the country, that that Committee should be consulted in making regulations under this section. I cannot see why the Government would not accept this Amendment, and I hope very much that they will. I hope that hon. Members who are supporting me in this Amendment swill make their observations in due course, and I hope that it will not be necessary to prolong debate upon it, because I think that it is a very sensible and very sound Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am thoroughly in agreement with the hon. Member's contention. The Advisory Committee was set up to be consulted under Statute by Clause 58 and it has been consulted, and we are very grateful for the advice which has been given. In no case have any substantial regulations been made under the Bill without consultation with the whole of the Advisory Committee, or with part of it which is specially affected, that is the part that represents the insured persons. I have some objection to putting in the words "after consultation with the Advisory Committee" in this special point with regard to this special class of regulation, because if you put it into the special regulations it implies that there is no need to consult the Advisory Committee in other cases under the Bill. I object also to the obligation to consult the Advisory. Committee as a whole when there may be only a necessity really to summon the representatives of approved societies.

  2931
  Every meeting of the Advisory Committee costs between £150 and £200, and it is absurd, for instance, to summon all the doctors to come up on the Advisory Committee when dealing with something that does not in the least concern medical attendance. I will give an undertaking that the Advisory Committee shall be consulted, or the part of it affected, in regard to all these regulations so far as it is practicable. I do not think anyone has any real grievance as to the past, because we have called in whenever possible the Advisory Committee, and I should like to say in public how much we appreciate the advice which has been given by the Advisory Committee. Under these circumstances I hope the hon. Member will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I would like to ask what right the hon. Gentleman has to give a guarantee as to what the Commissioners will do in the future. He has told me several times in the House of Commons that they are an independent body of men, and under these circumstances, what is the worth of his undertaking that the Insurance Commissioners will do this or that in the future. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman has he or has he not control of the Insurance Commissioners?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not going to discuss constitutional points at this time. The hon. Gentleman knows that the minutes are laid on the table of the House and explanations have been given as to what extent the Insurance Commissioners are responsible.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I have always failed to elicit what is the position of this mysterious body, and I should like some demonstration as to how they carry on their work. I should like to see a meeting of the Insurance Commissioners and hear them discuss matters, because I think this is a matter of the utmost importance. We are at the present time handing over to a body of men rights which we possess in regard to matters which we ought to deal with in the House of Commons, and, when we are asked to delegate those rights we ought to know to what extent they will be used. The right hon. Gentleman says he will give us a guarantee that the Commissioners will not do this or that, but I say he is not in a position to do that sort of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" business. We are told this and that, but we never get to know who is playing the part of
  2932
  "Bunty" at Buckingham Gate. I want to know when they discuss a matter do they put it to a vote, or are they such an amiable body of men—
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that question arises.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I look upon this as a most important thing, because I think that to hand over powers to a body of men who are not responsible to Parliament is a very serious thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are responsible."] The whole way through this Bill we have been handing over increased powers to the Commissioners. The main point is that we are responsible to our Constituencies for certain things, and if we delegate these powers we have no right to know what they are doing or what conditions they are making, and therefore we are placing ourselves in a very invidious position. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is not in a position to definitely undertake to say that they shall be consulted, because it costs £200 to call them together.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The whole of the Committee.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Then why did he set up such an unwieldly body. We are asking him to consult the Advisory Committee which is supposed to represent the various interests concerned. We have had it pressed upon us time after time that the Advisory Committee will not do a thing against the interests of insured persons or the friendly societies. If that is so why not let them be consulted. If the right hon. Gentleman is afraid that the insertion of this Amendment will be taken to mean that in other cases they should not be consulted, by all means let us insert the same Amendment in cases where we are handing over fresh powers to the Commissioners.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I wish to dissociate myself from the view which the hon. Member has put forward in supporting this Amendment. If what he has put forward is the object he has in view, then I say that that is not our object in putting this Amendment on the Paper. I want to point out to the Committee that at the present moment the hon. Member is supporting this Amendment because he says he is responsible to his constituents. If this Amendment were carried for that object it would give the hon. Member, or rather the Treasury, an additional argument against responsibility, because he must see that if the object is to consult

  2933
  the Advisory Committee before anything is done, it will only remain for the Government to say that it was not the Commissioners but the Advisory Committee who were responsible, and that would shelve the whole responsibility and Parliament would have no check at all. Obviously, the Commissioners would be able to say it was the Advisory Committee and not them who were responsible. The object we have in view in supporting this Amendment is, first of all, because the Advisory Committee is in direct contact with the approved societies. They know many of the details and local circumstances which the Insurance Commissioners cannot possibly know, and we are not called upon to give a certificate for good conduct to the Commissioners at all. I think that consideration can le left out entirely, whether we are considering the present or the past. We all know they have done their work well under extremely difficult circumstances. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would meet us in this way. We do not want the whole body consulted, because there are questions that are peculiarly applicable to certain Members of the Committee, and no one suggests that the whole Committee should be called together to consider such questions. If the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman means that on a particular matter peculiar and important to a section of the Advisory Committee that section will be consulted, I think that is all we can expect, and that will remove our objections.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: There is so large a measure of agreement with the Committee as to the policy and principle of this Amendment that we ought very quickly to arrive at a decision. It seems to me that the argument used by the Financial Secretary from the point of view of good administration is to a large extent unanswerable. At the same time that does not satisfy the reasonable point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. His guarantee is a personal guarantee which the next occupant of his office could put on one side. Parliament is not in the least protected. The right of criticism and of control is not reserved. It is merely a personal matter. My hon. Friend wants something more than that, and I think Parliament is entitled to have something more. What I suggest is that the various arrangements for consultation of the Advisory Committee should be made by way of rule, and
  2934
  laid on the table of the House so that the House could preserve its power in the matter; it should not be reduced merely to a question of personal good faith, of which there may be no doubt but which in the long run is really not satisfactory either to the Treasury or to the House of Commons. I suggest that all these matters should be drawn up in the form of rules, and laid on the table of the House. I suppose, by way of address or in some other way, objection could be taken to them, if objection were necessary, and at the same time the ordinary necessities of administration, which I quite agree are against the Amendment as it stands, could be maintained and continued.
  The CHAIRMAN: Wider regulations of the Advisory Committee, hardly come under this Clause.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: On the point of Order. Where do we stand? I ask whether the Financial Secretary would not be perfectly at liberty to give an assurance of that kind?
  The CHAIRMAN: I wish to avoid discussion on the general powers and proceedings of the Advisory Committee under this Amendment.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think the right hon. Gentleman did make one valid objection to my suggestion, and that was that it would be very difficult to call the whole of the Advisory Committee together to deal perhaps with a minor point. I do not know if he would be willing to accept the following alternative suggestion:—"The Insurance Commissioners may, after consultation with such Members of the Advisory Committee who may be selected by that Committee for the purpose, make regulations for carrying this Section into effect." The Advisory Committee can very easily appoint subcommittees to deal with the various parts of the Bill—actuarial, certain aspects of sickness benefits or administration—and whenever a point arises the Insurance Commissioners could quite easily send for one or two people to advise them on a particular point. I do not think I can accept the right hon. Gentleman's mere promise, because, after all, he is not always, every minute of the day, in touch with the administration. I do not know whether this alternative would meet with his approval.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think I could take any definite legislative proposal at the moment, but, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will, without making any definite promise, consider the suggestion made by the Member for Stepney whether it would be possible to lay down definite rules as to what class of Members of the Advisory Committee should be consulted and under what conditions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will accept that promise and withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. McCALLUM-SCOTT: I want to mention a point which I raised earlier as to the meaning of the words "accrued due." This concession (the payment of the employers' contribution by the State out of the Reserve Fund) is made only in respect of arrears which have "accrued due." I would like my right hon. Friend to explain exactly how much is covered by the words "accrued due." and how it is proposed that these arrears should be paid by the insured person. What does "accrued due" mean at the present time? If a man has been out of work and himself places upon his card a 7d. stamp, being his own and his employers' contributions then that is not "accrued due." There are no arrears accrued due unless the man hands in his card without the stamps, and then he can pay them up by means of a special arrears card. After this Bill has been passed, I presume that the position will be much the same. Is it proposed that each card should be handed in to the society with all these weeks blank and that then the society shall count how much the arrears are? I suggest that perhaps that might lead to a great deal more work, and that it would be very much better if the member were allowed to place a stamp on his card for the whole of his own contribution, whether 4d. or 3d., that then the society should calculate how much there is still due for the employers' contribution, and that that should be presented to the Insurance Commissioners. I think that there is a little point there which requires some clearing up.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The point will be given consideration. I am told that there would be great difficulty in dealing with the 4d. being placed on the ordinary card,
  2936
  but the subject will certainly be considered.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Benefits of Exempted Persons.)
  Regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners under Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the principal Act shall provide for applying the contributions paid in respect of persons who hold certificates of exemption in providing medical benefit and sanatorium benefit for such persons and the cost of the administration of such benefits, and such persons shall, if they fulfil such conditions as may be imposed by those regulations, become entitled to medical benefit and sanatorium benefit as if they ware members of approved societies, and the provisions of the principal Act and this Act with respect to the payment and administration of those benefits (including those relating to the application of moneys provided by Parliament towards the cost of those benefits and the expenses of the administration thereof) shall, subject to any modifications, adaptations, and exceptions contained in the regulations, apply accordingly.
  Mr. ALDEN: I beg to move, after the word "persons" ["applying the contributions paid in respect of persons"], to insert the words "resident in Great Britain."
  This is just a slip in drafting. There should, after the word "persons," be inserted the words "resident in Great Britain," because medical benefit is not at present paid in Ireland.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Amendment will require a consequential Amendment. It is quite true that there is no medical benefit in Ireland at present, and therefore, at present, we cannot offer exempted persons medical benefit in Ireland. Their money will have to go to a special fund, and we shall have to give them such benefits as we can out of that fund, with the addition of the two-ninths which otherwise we give to medical benefit. We accept the Amendment.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I would suggest that this Amendment should not be accepted until we have dealt with the ether Amendments, because if the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) were, for example,

  2937
  accepted, making alternative benefits possible, then we should not need to limit this Clause to those resident in Great Britain.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It can quite easily be put as a separate Sub-section in connection with the later Amendment which, I understand, the hon. Gentleman intends to move, and in order to preserve that right I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I beg to move after the word "benefit" ["certificates of exemption in providing medical benefit"] to insert the words "maternity benefit." The right hon. Gentleman has so often spoken in favour of, and enlarged on the advantages of, maternity benefit, that I feel sure that he will accept this Amendment, seeing that there is sufficient money to meet it.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): No. no.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I should like the right hon. Gentleman who is going to reply to prove to me that there is not sufficient money. If there is not sufficient money, I think that even then it should be inserted and something else taken out.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We propose to give exempted persons medical and sanatorium benefit, and the proposal now is to add maternity benefit. The benefits which we do propose are substantial, remembering that all we have on their account is the employers' contribution, and I am afraid that we cannot possible add maternity benefit. I would point out further that probably the average age of these people is high. I know that there are a number of pensioners among them. Take sickness benefit. If their age is high the contributions on their behalf would stop at seventy, and they would have a life right to medical benefit. A very small number of contributions might be paid on their behalf, whereas they would have a life claim on the particular benefit we are offering. We do give substantial benefits on account of the contributions paid for them, and we cannot possibly add the maternity benefit.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think that we are entitled to some more explanation from the Government. The right hon. Gentleman has opened up the most terrible vista that for one or two pay-
  2938
  ments an exempted person is to have a life-right to medical benefit. Surely that cannot be intended. Is there no limitation?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I referred to the case of a person over seventy years of age.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Then it is very necessary to consider the finance of this Clause. The first quarter, so far as I know, shows an average of 2s. 10d. on the card of each exempted person. Multiplying that by four to get the whole year, there will be an average of 11s. 4d. contributed by the employer of each exempted person. The proposal in the Bill, as drawn, is to give medical benefit and sanatorium benefit, and seven-ninths of the cost of those benefits will be 5s. 9d. a year. That leaves a balance of 5s. 7d. a year to meet the prolongation of medical benefit beyond seventy years of age, if that is intended, though I do not know where it is provided, and also the cost of administration. It cannot be necessary to preserve fifty per cent. of the contributions for the purposes of paying the cost of administration, and, if my hon. Friend wants to give maternity benefit in addition, there is plenty of margin for it, if the figures I am quoting are correct, and I got them from the Blue Book which has just recently been issued. I think that the Committee ought to have some further guidance from the Government on this point. There are other Amendments on this Clause, and I am not sure that would not be wise to have a general discussion now, and then limit the discussion on the separate Amendments, because at present the Committee is quite in the dark as far as any guidance from the Government is concerned, as to what the effect of this Clause will be. If we are to have a general discussion, then I would like to deal with the question whether medical benefit is the right benefit. Perhaps, Sir, you will rule on that point.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think, if it is desired, the Committee might be able to take these two Amendments together on the understanding that the questions were simply submitted, and that afterwards there would be no repetition of debate.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I reserve the right of moving my Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: Of formally moving it.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not sure whether the Government would wish now to make a general statement on the Clause.
  Mr. MASTERMAN:I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for suggesting that I should do so. This Clause deals with the fund which is being created from the contributions of the employers of exempted persons. Under Section 3 all these persons were entitled to obtain exemption, and they obtained it if they had £26 a year or more, and were mainly supported by other persons. In all those cases, as the Committee knows, the employed person pays nothing, and the employer has to pay 3d. in respect of him, using a special card, and the money is sent into a special fund, altogether apart from the fund of the approved society. The instruction in Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the principal Act, was, "such contributions shall be carried to such account and dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners and those regulations may provide for applying the sums standing to the credit of the account, or any part thereof, for the benefit of any persons in respect of whom contributions have been so paid, in the event of such persons subsequently becoming employed contributors." In other words, the charge on the fund made by the original Act is for the provision of a sufficient amount of money to enable those persons, at any time, to come into Insurance at the ordinary rates. It is because we have been quite unable to make an estimate up to now, in the six months during which the scheme has been in operation, of how much that reserved value fund will be, and because we are now getting an understanding of what the age of the persons will be. The cost to the fund will depend entirely on the age of the persons who are exempted. If they were all young, it would be a small sum, but if they are old, it would be a large sum. The money is waiting for them to be used. Our actuaries now tell us that they have sufficient information at their disposal, as they think, during the first year's payments to this account, to enable us to give certain benefits from this fund with the assistance of the State. These benefits, mentioned in the Clause, are the benefits which we propose to give under the Insurance scheme—medical benefit and sanatorium benefit. As this is a general discussion I may tell the Committee why it is that we chose these two special
  2940
  benefits. It was for this reason; This fund is mainly contributed to by two classes of persons. A number of persons who began contributing to the fund have now a clearer knowledge of Insurance, and they have dropped out of the fund and become insured persons during the past year. There are always persons transferring from being exempted persons to being insured persons. I think we will find that there are only two classes of persons, in the main, who will be exempted persons. The one will be persons of a certain age—pensioners and others—who are getting £26 a year, or a little more. These are persons of a certain age to whom such a thing as maternity benefit would be little benefit at all, but they would greatly appreciate medical benefit if it can be given to them, and given for the rest of their lives. The other class of persons have been specially pressed upon us by the Women's Trade Union, speaking in the interest of girls not entirely dependent on their own work, because they are living at home, but who have obtained exemption because they cannot afford the 4d. or 3d., and whose condition of life is such that they are, of all others, persons who ought to receive medical benefit—under-worked, underpaid, anæmic girls. It was largely the pressure of representations made by men's and women's trade unions that led us to select the medical benefit as the best benefit which could be used for these persons. It may be asked why not give them other benefits in addition. But we have no money to do that, and until we see how this money works out we cannot do more. Whatever money they have got will be banked in their interest for these two purposes—the medical and the sanatorium benefit—and anything over will go into the Insurance Reserve Fund. If hon. Members think they should also be given the maternity, sickness, and other benefits, then I say the scheme is useless. We are not only giving them two-ninths for medical benefits, but also the 2s. 6d. required from the State. If this Committee is in sympathy with this class of persons it should be remembered they are getting more from the State in medical benefit than any other people. If they had the maternity or sickness benefit instead they would not get this 2s. 6d. I agree that the regulations must limit the number of contributions which have to be paid before they can come into benefit. The regulations may prescribe that, but

  2941
  if the Committee would rather that that was not made a matter of regulation but was made a matter of statutory limitation we are quite willing to put into the Bill what we consider would be necessary under the regulation, viz., the ordinary twenty-six weeks waiting period, which we put in yesterday in connection with the old men, on an Amendment accepted by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding). It would limit the obligation which may fall on other members of this fund by saying that no one shall come into medical benefit until twenty-six contributions have been paid. The great majority of those at present in the fund—70,000 or 80,000—will have paid that number of contributions, and will become immediately entitled to medical benefit, and we cannot allow a man to pay one contribution as an accepted person and have the medical benefit for the rest of his life. I submit that we have chosen the really best course in the interests of this particular class of person.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not feel that the right hon. Gentleman has really made out a good case for this Clause. In the first place I do not see why we should restrict it merely to medical and sanatorium benefits. Why should we not give exempted persons their choice of benefit? After all, if you give them a choice it will not in the least add to the cost to the State. In fact it may tend to diminish that cost because if the exempted person chooses some other benefit and not the medical benefit the State will get off having to pay the 2s. 6d. in regard to those persons. I do not see that there is any reason whatsoever why you should not give exempted persons this choice.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that they should have a ballot and all agree to it, or that each individual should choose? If each individual is to choose we cannot get mutual insurance for medical benefit.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am not prepared to meet that point at the present moment. I think very likely there may be a difficulty if every individual member has a choice, but I should have thought that possibly the societies might have agreed to give certain benefits. May I pass to another point? The medical benefit costs 1.51d. per week, the sanatorium benefit
  2942
  costs.32d. per week, and if you add the two together it gives 1.83d. per week. Then the cost of administration amounts to.92d. per week, making a total of 2.75d., and that is what you are going to give exempted persons in respect of these benefits, medical and sanatorium. The employers' contribution is 3d., therefore you have a considerable margin which it seems to me ought to be used for the benefit of the exempted persons. You have a fairly big Margin to play with, and it was on that account that I suggested exempted persons should have a choice. It they have to take these two benefits only, they will not be getting the full benefit of the employers' contribution. I see the difficulty which has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman; but I do not think the exempted persons ought to have the benefit of that margin. I do not understand where it is going to. The benefit's you are offering them are not going to cost the amount of the employers' contribution. Although it possibly may be actuarially very difficult, to allow every individual exempted person to have his choice, something ought to be done to enable exempted persons to get the benefit of the whole of the employers' contribution.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: So they will. I said there was a necessity for a margin in order to preserve the right which is given them in the Act to go into the ordinary insurance. Reserve value has to be paid out, and if there is any balance over it will remain for the advantage of those persons. If after experience we find that other benefits can be given, of course we shall suggest other benefits to the House.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: How much is required for the purpose of going back into insurance?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That is the difficulty. As I stated in my introductory remarks, the difficulty of calculating that has been the reason why we have been unable to propose any scheme under this Act. It depends entirely on getting the average ages of the men exempted.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: As we are discussing the whole of Clause 4 of the Amending Act I think I ought to give some reason for the Amendment which I propose to introduce into the Clause.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think it is understood that we are only discussing the two

  2943
  next Amendments on the paper. The hon. Member will have his opportunity later on.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: Might I suggest that possibly it would be better to allow people, whilst taking the medical benefit, to have a choice between the sanatorium benefit and the maternity benefit? That might meet the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty that it would not be possible to have a concerted scheme with regard to the medical benefit. Let them, however, have an alternative choice between the sanatorium and the maternity benefit.
  Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member has quite overlooked the very important consideration that a large number of these people are very old, so that their time of contribution will cover a short number of years, while the medical benefit will last throughout their lives. Therefore the liability of the society is much greater in a large number of cases than the number of years for which they will make contributions to the society. You must have a margin on account of the extra risks of the society itself. I think the right hon. Gentleman says that that margin is provided for in the reserve value which is not known. It would be unwise to take more out of this fund at the present time.
  Mr. FREDERICK HALL: May I draw the attention of the Committee to the statement made by the last speaker, as well as to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman? The hon. Member who last spoke drew particular attention to the fact that a majority of these persons would be very old persons, whereas the Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated that in going into this matter they had carefully considered the question of over-worked, under-paid and anæmic girls. I cannot help thinking therefore that there is a discrepancy of opinion even on the other side of the Committee. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question? It seems to me, as far as we are concerned, that it will help us a great deal in coming to a decision if we know when the extra benefits are likely to be dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the figures would be considered after they had got the actuarial calculations. I quite agree that at this moment there May be difficulty with regard to saying exactly what may be the actual result, especially when we have to consider that 9–10ths of 1d.
  2944
  goes in management expenses. Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the Committee within any reasonable period when the surplus is likely to be dealt with? Is it a question of dealing with it within a period of twelve months or of leaving it in abeyance for four or five years. Can he give us some information on this point—as to when he will get an intimation as to the excess amount that will be in hand?
  Mr. BOOTH: Or the deficit?
  Mr. NEWMAN: Looking down the Amendment paper, I am surprised that there is no Amendment to omit Clause 4 so far as Ireland is concerned, and I am astonished that hon. Members below Me did not get up to speak. We want from the Secretary to the Treasury some explanation of what happens with this money with regard to Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ireland comes on later."] When does Ireland come on?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member was not present when the matter was explained. A Motion was made to omit Ireland from this Clause by an hon. Friend behind me. An hon. Gentleman opposite made an appeal that that should be postponed until we had discussed Clause 4, and thereupon my hon. Friend withdrew his Motion, and is going to present a new Clause dealing with Ireland.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) omitted one important factor from the figures he gave. He told us that in regard to persons who are now exempted, but whose employers are paying, the average amount paid was 11s. 4d. He and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) based their calculations on the fact that 11s. 4d. would be paid for each of these exempted persons. That is only during the first year. During that year he will have some employer paying for him, but in future years many of these persons will have dropped out, and will be entitled to medical benefit for life. The number who drop out will increase every year until they probably equal the number of those employed and having employers paying for them. That would diminish the average by about one half. The figures given by the hon. Member are liable to considerable reduction in future years if this scheme is carried out.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not know whether the rest of the Committee have the same feeling as I have. I want to do whatever is right for the exempted people. I do not think there is any certainty that we are going to do the best for them under this Clause. An hon. Gentleman opposite just now said it was intended to give medical benefit to those who drop out. Can that be so?
  Mr. MASTERMANindicated dissent.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not sure that is not right.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member will see, by looking at the Clause, that the Arrears Clause applies to these persons as much as to others.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I supposed that it did so, because it is obvious you cannot by receiving twenty-six threepences provide for the rest of a child's or young person's life. I cannot understand why the Clause is in the Bill at all, having regard to the present position. Under the original Act full power was given to the Commissioners in Clause 4, Sub-section (4), to prescribe by regulation how the moneys paid on behalf of exempted persons should be applied for their benefit. They were to bring in a scheme. It seems to me that they have complete power without this Bill at all. If they brought in a scheme which did give medical benefit to some and sanatorium benefit perhaps, to all, then the ordinary Treasury Grant of 2s. 9d. would apply.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS:I should have thought it would apply, and that as you have now got the 2s. 6d. provided for in this Bill, that 2s. 6d. also would apply. With regard to medical benefit, it seems to me that as to some of these people it is the very last benefit they want. There is quite a number of people exempt who are sons of parents in business and who, for the time being, are earning low salaries and learning their work, but who, in time, will become partners, perhaps, in their parents' businesses, and who, at any rate, will get far above the income limit of £160. For them their employers are making contributions now. Now you are suggesting that they ought to have medical benefit. That seems to be the very benefit of which they will not make use if they are of the class to which I am referring.
  Mr. BOOTH: In that case it will be a gift to the medical profession.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have not the slightest desire to give anything to the medical profession for work they do not perform, although I think they ought to be paid for the work they do. In the cases I am suggesting, the boys who will be included in this scheme for medical benefit would not go to a panel doctor, but to the doctor who is looking after their father's household. There is a want of elasticity in thus forcing medical benefit on a large number who do not require it. It is far wiser that some optional rights should be given to exempted persons. Dealing with the question whether you can give a personal option, I think you can, because medical benefit and sanatorium require little or no reserve values. Sanatorium benefit does not want any reserve value, and medical benefit can only want the reserve value attributable to severity and upwards, and it never exceeds £1. Therefore it is a very small thing. The provision of that reserve value certainly does not destroy the validity of the claim that everybody who is supposed to benefit here ought to have the benefits which are suitable to them. They ought not to have forced upon them benefits of which we brow in advance they will not take advantage in a great many cases.
  Mr. COOPER: As my name is associated with some of the Amendments with regard to this matter I desire to make a few remarks upon the attitude the Government have taken up. The hon. Member for Hoxton (Dr. Addison) is one of the members of this Committee whose opinion on this matter ought to be of very great value. I understood from his remarks that these exempted persons for the larger part would be old people. If that is so, the Government are going to give away precious little if they are going to give maternity benefit to exempted persons.
  Dr. ADDISON: That is not proposed.
  Mr. COOPER: Turning from the hon. Member for Hoxton to the Secretary to the Treasury, we understood from him that among these people are a number of young women to whom he specially referred. I am going to be quite frank with the Committee, and say that when we come to the minute claims and inquire whether they can be met or not, I am not going to express a dogmatic view, and, if they cannot be met except by upsetting

  2947
  the whole scheme, I will not say a word for them. But I think there is an argument for including maternity benefit in these cases. It is in the spirit of the Act itself to do so, as hon. Members will see if they refer to Section 8, Sub-section (4), which says that a person temporarily resident out of the United Kingdom shall not be disentitled to maternity benefit in respect of the confinement of his wife. If it is done in that case, and we all admit the great advantage of maternity benefit—it is the one thing in this Act in regard to which the majority of the people in this country are united in agreeing is most beneficial—my point is that we should carry this beneficial part of the Act as far as we possibly can and cover all necessitous cases.
  Mr. BOOTH: Hon. Members opposite divide exempted persons into two classes, those who are very old, and those who the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) says are living at home in very excellent circumstances, and who are going to manage their parent's businesses later on. I do not think either of those classes, deserve maternity benefit.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: If we are to put in maternity benefit we ought to consider how it is going to apply to the exempted people. We have been told that these people form two classes, the very young and very old. I think that is a mistake. There is also the married woman and outworker whose husband is an employed contributor.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: She is in now.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I know several. I happen to pay for one under this Act myself. Consequently maternity benefit is already provided for a very substantial proportion of the people who are exempt under Clause 4. I doubt very much if it would be any material benefit to these people if you included maternity benefit, and the Clause is a compulsory Clause. It says: "Regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners under Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the principal Act" shall apply to medical benefit and sanatorium benefit. Therefore I do not want exactly to vote against it. We might be misunderstood by voting against it. It might appear as though we were opposed to the inclusion of maternity benefit on its own merits. If I voted against this Amendment, if it is
  2948
  pushed to a Division, that would not be my reason at all. It would simply be because I think the statement made by the Secretary to the Treasury is quite convincing, that the two pressing things that ought to be dealt with now are medical benefit and sanatorium benefit, and then if there is still a margin which may be used for maternity benefit let us have it. But at the moment our experience shows that medical benefit and sanatorium benefit will be welcomed, and let us stick to that as the Clause is a compulsory Clause.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I find myself among that small class, I suppose, of Members present who do not see the necessity of this Amending Clause 4 at all. I cannot help thinking that Clause 4 in the Bill itself gives all the necessary powers to the Commissioners to make regulations for the benefits which are referred to in Section 4 of the Act. It seems to me that on the one hand we give great powers to the Commissioners, and on the other hand we lay down regulations which will restrict the powers which we have conferred upon them. I shall be glad, certainly, before called upon to vote for the Clause, to hear from the Financial Secretary why the insertion of this Clause in the Amending Bill has become absolutely necessary. According to the Section in the original Act it is provided that the Insurance Commissioners may make regulations
  "for applying the sums standing to the credit of the account, or any part thereof, for the benefit of any persons in respect of whom contributions have been so paid, in the event of such persons subsequently becoming employed contributors."
  It seems to me that these exempted persons can be dealt with by the Commissioners without the necessity of this particular Clause. I shall be very glad to know whether I have ascribed sufficient importance or too much importance to the amending Clause suggested.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I appeal to the Committee to come to a decision now on the Clause, all the more so because there is really no disagreement between us. What disagreement there is is due to misunderstanding, and not to any fundamental difference of opinion. Take, for example, the particular question that has just been put. It is perfectly true that we could have made a scheme for dealing with these exempted persons purely out of their own contributions. If money would have carried it, we could have made a scheme for giving them, purely out of their own contributions, Maternity Benefit, but in that case they

  2949
  would have lost the two-ninths which is given by the State, and the extra half-crown. That is to say, the Clause was necessary in order to give these persons £19,000 a year more. If the Committee does not want to give that, I as a Treasury man, would he very glad because we could have the £19,000 for other purposes, but it is because medical benefit requires that money, if it is to be given efficiently to these people, that we give it. As to the point raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) in answer to the hon. Member (Mr. Cooper), of course, if this fund is able to carry more than it does carry, we can give fresh benefits more than it can carry under this Clause, and we can give it without coming to Parliament. If it will carry insurance for Maternity Benefit, we can give it, and we should give it, but at present the figures given by the hon. Member (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) show convincingly that we cannot put any greater compulsion on the fund, allowing for the reserve value, than medical benefit, and we can only put it on the fund for medical benefit by giving an extra £19,000 a year to these people.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), as well as the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury, convinces me that this is a thoroughly undigested Clause, and I think, so far as anything but the Sanatorium Benefit is concerned, it will be far better to reserve the treatment of exempted persons until the Amending Bill of next year. What you are doing is to apply inappropriate benefit—medical benefit—and using the money, which is the greater part of that which you have to play with, for what a large proportion of the class dealt with do not require. But we are earmarking it for that purpose, and we are taking it for all time and making certain that you will not have any large sum to devote to other benefits which are more appropriate to a large number of these people. This is the employer's money, and they have a right to a special say, and I am quite certain they know the medical benefit to be the last which really ought to be given. With regard to sanatorium benefit, it is a different matter. I think we should all be agreed that sanatorium benefit is one which should be given, but you are dealing with this prematurely, and without consideration, and you are taking a large part of that which would be available for a more elastic and a more beneficial scheme for those who are concerned.
  Mr. ALDEN: My experience is quite contrary to that of the hon. Member. I have seen a large number of employers on this question. I happen to employ one or two naval pensioners myself, and they are all in favour of medical benefit. I wanted maternity benefit as well, but after the discussion that has gone on, I should ay that it was unfair to ask for it. But I am convinced that a very large number of exempted persons are persons who are rather old and are liable to sickness, and I am sure medical benefit is the very best benefit you could give to them. So far as my experience goes, it is that employers and employed are agreed that this medical benefit would be an advantage, and if you could take a referendum on this question amongst employers you would find they would agree with me in this matter.
  Mr. GEORGE HAMILTON: It appears to me that the people who are exempted are exempted because they are better off than other people in the State. Very few of the exempted persons, I understand, are people who have not got pensions or some private means which enable them to be exempt. It appears to me, therefore, that the people in this country who are better off under this Clause are going to get a present from the State of £19,000 and they are not contributing anything themselves. Only the employer's contribution is going into this fund. I feel disposed to vote against the whole Clause and leave it to regulations to find some better method which would not cost the State £19,000 a year.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: Whilst the interest of exempted persons, of course, must be considered, it must be remembered that they find not one farthing of this money but that it comes entirely from the employer and the State, and I think we have to consider what in the interest of the employers and the State is the best use to put this money to. I, personally, have no hesitation in saying that in the interest of the employer and in the interest of the State the best possible use which could be made of this money is to ensure the best treatment for the insured person. I do not at all take the view of the last hon. Member that the majority of these people will be people who are well off. My experience is that a very large number of them are of the poorest of the community, and it certainly is to the interest of the employer and the State that adequate medical treatment and sanatorium benefit should be found. I can conceive of no better benefit that employers could wish for.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I do not wish to press this Amendment if it is really definitely stated that the money is not there to give this extra benefit; but the point which I took was this, that there is a surplus, though only a sm111 one, and that the cheapest extra benefit we could give would be maternity benefit, and it seems to me that it would about balance it. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman had inserted in his Clause a proviso that people should not get medical benefit until they had made twenty-six contributions at least it might have given a little extra money which might have just made up the balance.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: There is really no money for it, and if we insert it it would really be no use.
  Mr. GWYNNE: If the right hon. Gentleman gives me a definite assurance that the money is not there to do it, and that it would be an extra State grant, I shall not press it. But I would like to ask what would be the position of one of these exempted persons who happens to have over £160 a year?
  The CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment down on that point.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to move to leave out the words "members of approved societies," and to insert instead thereof the words "employed contributors whose total income from all sources exceeds £160 a year."
  I think it has been generally admitted that these exempted persons are persons in a better position than many of those who come under insurance, and certainly all exempted persons must have some income of their own, in order that they may be exempted. It will be admitted that a great many of these exempted persons would very much prefer to be able to make their own arrangement with the doctors than that they should come upon the panel and be compelled to accept the doctors who are on the panel, and by subsequent Amendment, to which I shall refer later on, it will be suggested that persons whose income is certainly over £160 a year shall be able to make their own arrangements, and that it shall not be necessary therefore to come upon the panel of doctors. If we insert these words which I suggest, we shall certainly exclude all those from partaking necessarily of the benefits which this Clause confers who themselves have an income which would enable them
  2952
  to do as they probably would desire to make their own arrangements with the doctor. It is for the purpose of excluding those persons who have an income of this kind that I move this Amendment.
  Mr. BOOTH: On the point of Order. Are we to have a general rule about luncheon? Some Members are going out.
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it would be convenient to adjourn now.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, "That the Committee do continue to sit this day, notwithstanding the Sitting of the House."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  At twenty-five minutes before two o'clock the Committee adjourned for lunch, till 2.15 p.m., when the proceedings were resumed.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the principle embodied in this Amendment is a reasonable one. I do not think it will refer to many persons; not more than 100 or 200 will be influenced by it. If a person is an exempted person and his private income exceeds £160 a year, in addition to what he is earning—
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: No, his "total income from all sources."
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think it ought to be "in addition," but leave it at that. If the person's total income from all sources exceeds £100, and he is an exempted person, it shall only apply to those who do not pay a penny themselves for the. purpose of insurance—he shall be required to make his own arrangements; a certain sum of money shall be given for medical expenses and he shall not come under the ordinary arrangement of the capitation fee. I cannot accept the Amendment in the form proposed, but I will move a proviso in the following form:
  "Provided that if the total income from all sources of any such person exceeds £160 a year, he shall be required to make his own arrangements for medical benefit and treatment, and Sub-section (3), Section 5 of the principal Act shall not apply to him."
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I accept that, and am prepared to move those words instead of my own Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: I beg to move to leave out the words "subject to an modifications, adaptations, and exceptions contained in the regulations."
  My object in doing so is to ask for information from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as to what really these words mean. As I read them the Commissioners may, in their wisdom, make modifications, adaptations and exceptions, which would render the Act quite inoperative fur whole classes of people. Would he kindly say what these words really mean in this Clause, as we have nothing more to guide us than what we have already got in the Act, and what can be done if the Commissioners so desire? If that is the case, what is the object of putting them in the Bill at all? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can again give me an undertaking that so long as he is able to get the Commissioners to do what he wants, they shall do nothing unreasonable. I should like some explanation as to the object of putting in those words.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: There must be some elasticity in connection with these matters. I think I can meet the point of the hon. Gentleman by inserting in the Bill what is his main point, that is the limitation of the twenty-six contributions which 1 have already agreed to insert. That is one of the points that would have been laid down in the regulations under the Bill. If it would meet his point 1 propose to move at the end of the Clause, if the Committee agrees, "if the conditions imposed require the payment of a number of weekly contributions before a person becomes entitled to such benefits, that number shall not exceed twenty-six."
  Mr. GWYNNE: I would accept that Amendment.
  Mr. CASSEL: I should like to ask why these words are inserted, because we have, earlier in the Clause, the words "if they fulfil such conditions as may be imposed by those regulations." What is the necessity for these other words, which seem to give the Commissioners power to legislate and to make exemptions for large classes of persons? These words "if they fulfil such conditions as may be imposed by those regulations" appear to me to be quite sufficient. If you put in those other words, they may be construed as giving the Commissioners power to legislate in matters over which Parliament ought to have control, and to
  2954
  exempt whole classes of persons whom Parliament may wish to have in the Bill. I should like some explanation of the purpose of those additional words.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is the application of the provisions of the principal Act with respect to the payment and administration of these benefits, and all these matters involve a certain number of minor modifications and adaptations to fit them into the scheme as in the case of married women. These words are only put in with a view to making these modifications. I have offered to the hon. Gentleman to insert words which I think will meet his point. I hope the Committee will see that sonic such words are necessary if this scheme is going through.
  Mr. CASSEL: You have already got the words which I have pointed out. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has really dealt with the point. Are not those words "if they fulfil such conditions as may be imposed by those regulations" sufficient?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The first set of words deals with general regulations and the second set of words with modifications and adaptations to the principal Act.
  Mr. GWYNNE: The Clause as it stands already ought to cover the point and the other words are not necessary. The right hon. Gentleman goes so far as to emphasise the weakness or rather the strength which he is putting into the hands of the Commissioners. I object to his proposal to keep in the general words and to insert in the Clause words which will deal with one specific exception. This morning he objected to one of my Amendments which provided for one thing specifically on the ground that it might limit the application to the particular point which was specified. He is willing to deal with the question of the twenty-six contributions, but he wishes still to get the other general words. I think that instead of putting in this particular exemption of the twenty-six weeks, he should accept my Amendment and omit the words altogether.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 21; Noes, 12.

  Division No. 3.]

  AYES.

  Addison, Dr.

  Harvey, Mr. Edmund

  Masterman, Mr.

  Alden, Mr.

  Jones, Mr. Glyn-

  Pearce, Mr. William

  Booth, Mr.

  Lardner, Mr.

  Roberts, Mr. Charles

  Boyle, Mr. Daniel

  Lynch, Mr.

  Roberts, Mr. George

  Dawes, Mr.

  Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

  Samuel, Mr. Jonathan

  Falconer, Mr.

  M'Laren, Mr. Henry

  Scott, Mr. MacCallum

  Harcourt, Mr. Robert

  Macnamara, Dr.

  Thomas, Mr.

  NOES.

  Baker, Sir Randolf

  Goulding, Mr.

  Locker-Lampson, Mr. Godfrey

  Cassel, Mr.

  Gwynne, Mr. Rupert

  Newman, Mr.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hamilton, Mr.

  Remnant, Mr.

  Forster, Mr.

  Lawson, Mr. Harry

  Worthington-Evans, Mr.

  The next Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of Sir P. Magnus was to add at the end of the Clause the words, "Medical benefit shall not include any right to medical treatment or attendance in respect of miscarriage, or any condition arising from and within twenty-eight days after miscarriage or abortion, and Sub-section (6) of Section 8 of the principal Act shall be amended accordingly."
  The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment, with regard to medical benefit, is out of order.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Is my Amendment out of order?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Where will it come in?
  The CHAIRMAN: It is not for me at the moment to say.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: May I ask why it is out of order?
  The CHAIRMAN: This Clause deals with exempted persons, and the Amendment, as far as I read it, treats of medical benefit.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Should I be able to move it as a new Clause?
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will consult others afterwards with regard to where to put it. I can see that it does not come in here.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words, "Provided that (a) if the conditions imposed require payment of a number of weekly contributions before the person becomes entitled to such benefits that number shall not exceed twenty-six.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: May my Amendment, as moved by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, come in now?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Then I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words, "(b) Provided that where the total income from all sources of any such person exceeds £160 a year, he shall be required to make his own arrangements for receiving medical attendance and treatment., and Sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the principal Act shall apply accordingly."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Mr. ALDEN: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words, "This Section shall apply to persons resident in Ireland, with this modification, that the benefits to be provided shall be such as can be specified in a scheme framed by the Irish Commissioners, and that the sum to be contributed by Parliament towards the cost of these benefits, and the administration thereof, shall be the same as if the benefits were benefits to insured persons."
  The object of this Amendment is to put Ireland into a fair position as regards the rest of the United Kingdom. Ireland, at present, has no medical benefit, and therefore it is impossible to insert medical benefit in this Clause. I understand that the new Clause to be moved by the Labour party does deal with this question. As the Irish Medical Benefit Committee is sitting to consider the question of medical benefits for Ireland, it is impossible for us to come to a decision this afternoon. Exactly the same argument would apply to disablement benefit. At any rate, it would have been impossible for us to have decided this afternoon in either case. Therefore, in order that Ireland may keep the benefits of the State two-ninths, which otherwise she would fail to get, I move the Amendment. It seems to me that the representatives of Ireland would be satisfied with this. It is true it places the scheme in the hands of the Insurance Commissioners, but it gives them all the benefits to which they are strictly

  2957
  entitled, and all the exempted persons in Ireland will get just such benefits as insured persons will get. Under these circumstances, I hope the Committee will see its way to accept this Amendment, and I hope it will be satisfactory to the representatives from Ireland.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: May I draw attention to a new Clause in the name of two hon. Friends of mine, which purposes to extend the medical benefits to Ireland? The point of Order I should like to ask you now is, supposing this Amendment, which you have just put from the Chair, is moved and voted upon, would that Clause, which my two Friends have put down be, in your opinion, out of order?
  The CHAIRMAN: No, I think that Clause refers to the general question. This is simply to exempted persons.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Our Clause is wider than this Amendment, but I wondered if, having settled the minor question, which is really essential to the larger question, you would rule the larger one out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN: I should rule that this particular Section has reference to exempted persons, and does not at all prejudice the Amendments referred to by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald).
  Mr. LARDNER: I am sorry we had not an opportunity of seeing this new Sub-section on the Paper, and of considering it in detail, but having heard it read, I think it is an Amendment which I can see my way to advise those interested in Ireland to accept, for this reason. In Ireland we have had nothing but the greatest praise for the sympathetic administration of the Insurance Act in that country, and I am perfectly sure that any scheme devised by the Irish Commissioners will be one that will meet with general approval. I wish to know from the Government what the effect of this new Sub-section will be in regard to Irish migratory labourers who come to England for employment under the twenty-six weeks period. With reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), the proposal of the new Clause is to extend medical benefit to all Ireland, and even if that Clause was subsequently carried, the Sub-section now before the Committee would not prevent that being done. I think the Amendment is one which might be accepted.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is quite right to accept the Subsection. It makes the Irish Fund perfectly independent, and it is rather important that they should have the right to the extra two-ninths in Committee, for it cannot be given on the Report stage of the Bill. The two-ninths would be ensured for them and it would not be an extra charge. The migratory labourers would be exempted persons, and I think any arrangements made by the Commissioners would be for benefiting them as in the case of other exempted persons.
  Mr. BOOTH: I wish to ask whether this will be one of the schemes which must lie on the Table of the House for a number of days? As members of the Government know, they occasionally put Papers on the Table, and there is a right to move an Address to the Crown and discuss them. I wish to know whether this comes within that category, or whether the House will have no opportunity of looking at the scheme?
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I wish to say that I have no objection to benefit with respect to exempted persons being given to Ireland, but I would point out to the Committee that this gives Ireland what was asked for, and asked in vain, in respect of the rest of the United Kingdom. The whole point of the argument in opposition to that was that medical benefit was inappropriate to the classes of people to be dealt with. Here, according to the manuscript. Amendment, there is to be elasticity which we did not get in the case of the rest of the United Kingdom. The regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners in this regard will, I suppose, be submitted to Parliament for confirmation. Why should that be done in this case and not in others? It points the moral that this is a half-baked Clause all through, and that you are earmarking money in an inappropriate and rigid way for Great Britain and allowing this latitude to Ireland. I think this shows that Ireland is making a much better bargain than we have been able to do.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS:I do not propose at the present time to divide the Committee against this Clause. The Clause is a most unsatisfactory one. I do not think the Government have taken enough trouble to produce a Clause which is suitable,

  2959
  nor have they treated the Committee fairly, because they have withheld from the Committee information winch is necessary to enable them to say whether or not the Clause ought to be added to the Bill. I do not say they have withheld the information wilfully, because I do not believe they know themselves. We have had from the other side all sorts of descriptions of the various beneficiaries who are supposed to be benefited by this Clause. Sometimes it has been a pale anemic young woman, at other times old men, and in addition to those we know there is a large class of children living with their parents who are only temporarily under its provisions. The result is we are giving these unknown beneficiaries unsuitable benefits, which are stereotyped, when it would have been possible for us to make the scheme sufficiently elastic to benefit those who ought to come within it, and to give the nature and quality of the benefits required by these people. Within the last few minutes we have had the usual example that Ireland's importunities are more listened to by this Government than any that may be thought of for England. I do not propose to divide the Committee, because I am not going to take the responsibility of cutting out of the Government Grant even the few who may benefit by this Clause. As it stands there is certainly a large sum of money being wasted, or, at any rate, being speculated, in this matter, because no one can say whether the benefits given by it are really suitable.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not think the statement of the bon. Member should be made without challenge. It does not represent the view of the majority of the Committee, and it is certainly not the view of those who are administering the Act. It is particularly ungracious, in view of the fact that the Government take up the matter of dealing with exempted persons, about whom the hon. Member himself made a great deal of noise, and when the Government do the best thing possible in the circumstances for these people it is ungracious for the hon. Member to speak in this grudging way. The Clause is a great gain. The hon. Gentleman has not been able to suggest anything that is practical in regard to it, but simply gets up and murmurs against the Clause.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I am very reluctant to intervene in this matter, but after what has been said by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), it cannot be allowed to pass without protest from this side. May I remind the Committee
  2960
  that this particular point was to a large extent discussed when we were discussing Section 13 of the principal Act? We were then discussing the question of allowing persons to elect, from the additional benefits, a different scheme of insurance. The House, which was then sitting as a Committee, decided that, above all, there must be no contracting out of medical benefits. That, above all, was the first purpose of the Act. Surely the arguments which held good in the House, hold good here! The hon. Member for Colchester has been quite unable to make any suggestion to take the place of what the Government propose. I utter these few words of protest against such an ungracious speech being made with regard to this particular proposal.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I should not have risen but for the two speeches to which we have just listened. I do not think the two hon. Members should have got up in this angry spirit to denounce my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester for the perfectly legitimate and moderate observations he addressed to the Committee upon this Clause. The bon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) rather angrily protested against the remarks of my hon. Friend on the ground that the majority of the Committee did not agree with him. There is nothing surprising in that. I am certain there is no one on this side of the Committee who does not agree entirely with the moderate remarks of my hon. Friend. We feel that my hon. Friend has made an exceedingly strong case for the Amendment of this particular Clause, and we should not have been at all surprised or have disagreed with him if he had gone to the more extreme length and asked the Committee to divide against it. My hon. Friend has shown conclusively that although the provision of this Clause is an Amendment in the right direction, I think very much better provision might have been made for the beneficiaries intended to gain under this Clause if a more elastic system had been adopted by the Government. Therefore, I do think before we pass this Clause we ought to be allowed on this side to protest most strongly against the spirit in which the observations have been made by the last two hon. Members against the exceedingly moderate and conciliatory speech of my hon. Friend.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Medical Benefit.)
  (1) No voluntary contributor whose total income from all sources exceeds one hundred and sixty pounds a year shall be

  2961
  entitled to receive medical benefit, but in that case the weekly contribution which would otherwise be payable by him shall be reduced by one penny.
  (2) Paragraph (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the principal Act shall extend to members of societies other than such friendly societies as are mentioned in that paragraph who were at the date of the passing of the principal Act entitled as such members to medical attendance and treatment in like manner and subject to the like conditions as it applies to members of such friendly societies.
  Mr. GOULDING:I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "contributor," to insert the words "becoming insured after the passing of this Act."
  I understand that this Clause has been put on the Paper to give effect to an agreement come to between the Government and the medical authorities. I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman will see that whatever agreement is come to should not be retrospective. If it is so, it may involve on certain people, more especially among the clerk class, great injustice. For instance, if the employed contributor who within five years becomes a voluntary contributor by reason of his salary being raised to £160 per year, is to be excluded from medical benefit in this way, it is subjecting him to a breach of contract that would not be tolerated against any insurance company. Any insurance company having entered into an agreement with the individual insured is bound by law to carry it out. It seems to me a monstrous proposal that the Government has proposed this change, making a great inroad into the agreement come to with those clerks and depriving them of benefits that they have contracted for. If it is necessary to give effect to an understanding come to between the Government and the medical authorities, let it be done by inserting the words which are in the name of the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst) and myself, "becoming insured after the passing of this Act," so that no injustice can be done to those who are already employed contributors and who may, by reason solely of the fact that their salary is raised to £160, become voluntary contributors within that period. I do not know whether now is the time to raise the point as to why the Government are going to allow only a penny for Medical Benefit, while, according to their own actuary, it should be more. The present Amendment, however, deals with another matter, and
  2962
  I should like the right hon. Gentleman to state the grounds of this injustice.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This is the one Clause, and I am glad it is the only Clause in the Bill in which I cannot, in the name of the Government, accept any Amendment at all, because it was on a definite promise and pledge made that the Government would use whatever influence the Government had that this Clause should be at the earliest possible moment embodied in an Insurance Act Amending Bill. It may be said that, although we make our pledges, all the doctors who negotiated with us have not kept their pledges. That may be true, but that seems to be an even stronger reason for us keeping ours as a Government, and so showing that, at least, we are prepared to maintain our part of the bargain, and we have the knowledge that some 18,000 doctors have come on the panels on account of the fact, among other elements, that they understood that the Government would pass this Clause. It does not really affect very many people; it does not begin to operate for three years from now, and it may be that in three years' time the condition of medical service may be changed by general arrangement, so that it may never come into operation at all. But, as far as the Clause which stands now on the Paper is concerned, all I can say to the Committee is that it definitely embodies a definite Government pledge under which a very large number of doctors have taken service, and that certainly the Government could not accept any Amendment to the carrying out of that pledge.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has adhered to what is a distinct pledge to the medical profession, and I shall certainly give him my support if the question goes to a Division. I do not think he need have mentioned about the pledges of doctors, and I am not aware of any broken pledges the doctors have made, but in this case the pledge was quite distinct, and I am very glad the Government have held to the position they pledged themselves to.
  Mr. FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this Clause is put into the Bill to carry out a pledge that has been given to the medical profession, but he did not touch the point raised by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, and which I think is a point of substance, namely, as to whether or not there is a contract between the Government and the societies and the voluntary contributors who have entered into insurance and who pay their

  2963
  voluntary contribution of sevenpence per week for which they were to receive certain benefits in return. What I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman is how he proposes to carry out the obligation which the Government have undertaken with regard to the voluntary contributor.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: It is precisely for the same reason I am inclined to support the Amendment. The situation is, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, that there is an obligation on the Government to the doctors. They feel that they are giving effect to that obligation in the Clause that is inserted in the Amending Bill, but surely they are not justified in fulfilling that obligation at the expense of a contract with other people! We have to determine in this case whether we are justified at the expense of the insured person in making that pledge to the doctor. We have no objection to the Government fulfilling any pledge or promise they have made to the doctor, but alternatively with that they should at least bring forward some proposal which will compensate the insured person for what he is suffering. Therefore, I think if there is no other means of fulfilling the obligation to the doctor than this Clause, some alternative scheme ought to be proposed that will compensate those people, who unquestionably were entitled to medical service and because of this Clause are to be deprived of it.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The argument of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has very little relation to the merits of this Amendment. He simply says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a pledge to the medical profession, and that is the statement made in the Memorandum on the general objects of the Bill. But because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is pledged, the House of Commons is not necessarily pledged or the Members of this Committee. They are pledged to judge this Amendment on its merits and the Amendment is one about which the friendly societies feel strongly. The Association of Approved Societies in the paper I have here state distinctly that they are opposed to the Clause as at present drafted and in favour of the Amendment. The Manchester Unity explain that this Sub-clause would press very hardly upon clerks and others who, having contributed for five years for medical benefit, become disentitled to such benefit because they happen to improve their position by an increase of salary to £160 per year. My objection, of course, is wider than that. From the friendly society point of view, you are
  2964
  adding to the confusion already created, and you are segregating this particular class from the general scheme. The friendly societies have suffered tremendously from having their work complicated, and I think it is unfair to complicate it any further unless there is some very strong reason. I believe that some of these people who are insured are those for whom the Committee ought to have the most consideration. I have in my employment a large number of workmen who are earning from £5 to £6 per week at present.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: It does not affect them.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: But it does affect the clerk and the man of that class about whom the Manchester Unity are talking. Is the only reason for depriving these people of benefits the pledge given, perhaps hastily given, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I think the friendly societies are perfectly right in objecting to the creation of this new class, and to the ordinary working of their providential system being interfered with. I hope my hon. Friend will proceed to a Division on the point, because I am certain he is representing the feelings of the whole of the thrift organisations of the country.
  Mr. LYNCH: I rise to ask if a discussion on the whole Clause would be in order at this stage? The Secretary to the Treasury said that the whole Clause must remain intact.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I only referred to the first Sub-section of the Clause.
  Mr. CASSEL: This Amendment seems to raise a very important question of principle, namely, whether Parliament is justified in any of these amending Acts to come in and rip up contracts which have been made with insured persons. That should not be done with a voluntarily insured person for this reason, that Parliament has said to them, and given them an option, that if they came in and paid sevenpence per week that they should have certain benefits. Those persons did come in, and they paid the full sevenpence per week. Then within a year of that time, without consulting them, you simply propose to annul that bargain because it suits you in an arrangement you are making with other people. Once you adopt that principle it opens the door to extending it to other Acts. I think it is an extremely dangerous principle for Parliament to commit itself to. If it is done in

  2965
  this case, it will be on record and form a precedent for varying the contracts of voluntarily insured persons to an unlimited extent. It is contrary to the whole principle on which leglislation has been based in the past.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the point is very much exaggerated. There are only 25,000 voluntary contributors altogether, and of those this only applies to those who within five years go out of insurance owing to getting over £160 per year, and I should not think they would be more than a few hundreds or thousands of the 25,000. To begin with, there is no contract between insured persons and the State, but, apart, from that, it is absurd to say that you are doing anything injurious to those insured persons. The doctors agreed to take insured persons on condition that these persons did not come in under capitation rates. For all I know, that arrangement having been made, they might not only refuse to take these persons under capitation rates, but they might refuse to take any persons if the Government refuse to carry out their part of the bargain. It is not as if these men were having money taken under false pretences. They will get the equivalent for medical benefits. A penny is their equivalent—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is more"] A penny is the equivalent of their contribution—
  Sir R. BAKER: Are they going to get back what they have paid in the past?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: They will have medical attendance until they pass out, or at the end of five years pass out of this particular scheme, so that as far as that is concerned for four years they are assured of medical attendance. At the end of that time, if they become rich, the doctors will cease to take them on the capitation payment, and they will receive back the equivalent to their medical subscriptions in order to make their own arrangements with the doctors. That is not treating them unfairly, and I do not think the Government pledge can be broken up under any criticism of such a scheme as that.
  Mr. GWYNNE: The right hon. Gentleman has put forward a most extraordinary argument. The reason he has adduced why we should not give these men who have entered into a contract with the Government the benefits which have been promised, is that there are so few of them. The real truth of the matter he left, out. He meant that there are so few votes amongst them.
  2966
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The real question is not whether they are few or many, but whether we should treat them fairly or not. If you have made an arrangement you ought to carry it out. Even if there is only one man affected he ought to be treated fairly. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have put forward that argument.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: It does not seem to me that any great injustice is being done to voluntary subscribers. In any case they have only been subscribing for six months and during the whole of the five years they will receive medical benefit in accordance with the understanding at the time they became voluntary subscribers. This proposal will only affect them at the end of that time, and then the equivalent of the medical benefit, namely, a penny, if that be the correct equivalent—if it is not, it will be altered—will be deducted from their subscriptions. Therefore, I cannot see that they are suffering any injustice of any kind whatever. If we consider the Amendment on its merits, we shall see how ridiculous it is that men whose income may be £500 or £600 a year should be able to obtain medical benefit by the payment of a few shillings a year. It crept into the original Insurance Act; it was pointed out at the time how absurd it was, and the Government, with that amount of sense—
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Which characterises them.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: With that amount of sense ascribed to them, at once acceded to the suggestion that this absurdity should be altered at the earliest moment.
  Mr. GOULDING: The question whether there are few or many who are to be injured by this action of the Governemt leaves me perfectly cold. I cannot see how that can in any way justify the grave injustice which is being done to these people. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state a single case where any insurance company, having entered into a contract of this kind, whether with a few or with a large number of people, would be allowed to tear up that contract in the way the Government propose to do by this Clause. If there are so few persons affected, let the Government meet them and make a concession. The Amendment provides that the proposal shall not be retrospective. Therefore all those who joined after the passing of the Act would do so with their eyes open and under different conditions. All we ask is that no such precedent

  2967
  should be set because there are few, or because out of 25,000 only a small proportion may suffer injustice. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it will be a small number, because I already have a list here of a great number of people who feel that they will suffer injustice and be deprived of benefits for which they have paid, and for which they are paying now. I ask the right hon. Gentleman before we come to Report stage to see what compensation can be given to these people if he feels himself bound, as he says, to carry out his contract with the medical authorities. For my own part, I shall go to a Division on the Amendment, because I can see no justification for the injustice which is to be inflicted upon these people.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am sorry I cannot vote with my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division. The Government have made the important statement that there is no contract between the Government and any insured person, and that therefore it is open at any time to alter the terms upon which the insured person has come into insurance. Founding themselves on that, the Government think that if an alteration is made in the Act, they are not guilty of any breach of contract towards these

  Division No. 4.]

  AYES.

  Baker, Sir Randolf

  Lawson, Mr. Harry

  Roberts, Mr. George

  Cassel, Mr.

  Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

  Thomas, Mr.

  Goulding, Mr.

  Remnant, Mr.

  Tryon, Captain

  Gwynne, Mr. Rupert

  NOES.

  Addison, Dr.

  Falconer, Mr.

  MacVeagh, Mr.

  Ainsworth, Mr.

  Forster, Mr.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Alden, Mr.

  Harcourt, Mr. Robert

  Masterman, Mr.

  Booth, Mr.

  Harvey, Mr. Edmund

  Money, Mr. Chiozza

  Boyle, Mr. Daniel

  Hinds, Mr.

  Newman, Mr.

  Carr-Gomm, Mr.

  Jones, Mr. Glyn-

  Pearce, Mr. William

  Clay, Captain

  Locker-Lampson, Mr. Godfrey

  Roberts, Mr. Charles

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lynch, Mr.

  Samuel, Mr. Jonathan

  Dawes, Mr.

  M'Laren, Mr. Henry

  Sandys, Mr.

  Devlin, Mr.

  Macnamara, Dr.

  Scott, Mr. MacCallum

  Esmonde, Dr.

  M'Neill, Mr. Ronald

  Worthington-Evans, Mr.

  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Goulding) is consequential.
  Mr. ALDEN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "case" ["in that case the weekly contribution"], to insert the words "whilst he is resident in Great Britain." I think these words are necessary: still, if the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that they are not necessary, I will not move them.
  insured persons. The Government are proposing to reduce the contributions made by the voluntary contributor so that he shall be able to have his money in his pocket to provide for himself medical attendance. The Government are doing that because they have made a bargain with the doctors. On the merits it seems to me that the Government are right. The doctors cannot be expected to extend capitation practice beyond the cases where it is absolutely necessary to ensure medical treatment to the insured persons. Where a voluntary contributor has £160 or over a year, he has such an income as will enable him to make his own private arrangement with the doctor, and this Clause is based upon that fact. The question whether a fair return is being made to the voluntary contributor is another matter. Whether 1d. or 1½d. ought to be deducted from the contribution is the subject of a separate Amendment which will come up presently. Seeing that the Government have made it clear that there is no contract with the insured persons which can be said to have been broken, it leaves open the whole merits of the case, and on the merits of the case I shall vote against the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes 10; Noes 33.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think the words are necessary. Perhaps the hon. Member will withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the word "halfpenny."
  I have put down this Amendment to change the word "halfpenny" into "penny halfpenny." I have really put it down in

  2969
  order to get an explanation from the Government. I am not particularly wedded to the word "halfpenny," but I want he right hon. Gentleman to explain what really medical benefit costs the voluntary contributor at the present time. I make out—I may be wrong—that it costs him well over a penny. If it costs well over a penny then it is quite clear, if he drops medical benefit, that he is entitled to more than one penny reduction in his contribution. Probably the right hon. Gentleman will say that medical benefit costs a little over three halfpence, and that part of that three halfpence is the two-ninths provided by the State. Even if he says that, I think it is quite clear that seven-ninths of the sum over the three halfpence is more than a penny. It comes to very nearly one penny farthing, so that in every case it seems to me that you ought to give a bigger reduction than a penny to voluntary contributors if they are going to drop medical benefit. I will wait until I hear the right hon. Gentleman's explanation.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This is a relationship between the approved society and the member. We must not pay to the approved societies money which is not rightly theirs. We must not exempt a man for more than the approved society can count. I should have thought the calculation was quite simple. Each member of an approved society pays for his medical benefit 6s. per year.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: how much is that per week?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That is, there is paid in respect of each member 6s. per year, of which seven-ninths is paid by the Society itself, whilst two-ninths are provided by the State.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much that is a week?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I will show that in a moment. This 4s. 8d. per year is what the society would have to exempt a man from if it has to keep as solvent as if the man was not under its conditions. 4s. 8d. per year works out at 56 contributions. The exemption at a penny works out at contributions, which is the nearest to a whole figure, even to a farthing, that we can make. Any further exemption would mean that the approved societies would lose on the exemptions from medical benefit.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I allynot quite satisfied with the explanation, It is impossible at the moment to make the calculation, because the right hon. Gentleman has not given us the weekly sum.
  Mr. DANIEL BOYLE: A penny and one-thirteenth.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is a penny and a very small fraction over a penny.
  Several HON. MEMBERS: A penny and one-thirteenth.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: There, several hon. Gentlemen who are arithmeticians, are ab to tell the hon. Gentleman what he wants to know!
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the next two pages of Amendments on the White Paper, I have gone carefully through them, and it does not seem to me, except with respect to one, that they are matters germane to this particular Clause. This refers to all except one, that being an Amendment by an hon. Member who is not a member of this Committee. Therefore it will be suitable, and more convenient, to take these Amendments as new Clauses. Unless any hon. Member has any particular point of Order to bring before me, that is my ruling.
  Mr. LYNCH: On the point of Order, Mr. Chairman. Whilst I accept your judgment on the matter, may I ask if the Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Salisbury can be brought in at a subsequent stage?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Which one is that?
  Mr. LYNCH: I will take occasion to say here that it is unintelligible in the form which it is here set down.
  The CHAIRMAN: On the point of Order. The hon. Member will be able to discuss the Clause as a whole when I put the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Might I ask whether in your general statement, Mr. Chairman, you include my Amendment at the end of the Section?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes. The Amendment as I read it deals with non-insured persons.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: No, insured persons.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Sub-section to which it applies makes it a proviso, and puts it out of order, although it does not quite come under my ruling.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I suppose I may bring it up as a new Clause?
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In order to safeguard myself, may I take it that I may move, as new Clauses, all the four Amendments which I have down when we come to the new Clauses? They are altogether at the bottom of page 58 and at the top of page 59.
  The CHAIRMAN: As far as I can judge they are all subjects which can be properly brought forward as new Clauses. That is, so far as I can see on the face of it, that I cannot make an absolute ruling.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Do your remarks apply to the Amendment down in the name of the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth)?
  The CHAIRMAN: Some of these Amendments are largely duplicates with the others, and deal with, temporary residence abroad, the provision of nurses and one or two other matters.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Will my hon. Friend be able to be entitled to move this as a new Clause?
  The CHAIRMAN: He will, so far as I can judge.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: Am I to understand that the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Luton is in order, but that the fact that he is not a member of this Committee excludes him from moving it? Would it be competent for me to put the Amendment down as a new Clause.
  The CHAIRMAN: No, it ought to be moved now if moved at all.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words "and shall also apply to members of any registered friendly society or trade union who have subscribed for, and been entitled to, medical treatment and the medicine for a continuous period of not less than twenty years prior to the fifteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and twelve."
  I think this Amendment ought to be submitted for the purpose of eliciting a statement on the point from the Secretary to the
  2972
  Treasury. This Amendment refers to the Medical Institutes that exist in different parts of the country. I think everybody is desirous of preserving them, and in fact of encouraging them as much as they can. One point I object to, and that is where the Amendment states that there must be a continuous period of not less than twenty years. I think that is far too long. But notwithstanding that, I formally move, the Amendment for the purpose of getting an expression of opinion from the Government as to whether or not they would be able to accept it, or what modification they are prepared to make in it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Of course it is quite impossible to accept this Amendment as it stands. The hon. Gentleman has quite rightly said that he has moved it at short notice for another Gentleman who is not in his place, and he has not got the facts and figures which would give the Government any kind of idea what sort of expense this Amendment would entail. I quite realise that there is a grievance in connection with certain old members of friendly societies who may have attained the age of sixty and have been paying for medical benefits for perhaps thirty years and find themselves now deprived, through no fault of their own, of medical attendance. I should like to see if, and how far, that grievance may be met and what possibilities there may be of providing a small sum of money for the purpose. But for all I know this might result in a much larger cost than the £200,000 which has been mentioned, and in those circumstances it is quite impossible for me to advise the Committee to accept it. It would mean the abandonment of some of the other benefits in the Bill. I should like to suggest if it were possible that this Amendment should be withdrawn now, and that before the Report stage the hon. Gentleman and his Friends should get some sort of statement in figures so as to show some kind of way in which we could meet some or any proportion of the cases of these old members, and then I would consider with the Government whether it was possible to provide the money. But as it stands it is not open to me to do it at all. If anything like the estimate of the money required is correct, of course it is quite impossible. We might be able to meet hard cases with a small amount and I do not wish to shut the door to that possibility. I would ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment and perhaps he would give his attention, and I would give my attention, to the matter in the time intervening between this and the Report

  2973
  stage, and see what particulars we can obtain as to the amount of money involved and the various possible proposals for dealing with the matter in some way.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the representatives of the great friendly societies? This is an Amendment which they are strongly in favour of. I know the Manchester Unity are in favour of it. There are a great number of small shopkeepers who will be hardly treated if this case is not met. If the right hon. Gentleman will consult these societies they may be able to suggest some scheme, and he might be able to bring up an Amendment on Report stage, or suggest some compromise.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, I think an Amendment should be brought up on Report stage. It ought to be an additonal charge. It might possibly go as a small Vote upon the Estimate. I know the feeling which the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken voices, and I have asked the opinion of the representative of the Manchester Unity whom I saw on the subject to see if he could provide any kind of financial statement to show the Government what amount of money would be involved. I hope the Committee will agree with me that I cannot accept such an Amendment without being able to clearly tell them how much it will involve, and that is why I ask that it should be postponed.
  Mr. FORSTER: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what opportunity we shal have of discussing this matter? We couldl not bring it up on Report because it would involve an increase of contributions from the State. Perhaps he might bring it up in the form of a new Clause.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That is my idea.
  Mr. FORSTER: If it would be in order as a new Clause I think that would meet the case entirely.
  The CHAIRMAN: I cannot say until I see it. Primâ facie, if it is in order as an Amendment, it will not be in order as a new Clause, but that might be got over if the hon. Member withdraws the Amendment now.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I think it would be better for the Government and for those interested in the proposal to confer together in the preparation of a new Clause which might be introduced later on.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Sickness Benefit.)
  (1) So much of Sub-section (5) of Section 8 as requires the payment of fifty contributions between two periods of disease or disablement in order to prevent the one being treated as a continuation of the other shall cease to have effect.
  (2) At the end of the same Sub-section the following provision shall be added—
  "Where by virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of this Act a part only of sickness benefit has been paid to an insured person, he shall for the purposes of this Sub-section be treated as having been in receipt of sickness benefit for a period bearing the same proportion to the whole period in respect of which such part benefit was paid to him as that part bears to the whole benefit, and the period so resulting shall be deemed to have been continuous and to have expired on the last day of the incapacity in respect of which the partial benefit was paid."
  Mr. GOULDING: I beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, before "(1) So much of Sub-section," to insert "(1) Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section eight of the principal Act shall be read and have effect as if the words 'first day of' were substituted for the words 'fourth day after.'"
  I have another Amendment lower down, and I do not know whether I can move this with the addition of the second Amendment, dealing with the same question. I was impressed by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons as regards the very big cost of this Amendment and of this concession, and therefore I am anxious that it should be only after three days of illness that the benefit should count from the first day. I do not think that benefit for illness should be given for simply one day's illness, and in order to mitigate the possibility of malingering or going on the fund earlier than is necessary I have made this proposal. No doubt in the old days the friendly societies paid for illness from the first day, but if the second alternative is taken I think it would considerably reduce the cost, if a person had been ill three days, then only would he get benefit as from the first day. I hope, if the right hon. Gentleman is unable to give benefit as the old friendly societies gave it for the whole period, he might give it in

  2975
  the modified way which, as I have explained is provided for, by my second Amendment on the Paper. I beg leave to move the first Amendment.
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. I would like to ask your ruling as to how far this Amendment, which enlarges the cost upon the societies and upon the State, is really in order when moved by a private Member? Surely, it is evident that it could not possibly be operative unless some large sum of money is found by the State! I have always understood that a private Member could not move an Amendment which would involve a contribution from the Exchequer.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not know that there is any distinction in this matter between a private Member and a Member of the Government, so long as the Amendment is covered by the financial Resolution.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope the Committee will not devote much time to this Amendment, and that I may be able to appeal to all sections of the Committee not to vote for it, or, if possible, to have it withdrawn. It is evident that this Amendment is quite outside the scope of this Insurance Act Amendment Bill. If it were carried, it would swallow up every farthing of the money that we have under the Bill, and it would cut out all the other Amendments which we have passed in favour of giving extra money to the old men and other things which have been recommended. It would involve the Exchequer in a cost of something like £800,000 a year.
  Mr. GOULDING: I do not think it is so much as that.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The cost to the Exchequer of paying on the first three days' illness from the State would be £800,000. If the State only paid a proportion of it it might be £200,000, but that would mean extending the reserve value by four or five years. None of the friendly societies desire that the reserve value should be extended by four or five years, and in that case the Government would have to bear the whole cost. Therefore, if you pass this Amendment, it would commit the State to finding £800,000 per year. Everyone knows that that would be quite impossible at the present moment. It would quite kill this Bill. I would remind the Committee that no Claus: was more thoroughly threshed out in the House of Commons when the original Bill was being considered than this Clause.
  2976
  The cost of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding), that we should pay for the first day after three days' illness, would be just as great as paying from the first day. That is the opinion of the actuaries and it is the experience of the Workman's Compensation Act. The arguments that were used against it have been intensified by the experience of the friendly societies. I do not think there is a single responsible member of a friendly society who would wish this Amendment to be made. It is one of the substantial checks against excessive sickness claims which the societies now complain of. I do ask hon. Gentlemen, in order to save the Bill, not to vote for this Amendment.
  Mr. BOOTH: May I again raise the point of Order in view of the statement which has just been made? I want to obtain your ruling, Sir, whether a private Member or even a Member of the Government can move an Amendment of this kind? We have already dealt with all the funds which are covered by the Money Resolution voted by the House, and the Resolution does not provide funds for this purpose. Unless the hon. Gentleman claims that all the money must come from the friendly societies, I do not see how it can be in order. If he claims that the money should come from the friendly societies there is not a single person in the country who wants it.
  Mr. GOULDING: There is no limit in the Financial Resolution.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: Do I understand that these Amendments can be considered, notwithstanding the terms of the Standing Order, which relates to the introduction of new charges?
  The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member read the Standing Order?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I do not know whether it is quite relevant.
  The CHAIRMAN: So far as I can form any judgment, I should not feel able to rule any Amendment, even one like this, absolutely out of order, having regard to the wide terms of the Money Resolution which we are working under.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I want to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Worcester. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) is really correct when he says that the friendly societies do not want this benefit at the expense of the prolongation of the Sinking Fund. I hold in my hand a document

  2977
  which has been prepared by the Joint Committee of Approved Societies, and at the end of that document they publish a calculation made by the actuaries whom they employ. They say they want three days' sickness given and they point out that it could be partly met by the prolongation of the Sinking Fund by three and three-quarter years—that is the Joint Committee of Approved Societies. That seems to me, definitely, to be contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said. It is quite clear that the approved societies are perfectly willing to meet a large portion of this expense out of a prolongation of the Sinking Fund. During the Debates in the House on the original Act, one of the reasons which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave was that it would increase malingering. I do not believe that any friendly society man who considered this would agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because malingering is much more likely to take place at the end of six weeks' sickness than during the early days of sickness. That has been the experience of friendly societies. In fact, at one time, collecting societies and friendly societies did not give sickness benefits for the first three days, and practically without exception these societies have dropped that custom, and now they all give sickness benefit in the first day [HON. MEMBERS, "No!"]. Nearly all the big ones do. There is another point. Under the present system your not giving sickness benefit for the first three days leads to the most ridiculous state of affairs. A man for instance, is ill for a week in January; he therefore gets sickness benefit. He then falls ill again in February for a day; he gets one more day's sickness benefit. He falls ill each consecutive month for one day, right away up to December, and he gets fourteen clays' sickness benefit." But if, instead of that, that man fell ill for one day in January and was ill in each of the consecutive months up to December for one day, and for one week in December, he would only get that week's sick pay. That is to say you differentiate for absolutely no reason. One man would get sick pay for fourteen days and another man would only get sick pay for about three days. The existing system differentiates between insured persons in a way that is not in the least justified, and I would very much like to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I do not think that the Committee ought to approach the Amendment now before us as if we were voting whether an insured person should
  2978
  have sick pay from the first day. That is not the point involved in this Amendment, and it will be unfair to suggest that whoever votes for or against that Amendment is voting in that direction. The real position, so far as the friendly societies are concerned, is this: I would ask hon. Members rather to discountenance so much of what they read in statements issued and apply their practical experience of what has happened since the Insurance Act came into operation. Some societies have used their surpluses to give all members the benefit of the first three days; other societies by the additional small contributions over and above the State contribution, are also giving this benefit. Therefore, it is perfectly true that in the main the insured person is not being deprived of the three days' sickness benefit. The Amendment that is now being proposed, means this—that the State must provide the money. That is clear. We have had an intimation that it cannot find this sum except at the expense of some of the other benefits that are roost urgent. Therefore, in approaching this question when the original Bill was under discussion, I moved an Amendment to exclude the three days. It was fully debated and was defeated. But now, when we are considering an Amending Bill in which we have to choose between benefits of a more important kind than this, I think that the Committee ought to approach it from that standpoint also—what is the best benefits that can be given? It will be recognised that benefits on the lines indicated by the Amending Bill are far more important than the three days in this case.
  Sir R. BAKER: I do not quite follow the argument of the hon. Member that this could only be done by money provided by the State, because surely, supposing that this Amendment was accepted, it would be in order to propose a further Amendment that it should he done partly out of the surplus of the Sinking Fund. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) just now stated that the friendly societies are not in favour of this unless it is done by the State. I have got here a paper from which he quoted very often yesterday, the Report of the Joint Committee of the Approved Societies, which was sent out yesterday. It says that anything that can be conceded in the direction of giving sickness benefit for the first three days' incapacity will be appreciated by the societies and that the Amendment by Mr. Goulding and others to Clause 6 should be supported, and that the additional cost should be provided by a further suspension of the Sinking Fund. According to their

  2979
  own figures that would enable this money to be given. That is exactly the opposite to what the hon. Member for Pontefract has just stated, and also to what the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) have stated. I am one of those who believe that the actual effect of giving the benefit for the first three days' actual sickness would not be so alarming as many people think, because I believe that we get a great deal of sickness at present which might be prevented. When a man thinks he is only going to be ill for a day or two and that therefore it is not worth his while to apply for sickness benefits, he turns into his work longer than he would do if be got sick benefit from the first day, and the result is that he gets a more serious illness than if he went to a doctor when he first fell ill, and if the sick benefit were given from the first day in many cases very long illness would be prevented and the eventual drain on the sick fund would be smaller if a man got sickness benefit from the first day and not from the fourth day. I am prepared therefore to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: All the arguments are known on this subject, so that the Committee may make up its mind at once. If this Amendment is carried either the Bill is dropped or all the other benefits go. Quite apart from the fact of any extension of the Sinking Fund the State would have to pay as much for this one benefit as for all the other benefits under the Clause. I submit to the Committee that they might now be prepared to make up their mind whether they want each of the ocher benefits to go or whether they want the Bill to go on at all or not. That is the simple issue on this Amendment.
  Mr. FORSTER: I am very reluctant to give a vote on this matter in silence. While I am strongly in favour of the proposal which has been put forward by my hon. Friend behind me, there are certain objections to taking the course which he suggests at the present time. I think that it is only fair to the Committee that I should say what I think quite frankly. If this Amendment is carried I understand that this Bill will be dropped. We have got to make up our minds as to whether we put payment of the first three days' sickness benefit before everything else that this Bill contains. We have got something else to consider, at least I have. I am not prepared to give the whole of this money required out of the State. I am not prepared
  2980
  to see the whole of the money provided by means of suspending the Sinking Fund. I do not think that we can give an extension of benefit of this kind without charging a proportionate amount upon the friendly and other societies. Then I have to consider In view of what has been alleged on behalf of the societies with reference to excessive claims for sickness, I am determined, as far as I am concerned, that I will not impose any further liability upon the societies' funds until we know more clearly whether or not the fears that the societies themselves express are justified. I do not want to elaborate those points. I only wish to put the Committee in possession of my views, and I would ask my hon. Friend behind me whether in view of what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and of all the circumstances of the case, this is the right moment upon which to press this matter to a Division?
  Mr. GOULDING: When my hon. Friend got up to make his observations I also had got up to say that in view of the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman I would ask leave to withdraw this Amendment. The Government have told us clearly that if the Amendment is carried they would practically drop the Bill that is now under discussion, and therefore all those more immediately pressing Amendments would fall to the ground. In those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Mr. LYNCH: I desire to add one word. In any case I would have voted with the Secretary for the Treasury, but I still feel that this matter should not be allowed to pass without some observations from a medical member of the Committee. I think that the argument addressed to the Committee by the hon. Member behind me (Sir R. Baker) were absolutely cogent, and I should be astonished if the hon. Member for Stepney did not entirely hear me out in this regard, namely, that for the patient to see the doctor and for the doctor to see the patient on the first day on which illness occurs is of the utmost importance, and may save prolonged illness subsequently, and though I do not think that it is a matter for a Committee of this kind to discuss I hope that this question will be taken into account, in view of the subsequent working of the Insurance Act, to see whether in the end it might not be more economical instead of more expensive to adopt the suggestion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add as a new Sub-section:—
  "(3) Where by virtue of this Section, in any year, a society, or, in the case of a society having branches, a branch of a society proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that it has incurred a loss on its benefit funds as compared with its position under the principal Act, there shall be paid to the society, or to the society on behalf of the blanch, as the case may be, out of the sums retained by the Insurance Commissioners for discharging their liabilities in respect of reserve values, the prescribed amount to recoup such loss."
  The reason for this Amendment is self-evident. It safeguards the societies against any loss which may fall upon them in consequence of Clause 6 in the Amending Bill. Under this Section, supposing a man has got compensation and is getting 3s. a week from his society and 7s. a week compensation or 10s. in all, if he has been receiving compensation before, and his friendly society benefit for 20 weeks, under the existing system he can only receive 6 weeks more sickness benefit, but under the Clause of the Bill, taking the 3s. which he has been receiving for 20 weeks, you multiply the 3s. by 20 and that makes 60s.; you divide it by the 10s. sickness benefit, that makes six weeks. That is to say that under that Clause instead of this man being able to get six weeks' more benefit at 10s. a week he will be able to get twenty weeks' more benefit. It is quite clear that that will entail a considerable loss for the societies, and all I want to provide by my Amendment is that the societies shall be recouped any loss (in the event of their incurring any loss) by the State. It is not a very easy calculation to put perfectly clear to the Committee, but I hope I have succeeded in making it fairly clear. This Amendment of mine is merely put down to safeguard the societies.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am anxious to get the Clause before we rise, and I shall therefore reply very briefly. It is really a drafting Amendment to put right what was always the intention of the original Act. There was no acturial calculations which gave the societies the benefit of members being excused sick pay, owing to paying threepence a week over a considerable number of weeks. We have had some cases brought up; but immediately a case was brought up it was seen that it was a mistake in words when men have bad reckoned up against them a number of weeks in which they may
  2982
  have only been receiving sixpence. The House did not intend that; it was not in the actuarial calculations. For that reason we wish to put it right.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: My experience of the Hearts of Oak for a great number of years is that cases of men annually coming up are next to none. Is there then any extra liability accruing in consequence of this Clause if it is passed?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No. All this does is to put right a system whereby a man may be receiving from the sickness fund only, say, 6d. per week, and getting 9s. 6d. a week compensation, and that counts up against him in his twenty-six weeks. Of course, that never was meant by the Bill, and was never in the actuarial calculations, and we just want to put it right.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is not the only point under this Clause. The societies are losing possibly fifty contributions in a certain period from individual insured persons; the average will not be anything like fifty, but if it is only five it is a considerable sum that the societies are losing. That is under Sub-section (1). Under Sub-section (2) they are also losing something. It may be they get it by accident of drafting under the original Act, but still they are losing something. My hon. Friend's Amendment is, knowing as we all know that the societies have not any margin to spare, to ask that, out of the Reserve Value Fund, whatever they are actually losing shall be made good to them.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I did not deal with Sub-section (1), which was not raised.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I was dealing with Sub-section (2).
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Sub-section (1) is entirely to evade an enormous administrative cost to the societies. It is not we who want it, but it is the societies who want it. Any attempt to estimate that amount would involve just as much administrative elaboration in order to calculate it for Reserve Values. We believe the societies will gain under Clause 6 and not lose. We believe the saving they will make in an almost impossibly complicated system of keeping accounts will more than compensate for any loss they may have. It is entirely in the interests of the societies that this Amendment is made.
  Mr. BOOTH: I wish to ask you a question with a view to seeing how this proviso

  2983
  affects the Clause in the Bill, which says that a part only of sickness benefit has been paid. There are cases where nothing at all has been paid—not even a sixpence—and some of the societies will be in a difficulty unless that is put right. While I quite agree with the purpose of it, I would ask why should this cause injury to a fair number who have actually received nothing at all?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It does not apply until twenty-six weeks. It does not begin to register against a man unless he is receiving some sickness.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The next Amendment, standing in the name of Mr. G. Locker-Lampson, was to add, at the end of the Clause, the words, "Where the whole or a portion of sickness or disablement benefit is not distributed in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the principal Act, it shall be paid in cash to the insured person on his return from the workhouse, hospital, asylum, convalescent home or infirmary."
  The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment should be brought in as a new Clause.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I beg to move to add at the end of the Clause, as a new Sub-section, "(3) Sub-section (6) of Section 8 of the principal Act shall be read and construed as if the words 'and is a married woman or, if the child is a posthumous child, a widow' were omitted therefrom."
  Mr. MASTERMAN: What on earth has this to do with the Clause under discussion? It deals with sickness and disablement benefit to married women, which is quite a separate Clause in the Bill as it stands. No question in connection with maternity can have anything to do with this at all.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the same ruling that I applied in connection with medical benefit must apply to this Amendment—
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is Clause 6 of the Amending Bill with which you are now dealing. Is it not in itself a sort of omnibus Clause? It amends Section 8 of the original Act, and also Section 9. I do not know why you should say the omnibus should carry only two passengers when there is obviously room for more.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member rose before I finished my sentence. I have not ruled it out of order.
  Mr. GWYNNE: The effect of this Amendment will be that it will make Section 8 of the principal Act read, "Where a woman confined with a child, if herself an insured person, she shall be entitled to sickness benefit or disablement benefit, as the case may be, in respect of her confinement, and to any part of the maternity benefit to which she or her husband may be entitled." It more or less leaves out the difficulties as to whether she is a married woman or whether the child is a posthumous child or not.
  The CHAIRMAN: I take it the first Amendment the hon. Member moved dealt with sickness benefit only. I think if it brings in disablement benefit it raises a point of Order which has already been taken on this side.
  Mr. GWYNNE: It refers to the same thing to which the Clause itself refers. This Clause alters Sub-section (5). I merely want to alter Sub-section (6). It all comes under the head of benefits.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is moving it. It will be the first on the. Paper to-morrow.
  The Committee adjourned at Four o'clock until 11.30 a.m. to-morrow (Thursday).

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  [Mr. J. W. WILSON in the Chair.]
THIRD DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.
Bill further considered.
THIRD DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Sickness Benefit.)
  (1) So much of Sub-section (5) of Section 8 as requires the payment of fifty contributions between two periods of disease or disablement in order to prevent the one being treated as a continuation of the other shall cease to have effect.
  (2) At the end of the same Sub-section the following provision shall be added—
  "Where by virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of this Act a part only of sickness benefit has been paid to an insured person, he shall for the purposes of this Sub-section be treated as having been in receipt of sickness benefit for a period bearing the same proportion to the whole period in respect of which such part benefit was paid to him as that part bears to the whole benefit, and the period so resulting shall be deemed to have been continuous and to have expired on the last day of the incapacity in respect of which the partial benefit was paid."
  Amendment proposed [23rd July]: At the end of the Clause, to add as a new Sub-section,
  "(3) Sub-section (6) of Section 8 of the principal Act shall be read and construed as if the words 'and is a married woman or, if the child is a posthumous child, a widow,' were omitted therefrom."—[Mr. Rupert Gwynne.]
  Question again proposed, "That those words be added to the Clause."
  Debate resumed.
  The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment was being moved when the Committee adjourned yesterday. From the Mover's statement it was quite evident that it included besides sickness benefit, disablement benefit; and also, on closer examination of this and the next Amendment, it
  2986
  seems to me they affect maternity benefit primarily, and the conditions under which maternity benefit is given. Therefore, they should come under a separate Section, not under this Section. I therefore propose to call upon Mr. Goulding to move his Amendment.
  Mr. GWYNNE: On a point of Order. I do not quite see, as you ruled it in order yesterday, why you should rule it out of order to-day. I quote from yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT:—"The Chairman: The hon. Member rose before I finished my sentence. I had not ruled it out of order." I proceeded to move it, and at the end you, Sir, said, "I will call on you first to-morrow." May I submit, on this point, that this is an Amendment which would alter Sub-section (6) (Section 8 of the principal Act)? Well, the Government themselves have got down an Amendment under this Clause itself (Clause 6), and I submit that I have just as much right to move an Amendment to the original Act, under this Clause, as the Government have to move their Amendment to the same Clause; and if one is out of order, I submit that both are out of order. I am not inserting any additional points which do not come within Clause 8 of the original Bill. I am merely asking that certain words should be left out, so that the Clause may treat in the same way a woman who is not married, and has a child, as it treats a woman who is married. I really cannot see how that is bringing in anything fresh. This Amendment deals with a certain Clause in the original Act, and I am seeking to leave out certain words. I do not see that it is a fresh Clause.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I rise to a point of Order. I understood that the hon. Member had risen to a point of Order, but he is snaking a speech on the matter.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite in order after what was said yesterday. My point yesterday was that, as the Amendment stood on the Paper, I had not detected in it anything which would rule it out of order on this particular Clause, but, as the hon. Member developed his argument, it seemed to me, it referred to Amendments of the principal Act. The hon. Member said Clause 8 of the principal Act deals with maternity benefits. Both these Amendments relate to the Maternity Benefit Clause. Therefore, I thought, for convenience it would be better to have them discussed in another place than this. I quite admit the hon. Member is right.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I understood you had ruled it out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN: No.
  Mr. GWYNNE: We are putting on one side a great many important points which will probably be brushed on one side when we come to the end of this Committee stage. I therefore submit that now is a more convenient time to discuss this question. It is a quite clear and simple point; it is merely this, that a woman who gives birth to an illegitimate child shall have the same privileges which you give to a married woman. I really do submit that this is a most convenient place to discuss it, and I would asked to be allowed to go on with my argument.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): On this point of Order, I would be the last to try and rule the hon. Member out from raising his point, but it is really a maternity benefit point in its essentials, and it would be far more convenient and far more in order to deal with it in connection with the various Maternity Clauses, which will be brought up as Maternity Clauses, than to introduce it into a Clause which deals purely with minor matters in connection with sickness benefit.
  Mr. GWYNNE: The second Amendment does deal with sickness benefit, and this Clause 6 is added sickness benefit. The right hon. Gentleman has not heard my argument in favour of the second Clause. I really do not see why he should rule out all these Amendments merely because one happens to deal with maternity benefit. It is merely leaving out the restriction in Clause 8 of the principal Act, and as we are already dealing with Clause 8 of the principal Act this seems to me the most convenient time for removing that restriction, if we are going to do it. At any rate, we ought to discuss it now. I do press you, Mr. Wilson, to allow me to go on, especially after what you said last night. I do not think it can be said my remarks went very far, because I was stopped before I had spoken more than three or four lines.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I believe we should save time if we got on with the Amendments and did not discuss points of Order.
  The CHAIRMAN: My judgment is this, that it would be more convenient to discuss it later. I cautioned the hon.
  2988
  Member, as you will see from the OFFICIAL REPORT, at the concluding part of yesterday's sitting, that I thought it had developed into a maternity benefit question rather than one of sick benefit. That is to say, sick benefit only arises after cases of maternity, and, therefore, it would be better to deal with it, under another Clause than this. If the hon. Member will accept my ruling I will, as far as I can, secure that he shall have an opportunity later for discussing this point.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Anything I can do to forward that promise I shall do.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I submit to your ruling. With regard to the second Amendment, I take it your suggestions do not cover the whole of these Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst)?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think it is the same point.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As I understand it, it will be more convenient to deal with maternity benefits as a whole, but the second Amendment does not deal with maternity benefits. Quite the contrary, it deals only with sickness and disablement benefit. It is true the person to whom sick and disablement benefits are to be given will also be given maternity benefit, but that does not make it maternity benefit. On the contrary, it comes as a sickness benefit, and is paid out of the contributions for that.
  The CHAIRMAN: I pointed out yesterday that the hon. Member had by his speech put the first Amendment on the same basis as the second, which I said evidently dealt with disablement rather than sickness benefit.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not want to press it unduly, but under the original Act Section 8 is the Section which lays down the conditions of benefit and defines the benefits, and, if that Section stands as it is, will it not be said that a new Clause is brought up which is contradictory to the main Section 8 of the original Act, and that it cannot be moved without amending Section 8 of the original Act? If I am right in that, where would you suggest that an Amendment of this nature should be proposed to Section 8? Where should it come into this amending Bill? The Government have chosen the place; they have chosen this place. All that my hon. Friend is doing is selecting

  2989
  the same lines as the Government have selected, and adding to the Amendments which are being proposed. If ever there was an Amendment of Section 8 it must surely come in here in the place which the Government themselves have selected!
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This new Clause does not say "Amendment to Section 8" either in the Title or in the Clause, and therefore it does not shut out other Amendments to Section 8. Section 8 is here, in the original Act, occupying two and a half pages. It contains a very large number of Sub-sections, and I should submit that an Amendment to Section 8 would be relevant.
  The CHAIRMAN: I take the view that those particular two Amendments are not germane to the subjects mentioned in Clause 6, which we are discussing, whatever the title may be. Members are perhaps misled by the side-note. It seems to me that I should not dream of ruling this Amendment out of order if it were brought forward as a new Clause on the grounds that the hon. Member has referred to.
  Mr. GWYNNE: It would hardly come in as a new Clause because at present in Clause 6 of this amending Bill we are altering Sub-section (5) of Section 8, and I merely want to omit something from Subsection (6) of Section 8. But I would like to know what words did I say yesterday which led the right hon. Gentleman to believe that he had given a wider interpretation to my remarks than he originally thought, because according to the OFFICIAL REPORT I did nothing but read out the Amendment as it stood without making any comment at all.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will look at the last column of the REPORT he will see that he referred to disablement and maternity benefit.
  Mr. GWYNNE: The right hon. Gentleman will find that I did nothing but read out the Amendment itself which he had before him. I made no comment, and no remark upon it.
  Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend, if he wants to be in order here, should move the Amendment leaving out the reference to disablement. I think that that would be clearly in order. All these discussions about order are taking up an unnecessary amount of time.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That would make it exactly the same as the Amendment which has been already ruled out of order.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: If this Amendment is in order, and as Section 8 I think deals with every benefit in the Act, therefore Amendments relating to any benefit would be in order as an Amendment to Clause 6.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think for the general convenience, it is better to take these Amendments which include very wide changes in the original Act as standing by themselves in a separate class, and not coining in under a more or less technical Clause such as Clause 6.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I do not want to be argumentative, but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman who objected to my moving this Clause on general disablement that Sub-section (5) of the principal Act, which is being altered by this Clause, deals with disablement and sickness as well as Sub-section (6), and if he can alter Section 8 in this respect why cannot I? He said yesterday: "What on earth has this to do with the Clause under discussion? It deals with sickness and disablement benefit." So does Sub-section (5).
  The CHAIRMAN: I think if we had not reached this Amendment rather hurriedly at the close of the sitting, the hon. Member would have been perfectly ready to accept my ruling on the matter, if he had made his speech. To that extent I admit that it does give a justification to this discussion that has taken place, and I hope that he will be satisfied to allow us to proceed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. GOULDING: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add,
  "(3) The expression 'day' in Section 8 (1) (c) of the principal Act shall be deemed to mean a calendar day, but such interpretation shall not affect the meaning of the said expression as used in Schedule 2 thereof."
  I hope that this Amendment will be accepted by the Government. The object of the Amendment is to save confusion in the administration of the principal Act, and to prevent, as we have at the present day, Sunday counting in some places and not counting in other places. It is merely to see that there is some uniformity in the administration of the Act throughout the country. The simple point is whether it is desirable to

  2991
  continue the system under which some people interpret Sunday in a different way from that which the Commissioners suggest in the regulations, or whether there should be uniformity throughout the country.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I see now what I did not see before, that the hon. Gentleman's intention in the matter is to deal with the question of Sunday as a day. I do not think that he will meet it by this Amendment, but I am very anxious that the question of Sunday should be dealt with, and if the hon. Gentleman will confer with me at some appropriate time and now withdraw his Amendment, I think that we may be able to produce a. Clause that will deal with this Sunday question. But the suggested Amendment does not deal with it at all.
  Mr. GOULDING: I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman where we would bring it in if we cannot bring it in here, and also why this would not deal with it. I have had it explained to me by those who are very competent to give an opinion that this is the place where it must come in. The right hon. Gentleman agrees that the present position is undesirable, and that the variety of interpretations as to whether Sunday should count or not ought not to continue, but that, in the interests of the good administration of the Act, it is desirable to have uniformity. I am perfectly prepared to meet the right hon. Gentleman, but I do think that I am entitled to know where he thinks this should come in and why this Amendment does not meet the case.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The word "day" already means a calendar day from midnight, and in the Schedule "day" is qualified by the word "working" and would not be affected in any case by the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. I think that we can meet the point on the Schedule. If not, we can meet it on a new Clause. It would have to be a much wider Clause than the mere definition of "day" as it stands at present. I shall he very glad to confer with the hon. Gentleman on this matter.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what is the Government view on the matter. Is Sunday to count or is it not to count as one of the three working days? It would be a guide to the Committee and to my hon. Friend in considering the
  2992
  matter, and in conferring usefully with the Government on this matter, if the Committee knew now what the Government view is. Is it the view of the Government that Sunday should count as one of the three days, or that the three days should be irrespective of the Sunday?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester is willing to withdraw, I do not want to open up a debate now on this subject, but generally I should say that Sunday should not count as one of the working days unless it was normally a working day; but if we could reserve the question until the hon. Gentleman's new Clause comes up, I think we can meet him.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I beg to propose at the end of the Clause to add,
  "(3) The expression 'incapable of work' in Section 8 (1) (c) of the principal Act shall hereafter be interpreted to mean 'incapable of following his ordinary employment.'"
  This Amendment is an Amendment to Clause 6. If you refer to the original Act, Section 8, Sub-section (1), Paragraph (c), you will see "Periodical payments whilst rendered incapable of work by some specific disease or by bodily or mental disablement of which notice has been given, commencing from the fourth day after being so rendered incapable of work and continuing for a period not exceeding twenty-six weeks (in this Act called Sickness Benefit')." This is a matter, I admit of some importance, and it may be a matter involving some cost, but I think it is a matter which we should discuss here, because, if my recollection serves me right, in the original Act it was arranged that when a man was incapable of following his ordinary employment he should receive sickness benefit, and then for some reason, unknown to the House at any rate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer altered the wording of the Clause on Report, but no discussion at all took place in the House. He made the Clause read "incapable of work." I think I am also right in saying that it was one of the points which the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out as an inducement, either at the Tabernacle or some other building where he delivered one of his speeches, in favour of the Act. He stated that as soon as a man was incapable of carrying on his ordinary employment he

  2993
  was to receive sickness benefit. That was passed on the Report stage without any discussion at all. The point really is this: When is a man incapable of carrying on work? Are we to suppose that if a man who is engaged taking down shorthand notes gets writer's cramp from endeavouring to follow the debates of this Committee, and is, therefore, unable to continue in that occupation for a certain time, and if, on the other hand, he can find some less exacting work in the country, he is to be entitled to sickness benefit? That is the point. I will put another case. Supposing a man is a gardener and, being ill, is unable to follow his occupation, say, of digging, but can earn a few shillings by going to a local fair and holding a horse or attending to cattle, is he to be deprived of sickness benefit altogether? [An HON. MEMBER: "What would a friendly society do?"] If the hon. Member knows what a friendly society would do, he can tell the Committee later on. I do not pretend to speak for every friendly society, but I do know, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not know, that the majority of friendly societies wish to have their members fairly treated, and also to have the Act made more clear than it is. They want to know what the interpretation is without having to write to the Commissioners every week asking "What do you think of this case?" and have one decision sent to their society and another decision sent to another society which asks the same question. We have now to discuss the question: "When is a man entitled to sick benefit and when is he not?" I am surprised at the interruption of the hon. Gentleman if he wishes this amending Act to do sonic good to the friendly societies. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give a clear interpretation of the meaning of these words, and that he will enable this Amendment to be inserted in the Bill, because I think it will be fairer, and will certainly save much time if it is put clearly in the Act whether a man is to be incapable of work or incapable of following his ordinary employment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We have heard a great deal, and rightly, in the course of the Committee Debates on the funds of friendly societies and on the funds of approved societies. We have heard a great deal also of the necessity, especially at this time, of protecting the funds of friendly societies. There is not a friendly society or approved society in the United
  2994
  Kingdom that would give any kind of support to the Amendment suggested by the hon. Gentleman. Tins is moved just at the time when friendly societies are complaining, rightly or wrongly, that doctors are giving certificates too easily for persons who are not sick.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Wrongly.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I said "rightly or wrongly." They complain that there is an enormous development of the cases of women who claim sickness benefit, and it is suggested, and I believe there have been a good many cases, of women who when their employment gives not very much more than the amount of their sick pay, are inclined to go on the sick fund, and at the same time to do work at home, taking under those conditions a good rest. I do not want to condemn these people, but it all means ruin or bankruptcy to the approved societies if it goes on. The only test ever used by any approved society is the test of incapacity for work—that is to say, that the man is actually sick. There is a certain amount of discretion given to the friendly societies. They use that discretion, and I believe they use it wisely under the Act, but to make it a rule that a man, who is incapable of working at his ordinary employment, supposing he is a coal miner, can take other work at 20s. or 30s. a week, and yet come on the sick fund, appears to me to be a perfectly monstrous suggestion. I must ask everyone who approves of protecting the funds of friendly societies to vote against the Amendment.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I agree that it is a most monstrous proposal which the hon. Gentleman has made, and it is certainly not one in the interests of the approved societies. Every week the societies have to deal with this very question. Take the railways workers as an illustration. There are probably hundreds of men every week off ill for a period of time. They are capable of some kind of work, but not capable for their ordinary employment. They are earning perhaps three-fourths of their ordinary wages, and to suggest, under these circumstances, that approved societies should be called upon to pay sickness benefit is monstrous, and I can only conclude that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment never consulted anybody about it, and that he does not know what his proposal would really involve.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has been quite fair to my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. I do not want to argue the actual merits of the question, but I think there is a good deal in what the right hon. Gentleman says as to the possibility of friendly societies being financially affected. I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that during the passage of the original Bill through the House practically in the whole of the Committee stage the words, "Unable to provide his own maintenance," were in the Bill, and it was on the strength very largely of these words that the Chancellor of the Exchequer popularised his Bill in the country. I quite well remember that in Whitefield's Tabernacle he said that every person who was unable to provide his own maintenance would have 5s. disablement benefit. He said that over and over again, and it was largely through that promise the Chancellor of the Exchequer popularised that part of the Bill in the country. I do not think it was quite fair for the right hon. Gentleman not to answer that point. There is another point to which I wish to refer. I am not prepared at this moment to say that I can support the proposal quite blankly to allow every person to do a little bit of work under the present scheme, and come under the Act, if he is unable to earn his ordinary wages, but the right hon. Gentleman, in answering my hon. Friend, should have remembered that in Germany there is, under their scheme, the possibility of a person getting benefit and earning pay up to one-third of his ordinary wages. I do not think, therefore, that it is a sufficient answer to say it cannot be done. It is possible that under the actuarial scheme of the Bill it cannot be done, but I believe it is perfectly possible to arrange a scheme by which the members of approved societies, who are thrown out of their ordinary employment, shall be able to get a certain amount of benefit; although earning a very small proportion of their ordinary wages. I think the right hon. Gentleman, in answering my hon. Friend, was not quite fair in making out that the suggestion of my hon. Friend was an impossibility.
  Mr. WING: I should like to say that to pass this Amendment would be to break down one of the safeguards of the friendly societies. They have regarded the doctor as really the man who should say whether a member was entitled to such pay or not. Personally. I regard this as a wrecking Amendment, moved with a desire to upset
  2996
  the actuarial position and then to denounce it as unsound.
  Mr. BOOTH: I want to put right a statement of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). He told the Committee what passed last year. He is entirely in error in the way he put it.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 1911.
  Mr. BOOTH: Yes, 1911. I will refresh his memory as to the facts. There was an. Amendment down to make it "incapable of work," and the Government intimated their intention to accept that. It was an Amendment suggested by the Institute of Actuaries. They asked me to put it down, but an hon. Member on the other side wanted to move it and I gave way to him. When it came on he was not in his place. The Chairman ran rather rapidly through the Amendments without calling the names, and I then intervened and asked whether the Amendment should not be moved. Seeing that the Government had promised to nut in a correct definition, to which the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has referred, and which in my opinion is the only one upon which the societies can work. The Attorney-General put it on the Paper and it was inserted on Report, and all parties were agreed. It was accepted on Report as an agreed Amendment.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot let that observation pass without a challenge. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) has told the Committee only a very small portion of what took place with reference to this Amendment. It certainly was never put in on the Report stage as an agreed Amendment. It was put in under the Closure without a word of discussion in the House of Commons until November or December.
  Mr. BOOTH: That is not true.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member says it is not true. That is not a very mannerly interruption, but we are accustomed to that from him.
  Mr. BOOTH: I did not intend to give offence. It is not what I remember to be the fact.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I accept the hon. Gentleman's plea of want of memory as an excuse for the statement he made. The fact remains that in the Bill as it was introduced the words were

  2997
  "unfit to provide their own maintenance." They were to have sickness and disablement benefit so long as they were unfit to provide their own maintenance. That remained in the Bill until November, or early in December, and then on the Report stage, without discussion or explanation on the part of the Government, the words which are now in the Act were inserted. Then the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) says that to put in this proposal which is almost in the words of the Government when they originally brought in the Bill would be a monstrous thing. I feel sure that right up to December the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself thought that these words were intended to remain in the Bill. We remember his speech in Whitefield's Tabernacle which my hon. Friend has referred to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then said that those who were broken down would get their old age pensions to the end of their days. What he meant by that was that they would get their disablement benefit of 5s. a week on similar lines to the old age pension. A man may be earning up to 8s. a week and yet get his old age pension. He would perhaps be unable to provide for his maintenance, he might be incapable of following his ordinary occupation, and yet he could earn several shillings a week and that would not debar him from receiving the old age pension. If there has been confusion in this matter, and I think there has been confusion, it is entirely the fault of the Government in the way they brought this before the country. My hon. Friend was quite right, in my view, in moving this Amendment to-day, if only for the purpose of getting from the Government what they really mean, and having succeeded in getting a declaration from the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think we need now press the Amendment.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. BOOTH: Mr. Chairman—
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the Amendment might be allowed to be withdrawn, without continuing these personal arguments.
  Mr. BOOTH: It is not a personal argument; it is an attack upon the Government. It is totally unfounded, and I can find for the hon. Gentleman the statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT where the Attorney-General identified the Government with
  2998
  the form of words which are now in the Act, when the Clause was going through. It is absurd to make these party points. It is mere clap-trap.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I have succeeded in getting some information, although I have not got what I wanted. I admit it was a matter of considerable cost and obviously that was a serious consideration in view oil what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) said yesterday. But he did not tell us what the cost would be, and he did not answer the question as to, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had not originally intended this so-called monstrous Clause to be passed. He did not in any way refer to that; he simply put it to one side without argument at all. I think now, under the circumstances, as it is quite clear that total cost would have to fall upon the friendly societies, I should ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment on the Paper is out of order under the ruling given on the previous Clauses.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 7.—(Special Provisions as to Casual and Intermittent Employment.)
  (1) The Insurance Commissioners may by special order modify the principal Act in its application to persons whose employment is of a casual or intermittent nature, and the employers of such persons, and any such order may apply either generally or to any one or more particular trades or industries or branches thereof and either generally or in any one or more particular localities, and where any such order is restricted to a particular trade or industry or branch thereof in a particular locality, it may extend to other persons if employed in the same class of employment as the persons to whom the order primarily relates.
  (2) The order may provide for the amounts of the contributions payable by the employer and by the employed contributor respectively, and their payment, recovery and collection in such manner, in such proportions and in respect of such periods as may be specified in the order, and for the apportionment amongst employers of the amounts payable by employers, and may modify and adapt the provisions of the principal Act accordingly, so however

  2999
  that the employer's contributions shall not exceed sixpence nor the employed contributor's contributions fourpence (or in the case of a woman threepence) in any week, nor, if the contributions are payable day by day, shall the employed contributor's contribution for any day exceed one penny.
  (3) The provisions of the principal Act as to the laying of regulations before both Houses of Parliament and the proceedings consequent thereon shall apply to special orders made under this section in lieu of the provisions contained in Subsection (2) of Section 113 of the principal Act.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "may" ["The Insurance Commissioners may by Special Order"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
  There are several other Amendments in my name which are not strictly consequential upon the Amendment I am now moving. I want to have this treated as a separate question altogether. The other Amendments stand or fall altogether. They are all one hatch with the exception of that which deals with the consultation with an Advisory Committee. I do not want to go over the ground which I travelled over yesterday. I have the greatest respect for the existing body of Insurance Commissioners, but I must say I cannot understand hon. Members, especially those belonging to the Liberal party acquiescing in this enormous increase, Clause by Clause, of the powers of the Commissioners. It is a perfect farce to be bringing in amending Bills to the Insurance Act if you allow the Insurance Commissioners to alter it at their own sweet will whenever they want to do so. If this sort of thing goes on, if we continue to give the Insurance Commissioners those very wide and perfectly immeasurable powers, we shall be, in respect to insurance, living under the widest bureaucracy of any country in the world. I feel very strongly about this. I am not going to make a long speech about it. I think it is a very important question, but, it can be put in a very few words. If we are to go on giving these Insurance Commissioners power after power to do exactly what they like it is absolutely no use for Parliament to legislate about the Insurance Act at all.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I understand the protest of the hon. Gentleman, but I do
  3000
  not understand how his Amendment can stand without a consequental Amendment. By itself, the Amendment tries to compel the Insurance Commissioners to make various schemes in connection with casual labour. They want to make schemes and they will present schemes. The Clause dealing with that can be explained later on. Without consequential words it is absurd to say that the Insurance Commissioners shall make various schemes, if those schemes prove to be impossible in action.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I certainly wanted to make my protest, and I want also to move my Amendment with regard to consultation with the Advisory Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "may" ["The Insurance Commissioners may by Special Order"], to insert the words "after consultation with the Advisory Committee."
  I do not think that the answer the Government gave yesterday is at all satisfactory. It is quite true that it would be very cumbersome to ask the whole of the Advisory Committee to meet very time when some small point had to be discussed, but it seems to me perfectly possible for the Advisory Committee to appoint subcommittees of experts on certain subjects, and that when one of those subjects came up the Commissioners should call upon the one, two or three persons belonging to that particular sub-committee to advise them on the question. I move the Amendment in order to limit the at present practically unlimited powers of the Insurance Commissioners. I think it would be a safeguard if they were obliged to consult the experts on the Advisory Committee before coming to a decision on this very important question of casual labour.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied, as he and also the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson) were satisfied yesterday. I not only promised in general terms, but I promised to see if we could not lay some kind of Paper on the Table of the House showing how the kind of thing that the hon. Member desires may be carried out. The Commissioners have no objection to consulting the Advisory Committee on any subject under the sun, subject to the two conditions which I laid down, of not calling

  3001
  them together on tiny points, for they are all busy men, and of not necessarily calling the whole Advisory Committee together. Really, the same arguments apply as yesterday. The hon. Member was satisfied yesterday, and I would ask him to be satisfied to-day.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I thought the answer of the Secretary to the Treasury yesterday had substance in it, because obviously you cannot call a large body together to discuss minor points. But this is not a minor point. This is a very different Clause from the one we were discussing yesterday. This is practically to make a new Act applying to casual labour. The Insurance Commissioners, however capable they are, have not the practical knowledge of the work of casual labour from the point of view either of the employer or of the casual labourer. They cannot have. But the Advisory Committee have. There are sitting on the Advisory Committee men accustomed to every class of question which will come up in settling the scheme. While I think my hon. Friend was right yesterday in accepting the assurance of the Secretary to the Treasury that he would find some way whereby minor matters might be considered by Sub-Committees of the Advisory Committee, or some other method, yet I think my hon. Friend will be equally wise in insisting on his Amendment to-day, seeing that it deals with so complicated a matter.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I would like to draw the attention of Committee first of all to the fact that Sub-section (3) of this Clause compels the Commissioners to lay upon the Table regulations made under the Clause.
  Mr. WORTHINGTONE-EVANS: That is going to be amended.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Therefore we have not merely my right hon. Friend's assurance; we have a statutory provision that that must be done. With reference to the guarantee which this Amendment seems to give that the Insurance Commissioners will only draft such orders in and after consultation with experts, I am afraid I take another view. I am not so sure that upon the Advisory Committee you have exactly the sort of people with whom the Commissioners should consult. This is purely an industrial question. I do not know anything about it, but I think the Com-
  3002
  missioners would be very well advised if they made their orders as elastic as the conditions of the labour contemplated to be dealt with under this Clause. They might issue one scheme to apply to Liverpool; they would find that that scheme would not apply to the London Docks; they might find that neither the Liverpool nor the London scheme would apply to Glasgow; when they came to Hull another kind of scheme would be necessary; and so on. I think that whilst the administration of this very complicated question is still in an experimental stage it would be advisable for us to give the Commissioners to understand that in making these orders they should not confine themselves to the members of the Advisory Committee, but should consult all the interests concerned. Certainly we who are present in this Committee will keep a very close watch upon every scheme laid on the Table in the House of Commons udder this provision, and if we find—I am speaking for my own friends of course that any of those schemes do not receive the consent of the people concerned we shall certainly take the Parliamentary method open to us to oppose such schemes. Therefore I think we shall safeguard ourselves much more if we do not, as proposed by this Amendment, confine the consultation to Members of the Advisory Committee, but put the responsibility upon the Commissioners to produce a scheme which will have the approval of the two sections concerned—Labour and Capital. Otherwise, on the floor of the House of Commons, we shall certainly challenge the schemes and compel the Commissioners to produce evidence why they have drafted them.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Personally, I think it would be advisable to insert these words. I can see nothing in the argument just adduced to prevent the Commissioners from consulting other persons than those on the Advisory Committee. The Amendment simply says that they shall consult the members of the Advisory Committee, but it does not in any way preclude them from consulting, as I suppose they would feel themselves bound to consult, other experts, if they were unable to get from the Advisory Committee the information and advice which they were seeking. Section 58 of the original Act, which refers to the Advisory Committee, was evidently inserted with a view to requiring the Commissioners before drawing up any regulations to consult the Advisory

  3003
  Committee. The terms are very explicit. It does not say that the Insurance Commissioners may, but that
  "The Insurance Commissioners shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act appoint an Advisory Committee—"—
  For what purpose?—
  "for the purpose of giving the Insurance Commissioners advice and assistance in connection with the making and altering of regulations under this part of the Act."
  Further than that, the Advisory Committee must comprise representatives of associations of employers. Therefore I take it that the Commissioners would have every opportunity, by consulting with the Advisory Committee, of ascertaining The view of employers in particular districts with respect to any regulations that they might be able to draw up. And it seems to me only reasonable that these words should be placed in this Clause in order to call attention to the importance of Clause 58. There is nothing whatever in the words that are here introduced or even in the words of Clause 58, which compel the Commissioners to consult the whole of the Advisory Committee. They can call together as many as they think necessary to give them the particular advice and assistance which they require, and if that is not the case it only shows how badly the original Act is drawn up, if it would compel the Commissioners on every point on which they require advice and assistance to call together all the members of the Advisory Committee. If the Financial Secretary can assure us that he will be able to introduce words that will make it necessary in this respect and other respects that the Commissioners shall summon such members of the Advisory Committee as will be capable of giving them advice on the question of drawing up regulations, I think we may be satisfied with such assurance.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The saddest part of this discussion is the amount of time that we are wasting over it.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Then why not accept the Amendment?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No; because if I did accept it, it would produce the very result to which hon. Members object. In
  3004
  any scheme dealing with dock labour, in Bootle or in Plymouth, it would be necessary to bring up the whole of the Advisory Committee and men from Ireland and Scotland to deal with it. I think I met the hon. Member opposite very fairly, and he ought to realise, if I may say so with respect, that I have met him fairly on this and other questions. I promise that we will lay before Parliament some arrangement that would enable us without bringing together the whole body of the Advisory Committee to provide that the representatives of the special interests concerned are consulted on the subject. That was a offer which I thought was accepted yesterday and I hope the Committee will not persist in the demand made by this Amendment.
  Mr. GWYNNE: It seems to me that if ever there was a case for consulting the Advisory Committee, this is one. It is a matter of great importance; it is not a matter which should be done in a hurry; it means time and it is really a matter of making new Clauses in the Act. I cannot imagine why the right hon. Gentleman is so much against the Advisory Committee. He is chairman of that body; he is not chairman and has no official position in connection with the Commissioners. It is quite evident he does not seem to have much confidence in his own body. Why the Advisory Committee should be consulted is this: In regard to unemployment the conditions are very varied, and we should have the opinion of various districts. Why they cannot call up the members of the Advisory Committee who know and have experience of certain classes of labour I cannot understand. There is another reason and it is this: If we are going to have these provisions and requirements made, then if the Advisory Committee is consulted we have the advantage of having more publicity and less privacy. The Commissioners are in the happy position of making any regulations they like without giving any reason. If we have the Advisory Committee there is much more publicity and we know more about what is happening. The hon. Member for Leicester said that we will have these regulations laid upon the Table of the House. Surely he must be aware that when they are laid upon the Table, we can only discuss them after eleven o'clock, and I would like to ask him, is he satisfied with that opportunity for discussion which we are afforded downstairs?
  Mr. GEORGE HAMILTON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he lays these proposals upon the Table, if it will be compulsory upon the Insurance Commissioners to consult the Advisory Committee under them?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I said I will consider that proposal; I have no objection to consulting anyone. What I am trying to prevent the Commissioners from doing is spending £200 every time.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I very much dislike withdrawing the Amendment, but as there are important new Clauses coming up later on, involving important discussion, and after what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "Special" ["the Insurance Commissioners may by Special Order modify"], and to insert instead thereof the word "Provisional."
  This Amendment proposes to substitute procedure by Provisional Order instead of Special Order. I would point out the extraordinary roundabout way in which under the Clause as it stands, the actual proposals of the Bill are embodied. The Clause says, "The Commissioners may by Special Order modify the principal Act." The procedure by Special Order is laid down in Section 113 of the principal Act combined with the Ninth Schedule, and under the operation of that Clause 113 and the Ninth Schedule there are rather elaborate provisions made for giving notice to people who may object, and for holding inquiries as the case may be; and the length of time that each order has to lie upon the Table before it becomes law is thirty days. Therefore, when the Clause refers to Special Order, primâ facie one would imagine that is the procedure to be adopted, but when we turn to Sub-section (3) we find that is not so, and that Special Order in this particular case is not to be Special Order, but is to be governed by Section 65, which deals with the power of the Commissioners to make ordinary regulations, and under that Section a Special Order, so called in this Section we are now discussing, shall be treated as if it was a mere regulation which shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and shall then be treated as if it was included
  3006
  in the Act, and after twenty-one days become operative unless an Address has been presented. As my hon. Friend remarked just now in answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, the procedure by Address is a very unsatisfactory method of Parliamentary control, at all events at the present day. Everyone knows the opportunity of discussing such matters is limited, and it is very difficult after eleven o'clock to get people interested, and such Parliamentary control really becomes farcical. On the other hand, procedure by Provisional Order is perfectly well known and is familiar to everybody. It is the method by which municipal matters are usually dealt with, and what I suggest is where you have such very wide powers conferred upon the Commissioners as is proposed to be given them by this Clause, it is very necessary that there should be rigid Parliamentary control and supervision over the changes you make, seeing they practically amount in every case to an amending Act of Parliament. The question of casual labour dealt with by this Clause has been all along recognised as one of the most important and difficult problems with which the Insurance scheme has to deal. And it is very desirable that the Commissioners should not be able to deal with the whole of this problem and to modify the proportion of the contribution from employer and employed, and in the case of certain classes of casual labour turn it into a non-contributory scheme by such means. I do submit in such circumstances we ought to keep in the hands of Parliament a greater and a more effective power of supervising, such as procedure by Provisional Order would secure in the House of Commons.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): No one can make any complaint of the solicitude of hon. Members both on that side and on this that there should be effective control, but I hope that I may persuade the hon. Member not to press for Provisional Order procedure. First of all, the Provisional Order would not take effect until it were confirmed by Parliament, and, if there were any opposition, the Provisional Order, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, would have to be referred to a Select Committee, or to a Committee upstairs, and that would make Clause 7 practically useless. I do not think I put it too highly when I say that it would take the greater part of a year to get it through, and supposing

  3007
  Parliament were not sitting, I think I am right in saying that a single objector could prevent the thing going forward. I may add that the whole procedure would not only be slow, but also costly. How would the Commissioners go to work in devising a scheme to be embodied in the Special Order under Clause 7? My right hon. Friend has laid it down that, of course, they would consult closely the interests affected. That would be their obvious duty. Then they would proceed under Schedule 9 of the original Act, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. They would publish notice of their proposal to make an Order. They would publish notice of the place where the Order could be obtained. They would publish and state the time, not less than twenty-one days, within which objection could be taken. They would have to consider legitimate objections. They are not compelled to make Amendments, but where they do not amend or withdraw any draft order to which any objection has been made, then, unless the objection is either withdrawn or appears to them to be frivolous, they shall, before making the Order, direct an inquiry to be held.
  Mr. R. M'NEILL: The Ninth Schedule, as I understand this Clause, has nothing whatever to do with this point.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly it has.
  Mr. R. M'NEILL: It is only brought into operation by virtue of Section 113.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We are dealing with the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 113. That is abrogated in favour of procedure by regulation, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman properly referred in Section 65. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the Bill, he will see that the procedure under the Ninth Schedule has to be followed, because Sub-section (1) of Section 113 is not modified. I say that they would have to direct an inquiry to be held and
  "The Authority may appoint a competent and impartial person to hold an inquiry with regard to any draft order, and to report to them thereon."
  "(2) The inquiry shall be held in public, and any objector and any other person who, in the opinion of the person holding the inquiry, is affected by the draft order, may appear at the inquiry, either in person or by counsel, solicitor, or agent."
  3008
  In order to meet any possible objection as to the thoroughly impartial character of the inquiry, hon. Members will observe that we propose to amend the procedure under the 9th Schedule. Instead of the Commissioners appointing the person who shall hold the inquiry, we propose to ask the Lord Chancellor, so that the Commissioners may be entirely detached from this part of their proceedings. Thereafter we proceed, under Section 65, as the hon. Member pointed out—
  "The Insurance Commissioners may make regulations … and any regulations so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and shall have effect … provided
  and so on, the Address to be moved within twenty-one days. I think, therefore, that everything is safeguarded. If there is any question whatever about the Commissioners not appointing the right persons for some reason or other, we have safeguarded that by saying that the Lord Chancellor shall appoint them.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is this Amendment bringing in Section 65, instead of Section 113, intended to reduce the time during which objection may be taken in Parliament from thirty to twenty-one days?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It would have that effect.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is that the only effect it would have, and, if not, what is the object of it? It is important.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Supposing a scheme were passed through this October, and no, objection were taken, it would enable the scheme to come into operation.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Whether the House is sitting or not?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes; but it can be challenged afterwards when the House is sitting.
  Mr. NIELD: I cannot understand why this cumbrous machinery which involves, an Address to the House should be sustained here. The Government must have forgotten that only quite lately in the Trade Boards Act they provided for the fixing of minimum wages in a trade or branch of a trade by holding inquiries and making Provisional Orders. I and one or two of my colleagues have only just finished an examination of the earlier

  3009
  Act which seeks to enforce Provisional Orders. Now for the first time, the Board of Trade has come to Parliament by Provisional Order, tsking for sanction to a series of trades being incorporated in the Schedule, and we have had an opportunity of giving that security to the public which the public demands, of being heard before what is called a Hybrid Committee of the House by counsel, and the matter has been adjusted perfectly satisfactorily, the Order has been confirmed, and the Bill will go through. I cannot see why these should not be grouped in the same way. Make your orders, and then, having got a group of orders, apply for confirmation as in the case of the Minimum Wages Act. I venture to think that is a far safer method from the point of view of the public at large and of those concerned than the cumbrous proposals you have here.
  Mr. R. M'NEILL: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said, but, at the same time, I admit that the right hon. Gentleman has removed a great deal of the objection I felt, and, with the leave of the Committee, I would like to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON(who had given notice of an Amendment in Subsection (1), after the word "persons" ["in its application to persons"] to insert the words "every person"): The whole of the Amendments standing in my name, and of which this is the first, stand or fall together. I have been thinking them over very carefully indeed, and I have come to the conclusion that it is not quite fair to ask the Committee to decide upon a constructive scheme, which is so complicated, and of which, of course, they have not had very long notice. I could hardly expect the Government, even if they were in favour of such a scheme, to adopt one so very complicated without further consideration, and I especially do not want to take up the time of the Committee. I have thought it over very carefully, and I do not propose to move my Amendments here now, but I should like to make it a condition of not moving that we do have further opportunity of discussing the question of casual labour either here or in the House.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: What do you mean—on this Bill?
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, on this Bill—a further opportunity of discussing casual labour and of finding out from the Government, if possible, what sort of regulations are going to be made. If I can get that promise in some form or other I will not press any of these Amendments. They all stand or fall together.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot promise anything in the House, and I do not know about a new Clause, but I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to have a general discussion now. If the hon. Gentleman will formally move his Amendments, my hon. Friend will state the intentions of the Government, and perhaps we can get Clause 7 before we adjourn for lunch.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think that is a very reasonable suggestion.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is necessary to have some Motion before the Committee.
  Mr. GOULDING: Would it not be better to have the discussion on the Clause itself?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, I think so.
  Mr. W. PEARCE: Is my Amendment, providing that the employed contributor's contribution for any day shall not exceed 1d., out of order? I am trying to make the provision mandatory, because it is evident that the Clause is intended to cover other situations than the daily contribution. I put it down in the hope of eliciting a general discussion. It having now been decided there shall be a discussion at the end of the Clause, I would like to know if the Clause covers the provisions for others than those people who pay day by day. There has been a pool established in Liverpool under the main Act, and I think the Clause would work much simpler if my words were accepted. As drawn, it principally apparently meets the case of London, and I feel bound to say that, amongst employers generally, there is a vast amount of apprehension about the supposed intention of the Government to rely upon the employers' pool in London. Every authority I have consulted considers this would be absolutely impossible and unworkable.
  The CHAIRMAN: May I make an appeal to the hon. Member? It is the general desire of the Committee that the discussion should be taken on the Motion

  3011
  that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, and any expectation of the Government accepting this Amendment must prejudice that discussion.
  Mr. W. PEARCE: Very well, I do not move.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "provide for the amount of" and insert instead thereof the words "make provision as to the amount of the employed rate and for."ߞ[Dr. Macnamara.]
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (3) to add the words,
  "Provided that in lieu of the inquiry as regards any draft order under the said Section 113, there shall be substituted for the purposes of this Section an inquiry to be held by one or more competent and impartial persons to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the demand (made in the prescribed manner) of the person making the objection to the draft order." I have already explained why we put in the Lord Chancellor, and I think the proposal will meet with the approval of the Committee generally.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have now to move "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Perhaps the Committee will allow me, at the suggestion of my right hon. Friend, to make a general statement as to the aims and purposes of the Government. The Committee, of course, recognise that we have reached one of the most difficult, if not the most difficult, of the problems of National Insurance—the endeavour to bring casual and intermittently employed persons within the field of insurance. The problem is very difficult, and when we originally devised the scheme of insurance, I think we might have been tempted to throw our hands up in despair, and to exclude these people. It would have saved a lot of trouble, but, in my opinion, it would have been cowardly, because just where the problem is most difficult—where it is most difficult to bring these people into the field of insurance—there the need of the benefits, as far as their wives and children are concerned, is almost acute. We have done our best in the original Act, and I am glad to say that in certain localities it has been found possible to
  3012
  adapt the provisions of the original Act without much difficulty. South Wales and Liverpool are examples of the application of the original Act, which, if by no means perfect, do show that no small amount of success has been attained in pursuing the effort to include casual labour. I should like, if I may, to pay testimony to the good sense of employers and employed and to their public spirit in having carried the work as far as they have done. The problem is one of very great difficulty, and I think we ought to be grateful to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), and to all who have endeavoured to bring their contribution to the common effort at, solution. My only excuse—my only justification for presuming to deal with this for a moment or two, is that I have most gladly spent no little time, for a long period past, in consultation with hon. Friends in the House, and with a great many people outside, to see if this particular difficulty cannot be surmounted. One conclusion has emerged conspicuously to my mind, and that is that no one hard and fast scheme can be made applicable to the needs and industries of all localities.
  This is our purpose. We propose a general empowering Clause, under which the Commissioners may frame schemes applicable to particular industries and particular localities, and in such schemes may make provision as to the amount of the employed rate, and may prescribe the method of collection, with this proviso that the employer's contribution shall not exceed 6d., and that the employed contributor's contribution shall not exceed 4d. in the case of men, or 3d. in the case of women in any one week, nor, if the contributions are payable, day by day, shall the employed contributor's contribution exceed 1d. I think the hon. Member for Limehouse overlooked the proviso when he thought it necessary to put down the Amendment which he has now withdrawn—
  "Nor, if the contributions are payable day by day shall the employed contributor's contribution on any day exceed 1d."
  We provide for complete elasticity of method, and there is room for a considerable variation of plans. We have heard criticisms this morning to the effect that this is another instance of tyrannical bureaucracy which is endeavouring to legislate over the head of the House of Commons. Do we look like tyrannical bureaucrats? If any hon. Member opposite asserts that we do, then he is suffer-

  3013
  ing from an optical illusion. We are not tyrannical bureaucrats. I, personally, dislike bureaucratic methods, but they are sometimes inevitable. What can you do here? You can put into this Bill a hundred and one different schemes, and it is quite possible to do that, but what we do find is, that we are bound to define the limit of financial obligation of the employers and employed person, while in the original Act we define the return in benefits which the employed person will get. For the rest, the precise scheme must be left to Special Order, and the procedure which I have described sufficiently secures full publicity for our purpose. Due notice must be given. There will be full opportunity for challenging criticism on the final machinery set out under the regulation in Clause 65 for annulling and setting aside a scheme if hardship, unsuitability, or inapplicability can be shown. Surely this gives all that reason and common sense, and a solicitude that injustice may not be done, can demand.
  Generally, this is what we hope and expect. The discussion of schemes is a matter for the future. We simply empower these good people to put their heads together, and see if they can devise a scheme. What we hope is this. First, that it may be possible to prevent the practice of compelling a man, in order to get a day's work or a week's work, to stamp his card with his employer's contribution as well as his own. We hope it may be possible to prevent that, and we hope it may be possible to prevent a man having to pay 4d. if he only gets a chance of one or two days' work during the week. We hope also it may be possible to adapt the original provisions of the Act in such a way as to secure full benefits for these poor people, many of whom, I admit, find it difficult under the original Act to secure those benefits. We may not entirely succeed. I do not want to put it too high, but I think with the hearty goodwill and co-operation of everybody—and we are entitled to demand that we—may do something to remove some of the difficulties which have arisen in the attempt to solve one of the most difficult problems that confront us in bringing insurance to casual and intermittently employed persons.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, this question particularly affects persons employed casually in various kinds of agricultural and horticultural labour. Personally, I am quite
  3014
  satisfied with the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given, provided he sees that the Advisory Committees, with rural representatives upon them, are consulted before this regulation, having been laid on the Table, can have the effect of law. There is room, no doubt, for a good deal of criticism, and the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the way in which the Commissioners differentiate between one kind of employment and another. There is a good deal of serious commentary upon their mode of treating this question—commentary coming from Lancashire particularly, where there is a very large amount of casual labour, especially on the part of women and children. It is very difficult to understand the principle upon which the Commissioners, so far, have differentiated between one kind of labour and another. For instance, they have exempted altogether persons engaged in such occupations as flower pulling and onion-peeling. They have treated somewhat differently 'those engaged in the hop and potato-picking, while those who come largely from Ireland and are engaged in potato-raising are treated differently altogether. Considering the immense powers the Commissioners have, I think we must agree, in fairness to those persons employed, that when the regulations are laid on the Table there shall be an opportunity for those who represent these interests, and for the Advisory Committees, to discuss them.
  Mr. NEWTON: I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech with amazement. I take it that the business of this Committee is to correct the faults which have been discovered in the working of the Insurance Act. Instead of attempting to do that, the right hon. Gentleman comes down here, and asks us to give complete elasticity of method to somebody else. I think that is a very unsatisfactory position. The right hon. Gentleman asks how can we put into an Act of Parliament 101 schemes? That, of course, is a difficulty, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman and his Commissioners might have had ready for us some schemes dealing with some of these trades, areas, and industries which we might have looked into at the time we were handing over to them these powers. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I feel it is not a part of my duty to give a blank cheque to any body of gentlemen. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend, in drawing up different regulations for persons employed in the agricultural industry,

  3015
  the Commissioners are causing a very great deal of confusion. Surely it would have been possible for the Commissioners to have prepared some scheme, so that we could have had greater confidence in entrusting these very wide powers to them. I am not suggesting that the Committee should undertake the enormous work of providing for every class and variety of labour, but I do want, in very moderate language, to express the dissatisfaction I feel that we are now to hand over unlimited powers to the Commissioners.
  Mr. PEARCE: I dislike giving a blank Cheque just as much as the hon. Member who has just spoken, but after a full inquiry into the matter I have come to the same conclusion as my right hon. Friend that it is impossible to embody all these specific remedies in a Clause of this kind. I came to that conclusion with much regret. I made many attempts myself, and in consultation with my hon. Friends, to get something out into the Bill to meet all conceivable cases, and there are many great grievances in this respect, particularly in the East End of London. I will not repeat them now, because they were exceedingly well stated by my right hon. Friend, but I want him and the Commissioners to avoid two things. Speaking as an employer, I do hope that they will go in for simplicity, and avoid trouble. I am sure that employers would prefer to pay rather more for a simple plan than pay less for a complicated and troublesome plan. I want to warn the right hon. Gentleman against any attempt to establish an employers' pool in the County of London. I have seen most of the people who are considered the best authorities in London on this subject, and their one opinion is that an employers' pool in London is an absolute impossibility. Although these wide powers are being given to the Commissioners, I do hope that they will not embark upon a scheme of that sort, because I am sure it will only give trouble to everyone concerned.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: I think hon. Members will agree that Clause 7 is an attempt to deal with a problem which bristles with difficulties on all hands. I think the procedure contemplated by this Clause is the correct one. It is quite impossible for the Commissioners to submit schemes to be discussed by this Committee, and to be incorporated in a Bill.
  3016
  Elasticity must be the essential principle in dealing with casual labour. As has already been indicated, modified schemes will be required to meet the varying difficulties of different parts of the country, and, of course, an essential feature also of the success of any such scheme must be a general acquiescence on the part of the various bodies concerned. Therefore, I feel it would be extremely unwise to attempt to give schemes of this nature a statutory character. From the point of view of the casual labourer, I think the Clause goes far enough. I have just one apprehension in regard to it. I feel that this Clause is not going to achieve the purpose everybody has in view of keeping the casual labourer in benefit. That is the real purpose we have to aim at. I must say, however, that it will allow us to get to know the problem intimately. We shall understand its dimensions better, and when the casual labourers' contributions have been divided up into sevenpences we shall know how many are excluded from benefit, and what is necessary to keep them in benefit. We accept this proposal simply as an experiment, and we feel sure the ultimate result must be that some State assistance must be given to this large class of casual labour in order that they may have the benefits of the Act which are denied to them, owing to circumstances over which they have no control. My colleagues and myself accept this Clause as one of an experimental character, which will, later on, enable us to apply further consideration to the question.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Speaking from the point of view of the workers in the East End of London, this is the most important Clause in the Amending Bill. I do not hesitate to say that the Act has worked very great hardship in East London. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Pearce) stated his opinion quite so clearly to-day as I have known him state it down below. The question is whether the experience which is going to be gained under the scheme put forward by the Government will be subject to proper review by the House of Commons, or whether we are, once and for all, surrendering any power of amending the principal Act in regard to casual labour. The memorandum issued by the Government in regard to the Bill states:—
  "The proposed procedure by Special Order secures that the fullest opportunity for discussion shall be afforded to persons interested before any scheme under

  3017
  the Clause is put into operation. Under the Ninth Schedule to the Act a special Order cannot come into force until it has been published in draft for not less than 21 days in a manner calculated to bring the proposals which it embodies to the notice of the persona affected."
  Does that mean that there will be any opportunity hereafter, except on the production of an amending Bill, to review the conditions of casual labour in this country.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly. I think that was explained, and was accepted, by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. The hon. Member for Mile End was not here.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I was unable to be here. I want to point out that at present the whole of the attempt to deal with casual labour satisfactorily in London has broken down. The pooling schemes are not applicable to London, and in the Insurance Blue Book, in dealing with the administration of the Act during last year, no case is given from London, nor is any scheme explained under which any part of this problem has been dealt with. The whole of the special schemes adopted and explained in the report of the Commission have been carried out in provincial towns and cities of the size of Liverpool, but they have not been applied, and to my mind are not applicable, to London. The process of the decasualization of labour has been carried out pretty drastically in East London, and it has been an immense hardship to the people there. I daresay hon. Members who are sitting on the Back Bench opposite are in favour of decasualization, but even they must have heard a good deal of the hardship done in these cases to individuals and to particular families by this rapid process of decasualization. It has not made the working of the Act any smoother in the parts of London given over to casual labour, and here we are surrendering specific Amendments to allow these schemes to be brought forward. What guarantee have we that any scheme for dealing with casual labour in London has ever even been considered by the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman has not suggested anything in this direction. It is true that he has referred to the pooling arrangement adopted in provincial seaports. They may be very well adapted to those places.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It would be against the genius of this Clause if I were to come here with a cut and dried scheme, because that is a matter for consultation with the parties interested.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is there not too much genius in the Bill, and too little information given? We are trusting to the genius of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. What we want is something to go upon, in order to be able to deal with the questions one is likely to be asked in the future as to the working of the Act. We ask for bread and are given a stone. Although the elasticity and adaptation in particular cases are made the essence of the Bill, still let us take the case of the London Docks, which is a great trade centre, and where an enormous amount of casual labour is employed. Surely some means could have been suggested which might be adopted or considered for carrying out schemes under this Clause. Nothing has been said upon that. Casual labour is left exactly where it has been for the last year—in an absolute state of chaos and hardship. I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite who speak for labour should have been content to accept the position that no proposal or suggestion of a scheme was put forward in the Bill, and should simply say that they believe the elasticity of the Clause will provide for all these things in future. I am not content myself, and am bound to make a protest. I see that the friendly societies themselves have made a protest. I hold in my hand a report of an interview in which the secretary of the Prudential Approved Societies says that there has been great hardship in the working of the provisions of the Act with regard to casual labour, and that he hopes that there might be some amendment. We have no security that there is to be any real amendment where the cases press hardest. We have had a suggestion that pooling arrangements might be made. I do not believe that pooling arrangements can be satisfactorily made in London. There is no part of the country so vitally affected by this problem and I am very disappointed that the Government have not made a more explicit and satisfactory arrangement.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: The Committee will make a mistake if they look at the Clause simply as one enabling pooling arrangements to be made. We are face to face with this casual labour difficulty, and this Clause seems to me the only alternative from removing all casual labour front insurance. Then you have the difficulty of deciding who is a casual labourer. I support this proposal mainly because I understand that under it we are giving

  3019
  the Commissioners power to make special arrangements for all casuals. I would warn the Government, if such warning is necessary, that even if they deal with all the casual problem which can be dealt with in masses and which can be suitably dealt with under pooling arrangements, they have then left a very large number of people who are casually employed in individual capacities or in groups which cannot be pooled. I hope it will be found that under the powers we are here giving to the Commissioners it will be possible to arrange for the special treatment of the individual casual or the casual not grouped in particular trades or in sufficient masses to enable a pooling arrangement to be made. The only other observation I have to make is that I think there is a great deal too much expected of the Insurance Act in this matter of casual labour. The real difficulty of casual labour is not an insurance problem at all. You cannot insure what people have not normally got. The principle of the Insurance Act is to provide that a person who normally earns what I hope is a living wage will get something approaching it when he is sick. If a person is so unfortunately situated that he only gets work a few days a week you cannot expect him to pay 4d. to provide for himself when he is sick, in order that he may receive a larger sum than he earns when he is well. That is a problem with which we shall have to deal outside Insurance altogether. I hope that the working of this Clause will provide us with the data which will enable us to deal with that problem.
  Mr. O'GRADY: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Harry Lawson) was hardly fair to hon. Members sitting upon these benches who represent labour. We did not accept the scheme blindly, neither did we accept the Clause in the Bill blindly. It has been a matter of very serious and lengthy negotiation to get the best possible terms in the Clause as between those of us interested in this matter, both in the House and outside, and the Government itself. The first point I would make is that there is no scheme in the Clause itself at all. I am glad that that is so. If there were a scheme, I frankly say that I should oppose this Clause with all the vehemence of which I am capable. I support it because of its elasticity, and because, for the first time in the history of casual labour, it proposes to do something to meet the views of the Dockers' Union and the Trans-
  3020
  port Workers' Union and the employers in dealing with casual labour so far as it can be dealt with under the Insurance Act. I should very strongly object to the Commissioners making schemes or suggesting them upon their own initiative. This Clause, in the first place, enables them to get the direct views of those concerned, including the employers, and, secondly, provides that the Order must be laid upon the Table so that those of us in the House of Commons who speak for casual labour can raise objections and carry the objections so far that subsequently an inquiry must be instituted into the matter. It gives us all the opportunities in that length of time to deal with casual labour, and I hope it will subsequently lead to the decasualisation of labour at the London Docks.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Upon the general discussion I should like to say a word or two. I think we shall have to watch very carefully any schemes that are made under this Clause. I heartily agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for East Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) on that subject. I am one of those who take the view that the casual character of some branches of certain industries amounts to a disease of industry. It is not the business of Parliament, in connection with any Act, insurance or other, to provide machinery to make casual labour impossible or to perpetuate it. From that point of view I am one who has grave doubts as to what Labour Exchanges are doing. The same point arises there as arises here—ought we to discourage casual labour or encourage it by making schemes which specially fit themselves and suit themselves to the deplorable conditions in certain industries? This point is a very important one, and I venture to utter the view here because I think it is very important indeed that these schemes should be very carefully watched. My hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. W. Pearce) said a few words which I think were of great importance. They included an observation that the employers were prepared to pay more. I think the Government would be well advised to take note of that declaration.
  Mr. PEARCE: I am sure my hon. Friend does not wish to misrepresent me. What I said was that the employers would desire to pay more rather than have more trouble.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is that an authorised statement?
  Mr. PEARCE: No, it is not authorised.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: It is a plea for simplicity, and that is the plea I am making. I suggest to the Government that in connection with these schemes a careful watch should be kept upon them. There is only one final solution to this matter, and that is to penalise employers who create this disease of industry.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: What disease?
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: The disease of casual employment, which is a disease of industry. The only way to discourage and abolish it is to penalise the employer, and you can most effectually do that by making the employer responsible for the whole of the contributions. If that were done the whole thing would straighten itself out. In a great many trades casual, intermittent labour is quite unnecessary, and employers in the trade so penalised would quickly make arrangements by virtue of which the ordinary provisions of the Act would apply to them, and they would escape the penalisation. I earnestly hope these few words will be borne in mind by those responsible not only for proposing the Clause, but for watching the schemes which were made under it.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the discussion that we have now had rule out of order a now Clause dealing with the cutting of casual labour out of the Bill altogether?
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I hope the Government will not pay too much attention to the hope expressed by the hon. Member (Mr. W. Pearce) that the Commissioners would not attempt to bring the employers into one pool. There is a horrible welter of unemployment and misery and distress in the East End of London at present and I am told that there are at least 10,000 people turned away every day from the calling on places. I am not an authority on the subject but I am in touch with those who are and they assure me that there can be no hope of improving the conditions there until the perpetual inflow of casual labour is stopped by some such registration scheme as exists at Liverpool now. I hope if a scheme is approved of by the representatives of the dockers no body of employers will be allowed to stand in the way. The Government has held the ring for the Port of London Authority and Lord Devonport through the strike and since
  3022
  the strike in standing by and doing nothing. Although they are under a statutory obligation to decasualise labour they have stood by and done nothing and I hope and trust that the Commissioners will have the power to bring the Port of London Authority into this scheme if such a scheme is approved by the workers and a majority of the employers' representatives.
  The CHAIRMAN: In reply to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), the substance of his new Clause is not prejudiced by this discussion.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I want to ask the Government one question. Have the Insurance Commissioners under this Clause power to cut casual labour out of the Bill altogether? Have they the power to make them non-insured persons?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No, I do not think they have power to do it under the Clause and it would be a disastrous step to take.
  Dr. ADDISON: I should like to congratulate and support the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck). I quite agree with him, as one who has been very closely in touch with this question in the East End, that a great deal of pooling is quite possible among employers in certain sections of employment and I see no reason why it should not be adopted in the East End. The point I wanted to make in respect of what the hon. Member (Mr. Harry Lawson) said, is that there is a very important thing in the Clause which he has perhaps overlooked. It is that where contributions are payable day by day, the employed contributors' contribution shall not exceed 1d. That does not leave it absolutely elastic for the Commissioners to do anything they like, but it cuts away the ground from under one of the chief grievances which casual labourers complain of in the East End. If a man gets one day's work a week he is deducted 4d. Xs this Clause stands he can only, at most, be deducted 1d. Perhaps the hon. Member has omitted to read that, which I know was deliberately inserted in the Clause and which is a very valuable provision and goes far to remove some of the grievances.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I should not have risen if it had not been for an obiter dictum on the part of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He said that the Commissioners would not have power in virtue of the provisions of this Clause, to leave certain

  3023
  classes of casual labour out altogether. I do not know whether Le has legal advice to that effect, but I do not myself read the Clause as having that interpretation, and if it has that interpretation it will run counter to the Exemptions Clause of Schedule 1 of the principal Act.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: On the best legal interpretation I can obtain at the moment they have no idea of modifying or overriding the general provisions of the Act as to casual labour. I will look into it, and, if necessary, bring up words on Report.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend (Mr. Harry Lawson) said with regard to this. The Government have put this Clause forward as an attempt to deal with casual labour. It is an attempt to shift on to the Commissioners the obligation to deal with the problem of casual labour. What they have done is this: they have taken for a year contributions from people who can ill afford to make them, and, during the whole of that time, they have failed to give them any benefits. Now, instead of facing the fact that a large number of these people are uninsurable, that they are trying to give insurance for those who are uninsurable, and that the result of their efforts is to make them pay contributions without giving them benefit, they are shifting the burden of finding a scheme upon the Insurance Commissioners. I am not going to oppose this Clause. We have some security given us in the House of Commons that when the Commissioners have done their part of the work, we shall have another opportunity of reviewing what they have done. I only wish them luck, but I think the speech of the Secretary to the Admiralty was a lamentable admission of the feeling of want of responsibility by a Government which causes people so poor to contribute without first having secured them benefit.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member is doing so well in general that I am sure none of us grudge his little conclusions on every Clause explaining how foolish the Government are in carrying it out. As for the rest, I only want to thank the Committee for the way they have accepted this Clause. We do not expect to change Heaven and earth through it, but we know that employers in East London are very anxious to try and see if some such scheme
  3024
  can be obtained, and so are the employed. We shall certainly consult both employers I and employed, as in agricultural districts, and we hope at least some schemes may be made to deal with a problem of extraordinary difficulty.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, "That the Committee do continue to sit this day notwithstanding the sitting of the House."
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Decision of Disputes.)
  Any dispute between an approved society and any person, as to whether that person is or was at any date a member of that society, for the purposes of Part I. of the principal Act, and any dispute between two or more approved societies or between an approved society and an insurance committee or between two or more insurance committees, shall be decided in like manner as a dispute between an insured person and an insurance committee, and Section 67 of the principal Act shall apply accordingly.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I beg to move to leave out the words "Any dispute between an approved society and any person, as to whether that person is or was at any date a member of that society, for the purposes of Part I. of the principal Act, and."
  The object of this Amendment is to remove the first three and a half lines of this Clause, which if passed as it stands would mean the inserting of the thin edge of the wedge, the effect of which none of us at present know, but which would eventually split up the friendly societies, because it means the taking away from them the control they must have of managing their own affairs and handing it over to the Commissioners. I am glad to see that there is a Clause lower down on the Paper which stands in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Apparently he does intend to give up some of the power which he was trying to obtain. I would like to say that I do not think his draft is quite so satisfactory as mine. If my Amendment was carried and the whole of the Clause was left out, that would leave the friendly societies in the position they are in at the present time so far as regards the members of the societies, whereas, if you accept the Financial Secretary's

  3025
  Amendment, it means that the Commissioners will still have a finger in the pie in deciding disputes between members and the societies. I do not think that is desirable. I understand that the reason of this is that there is yet one more effect of the original Act, namely, that it does not give the right of appeal to men who wish to put their case before the Commissioners if the friendly societies say that they are not members. They have the right of appeal under the principal Act to the Commissioners if it is a dispute between a member and a friendly society, but when the question of membership comes in, that right of appeal does not obtain. I understand the right hon. Gentleman still wishes to retain the first words of the Clause, I wish it to be distinctly understood that, in withdrawing my Amendment there is no question of interference between the Commissioners and a society's own members in settling disputes with their own members.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have to thank the hon. Gentleman for affording me an opportunity of giving a very short explanation. The object of the Clause is simply to deal with a very pressing grievance of members of societies. The ordinary apparatus as regards disputes between members of friendly societies and the societies remains unaltered, but the question is—What about members who have paid into Approved societies, and who think that they are members of those approved societies, and whom the approved societies declare are not members of the societies, or perhaps it might be in some cases members of two approved societies? There must be some tribunal for settling that. It is a very pressing grievance, because persons who think they are insured, having got sick, find that the approved society repudiates liability by saying they are not members, although they have been paying in for two quarters. If this power is given, it will operate in the same manner as in the case of other members, with a final appeal to the Commissioners, as in the case of an ordinary dispute between a member and a friendly society.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: After the words "for the purposes of Part I. of the principal Act," insert the words "shall be decided in like manner as a dispute between an approved society and an insured person who is a member thereof."—[Mr. Masterman.]
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, at, the end of the Clause, to add the words,
  "Provided that where an approved society or a medical practitioner suspects that an insured person 4who is a member of such society and is in receipt of sickness or disablement benefit, is fit to return to work, the member may be submitted to examination by a medical referee or body of referees appointed by an insurance committee with the approval of the Commissioners, and the decision of such referee or body of referees shall be final and conclusive, if no appeal to the Commissioners is made within three days after such decision has been notified to the member, and if notice that such an appeal has been made is not given to the society within four days after such decision has been notified."
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is not in order as a proviso, but if the bon. Member moves it as a new Clause it may be in order.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not know whether the Committee would like now to adjourn. This is rather an important question, and may take some time.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This has nothing to do with disputes between friendly societies and the Commissioners.
  Mr. BOOTH: Does not this raise the whole question of malingering? If so, I think we had better not enter into the question now.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This deals with disputes between an approved society and any person—
  Mr. MASTERMAN: On a point of order. Should not this be a new Clause?
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not mind making it a new Clause so long as I may move it as such.
  Mr. ALDEN: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
  "(2) If any question arises as to the person who is the employer of an employed contributor, the question shall be determined in like manner as a question in paragraph (a) of Section 66 of the principal Act, and that Section shall apply accordingly.
  This Amendment is in order to enable a dispute to be determined as to who is the employer of an employed person.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. FORSTER: I should like to ask the Financial secretary to the Treasury what he proposes to do to-morrow?
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: And on Monday.
  The CHAIRMAN: That will be dealt with after the adjournment. I think the right hon. Gentleman will make a statement when we reassemble.
  At twenty-three minutes before two o'clock the Committee adjourned for lunch till 2.15, when the proceedings were resumed.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have had an informal consultation with the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) and as a result I think we must ask the Committee to go on sitting day by day. It is true that we have made very great progress, and I am grateful to the whole Committee for that progress. But we have, apart from the Bill as printed, an enormous number of new Clauses to consider, the whole of which are, I believe, non-controversial, and which the Committee would like to see in the Bill. But we must get the Bill by the end of next week at the latest, if we want to pass it this Session, and we have in deference to the wishes of hon. Members opposite not suspended the four o'clock rule. Under these circumstances, I think we must appeal to the Committee to go on as at present, subject to two alterations. I would suggest that tomorrow (Friday) we start sitting at eleven and leave off about three, in order to suit the convenience of hon. Gentlemen who want to go away at that time, and I would suggest that on Monday we should not begin until twelve o'clock, in order to meet the convenience of people coming back from the country.
  Mr. FORSTER: I think that the Committee will realise that the strain which is being imposed upon us is a very heavy one, but we have got to make up our minds as to whether or not we are going to pass this Bill this Session. An enormous number of points of great importance are bound to arise on the new Clauses. We really have not yet got to the difficulties connected with the suggested Amendments to the Bill. They nearly all lie in the future. If we are
  3028
  going to have time to discuss the Clauses, I can only say that I for one am prepared, though the strain is heavy, to do what I can to give time for the discussion of these various Amendments, and I am quite sure that my hon. Friends, though many of them have many other matters to attend to, will do what they can also to assist. I think that we have very great reason to complain that important Bills have been brought in so late in the Session, but in the circumstances, for which we are not responsible, we are ready to do what we can to help the people in charge.
  Mr. GOULDING: There is one suggestion which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider. Twelve is really too early an hour on Monday for many of us who have to come a long distance. Is it really wise on Monday to meet until after luncheon? If you postpone the meeting until after luncheon, and sit until a later hour than usual, it would he much better. Many of us cannot get up to London until about half-past twelve o'clock.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If the Committee will give me power to apply to-morrow to sit after the House is sitting on Monday, so that we may sit until five or six o'clock on Monday, then I shall be very glad not to begin early on that day.
  Mr. FREDERICK HALL: I am sure that all on this side realise the desirability of getting this Bill through, but if the suggestion is now made that we are to sit perhaps until five or six o'clock—
  The CHAIRMAN: It is only in respect of Monday—that, instead of sitting from twelve to four, we should sit from two until about six o'clock.
  Mr. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to apply for those powers only for the one day? Because if it is only going to be for Monday, many of us on this side would be quite agreeable; but, if on the other hand, those powers are to be applied for every day—
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The present arrangement is only to apply for Monday, and to have the condition that we shall not sit beyond about six on Monday. If I have to ask the Committee later in the week to apply for further powers, I will give due notice to the Committee.
  Mr. HALL: As far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared to fall in with the suggestion as long as those powers are only for the one day.
  Mr. GWYNNE: This is a question which affects not only the convenience of Members, but also the work which we are doing. The right hon. Gentleman must know that rushing through in this way must affect the Bill adversely because we cannot at this rate give the attention which is necessary to do the work properly. We have had one example of this in the Pushing through of the original Bill.

  CLAUSE 9.—(Extension of Powers of Commissioners to Make Regulations.)
  The Insurance Commissioners may make regulations with respect to all or any of the matters specified in the Schedule to this Act, and the regulations may contain such incidental, supplemental, and consequential provisions as appear necessary for modifying and adapting the provisions of the principal Act to the provisions of the regulations and otherwise for the purpose of the regulations.
  Mr. GWYNNE Mr. GWYNNE had given notice of the following Amendment: After the word "may" ["The Insurance Commissioners may"], to insert the words "after consultation with the Advisory Committee."
  Mr. GWYNNE: I do not think that it is very much good in going into this question of the Advisory Committee all over again, as I have expressed my opinion about it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. BATHURST Mr. BATHURST had given notice of the following Amendment: "After the word "Act" ["schedule to this Act"] to insert the words "provided that such regulations have not the effect of limiting medical attendance and treatment?"
  The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment is not in order, as it deals with medical benefit and treatment. As I understand, Clause 9 does not affect medical attendance and treatment which the hon. Member seeks to protect, and therefore it is unnecessary. Perhaps I should hardly say it is out of order, but if the hon. Member wishes to move it, he may then be told that it does not affect the matter.
  Mr. BATHURST: I am bound to accept from you that you think that this Amend-
  3030
  ment is out of order, but this Clause refers to the Schedule, and the Schedule deals with regulations of a certain kind issued in specified circumstances. What I and some of my Friends seek to do by this Amendment is to secure that those regulations shall not in any way limit medical benefit. I do not know what reason there is for suggesting that that is out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN: I did not say that it was out of order, but that it seems to be unnecessary.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman is moving something which is consequential to a, later Amendment. That is the real difficulty. He is moving to provide that such regulations shall not have a certain effect, and that is really consequential to the Amendment which he has got down next. I think if it is in order that it would be better to move the substantial Amendment, and if that was carried, we could easily put the other thing right.
  Mr. BATHURST: I want to be sure that I have got it one way or the other. I was going, in submitting this Amendment, to refer to the two Amendments standing in my name. It does not matter for my purpose in what form it comes up for consideration.
  The CHAIRMAN: That meets my point. The Committee can take the discussion on the two Amendments together if the hon. Member will formally move this first.
  Mr. BATHURST: Very well I will formally move after the word "Act" to insert the words "provided that such regulations have not the effect of limiting medical attendance and treatment."
  What I want to raise here is what is a serious grievance all over the country. I am not here to represent the doctors. They are perfectly well able to look after themselves. The Act provides definitely that among other benefits, in fact the first benefit specified in the Act as a result of contributions by the employer and the employés, is medical treatment and attendance. That is in no way limited except in the case of the confinement of the woman referred to in Sub-section (6) of the same Section, but further in Section 15 we have this definite statement with regard to the meaning of the medical benefit:—
  "The regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners shall provide for

  3031
  the arrangements made being subject to the approval of the Insurance Commissioners and being such as to secure that insured persons shall, save as hereinafter provided, receive adequate medical attendance."
  Subsequently to that, the Commissioners by their regulations have cut down the interpretation of medical benefit as expressed in the Act to mean the ordinary medical attendance and treatment in respect of ordinary ailments which require no specific treatment and no specialist knowledge. This is operating as a serious injustice in many of the industrial districts. I can speak especially for South Wales, where the doctors have been in the habit of providing, for less remuneration than they are receiving now, such medical treatment as will cover all ordinary cases that did not require treatment in a special institution such as a county infirmary. There are many cases of this sort. There may be cases affecting the nose or the ear or the throat or the eyes, or even the teeth, and many ailments of this character are being treated now by doctors as being outside the scope of the work which they are paid to undertake. Thereby a serious injustice is being done to these men, and they are being told—and this is my main complaint—by many of these medical practitioners, that these are not matters which come within the scope of their work, but that if the insured persons require attendance they must go to the assistant of the doctor, who has some specialist knowledge in respect of these complaints, and having gone there, they will have to pay a special fee outside the ordinary insurance payment to secure attendance for such cases.
  In effect it is a serious evasion of the intention of this Act as originally framed, and it is one of those cases in which the interpretation of the Commissioners by regulation is cutting down the scope of the Act to the detriment of the insured persons. The sole object of this Amendment is to secure that the words which appear in Section 15 of the principal Act shall be given effect to, namely, that in every case the regulations shall secure to the insured person medical attendance without any qualifications whatever. That ought to cover all cases that require simple treatment, and do not require special treatment in special institutions, and especially such cases as defects of the teeth and. many minor ailments
  3032
  connected with other organs of the body to which I have referred. I beg to move.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is understood to be moving this first Amendment as part of the second Amendment on the wider subject.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: What I want to secure is with reference to any regulations of the Commissioners that they shall not, as in the past, be operative to cut down the intention of the principal Act.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This Amendment, if I may say so with the utmost respect, is meaningless. No regulations could have the effect of limiting medical attendance and treatment if that medical attendance and treatment is designed by the principal Act. Whatever regulations the Commissioners make, if they are outside or contrary to the provisions of the original Act they are ultra vires, and they can be challenged, and, as far as I know, no regulations have in any degree attempted to make that condition. The point which the hon. Gentleman raises as to what should be regarded as medical attendance, and treatment is really a different point. I could not possibly accept words like these, because it would suggest that regulations might override the original Act.
  Mr. GOULDING: In rising to support the Amendment I really think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) is riding off too quickly.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am willing to discuss the other point.
  Mr. GOULDING: It is the case that a different interpretation has been put into the regulations than that which exists as to what adequate medical attendance and treatment should be. The regulations state such services as may be given by a practitioner of ordinary professional competence and skill. That is a mitigation and whittling down of the original Act. I am told of a case of a servant girl whose eyes were badly inflamed, causing great danger as regards the permanent cure of the eyes, and the ordinary panel doctor declined to deal with this case and said it was outside of his scope. I maintain that is not carrying out the distinct terms of the sentence in the principal Act, and I hope my hon. Friend will insist on pressing his Amendment which would really go to strengthen the hands of the Commissioners in seeing that the Act as originally passed in this House shall be fully endorsed and given effect to.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I draw attention to one observation of the right hon. Gentleman which, with all respect, I do not think is quite correct. This Clause specifically provides that the Commissioners may make such regulations and consequential provisions as appear necessary for modifying, as well as adapting, the provisions of the principal Act to the provisions of the regulations. That gives specific power to modify the provisions of the Act, and it is against that I am declaiming.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Only as regards things in the Schedule, and I do not think medical benefit is in the Schedule.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: It may be included too.
  Mr. THOMAS: We are all in hearty agreement with the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member. The position in this case is identical with the position yesterday, where a concession was given to the doctors at the expense of the insured person. When the Act was going through the House there was a no suggestion made when the discussion took place on medical treatment that there would be such limitations as have been now introduced, and we look upon it was a perfect scandal to find some of the cases which the doctors have refused to treat under the Act. For this reason, whilst I am not quite sure whether this is the right place to introduce it yet if the effect is to broaden the situation, and make perfectly clear the meaning of the original Act that those cases should be treated, then we certainly will go to a division, as we hope the hon. Member will, and support him.
  Sir. P. MAGNUS: In Section 8, Sub section (8) of the principal Act, the first Subsection says:—
  "Medical treatment and attendance, including the provision of proper and sufficient medicines, and such medical and surgical appliances as may be prescribed by regulations to be made by the Insurance Commissioners (in this Act called 'Medical Benefit')."
  If I am not mistake those regulations were published before the medical practitioners entered into any undertaking with the Government for giving medical benefit. They are, therefore, bound by the regulations which were published by the Commissioners, and under those regulations under the words quoted by my hon. Friend, it was distinctly understood by the medical practitioners
  3034
  that they should only be asked to treat such cases as came within the knowledge and general practice of the ordinary practitioner. I am not quoting the words exactly, but that is the effect of them. All other matters, it was provided, should be referred to other medical practitioners or experts in the particular complaint for which the patient sought the assistance of the medical man. It very frequently happens that it would be far easier for a medical practitioner to give treatment on a subject which he does not thoroughly understand than to refer the patient to an expert, who would be able to give valuable advice, but in any circumstances, having regard to the agreement, which after very considerable consultation and difficulties was finally arrived at between the medical men and the Commissioners, it would be quite impossible to expect them to do more than they undertook to do in accordance with the regulations which were published and submitted to them prior to that agreement being entered into. Therefore, there is an absolute contract at the present moment between the Commissioners, the Government and the medical men as regards the kind of treatment which is included in the words "Medical benefit," and any attempt which is being made by my hon. Friend to alter that would be simply a breach of agreement which would bring all the old difficulties which existed between the doctors and the Commissioners once again before the public.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the discussion is rather drifting away from the Amendment on to the whole Clause. I am to some extent in the hands of the Committee if they like to take the discussion on the Clause as a whole now instead of on the question that it stand part. Practically all the Amendments, except this one, are out of order, but the matter might be regularised by taking the discussion on the question that the Clause stand part.
  Mr. THOMAS: We want a vote.
  The CHAIRMAN: Then I must keep to the Amendment. Speeches have already been made quite wide of the Amendment, and referring to matters which are not included in the regulations in the Schedule.
  Mr. ALDEN: I submit that this is not the proper place to discuss this question. It is an important question, and I shall support the hon. Member in discussing it now, unless the Government can give us an assurance that there will be a proper opportunity afterwards to raise this whole question

  3035
  because it is a very big question and ought to be adequately discussed at some considerable length. If the Government can give us that assurance I would suggest to the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment and let us get on to the Clause.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member has recognised quite frankly that, there being nothing dealing with medical attendance and treatment in the Schedule, there is really no need to pass this.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I have not recognised that at all.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: But it is so. Therefore the Amendment is not really any Amendment except to protect something that may be done in the future, and that can always, if required, be put in on the Report stage. As to the general question, I agree that it is a very important one. I want it discussed. I have got a good deal I want to say about it, but surely, this Amendment, referring to something that is not in the Schedule is the worst possible place to have that discussion.
  The CHAIRMAN: I pointed out it was not within the scope of the Schedule.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Can the Government give us any assurance that this matter is going subsequently to be dealt with. This Schedule deals with certain regulations which may refer amongst other things to medical benefit. It is perfectly true that the Schedule does not specifically refer to medical benefits, but the regulations drafted under the Schedule may do so. Before withdrawing this Amendment I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman means to give us any opportunity of discussing this hereafter, and of considering a Clause to be put down with that special object, because our position is in fact, that the regulations now put forward are ultra vies of the original Act. We want to be quite certain that hereafter, regulations shall not be issued having the same effect.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is the Chairman who is to rule ns to order, but we certainly shall do anything we can do in order to enable the question to be discussed fully.
  Mr. GOULDING: I do hope my hon. Friend will insist upon going to a Division. We are really going to get into tremendous confusion if every single difficulty is to be postponed to some later period. I want some one of these difficulties to be dealt
  3036
  with now. When we go downstairs it will be open to the right hon. Gentleman to show that what has been put in might be improved, but we all feel that injustice is being done, and a wrong interpretation placed on the Act in regard to this matter, and I hope we shall see it put right.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: We feel very keenly as to the conduct of the doctors in a very considerable number of directions in connection with the administration of this Act, and we are determined that that condition will be raised, agreement or no agreement, but what I feel about withdrawing is this: that if the Government desires that we should discuss this question before the Report stage, it would be a mistake to divide now, because obviously we could not then raise the same question. If we are only going to have a discussion on the Report stage downstairs; then we might just as well divide now.
  The CHAIRMAN: I understood that it was desired that the discussion should range wider than it could possibly do on the Amendment before the Committee. By continuing the discussion before the Committee even with the help of the Chair limiting the discussion as far as possible, it world yet range so far as to prevent it being brought upon the wider basis on a new Clause afterwards. It was in the interests of Members on both sides who wished to raise the question that it was pointed out that it should not be raised on this narrow issue as to the making of regulations.
  Mr. FORSTER: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment to a Division, because it will not really secure the object he has in view. If this Amendment is carried the Clause will run
  "The Insurance Commissioners may make regulations with respect to all or any of the matters specified in the Schedule of this Act,"
  and then will come the saving words of my hon. Friend. What are the matters with regard to which regulations can be made? The regulations relate not to medical benefit and other benefits, but only to the dissolution or the amalgamation of approved societies. It does not touch the general question, and neither the hon. Member opposite nor my hon. Friend will attain his object if we divide now.
  The CHAIRMAN: I would point out, from the new Clause point of view, that the

  3037
  hon. Member already has an Amendment on the Paper which will certainly be prejudiced by a longer discussion now.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that I shall put down a Clause to deal with the subject.
  Sir W. BYLES: I would ask my right hon. Friend to tell the Committee a little more definitely when we shall have an opportunity of discussing this question. It is really thought a great deal of, not only by Members opposite, and by Members of the Labour party, but by many individual Members of the Committee. If we could know when and on what Amendment the discussion might come on, I should be quite satisfied to concur in the withdrawal of this Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The discussion will come on a new Clause, and the sooner we get the Bill—the great majority of the small Clauses I think are uncontroversial—the sooner the hon. Gentleman will be able to get his teeth into the new Clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment dealing with maternity benefit should come as a new Clause.
  Mr. BATHURST: Do I understand that it is out of order at this point?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes. It has reference to the payment of money to the wife rather than to the husband, and I think it would come better as a Clause by itself. This is a regulation Clause. The same remark applies to the similar Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding). With regard to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wallsall (Mr. Cooper) [providing that certain approved societies should not hold their meetings on licensed premises]—if it is a permissive Clause it is already covered by the Act; if it is compulsory it would be out of order at this point.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. CASSEL: I have not had time to put down an Amendment, but I think, when I point out the defect in the Clause, the Government will probably consider the point before Report. In regard to these regulations there is no proviso similar to that in regard to regulations under the principal Act, namely, that on an Address being presented
  3038
  to the Crown by either House of Parliament within a certain time the regulations shall be annulled. On the question of interpretation, it does not seem to me at all clear that Section 65 of the original Act would apply to this Clause. I am quite aware of Clause 13, but I do not think that that applies in connection with this point, because you are not here superseding or amending any provisions of the principal Act; you are giving to the Insurance Commissioners a new and additional power of making regulations with regard to other matters. If the right hon. Gentleman will consider before the Report stage whether the proviso referred to applies to this Clause, and if it does not, will favourably consider an Amendment in that sense, it will meet my point.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: There is no intention of doing anything in connection with these regulations different from what is done under the original Act. I will look into the point and, if necessary, have words brought up on Report.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 10.—(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

  3039
  regulations referred to in those Acts included any document issued by any of those bodies or that committee.
  Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1) and to insert instead thereof, the following Sub-section:—
  "(1) So much of Sections eighty, eighty-one, and eighty-two of the principal Act as provides for the constitution of Commissioners for the purposes of that Act for Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, shall cease to have effect, and among the persons appointed to be Insurance Commissioners under Section fifty-seven of the principal Act there shall be included at least three persons specially qualified by knowledge of the local circumstances of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, respectively, and there shall be established branch offices of the Insurance Commissioners in Edinburgh, Dublin, and Cardiff." The object of this Amendment is, shortly, to abolish the four sets of Commissioners. That may appear a tall order.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not want to prevent this question coming on, but I would like it to come on in the most convenient way. The hon. Member admits that it is a very far-reaching Amendment. I should have thought it would have been better for it to be considered by itself rather than as an interpolation here. I do not want to raise it as a point of order, but I do not know whether the hon. Member would prefer to raise the matter now, or in some more definite way, so that it could be considered on its merits.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have considered that point, especially with regard to the hon. Member's Amendment. If I ruled this Amendment out of order, I do not think I could rule the next one out of order [proposing the transfer to the Joint Committee constituted under Section 83 of the Principal Act, the powers and duties of the several bodies of Insurance Commissioners]. I think it would be convenient to take the discussion here, on the proposal to leave out Subsection (1).
  Mr. FORSTER: I understood you to say that the Amendment properly in order is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester.
  The CHAIRMAN: I said, as proof that this Amendment was not out of order, that if the hon. Member would look at the next Amendment he would admit that that was in order; therefore, I considered that that fact qualified the two.
  Mr. THOMAS: The object of this Amendment is to abolish the four separate sets of Commissioners. I well remember that in the discussions during the passage of the principal Act it was the clear impression of everyone, and especially of the Government, that these separate sets of Commissioners would enable special attention to be paid to particular national needs. That, I think it will be generally agreed, was the only object of setting up the separate Commissions. I do not think there is anyone with any experience whatever of administering the Act who has not already come to the conclusion that the present arrangement simply leads to endless confusion. There is hardly an approved society, whether a Trade Union or a friendly society, that was not long ago up in arms against the present system. It means that you have to keep eight books, eight different accounts, four for women, and four for men. That, from the standpoint of the approved societies, means a tremendous amount of work. When it comes to the question of transfer from one country to another we have the same difficulty. But the most serious flaw is that a great proportion of the international societies—that is, societies covering England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales—are not treated as one unit for the purposes of valuation.
  Take my own society in England. We have probably 70,000 members. In Scotland we have 9,000 or 10,000. In Wales, again, we have 10,000 or 12,000. In Ireland we have about 2,500. Although we have those large numbers in England, Scotland, and Wales, when it comes to a question of valuation we have to link up with some other society in Ireland, because we do not happen to have the 5,000 members. I think anyone with experience of this Act will recognise the endless difficulty that must cause. They will recognise how absurd it is. For that purpose alone, therefore, it is important that at this stage of the Amending Bill we should have some alteration. We believe the only alteration that can be brought about is the abolition of these separate sets of Commissioners.
  With regard to the regulations, I think Members of the House are supplied in the same way as the approved societies with the different regulations that are issued from time to time. If Members have taken the trouble to look through these regulations, they will see how confusing it must be to the ordinary working-men who administer this Act. We invariably find this: that there will be four regulations issued, which

  3041
  in appearance and language are the same. Sometimes they are put to one side as being the same regulations, and as being only applicable to Scotland or Wales, as the case may be. We are reminded soon after that there is some special Clause in a particular regulation that is only applicable to and peculiar to Scotland or England, as the case may be. All these confusions have led to endless difficulty. I quite recognise the object of separate Commissions. It was a well-intentioned object. It was unquestionably, as I have said previously, to give effect to peculiar and special national needs, but in the administration and working of the Act I do say that everyone with knowledge of it is convinced that it has not achieved its object; that there is no necessity for it. In the interests of the approved societies as a w hole I have no hesitation moving this Amendment, for I am certain that it meets with general approval.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I submit it would be for the convenience of the Committee to take a general debate on the Amendment dealing with the question of the four Commissions now, in order that we may save time in future. I realise the importance of the Amendment that my hon. Friend is proposing. As he has already learnt from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading of this Bill in the House of Commons it is quite impossible for us to accept the Amendment. It is not only impossible, but I think it is exceedingly undesirable. I have soma reasons to give, if the Committee permit me, to show that we can largely meet the special points that my hon. Friend has made, and which I agree are real points, and which are at present torturing the administration of some of the International societies and trade unions. Apart from that, and on the general point, I have no doubt at all that there is no precedent for any attempt to run anything of this sort affecting the lives of the people in the British Isles from Whitehall. Consider, for instance, the Local Government Board. Intimate relationship has to be maintained in Scotland and in Ireland on many Clauses of this Bill with the Local Government Boards of Scotland and Ireland, and it would be grotesque to suggest that that could be maintained either by subordinate officials in Edinburgh or Dublin, or by a bureaucracy operating from Buckingham Gate. Take another case. Hon. Members have, I hope, studied the Reports of the four Commissions which have been issued this year. I think they will agree
  3042
  from every point of view, if they note the work of the Scottish, Irish, and Welsh Commissions, and see how the Act itself has been adapted to the special conditions of these countries, that very considerable difficulty, if not a complete standstill, would have taken place in the carrying out of the Act but for the four Commissions. How could you have dealt with the conditions of Connemara or Caithness by correspondence from the English Commission at Whitehall? The Scottish Commission, for example, have themselves visited the greater part of the Highlands of Scotland, and as a result of that a Bill is now being passed through Parliament dealing with the special conditions of the Highlands and Islands. We should never have heard of them apart from that Commission, nor would a single Commissioner have appeared in any of these parts of Scotland but for the fact that there was a special Scottish Commission dealing with Scottish interests.
  Mr. THOMAS: What about officials?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Subordinate officials would not do at all. You can take that from the experience of the Local Government Board, the Education Department, or any of the great administrative Departments. I must, therefore, very earnestly ask the Committee to support the scheme laid down in the Act. Then I agree that various questions arise. There is the first question raised by my hon. Friend as to the difficulty of interpreting the regulations issued by the four Commissions to International Approved Societies. I agree with his statement of the difficulty. But I think that is a difficulty which has been very prominent during the great work of launching the Act and bringing it into operation, because regulations have had to be issued to a very considerable number. So far, however, as administration is concerned, I think we can promise that the Joint Committee will make an effort to see that the regulations which are issued, if they are issued dealing with the separate conditions in the different countries, shall be very plain, so that, as the hon. Member says, working men representatives of the different branches shall not be confused by regulations which appear to come from all quarters of the United Kingdom. As he, however, will agree, a far more important question than administration is the question of accounts. There, I may say, I am entirely in sympathy with the hon. Member. My right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, expressed

  3043
  our determination on the Second reading of the Bill to see if we could not make some arrangements with regard to accounting to meet the very difficult circumstances connected with the existence of the four Commissioners. Indeed, before he made that statement the English Commission were in consultation with many representatives of what I may call the International Societies to see what could be done in the matter. If it is with the general approval of the Committee that some such change should be made, while, at the same time the administrative rights of the four Commissions are retained, the Government are prepared to put on the Paper an Amendment dealing with those conditions.
  Mr. THOMAS: A new Clause?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: A new Clause. By permission of the Committee, I would very briefly outline the lines of that Amendment. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Not now"]. The hon. Member would rather not have it now. I will tell the hon. Member for Colchester why I should deal with the matter: Members may be influenced in their vote as to whether there should be four Commissions, or as to how far the grievances of the approved societies may be met by these arrangements. I will only give them in outline, and hon. Members can reserve any detailed criticism until afterwards. We propose, generally, two new conditions as to accounting. The first deals with societies which are registered, and mainly carry out their operations in one of the four countries, what I may call local societies, in England, Scotland. Ireland, or Wales. These local societies have no difficulty such as that raised by my hon. Friend in connection with large numbers of international members, but they have very considerable difficulty in dealing with what I may call "strays." A few of the members of these societies may be found in England or in Scotland or in Wales, and under the Act these few members must be grouped together as a separate society, and everyone will realise that that is an impossible condition. We propose in the case of local societies only desiring to carry on their operations in one of the four countries that all the "strays" who happen to be in any other of the four countries shall be reckoned as members of the society in the country which has its headquarters in England, Scotland, Ireland, or Wales, and for all purposes such as sickness benefit and for other benefits, these members shall be counted as members of the Irish, English or
  3044
  Scotch society. That meets the question of unfortunate groups of four or five or twenty people who stray from, say a local Hampshire society into Wales, and have to be made a separate society by themselves in Wales or the other way round. I wish to say in connection with this that I think in these circumstances a society only registered in one country should only assume to maintain its operations in one country, and should not recruit more of those strays in the other countries. If it is a Hampshire society it should not recruit any more members in Caithness or Connemara.
  Then I come to deal with the International Society, and we think we can make arrangements as to the International Societies so that they can really count for all practical purposes as one society for the purposes of the Act, and pool their surplus or deficiency, so that a society with less than 5,000 members in England can pool with some society with less than 5,000 members in Wales, instead of being broken up into separate values, and, so far as transfers are concerned, at least between the three Great Britain countries, no transfer will have to be effected any more than a transfer between one country and another to any society. To that I only make one exception—that is, I think that members who at present exist as separate for accounting purposes, as created in another country, should be allowed to have some choice in the matter as to whether they wish to continue that arrangement or whether they wish to go into the national society. For instance, suppose there is an approved society divided between members in England and members in Scotland, under the new arrangement the society could count as an international society and have all the advantages and accounting arrangements with its members as if it was one sectional society. But if the Scottish members of that society say "No, we came in under the idea that we were to be grouped with Scotland and not with England and we wish to continue in the Scottish pool instead of the English," I think they ought to have the option, extending over a period of not more than three months, to express their wish to have that arrangement continued. I think we must give that concession to national sentiment, but apart from that, as far, for example, as the great trade unions are concerned, we propose that they shall have their accounting arrangements made as one body. They shall no longer have to keep eight separate books, I think it is. Transfers will be as easy as transfers from Hampshire to Kent, and by that

  3045
  arrangement we shall enable them not to be separately valued and grouped in separate groups, but we shall also be able to make an enormous difference to the accounting arrangements of the society. I have explained that perhaps rather more fully than I ought to have done at this point, but if the Committee will reserve judgment on that scheme until the Clauses are put down, I think they will realise that the Government have done everything to meet the wishes expressed. It is quite impossible for the administration of the Act to be abolished by doing away with the four national Commissioners. Otherwise I guarantee to try and meet the wishes expressed by the Committee in every possible way.
  Mr. FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Government has an Amendment or a series of Amendments dealing with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I should have thought they would have put them on the Paper. I thought no one could have been under a misapprehension as to this Amendment coming on in some form or another. As far as I know nearly every approved society is in favour of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] There has been a very strong expression of opinion throughout the country that this Amendment is desirable—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]—and I should have thought that the Government would have been ready with their proposals to meet the points made by the hon. Gentleman, and the point suggested by my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman said you cannot abolish these four sets of Commissioners because if you did you would have nobody to deal properly and expeditiously with the Local Government Boards in Scotland and Ireland, and he said it is unthinkable that you should create a great bureaucracy in London which should have centralised administration for the whole of the nation. In some respects the joint Committee is the very bureaucracy which he says it is unthinkable to create. The Joint Committee occupies the position which we want the Insurance Commissioners to occupy, and as regards matters in which the Joint Committee predominate at the present moment, the National Commissioners really fill the position of the branch Commissioners which would be created under this proposal. But what we really want to secure in support of this Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is a far simpler system of administration than obtains at the present time. There is too much complication and too much red-tape.
  3046
  We want greater simplicity in order to avoid the delay inseparable from very complicated machinery. The Government say that they will do something to meet the objection which the hon. Member has brought forward. I do not think they go far enough, and all I say is that if the hon. Member presses his Amendment to a Division, I will support him.
  Mr. BOOTH: It is rather a remarkable thing at this Committee that we hear talk continually about certain views being held universally, and every time I hear that as far as my information goes, and I have been at some considerable trouble to find it out, it shows that these statements are invariably the opposite of the facts. I have raised this point about the four Commissioners in all kinds of meetings, in each of the three principalities of Great Britain, and I venture to challenge anybody on the opposite side to say that any one of them ever raised this question in England, Scotland or 'Wales. I dare say they may have a certain amount of experience of this Act. I do not want to arrogate to myself that I know more about it than anyone else, but I venture to say that anybody who has gone about to the extent I have could not remain silent and hear these representations made. What are the facts? Hon. Members opposite press this point in London. They dare not press it in Scotland.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Oh yes, I do.
  Mr. BOOTH: The hon. Gentleman represents a university, and, of course, that is a thing apart. It is a select constituency. It has not been done at a by-election in Scotland.
  Slr H. CRAIK: I have done it.
  Mr. BOOTH: And if it had been done by any candidate at a by-election the people would soon ask him to retire. The same thing is true of Wales. There was a contest in Wales very close to the constituency of the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs. There was no advocacy from the Conservative party of the abolition of the Welsh Commissioners there. They would have been in a hopeless plight upon such a proposal, and the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs knows that well. I have been at some by-elections in Scotland where hon. Members opposite were making the Insurance Act the main issue. It figured very largely in these contests, but no claim was put forward in the name of any great group of people and not on electioneering platforms inviting the

  3047
  abolition of these Commissioners. Therefore, for any Member to say in this Committee Room that the whole of the people are in favour of this abolition is to make a statement which is entirely without foundation. As regards by-elections in Wales I ask, Has anyone raised this question of abolishing the separate Commissions?
  Mr. THOMAS: May I say so that my hon. Friend may be under no misapprehension, we are not talking of what happened at political meetings; we are talking about the experience of our societies.
  Mr. BOOTH: You can speak when I have done.
  Mr. THOMAS: I thought you asked a question.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am giving the case as to political meetings, and after that I will come far closer home than I think the friends of this Amendment would wish. First, I am asking, is there any feeling in Wales in favour of this Amendment? I went down to by-elections in Wales, and I spoke entirely upon the Insurance Act. I interviewed people on this very point as to whether these Insurance Commissioners were wanted. I spoke to the men at the railway stations, to the members of the friendly societies, to insurance companies, and to employers of labour, as well as to the general politicians who crowd the street. I spoke of it on public platforms, and I challenge any man supporting this Amendment to advocate it upon a public platform, either in Scotland or in Wales. So far as I could ascertain the general sentiments of the people, of the insured persons and of the officials working the Act throughout Scotland and Wales, they have no desire to abolish the separate Commissions. Undoubtedly that cannot possibly be challenged. With regard to the position of the approved societies, and the people working the Act, I challenge the statement that approved societies generally or universally are committed to this proposal. As many hon. Members know, I have had considerable opportunity of having access to the various members of approved societies. I happen to be, not as a partisan or representing any sectional point of view, chairman of the Council of the Faculty of Insurance, which embraces every kind of work under this Act. I am not pledging that body to what I say, I only mention that to show that for several years I have had exceptional opportunity of finding out what are the views of the
  3048
  people, and the only reason I can find as to why this Amendment is brought forward, as far as the Conservatives are concerned, is that it may put the Government in a difficulty. In regard to the approved societies, the difficulty is purely one of bookkeeping. I think the members of the Labour party will admit that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) spoke for the society which has a few thousands in each country. There are many larger societies than that. I am speaking of societies ten, twenty, or fifty times the size, and I can get the exact figures. There can be no case made out, and no case has been made out on behalf of insured persons. So far as the hon. Member speaks for friendly societies, or anybody else, they speak for the officials, they speak only for the head office, they do not speak for the mass of the members. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Hon. Members who say "No" know that I am giving them the facts. I say that no one would attempt on that side to say that he represents the insured persons on this question.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Certainly, we all do.
  Mr. BOOTH: The hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. Bathurst) speaks for the agricultural labourers of the West of England. Will he really tell us that the labourers of the West of England are concerned in this Amendment. I see the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. H. Roberts), in his place. If there is one Member more than another who is admittedly a great authority on this question he is; he has had exceptional experience both as a trade unionist and as a friendly society official. I went down to the city of Norwich, where there was a meeting composed of friendly society people, and I put this very question to them. I asked this meeting of representative friendly society officials whether any of then would declare that a single person in Norfolk or East Anglia would be benefited by taking away these Commissioners. There was not one friendly society official in that big meeting who would claim that any insured person in Norwich or in Norfolk would benefit by the taking away of these Commissioners. It is purely a question of the inconvenience to the officials. It is the inconvenience of a society having to make four sets of returns to four sets of Commissioners instead of only one. Let us see what it is. I think we are entitled to ask, as we do now, that the general interests of the insured persons should be taken into

  3049
  account, and the friendly society officials should make some little sacrifice. So far as the large insurance societies are concerned, they are prepared to make sacrifices, and it is only the question of a little inconvenience. There is nothing else left when it is analysed, after the statement made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as to the way in which the problem will be met. There is nothing left but some inconvenience in bookkeeping. Does anybody realise why these Commissioners were appointed, and why they are to be maintained? It was in response to a national demand. I was the only Member in the House at that time who criticised it. The hon. Members who have come in such large numbers this afternoon did not criticise it.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I did criticise it most severely.
  The CHAIRMAN: It would tend to the progress of the Committee if the hon. Member for Pontefract would keep off personal allusions. It is a question of the merits of the Amendment which we are now discussing, and not anything that has happened in the past.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am very much obliged for the interruption. It is entirely in the hands of the hon. Gentleman as to what way I make my statements. What I am pointing out is that I rose in the House to criticise this proposal with regard to separate national Commissioners, and I got no support whatever from Members who have crowded in for the first time.
  An Hon. MEMBER: Mention the names of the Members to whom you refer?
  Mr. BOOTH: I did not mention the hon. Member—I am stating the facts. I was somewhat loath to grant separate Commissions to the various nationalities, but now that it is done—now that they are established, now that they are meeting the needs of these various localities in a special way, it is a tremendous responsibility to destroy the organisation which you have set up. All the friendly societies in Scotland are dead against the hon. Member. The trades unions in Scotland are against it, and there is no real demand for it in England. In Wales the feeling on the matter is very strong indeed, as I have myself ascertained, and I think before this Debate is over you will have the views of Wales expressed very strongly indeed. The reason that the separate Commissions were given was because of the variation of these localities. I criticised
  3050
  that. I did not think there was such divergence from the general feeling of the country, but I afterwards withdrew the criticisms I had offered. Now that they are established a different set of circumstances has arisen, and I am now of opinion that this idea should be rather fostered and not limited. As a social reformer, I am not entirely in agreement with the Financial Sectetary to the Treasury. He is doing his best to meet the difficulties, but I see a great danger in that. I had hoped that the different experience of the different countries might be put into the common stock of knowledge. But if the four Commissions are to be put on exactly the same lines of administration, then we shall not learn anything from Scottish ideas or from the ideas of Wales or Ireland.
  I hoped that we might have got from the various experiences of the different Commissions, information and ideas from each nationality, and that there would be something to gain from the accumulated experience of the whole, but if the four sets of Commissioners are tied down in the same groove, I say, as a social reformer, that we are not getting the proper contribution to these problems that we ought to have. There ought to be sonic elasticity in bringing these schemes into operation. Scotland led the way. It is to some extent the home of insurance, and it is quite likely that in Scotland they will ultimately develop ideas on insurance that would not occur to Englishmen. In fact, they have already done so. There is a Bill before the House dealing with the medical service in the Highlands and Islands. Hon. Members opposite have not opposed that, and I think their action on this Amendment is quite inconsistent The Scottish Commissioners have found that in the Highlands and Islands they have a special problem, and the House of Commons has given a Second Reading to their Bill unanimously, and not a single Member of the House, whether Trade Union or Conservative, felt justified in opposing that Bill, yet here they support this Amendment. It is not merely on the ground of tactics that I oppose it. I believe in this institution of four sets of Commissioners in the interests of the insured persons, and I think with a little sacrifice at the head offices it car be worked. I hope they will make that sacrifice.
  Mr. THOMAS: The object we had in moving the Amendment is accomplished, because it was largely administrative difficulties which had to be met. I want to

  3051
  make this observation: The hon. Member who has just sat down, yesterday quoted with great authority the document issued by the Joint Committee of the Approved Societies. When he asks me now, "What is the authority for this Amendment?" I reply that it is the same authority which he quoted yesterday. It says, "The Amendment by Mr. Thomas for four Commissioners must be strongly supported." Our object having been achieved, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1), and to insert instead thereof the following Subsection,
  "(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 provision—

  (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 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
  3052
  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."

  Unlike the hon. Member who has just withdrawn his Amendment, I shall propose to ask the Committee to divide on this Amendment, which has also for its object the grouping of the powers of the four Commissioners and Joint Committee and the reconstitution of the four Commissions with delegated powers from the Joint Committee. This scheme of mine is more properly a devolution scheme, the real control being with the one Commission. I do not propose to go over again the ground which the hon. Gentleman opposite traversed in support of the Amendment. Exactly the same grounds apply to this Amendment and the same authority can be quoted from the trades unions and approved societies. The hon. Member who has just sat down has spoken of the opinion of the individual insured persons. He has suggested that the insured person in Norwich is not wildly enthusiastic in favour of this Amendment. That is an absurdity. The insured person in Norwich probably does not know that there are four Commissions.
  Mr. BOOTH: I was speaking of a meeting of officials of the friendly societies.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That may be so, but even at a meeting of insured persons it is a matter of certainty that if you can get better administration, which is my object, it is for the benefit of every insured person. The Secretary to the Treasury has made some promises which I must admit seemed to me very indefinite, perhaps because I did not understand him clearly. I do not see how we can be expected to understand a statement of that kind without having in front of us some draft or suggestions as to the means of carrying out the proposals he outlined. These Commissioners were set up apparently according to the right hon. Gentleman himself in order to meet a national need, but at once it was pointed out that there was no nationality about insurance. What was wanted, as Mr. Appleton said, was solidarity. The Secretary to the Treasury made a very valuable admission. He said that these four Commissions in their procedure were torturing administration. That is a phrase of his own,

  3053
  and it is not a bit too severe It is actually true, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. This little attempt to get Home Rule in a hurry has been shown in practice to be that which tortures administration. It is not enough to say, when you have created a system which is obviously bad in practice, "We will try to meet some things in which we admit it is bad. Surely the better plan is to do away with the bad system altogether and not attempt to patch it where it is most obviously wrong! For example, the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to local societies that their trouble was with the "strays," the lost sheep who wandered away into other parts, it might be into Wales when they ought to be in Scotland or into England out of Ireland, and he said these "strays" were to be allowed to be treated as if they were domiciled at the head office of the society. Let us see how that will work. Suppose there was an Irish society with "strays" in England and in Scotland. In Ireland the contributions are different, and there is no medical benefit. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that these Irish strays who have been domiciled in England or Scotland will continue to pay the Irish rate of contributions, and are not to have medical benefit? What is to happen?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will wait for the details.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: He askes me to wait for the details and therefore mmediately emphasises my objection, because it is obvious he cannot answer the first question that occurred to me when I heard him adumbrate his scheme. Then with regard to the international societies. It is obvious that it would quite easily break down, because the right hon. Gentleman says you must give some power to the branches in the other nations which remain out. That may have the effect of breaking up the international societies into four parts, and continuing the mischief which this proposal is intended to meet. No, Sir, the real truth is the Government have, without thinking, jumped into a Home Rule Insurance, and as soon as it is put into operation they find it will not work, and what they ought to do is to say frankly that it will not work, and abolish the four Commissioners, retaining the use that can be obtained from the separate branches, or from separate delegated Commissions in the various countries, and retaining the full power at headquarters, so that uniformity shall govern insurance. I beg to move the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This is, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly says, merely the same Debate over again, and I think the Committee are prepared to come to a conclusion on the subject. The only thing I would add for the consideration of Members is that I am not quite sure whether I have done right in putting my Amendment on the Paper before the question of the four Commissioners arose, because the Government Amendment largely depends on what the Committee decide in connection with the four Commissions. I will have the Amendment placed on the Paper immediately, and I will circulate a full explanation of it, showing exactly its implications. Of course, although it is a Government Amendment, and, therefore, would naturally come tomorrow, if the Committtee desire to have a longer consideration we can postpone it until some day next week. I have, I think, met all legitimate criticisms, and I think we may now come to a Division.
  Mr. J. FALCONER: I do not like to give a silent vote on this important question. With regard to Scotland, I am certain the suggestion to abolish the separate Commissions would meet with universal disapproval there. Universal is perhaps too wide a term, but my authority for expressing that opinion is this: I have had some experience in connection with a friendly society under this Act. When the Act passed I, with some other friends, formed an approved friendly society for the rural workers of Scotland. Its formation was perhaps as difficult a task as anyone could set himself to, because it extended over the whole of a wide area with a scattered population. We succeeded in forming a society which now has some 70,000 members. We were also asked by the farmers of Northumberland whether we would take them into our society, and we agreed to do so. Therefore I have had experience of the working of a society with about 3,000 members, I think, from Northumberland a society which, to that extent, is an international one. I have discussed the matter with all the other members of the board of management, who take a very close interest in the society, and the conclusion we have unanimously arrived at is this, that it would have been practically impossible for us to do the difficult work we have had to do in the formation of that society if we had had to deal with a body situated in London. As a matter of organisation, I venture to say no business man with any experience of organisation would for a moment suggest that the

  3055
  management of the approved societies in Scotland should be vested in a body whose chief offices were in London. The Joint Committee as a means of communication between the different Commissions and the different societies is an excellent device, but it necessarily occupies a great deal more time in dealing with affairs brought before it than is occupied by the separate Commission, just for the reason that it has to consult the Commissions in the different countries before it can come to a decision upon any question. The reason a separate organisation is necessary are not merely those of time and distance. The conditions are much different, I think, than many people on this side of the border realise. Our whole rural life is on an entirely different structure from that which you have in England. The conditions of employment, the conditions of housing, and the whole life in our rural districts are entirely different from those which you find on this side of the border. We have a large body of fishermen whose conditions of work and of life are quite different from those which prevail in the English fishing towns. Then we have the Highland—an entirely different problem. If you take my own Constituency of Forfarshire you will find varying conditions. You have an argiculture life, you have a shepherd life, and you have the people scattered along the hill-sides in a very sparsely populated district, and anybody resident here who has not been brought up with a knowledge of Scottish conditions, could possibly deal satisfactorily with these different classes of people. I do not wish to say more about it except this, that I do not believe that any body fixed in London controlling this thing from headquarters could possibly administer the Insurance Act in Scotland in a way that would give satisfaction.
  Mr. HALL: Before this is put to the vote I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the different opinions that seem to prevail amongst hon. Members on the other side. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has admitted plainly that there was no reason for discontent, and for the manner in which these affairs have been conducted. I think from the speech that we heard from the hon. Member on the Labour Benches it is made perfectly plain that there have been difficulties, and for the Member for Forfarshire to get up and tell us everything is all well—
  Mr. FALCONER: Will the hon. Member forgive me? I sat down in deference to what I understood was the wish of the Committee, I hope if this—
  The CHAIRMAN: You are not entitled to make a second speech. I would point out to the hon. Member for Dulwich that he should confine his remarks to the Amendment.
  Mr. HALL: I was endeavouring to do so, but I could not help thinking, considering the remarks that had emanated from the hon. Member, that you would allow me the same latitude that has been permitted to other Members. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this, "Why is it, at the eleventh hour, he has come to the conclusion that it is advisable to make some alteration in the Commissions for England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales?"
  It was generally recognised, I think, when the matter was being debated in the House that there would be trouble over various things. I myself did not fully realise at the time as I have since realised the difficulties that have been encountered on this very important point. Now that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has stated that he intends to give a draft Report, I hope that, notwithstanding the fact that it is to be a Government Amendment, he will give us sufficient time in which to go through the whole of these matters, and not press them upon us to-morrow. If he will undertake to leave it in abeyance until Monday it would give us a chance of going fully into it.
  The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has promised to bring it up as a new Clause. I must point out that it will not come on until next week in any case.
  Mr. HALL: I quite understand, but although it may come up as a new Clause you will realise that, being a Government Clause, it will have precedence over all other Clauses.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We have had a very long debate, and everyone wishes to get this Division, if possible, before four. I promise definitely that we will not take this Clause to-morrow, and that I will circulate this explanation. Though it is a Government Clause, I will postpone it as a Government Clause.
  Mr. HALL: Yes, but I take exception to what the right hon. Gentleman has just

  3057
  said. On this side we have been particularly quiet. That has not been so on the other side. We have not endeavoured to stultify this Bill in any way. We have not gone into the various matters in the way some Members opposite have done, and I think a protest should not have been raised against us. Surely we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would give us this concession! As he has done so I am satisfied to leave it in that way.
  Mr. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I understand there are only a few minutes left to the Committee, and hon. Gentlemen behind me, whose case has been pretty well stated, are anxious to speak. I should be glad to remain silent and to accept the situation created by the withdrawal by the hon. Gentleman opposite, but I desire to say that I am entirely against the abolition of the Irish Commission. As a matter of fact, we in Ireland accepted the Insurance Act on a clear understanding that we would have a separate Commission of our own. I listened the other night to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In dealing with this aspect of the question, he stated that at the time the proposal was made to him in favour of separate Commissions he was opposed to it, but that subsequent experience had lead him to believe it was the right thing to do. Coming from Ireland I am in a position to say that the success of the Insurance Act in Ireland is largely due to the fact that we have had a Commission of our own. That Commission has given universal satisfaction to all sections of the Trish people, and I venture to say that if the proposal were not withdrawn here to-day, that it would have the unanimous opposition of the Irish Members in Parliament of all sections and of all politics. The hon. Gentleman only represents Ireland in the Home Rule debates, not when it is a question of Insurance.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I really do not know why the hon. Member should single me out for that observation. I made no remark whatever.
  Mr. DEVLIN: All I have to say is that I thought I was paying the hon. Gentleman a great compliment, because he is our most logical and most unanswerable opponent in his statements of the case from the Ulster point of view. I did not single him out. I saw a number of his hon. Friends single him out, and for once I was in hearty sympathy with the views not articulated by his own friends. This Act has been a great
  3058
  success in Ireland. Everyone who followed the discussions on the Insurance Bill when it was before Parliament will remember that every prophet prophesied that this Act would be a failure in Ireland. It was said there was no need for insurance in Ireland, that the universal sentiment of the people was against it. But I say now that there is no country in the United Kingdom where the Act has been more successful than in Ireland, and that is largely due to the administration by the Insurance Commissioners appointed there. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) states that there are many difficulties in having separate Commissioners for Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Of course, there are a great many difficulties, but the difficulties are not caused by the existence of separate Commissions.
  This Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to deal with a crowd of difficulties which exist in every branch of Insurance administration. To make a change so fundamental as to abolish the Commissioners in Ireland, in Scotland and in Wales, against the will of the people in these places would be to strike at the very root of the whole scheme. I quite agree about the difficulties, but the difficulties must be overcome. There are difficulties in the way of the administration of medical benefits. I do not know whether you are going to abolish the doctors because you have trouble in administering medical benefits. I do not know whether that s the Tory doctrine that where there is a difficulty you must uproot and overturn the whole fabric. That seems to be the position of the Unionist Members. One other Gentleman who has spoken has stated that every approved society in England is opposed to separate Commissions. I can tell him that every approved society in Ireland would resent any attempt to rob them of a separate and distinct Commission. We have had a long and varied experience in Ireland of the administration of Irish affairs by this country, where the Irish representation has been practically swamped by the larger number and the greater ignorance which have generally gone hand in hand. If we have now a complaint to make against the administration of the Insurance Commissioners in Ireland, we make it against our own Commissioners. We hold them responsible if anything is wrong, and we can bring the matter before Parliament, but if the Commissioners were grouped in one body, then whenever a complaint was; made, the Irish Commissioners would be able to say, "The fault was not ours; we were

  3059
  voted down by Englishmen, Scotchmen and Welshmen." We have in Ireland a Commission which has done its work satisfactorily and which, with the co-operation of the people, has made the Act popular in Ireland, and everyone would strenuously and bitterly oppose any attempt to rob us of our own Commission.
  Question put, "That the words 'made by the Treasury' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, 23.

  Division No. 5.]

  AYES.

  Addison, Dr.

  Falconer, Mr.

  Lynch, Mr.

  Alden, Mr.

  Gwynn, Mr. Stephen

  Macnamara, Dr.

  Beck, Mr.

  Harcourt, Mr. Robert

  Masterman, Mr.

  Booth, Mr.

  Harvey, Mr. Edmund

  Millar, Mr.

  Boyle, Mr. Dantel

  Hazleton, Mr.

  Money, Mr. Chiozza

  Buxton, Mr. Noel

  Hinds, Mr.

  Rendall, Mr.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jones, Mr. Glyn-

  Scott, Mr. MacCallum

  Davies, Mr. Ellis

  Jones, Mr. Haydn

  Warner, Sir Courtenay

  Devlin, Mr.

  Keating, Mr.

  Wing, Mr.

  Esmonde, Dr.

  Lardner, Mr.

  NOES.

  Astor, Mr.

  Goulding, Mr.

  Newman, Mr.

  Bentick, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Gwynne, Mr. Rupert

  Nield, Mr.

  Boyle, Mr. William

  Hall, Mr. Frederick (Dulwich)

  Ormsby-Gore, Mr.

  Cassel, Mr.

  Hamilton, Mr.

  Remnant, Mr.

  Clay, Captain Spender

  Lawson, Mr. H.

  Sandys, Mr.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Locker-Lampson, Mr. Godfrey

  Tryon, Captain

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Worthington-Evans, Mr.

  Forster, Mr.

  M'Neill, Mr.

  Mr. KEATING: I understand that some Members whose ignorance of the constitution of this Committee—
  Hon. MEMBERS: Order, Order!
  Mr. KEATING: Whey you called out my name, someone passed the remark, "Is Mr. Keating on the Committee?" I regard that as a grossly insolent remark.
  The CHAIRMAN: I answered that he was, and I recorded the hon. Member's vote. I assume that the Amendments of the hon. Members for Wiltshire (Mr. Bathurst) and Worcester (Mr. Goulding) are superseded by what has taken place.
  Mr. GOULDING: My Amendment deals with International Societies.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I said that I would try to meet the hon. Member.
  Mr. GOULDING: I think we should adjourn, and not rush this business. A great number of Members have not seemed
  to be able to vote one way or the others, and we are in the dark as to the provisions which the Government will introduce.
  The CHAIRMAN: I understood that the hon. Member's Amendment was covered by the previous one.
  Mr. GOULDING: No, it is not.
  The Committee adjourned at 4 o'clock till 11 o'clock to-morrow (Friday).

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  [Mr. J. W. WILSON in the Chair.]

FOURTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.
Bill further considered.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I beg to move, "That the Committee do continue to sit this day till four o'clock, notwithstanding the sitting of the House."
Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: That would be extremely inconvenient.
The CHAIRMAN: It does not necessarily mean that we should sit till four o'clock. The Motion had better be, not that we sit till four o'clock, but "That the Committee continue to sit this day, notwithstanding the sitting of the House."
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee do continue to sit this day, notwithstanding the sitting of the House."
Question put, and agreed to.

FOURTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

  CLAUSE 10.—(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,
  3062
  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. GOULDING: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words, "And shall provide that in the case of approved societies having amongst their members persons resident in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, or any two or any three of such parts of the United Kingdom, such societies shall render returns as to membership, contributions, and benefits solely to the Joint Committee, and shall keep their books and accounts in such form as may be prescribed by the Joint Committee; and that for the purposes of the provisions of the principal Act relating to valuations, surpluses, deficiencies, and transfers, every such society shall be considered as a single society domiciled in that country where its principal office is situate; and Section 83, Sub-section (3), of the principal Act shall be interpreted accordingly."
  I move this Amendment formally, in order that I may make a statement in reference to it. I am sure the Committee, including the Government, will agree that we are rather in a difficult position with regard to this matter, owing to the Clause which the Government are going to move and the Memorandum which they have circulated, and which a large number of Members have not been able to see. I did get a copy of it owing to the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman, but I have certainly had inadequate time to follow it. The Amendment I have put down is to deal with the position of the international societies, and to try and put an end to what the right hon. Gentleman described as the torturing administration which is going on in reference to them. I want it to be distinctly understood that, if I withdraw my Amendment now, I shall not be prejudiced in moving it hereafter if I consider it desirable in order to put these international societies in a better position than they are in at the present time. If the right hon. Gentleman will kindly give me that guarantee, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the course which he has pursued, and I think he will find that the new Clause, when it is on the Paper and of which he has a draft copy, will largely meet the very points he tries to raise in his Clause. I regret that the hon. Gentleman has not had an opportunity before of seeing our new Clause, and I must confess that I have been under some misapprehension in the matter. I never imagined that this particular question would be in order on this Clause. I am not in the least disputing your ruling, Mr. Wilson, but that is the reason why the Clause was not on the Paper before. I thought that we should have some days before we dealt with the question, but if, as I understand, we fully protect the rights of the hon. Gentleman, I will put this new Clause down on the Paper one day next week, as soon as hon. Members desire it to be taken.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I have only just received the Clause, and I think the right hon. Gentleman must admit that it is rather intricate and requires some study. I would like to ask whether it will meet the case about which there has been a good deal of complaint of the secondary school teachers, the nurses, and governesses, and other similar classes, which cannot, as he is aware, make up the number of 5,000 for valuation purposes, and therefore retain their own approved society within one of the four sections into which the United Kingdom is divided. I should like to have an assurance on that point.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is designed to meet that case, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will study the Clause and the Memorandum. I would remind the Committee that by putting it down as a Government Clause it gets precedence.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not put it down on Tuesday, because it affects so many societies who ought to have notice of it, and an opportunity of communicating to members of the Committee their wishes in regard to it. After all, this is a matter of actual detailed management, and, until the various societies have seen the draft Clause, they cannot say how it will affect their particular interests. It, therefore, ought not to come on for discussion until Tuesday or Wednesday.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly. I had hoped that we might have got the Bill by Wednesday, but I will certainly agree entirely with the wishes of the hon. Member.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I desire, before the Clause is put, to identify myself with the protest made yesterday on behalf of the Irish Members and the Scotch Members against the suggestion made for the abolition of the National Commissions. I understand that the difficulty is to a large extent met by the draft proposal of the Financial Secretary, but in any event I think it ought to be quite clear that the real objection of the trade unions has not been to the National Commissions having a separate existence, but to the difficulties which have arisen, as I understand, in the administration of the Act. I mention that because I should be very sorry indeed if the impression got abroad that the trade union movement is going to thrust itself in some way against the national sentiment of the various nationalities in the United Kingdom. I am quite certain in my own mind that is not their intention. It must be remembered that these various separate Commissions were formed at the special request of members representing the different countries affected. In particular, in the case of Wales, it had the unanimous support of all the Welsh Liberal Members in the House. We have a special reason for asking that our case should be separately treated, because a large part of our work has already been undertaken in the past by what is known as the Welsh National Memorial, and, while we shall be most ready to support any Amendment which may facilitate the performance of the work by the various trade unions and friendly societies, we shall undoubtedly give the most strenuous opposition to any proposals to abolish the separate Commissions.
  Mr. GOULDING: I must enter a caveat to the suggestion that our objections to this Clause are going to be met by any such method. I believe the maintenance of these four Commissions is a gross and extravagant waste. It is a costly administration, it is a clumsy administration, and I believe it is carried on against the wishes of a vast majority of the leaders of friendly societies. We have it announced

  3065
  from time to time that the Government cannot make this or that concession solely on account of the expense, and the sooner we cut down the expenses of these extravagant Commissions, which are costing us something between half a million and a million per year, and devote that money to giving benefits to the people, the more satisfied the country will be. I believe no Amendment could possibly be devised which would give more satisfaction than one in such a direction. Downstairs, on Report, and indeed here, I intend to continue to do my best to try and get these four Commissions amalgamated.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman represents any real feeling among the associations in the remarks he has made. Certainly, he does not in Scotland, where we are practically unanimous in our appreciation of our separate Commission. Even where it differs from the English Commission we approve of it all the more, because we think it has adapted the Act to the circumstances in Scotland in a way which is much more appropriate for Scotland than the manner in which it has been applied in England. I have in my hands a circular from the Scottish National Conference of Affiliated Friendly Societies, in which the following is to be found:—
  "At the annual meeting of the societies the following resolution was unanimously adopted:—
  'That the duly elected representatives of friendly societies, tinder the auspices of the Scottish National Conference of Affiliated Friendly Societies, now constituted under the National Health Insurance Act and representatives of societies or branches of the international societies, comprising a considerable majority of the total insured persons in Scotland, do repudiate the desire or necessity.'"
  Mr. MASTERMAN: On a point of Order. This Clause has nothing whatever to do with the four Commissions. The Motion we are discussing is "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The Clause merely incorporates a Joint Committee, a body which is to have a seal and to exercise certain functions. I would appeal to my hon. Friend not to open up this question, because, if he does so, other hon. Members will also desire to speak upon it, and we shall spend a considerable time in discussing a question which really has nothing to do with the Motion before the Committee.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The right hon. Gentleman has occupied a much longer time than I intended to devote to my concluding remarks.
  The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member conclude his remarks?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: My concluding remarks were to be these: "That this organisation of friendly societies, comprising a considerable majority of the total insured persons in Scotland, do repudiate the desire or necessity for amalgamating the said four Commissions in one as advocated by certain official interests in England."
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 11.—(Offences and Legal Proceedings.)
  (1) If any employer deducts, or attempts to deduct, from the wages of an employed contributor the whole or any part of the employer's contribution 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 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. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the words "if any employer," to insert the words "knowingly and wilfully."
  The object of this Amendment is to provide that any action on the part of the employer which is aimed at by this Clause shall be action "knowingly and wilfully" taken, and I think some such words are necessary. An employer may, quite possibly, without intending it, commit a breach of the law. He may deduct a wrong sum; he may deduct 4d. when the deduction should only be 3d. and he may do so owing to a misunderstanding of the "rate of remuneration of the employed

  3067
  person." The ascertainment of the rate of remuneration of an employed person is known to be a matter of considerable difficulty. There have been quite a number of decisions come to by the Commission with regard to it already, and that alone shows there has been considerable difficulty in large numbers of cases in finding out what the actual rate of remuneration is. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) will be able to tell us of the difficulty experienced by farmers in ascertaining the actual remuneration in a given week. If the employer makes a wrong deduction he is to be liable to fine or imprisonment and various other penalties. I believe that this Clause as it stands makes a mistake in deduction a statutory misdemeanour, and that carries with it a maximum of two years imprisonment, apart from any special penalty. I recollect that when we had the Company Law Bill under consideration we had exactly the same sort of Clause before us, and there the words "knowingly and
  wilfully" were inserted. I hope that, under the circumstances, the Government will agree to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In regard to the last point raised by the hon. Member, I am informed by my legal advisers that what he suggests is not the case. This Clause is read with the principal Act, and under Clause 69 of that Act the penalties are definitely defined. All we are trying to do now is to place the same penalties upon deductions as are placed upon failure to pay contributions. I have had this question of inserting these words "knowingly and wilfully" before me in connection with a number of Bills with which I have been concerned. We have always resisted a proposal of this nature, and. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see his way to withdraw his present Amendment, because, if you put in these particular words, the Clause will undoubtedly become a dead letter to all intents and purposes. If a man deliberately makes a wrong deduction he can always give some sort of excuse; either that he had not seen the Act, or that he had not seen certain pamphlets, or that the wording of the Act was too confused for him to be able to understand it. I believe the hon. Member for the Wilton Division recognises that this Clause has been drawn to meet a real grievance. It cannot be said that the Commissioners, in using their powers of
  3068
  prosecution, have used them arbitrarily or recklessly, as there have only been from 100 to 200 prosecutions as compared with 14 millions of insured persons. The Commissioners have no wish to use their power recklessly, or anything but moderately, but it is essential that we should have these powers if justice is to be done to insured persons. It is of no use to have the power of prosecution if those who are making the illegal deductions know that there is no possibility of prosecution being instituted. Too many think so at the present time, simply because it is the agricultural labourer himself who has to prosecute. They know there is no chance of the agricultural labourer prosecuting. In these circumstances I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. FORSTER: I think my hon. Friend will probably go to a Division upon this Amendment. If he does, I shall support him. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the desirability of justice being done to insured persons. I think we want to secure that justice is also done to the persons who are proceeded against. I cannot understand why the Government will not accept the Amendment. I feel certain that they do not want to punish people who have committed an offence inadvertently.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Hear, hear!
  Mr. FORSTER: Therefore, in order to protect the people who may have committed an offence by inadvertence and not in any shape or form by intent, I think these words are really necessary. I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to accept them, and I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.
  Dr. ADDISON:I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will persist in his resolution not to accept this Amendment. A good case in point is Section 8 of the Factory Act, which says that an employer shall not knowingly employ a woman within four weeks after her having given birth to a child. The result is that that Section is a dead letter, simply because the word "knowingly" is in.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he means by the words "attempts to deduct"?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That comes on the next Amendment.
  Mr. BATHURST: This is a matter in which I am very much interested. I am conscious of the fact that there is an

  3069
  extreme ignorance prevailing both amongst low-paid labourers and their employers as to the provisions of Schedule 2 of the principal Act. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept this Amendment, he ought to take some steps to make it better known that in the case of low-paid labour the contribution is not 4d. and 3d. a week respectively. I find in my own Constituency, among perfectly honourable and well-intentioned employers, it may be a regrettable, but an existing ignorance upon this subject. So far as I am aware, nothing has been done beyond the passage of the Act to make it clear to the employers and their employés throughout the country that there is this differentiation made in the case of low-paid labour. I am not suggesting that in some cases the deduction is not made deliberately. I am afraid it is. But there are other cases in which it is done through a sheer oversight or lack of knowledge. In those cases the Commissioners ought to take some steps to make it known. It happens particularly in a case where the employer is in the habit of employing men in regular continuous employment at good wages, but at certain seasons of the year he employs casual labour at a low wage. It not being his usual custom to pay anything more than 3d. a week as the employer's contribution, he falls into error as to what he pays in the case of the casually employed person. I am not going to press for the support of my hon. Friend's Amendment because I think the case might be met in another way. All I hope is that employers are not going to be dragged before the Courts, and, without malice prepense or guilty intent, either be committed to prison or substantially fined for an offence they have not deliberately committed. I do not know, but I should have thought, whether you put the word "wilfully" into the Act or not, that when the case came to be considered by a Court they would take into account the deliberate or guilty intent before they imposed the penalty.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that Section 69 of the Act which this Clause amends does not provide that the prosecution must prove that the employer failed to pay the contributions knowingly or wilfully. Otherwise he would have had the same difficulty of deciding who was or who was not an employed contributor. The Act throws upon the employer the
  3070
  onus of finding out for himself. Surely it is not suggested that any employer runs any risk of being brought to book unless the prosecution can prove knowledge on his part as to the exact amount, whether a 1d., 2d., 3d., or 4d., he ought to pay!. I hope the Government will resist this Amendment, otherwise the Clause we are putting into the Bill will be absolutely worthless.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will persist in declining to accept this Amendment. In practice it will work out very much as desired by the other side. Action will not be taken capriciously against an employer who may unknowingly commit a violation of this Clause. If you insert the words "knowingly or wilfully" in this Clause you will give an employer the opportunity of pointing out that under the law you have got to prove that he did it knowingly or wilfully. I have produced a number of cases to the Commissioners, one of which was of a particularly glaring character, in which an employer boasted to a friend of mine that he did not make the deduction, that he did not intend to do so, and that, so far as he was concerned, he should evade the Act as long as he possibly could. When he was approached he declared that he did not understand the provisions of the Act. Under the Amendment you would, of course, have to prove in a Court of Law that he did understand it. Having regard to the practice that when cases are brought to the notice of the Commissioners friendly representations are made to the parties pointing out to them that they are violating the Act and respectfully suggesting that they ought to conform to it, and that that generally has had the effect of removing the grievance, I see no reason for the insertion of this Amendment. It would be positively dangerous, and would not provide the necessary protection to the workmen.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I want to say one word in response to the request made by the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst), whose suggestion I gladly accept. We certainly will make further efforts to see that everyone shall know exactly what deductions are necessary under the Act. Of course, if the man can prove in a Court that he was acting without really knowing the conditions, that would be taken into consideration by the magistrate. What I am afraid of is that everyone would try to

  3071
  prove that he did not know the conditions. We have had Section after Section in various legislation violated for that reason, and, as a matter of fact, in late legislation in respect of the Home Office and other offices we have always resisted, and successfully resisted, the insertion of the word "knowingly," both in Committee and in the House.
  Mr. NEWTON: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that he hopes it may be possible to circulate further information, so that employers may know exactly what deductions they are entitled to make. I think the right hon. Gentleman is rather optimistic because there is at the present time a mass of misconception prevalent throughout the country. I think he will admit that the early speeches of all parties on the Insurance Act are responsible for much of the misconception that exists today. During the early discussions on the Act, I, like many others, tried to explain it to my Constituents, and 1 know perfectly well that in the country districts everybody thought that in calculating the wages of agricultural labourers an average was to be taken for twelve months, and that harvest money and the rent of a cottage and so on would be included in calculating what rate of wages they were receiving. However unintentionally, we have undoubtedly spread a great deal of misconception throughout the country, and consequently farmers do not know what the deductions are that they should make. Regulations have been issued by the Commissioners, copies of which have been forwarded to those Members of the House who desired them. I was one of those, and I received a mass of printed matter. How you can expect employers of labour or employed in the country to really understand their position passes my comprehension. The right hon. Gentleman has promised that he will make further attempts to bring the true facts to the notice of persons interested. I should have been more disposed to accept his assurance if he could have indicated what steps he was going to take to bring a real knowledge of the position to interested persons. I am very much afraid there will be great difficulty in doing that satisfactorily, though, of course, if the word "knowingly" is added, I can quite see that that might have the effect of making it impossible to secure a conviction in a bad case. I am quite sure none of us desire to do that, but I believe we desire,
  3072
  on both sides, that where, through the complexity of the situation and owing to the misconception that exists, men make innocent mistakes they should not be penalised. It is recognised that ignorance of the law is not a defence, but we are now in a different position, because now it is ignorance of a mass of regulations issued not by Parliament, but by the Commissioners, which may bring people into trouble, and therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will devote a great deal of thought, and take any steps he thinks necessary to bring the actual law, as interpreted by the Commissioners, to the notice of persons interested.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I would ask the hon. Member who moved the Amendment what he really means by the word "wilful"? I can understand that the defence might be made that a man did not know the law or did not understand the regulations, but I am rather curious to know under what circumstances an offence could be proved under this Clause if the word "wilful" be inserted.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am perfectly willing to drop the Words "and wilfully," and, with the permission of the Chair, I will withdraw that Amendment, and move it simply with the word "knowingly." The right hon. Gentleman told us the Government always resist the insertion of "knowingly" and "wilfully," because they find it has the effect of making it impossible to secure convictions; but in Section 68 of the principal Act itself you have an exactly parallel case. Section 68, Subsection (3), says: "If any person knowingly levies or attempts to levy any such distress or execution upon the goods of people who are sick." That is precisely a parallel case. There is an action which has got to be taken by a person, and, if he takes it knowingly, it is an offence. If he takes it without knowledge, it is no offence, and here also it should be that if he knowingly deducts too much, then it should be an offence. In order to support the objection of the right hon. Gentleman, you have to go as far as this: You have to say that if an employer by accident deducts too much, he is to be guilty of a criminal offence. He is to be subject to the indignity of being brought up in the Police Court, charged with a statutory crime, even though the penalty is only £10. I will defy the right hon. Gentleman, or those who support him, to attempt to make that kind of defence in the House of Commons. It is all right in Committee,

  3073
  but I will undertake to say that when this is brought up on the Report, he will be ashamed to bring forward the defence that he has made to-day.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the word 'knowingly' be there inserted."—[Mr. Worthington-Evans.]
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If the Committee supports me in this, I shall certainly make exactly the same defence in the House, and I am quite sure the House of Commons will support the Committee in the matter. The real parallel is not dealing with the question of distress, but dealing in the original Act with penalties on employers in connection with their relationship to insured persons. The original Act, in Section 69, Sub-section (2), dealing with such cases, does not contain the word "knowingly."
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Read Sub-section (1).
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That has to do with declarations as to reserve values—"If any employer has failed to pay any contributions which, under this part of the Act he is liable to pay in respect of an employed person, he shall, for each offence, be liable on summary conviction." There is nothing about "knowingly" at all.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I must deal with that. The payment of a contribution is a matter of fact. No man can doubt whether he actually paid a contribution or not. There cannot be a question of paying it without knowing it. He must know whether he paid the contribution or not. In the same Section, 69, Sub-section (1), which the right hon. Gentleman took care not to read, there is the word "knowingly" again. "If any person knowingly makes a false statement." That is again a parallel case. He may not know. He may make a statement believing it to be true, but it may turn out to be false. In such case, you do not put him under a penalty, but if he knowingly made a false statement, you do put him under a penalty. Where it is a matter of opinion the Act of Parliament has put in the word "knowingly," and where it is a matter of fact which the person must know himself, they have left out "knowingly." Here it is a matter of opinion, whether he has deducted or not deducted the correct amount.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: The Financial Secretary said he was quite certain no magistrate would convict an employer if he thought he had deducted this without knowledge of what he was doing. If that be the case, what can be the objection to putting in these words? It is only to guide the magistrate in the decision he should give. I cannot see that there can be any objection. The Financial Secretary would have saved a great deal of the time of the Committee if he had only been willing to accept this word "knowingly." It cannot possibly have such an effect as he has indicated.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The hon. Member (Mr. Worthington-Evans) has made an extraordinary distinction between matter of fact and matter of opinion. These cases are both exactly parallel. The question in this Amendment is whether we shall insert the word "knowingly." Surely it is a matter of fact whether an employer has deducted a contribution. It may be a matter of opinion as to whether he was liable to pay the contribution or not, but it is a matter of fact whether he has deducted it, and if we go to the original Act, in which we are dealing with the payment of the contribution that is deducted from, it is a matter of fact whether the employer has paid it or not; but it may be a matter of opinion whether the employer was liable to pay it or not. So far as matter of fact is concerned, and so far as matter of opinion is concerned, the two things are exactly parallel.
  Mr. BATHURST: I am afraid I cannot quite agree with the reasoning of my hon. Friend if he wants to move his Amendment in its present form. If he moved it in this form, "if the employer either by himself or his agent knowingly deducts," I should have some sympathy with it, but I am conscious that a large number of men have no knowledge whatever as to the amount deducted from the wages of their employées. That is to say, that men employ agents upon a large estate or in other walks of life, which agents actually make the payments and make the deductions, unless you insert some words like "by himself or his agent," you are possibly going to do a great injustice to the workmen. If he is willing to accept these words I am ready to support the Amendment, but I am not prepared to support it in its present form.
  Mr. NEWTON: If my hon. friend goes to a Division I am not sure whether I can

  3075
  support him or not. My decision on that matter would be influenced by a statement which the right hon. Gentleman might be prepared to make to me. I understood him to say a minute or two ago that he would take steps to bring a knowledge of the law to the persons concerned. If I were confident that the steps would be sufficient in fact, and that those concerned would have a knowledge of the law, then I do not think that there is any need for this Amendment, but if he cannot do that—I cannot see how he can do it, although he seems to be very confident that he can—then I have no option but to support my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans). If the hon. Gentleman would only realise the complexity and the number of points involved, and the ignorance of so many persons who are compelled to take some interest in the Insurance Act-if he would realise the difficulties of the situation, perhaps he would be able to take proper steps to meet them. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to indicate what steps he would take to ensure the fulfilment of the promise he has made to bring a knowledge of the facts to the persons concerned.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have sent a Memorandum on agricultural labourers' remuneration to 350,000 farmers and others engaged in agriculture, and I will continue through the Recess by the inspectors and by other means to get the necessary information disseminated.
  Mr. NEWTON: I have read every document which the right hon. Gentleman's Commissioners have sent out, and unless the farmers in this country are a great deal better fitted to understand the documents than are Members of the House of Commons, I am certain that there is still a mass of ignorance rampant in the country, and that the right hon. Gentleman's documents, which are so voluminous, have done absolutely nothing to remove it. I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that his Commissioners should make further efforts to bring a knowledge of the facts to the public.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Although I feel that there is a majority of the Committee against my Amendment, I want to put it to the vote.
  Question: "That the word 'knowingly' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Mr. BATHURST: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "wages" ["from the wages of an employed contributor"] to insert the words "or other remuneration."
  I should like to explain that in Schedule II. to which this Clause really has reference the expression is "remuneration" and not "wages," and, as is common knowledge to this Committee, the wages of a certain class of labour in this country do not represent the whole of the remuneration. It is quite possible that deductions might be made from the other side of the remuneration—the remuneration in kind and not in cash—and that might result in injustice to an employed person.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I shall be very glad to accept that Amendment, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving it.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. BATHURST: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "contribution" ["any part of the employer's contribution"] to insert the words, "or any sum in excess of that provided in the Second Schedule of the principal Act."
  If you look at that Schedule, you will find, as a matter of fact, that in the case of persons whose remuneration does not exceed 1s. 6d. a working day there are certain moneys provided by Parliament, and it is quite conceivable that an employer might do injustice to his workmen by making a deduction in excess of his own contribution. I want to be quite sure that every case is met by this Clause. I do not think every case will be met unless you put specifically into the Clause a statement to the effect that the deduction of "any sum in excess of that provided in the Second Schedule of the principal Act" shall be unlawful. I want to be quite sure that every case is covered, and I am advised that they will not be covered unless these words are inserted.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I quite appreciate the point of the hon. Gentleman. I think it is covered by the terms of the Act, but I am with him in every endeavour to safeguard the interests of low-paid workers, and I think the whole of the Committee are in favour of that. If he will move the Amendment in this form, I feel sure that it might be useful, to insert after the word "contribution" the words "as defined in the Second Schedule of the principal Act."
  Mr. BATHURST: Does that meet it?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That meets your point.
  Mr. BATHURST: I have not had time to consider the effect of the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but if my legal friends advise me that they meet the point, I will accept his form of the Amendment. I wish to hear what the members of the Labour Party have to say on this subject.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I have an Amendment on the Paper to cover this point.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I realise that a later Amendment of which the hon. Member for Leicester has given notice was meant to meet this point. The Sub-section, as amended, would read:—
  "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."
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Supposing that an employer deducts more than the whole of his contribution, or any part of his contribution-supposing the employer's contribution is 3d. and that he reduces the wages by 1s., a very common case—that is not met by the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. I might make the point clearer if I referred the right hon. Gentleman to the Factory Inspector's Report which we discussed on Wednesday last in the House of Commons. He will find from that Report that there are a large number of cases given of deductions which would not be covered by the amended Sub-section. There is the case, for example of, the Bristol Boot Factory. There is case after case given in Mr. Rowntree's recently published book, showing how deductions which are made by the farmer class would not be covered. There are thousands of cases where employers are reducing wages because the Insurance Act has come into operation, and that is especially the case in reference to women's wages, which would not be covered by this Amendment at all.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: As to the deductions made in connection with those
  3078
  classes, if an employer who is authorised to deduct 1d. deducts 1s., that would be covered by the Clause. As to the general question of making fresh contracts with regard to wages, I do not think that can be met by this particular Clause.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I do not want that.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member does not want that. I think the particular point now before the Committee is met by the words which I suggest. If the hon. Member on reflection thinks that it is not met, we will listen to any suggestion which may be made on the Report stage.
  Mr. BATHURST: I would suggest a slight modification which will, I think, meet the view of all parties. Instead of "as defined by the Act," if we were to read "or any part of the contribution other than that of the employed contributor," that would cover all cases.
  Mr. BOOTH: I rise to support the point made by the hon. Member for Leicester. I have had a very painful case indeed brought to my notice in which some very poorly paid women and girls undoubtedly have had a reduction from their wages to a greater amount than both their own and the employer's contribution put together. I would certainly support any effort made to meet that which I consider to be a dastardly action.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: This is a very important point. Let us take the Bristol Boot Factory case which is referred to in the Factory Inspector's Report this year. There is nothing there that can be called a reduction from wages of the whole or any part of the employer's contribution, but there is a charge put upon the workmen for standing room, and the employer's agent openly and specifically stated that that was being done on account of his contribution under the Insurance Act. I would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give me his opinion as to whether that deduction would be made illegal by this Clause as amended?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I would not like to give an opinion off-hand on that legal question. I am no more an authority on that subject than the hon. Member for Leicester. It is very difficult to deal with a manuscript Amendment such as this. I am rather inclined to recommend the Committee to take the words as they stand, with the proviso that they will be con-

  3079
  sidered, if they do not meet the wishes of the Committee, on the Report stage.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD:I will accept that suggestion.
  Mr. BATHURST: It is a little difficult to arrive at the right words at a moment's notice. I am quite prepared, if the Committee is in sympathy, to accept the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman on the understanding that we may raise this matter again on Report if after mature consideration we find that this does not cover all cases.
  The CHAIRMAN: I may point out that the Committee have got as far as the word "contribution," and therefore it is impossible to insert the words before "contribution."
  Mr. BATHURST: Yes; that is a difficulty.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Further Amendment made: After the word "contribution" insert the words "as defined in the Second Schedule of the principal Act."
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTThad given notice of the following Amendment: At the end of the Clause to add,
  "(3) The Insurance Commissioners shall have power to sue for any offence under this Act or under Parts I. and III. of the principal Act."
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Do I understand that this Amendment is in order? Because I see there is another Motion down as a new Clause in the name of one of my hon. Friends. Personally I think that the form which is proposed as a new Clause is preferable. I would ask my right hon. Friend if he is willing to give consideration to this matter later on?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: There is a new Clause put down which I think meets the wish of the hon. Gentleman in a more satisfactory manner. I should be very glad if we could consider it in that new Clause.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Then I will not propose this Amendment.
  Mr. ALDEN: I beg to propose at the end of the Clause to add,
  "(3) The wife of a person charged with an offence under Section 19 of the principal Act may be called as a witness
  3080
  either for the prosecution or defence, and without the consent of the person charged."
  I think it most important if possible to raise this point. This is a question as to whether the wife should be allowed to give evidence against her husband. The principal Act makes the neglect of the wife by the husband wino has received maternity benefit a criminal offence. But there is no means of proving that offence unless you can call the wife, and though you can call the wife under the Criminal Law you cannot call the wife for any such offence as misusing the money which has been given for maternity benefit, and this Amendment is intended to make it impossible, as far as that can be done, for the husband to misuse the money and thus ill-treat the wife and in that sense defraud the wife. We are going to discuss later on the question as to whether the maternity benefit shall be the property of the wife or whether it shall be treated as the property of the wife. But we do not know what will happen. We do not know whether it will be carried by the Committee. In any case I think that it is desirable that there should be the power of calling the wife in evidence. I imagine that if the maternity benefit does become in effect the property of the wife it will be hardly necessary to call the wife in evidence. But if the Committee does not accept the new Clauses that are down on the paper making maternity benefit the property of the wife then I forsee that it will be necessary to use this power which I ask for.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope that the Committee will reserve an opinion on maternity benefit until we come to the new Clauses which we shall do in a very few minutes. This is modification of Section 19, the existence of which I do not think altogether meets the grievance which we shall subsequently come to consider, but in so far as it is a modification it is a modification in the right direction. Certainly if there is a prosecution for this offence the wife ought to be able to be called because she is almost the only one who can really give evidence in the matter, and I shall have great pleasure in accepting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I draw the attention of the Committee to the very great inconvenience caused by not having a law officer of the Crown present. The

  3081
  Secretary to the Treasury is continually getting up and saying that as a layman he cannot give an opinion on legal matters. I have always understood that when a Bill of first class importance is before the Grand Committee there ought to be present a Member of the Government competent to express a legal opinion besides the Minister in charge. The opinion of the right hon. Member is not worth any more than that of anybody on this side of the Committee room, and I confess that I think that it is rather a slight on the Committee, and a great disadvantage to the practical business that we have in hand, that we have not present a law officer of the Crown.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: May I appeal to the hon. Member. There is only one case in the whole of this long discussion in which I have said that I was unable to give a legal decision. I have legal experts advising me at the present moment, and in the case to which I have referred I agreed that we should consider it on Report. The law officers of the Crown—there are only two of them—are very much overworked at the present time, and honestly I think that we can get on at present in the same manner as that in which we have been getting on.
  Mr. FORSTER: I do not wish to speak slightingly of the right hon. Gentleman, but in the absence of a really valuable opinion I hold myself quite exonerated from any consequences that might follow from accepting this Amendment. I do not really know what the law is at present. I am very reluctant to change the law by means of an Amendment such as this, but if the right hon. Gentleman chooses to take the responsibility of this I shall not divide against it.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman between the Committee and Report stages to consider the advisability of making this provision in regard to all offences under the principal Act. I do not at all see why there is any necessity to select this particular offence. The whole provision is archaic.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I will consider that.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: I cannot take any responsibility for the insertion of this Amendment, and, quite candidly, I, like other members of the Committee, would desire the advice of the Law Officers on the point. I have a very grave objection to any interference in the relationship
  3082
  between husband and wife. I will have to express my opinions a little later on. They are purely personal to myself, but nevertheless, I could not possibly support the Amendment, and I think the hon. Member would be well advised to withdraw it, and then he can endeavour to secure its inclusion on the Report stage, when we shall have the advantage of the presence of the Law Officers in dealing with the matter.
  Mr. LYNCH: I rise to say a few words in support of the Mover. I would appeal to the Committee that the decision of the House does not rest upon any legal advice whatever. If we had the advantage of legal advisers it could only be as to the technical position, and not with regard to the principle involved. I should think there could be no more terrible position for a woman who might have a drunken husband, and who in that hour of need might have the money that was absolutely necessary for her sustenance, or even life, taken from her by the hands of that drunken husband.
  The CHAIRMAN: I believe it is necessary for the Committee to pass a Resolution to sit on Monday beyond four o'clock, with the leave of the House.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move "That the Committee, by leave of the House, sit beyond four o'clock on Monday." We cannot put in a limit of six o'clock, but I have given a promise that we will not sit beyond that time, and the Committee starts at two o'clock.
  Mr. GOULDING: I hope we are not going to sit late on Monday.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have given a promise not beyond six o'clock.
  Sir W. BYLES: Are we to sit after four o'clock?
  The CHAIRMAN: We meet at two instead of twelve on Monday.
  Sir W. BYLES: The Eleven o'clock Rule is suspended.
  Ordered, "That the Committee do continue to sit upon Monday next, notwithstanding the Sitting of the House," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Masterman.]
  Mr. LYNCH: There is still another point which I feel more strongly even than the Mover. He said that if the Clause giving maternity benefit entirely to the woman were passed he would think this would be unnecessary.
  Mr. ALDEN: Not so necessary.
  Mr. LYNCH: I should still think it would be necessary even if this were carried, and if that Clause were carried giving the benefit that still, in nine cases out of ten, she might, be robbed. I think every protection possible, even although this would be inadequate, should be given in that most difficult and trying position.
  Mr. ALDEN: I do not want to stand in the way of the Committee if they are anxious to get on, but I should like to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman before I withdraw, if I am going to withdraw. I do not think the Committee really understand how serious the matter is, and how important it is that husbands should not be allowed to behave in the way in which they behave sometimes to their wives in this matter. I do not say the eases are very numerous, but a case has come to my notice where a husband has spent the 30s. on another woman.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: On a point of Order may I ask whether we are now discussing the maternity benefit and the general relations—
  Mr. ALDEN: I am not going to discuss it. I only mentioned one case. I want to put one question: "Has this Amendment been submitted to any Law Officer of the Crown?" I presume it is a legal point and has been considered by the Law Officers or, at any rate, by a legal authority.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It has been submitted to all the legal authorities we possess, but it is not a legal question at all. It is a pure question whereby through a technicality evidence is not admitted in these cases which is admitted in 99 out of 100 similar cases. [An HON. MEMBER; "No."] Still I cannot resist the appeal of the hon. Member for the Sevenoaks Division (Mr. Forster). If the hon. Gentleman thinks this involves a legal point and that it is better to have it considered and legal advice obtained, I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, and we may if necessary bring it on again.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Surely we ought to have regard to the fact that we have got on these benches no fewer than eight lawyers. It is a very poor compliment to them if one Law Officer is supposed to be worth the whole eight put together.
  Mr. ALDEN: On the understanding that
  I shall have an opportunity later, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 12.—(Revocation and Amendment of Orders and Extension of Time for Making Orders under s. 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 Act may be exercised shall be extended to the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and fourteen.
  Mr. GOULDING: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
  No doubt when this Act was passed it was very desirable to give far-reaching and extensive and almost despotic powers to the Commissioners. The House, after debate and discussion downstairs, limited the date for those powers to the 1st of January, 1914, and it is now proposed to give a whole year's extension of this great and far-reaching power. I for one have heard no reasons produced why this extension should be made. I am not for one moment going to say that the Commissioners have not discharged their very difficult duties with great tact, but they are human the same as other people, and undoubtedly mistakes have been made. It seems to me it is an entirely vicious principle for the House of Commons to delegate its own responsible duties to Commissioners. We have our authority from our constituents and those who are working the approved societies have equally their authority from those who appoint them their representatives. I can see no reason so far why those great approved societies with their colossal experience in the working of the friendly societies and the trade unions are still to be kept in leading strings and held under the authority of the Commissioners. I want elasticity given to them. I do not believe in red tapeism. I believe in democratic Toryism which gives the people this power and this authority, and I altogether object to the autocratic dictation which this Government is trying to impose on every one of our voluntary institutions.
  There are in the administration of the Act unnecessary complications and

  3085
  difficulties set up by the continuation of this authority, and there is triplilication of work each time amongst the approved societies, the Commissioners and the members. I think the time has absolutely come when these approved societies can be subjected to the regulations of the Treasury the same as the friendly societies were heretofore. Thinking that, I would have been bound to move the deletion of this Sub-section, for only recently there has been an Act taken by the Commissioners that I say exceeds all bounds. Without any sanction or authority direct or indirect from Parliament, they have altered the forms of procedure of election in this country. The English Commissioners have deliberately decided that instead of the public having in the old way direct representatives on Insurance Committees that there shall actually be introduced a system of proportional representation so as to confuse the issues. On that I do not think the Commissioners or the Government have any power to introduce this innovation. It has never been sanctioned by Parliament. It is a debatable point. Friendly societies and approved societies themselves are split in twain as to the principle of proportional representation. I have here resolutions passed from great friendly societies in my own constituency directly disapproving of this innovation, and asking that they should have the whole power of election of their representatives under a system which they knew, and under the system which has never been changed by the authority of Parliament. We want to get on to the other Clauses. I wish to go on, and we have not been given time, owing to this Bill coming before us so late in this Session to debate these things, and this question as it ought to be debated, but I say no single argument has been produced by the Government for undoing the date and extending it to another twelve months. It was deliberately put in in the House of Commons after full discussion and Debate.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I would like to ask the hon. Member as a Democratic Tory of unimpeachable faith, to allow the Commission, with the very limited powers they have under Clause 78, a further extension of time in getting the Act into operation. I think the hon. Member, if I may say so with the utmost respect—and judging by what has been said in the House of Commons by some other Members, the remark applies to them—is under a delusion as to the extent of these powers. If he was
  3086
  actually working the Act, he would find these powers are very strictly limited. So far from allowing the Commissioners to do anything they please, they are only allowed to modify by Order such conditions as are necessary, not to change the Act, but to bring the Act into operation. That is a very limited power indeed.
  Mr. GOULDING: What about the keeping of accounts?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The whole of the Act and the whole of the benefits are not in operation yet. We wish to have a continuation of the power so that the adjustments which may have to be made in connection with this Act may be made. I think the introduction of this Act alone would be enough to enable me to appeal to hon. Gentlemen to give us extra time. As to the general powers, we always said in the House of Commons that it was doubtful if the time finally inserted would not require to be extended. This is our original proposal. Consider, for example, the case of the deposit contributors; their case is to come up next year for examination. [An HON. MEMBER: "By the House?"] There are many orders which are absolutely necessary to run to bring the Act into operation in connection with the deposit contributors. We know very well their case is to be considered next year if by next year any deposit contributors exist. Another case that has been brought to our notice is that of the Army and Navy. There are provisions in Clause 78 in connection with the Army and Navy that apply to men all over the world, and the men in some cases will not have returned from the other side of the world when that time expires, if it is not prolonged, in connection with Order 78. As to the question of election the hon. Member said that that was not approved by Parliament. The thing was specifically put before Parliament. There was a Division on it, and Parliament did approve of the Principle.
  Mr. GOULDING: Is there anything in the act saying that proportional representation was to be resorted to in connection with these elections?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It was very fully discussed. The matter was raised by the hon. Member, who put his point as usual with great clearness, in connection with the appointment of Committees.
  Mr. GOULDING: Scottish!
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Scottish Committees and the English Committees carry out the same principle.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The point with regard to Scottish Committees came up. There was and is no proportional representation in Scotland. It is only in relation to the English Committees that proportional representation was discussed.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The matter was discussed in connection with the point that the hon. Member really made.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Not proportional representation!
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It was whether you were to have a poll of the whole of the members, or whether you have to have them nominated. The members of the Committees are nominated by the representatives of the approved societies. In any case no Motion that the hon. Member could make now could alter that. There will be no more election of Insurance Committees before the three years have expired. This Order will have expired by then. It is really with the knowledge of the necessity of this Order from an administrative point of view that I feel that the Committee should let us have this year's extension.
  Mr. FORSTER: I have already said in the House of Commons that I object to this extension of the powers. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said has removed, in any shape or form, the objection that I feel. As he said, the extension of these powers is necessary, because the Act is not wholly in operation. He mentioned the fact that disablement benefit has not yet begun to be paid. If I recollect aright, even the extended powers of these Commissioners will have come to an end before disablement benefit begins to be paid, and, therefore, I do not think there is anything in that argument. The other Clause would be practically valueless so far as the Commissioners are concerned for dealing with disablement benefit, because, as the right hon. Gentleman has reminded the Committee, they only relate to things which are necessary and expedient for establishing Insurance Committees or Advisory Committees, or for bringing this part of the Act into operation. I do not really think that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to disablement benefit affect the position at all. May I remind him that
  3088
  we are bound to have a new amending Bill dealing with the position of the deposit contributors, so that I do not think there is any necessity to extend these powers to enable the Commissioners to take any steps in connection with them. They can be fully dealt with and covered by the provisions of the amending Bill which is brought in to deal with them. I do not think there is any occasion to extend the powers of the Commissioners in that way. I can only repeat that I object, and object very strongly, to giving any Department of the Government powers to alter or to vary what Parliament itself has resolved, and on those grounds I shall support the Amendment.
  Mr. BATHURST: I desire most strongly to support this Amendment. It was with very great reluctance that the House of Commons allowed these very wide and arbitary powers to be given to the Insurance Commissioners, and that only in consideration of the strong appeal from the Government in view of the complexity of the Act and the difficulty of bringing its provisions into effective operation. Only under that strong appeal to Parliament to permit the Government a longer period than Parliament would otherwise have been prepared to vouchsafe to them was it given. This particular Clause was only defended upon the footing that it had been included in other and previous Acts of Parliament and simply with the object of allowing the administrative body a somewhat larger period of time to make the necessary departmental regulations. It was pointed out that in previous Acts of Parliament that period was a very limited period. It was not proposed to go beyond a very limited period in this case. What this Clause seeks to do is to allow the Commissioners power to make Orders and Regulations which may have the effect of modifying the provisions of an Act of Parliament. It specifically says so. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Commissioners require this power in order to bring the Act into operation. In ordinary parliamentary language the Act came into operation at the beginning of last year. What is now being asked is that the Commissioners shall have the right for two and a half years beyond that period to issue orders which may have the effect of modifying this Act of Parliament, and on the footing that they are bringing the Act into operation. That is a very wide power indeed. I am amazed that Gentlemen representing the great democracy of this

  3089
  country and with highly democratic views are prepared to endorse the suggestion that the Commissioners should be given this power. I have never met a more courteous and apparently mild-mannered set of individuals possessed of and exercising such arbitrary and despotic powers than the gentlemen and the lady who form this Commission. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that it is necessary to have this prolongation of the time because it would be unwise to bring certain Orders now in existence to an end. There is nothing in this Clause that would necessitate existing Orders being brought to an end. These Orders are not only to continue to be operative, but even to have the effect of an Act of Parliament. The only possible excuse for this extra period of twelve months is that the Commissioners may bring further Orders into operation, and thereby further harass an already considerably harassed public. I am perfectly amazed at the suggestion of my hon. Friend that he has not only absorbed, but presumably has at his fingers' ends, the whole of these Orders and Regulations. I believe that he is the only man in the country who can make that claim. However that may be, I earnestly ask the Committee not to consent to the suggestion that for yet another year these arbitrary powers shall be retained by the Commissioners.
  Mr. NEWTON: I wish again to express my feeling that we ought not to extend these powers to the Commissioners for a further period. There is only one little difficulty that I see in the proposal to delete Sub-section (2), and that is that presumably Parliament will not be sitting at the time the powers will expire. If my hon. Friend had moved to insert the 1st April in place of the 31st December, I should have been more ready to support him. The 1st April would have been an appropriate date, being the birthday of Bismarck, the German statesman. But as he has moved to omit the Sub-section I shall certainly support him. The hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. Bathurst) has so well expressed my view as to the inequity of these powers being vested in this body of gentlemen and of further extending the period that I need not further refer to the matter.
  Sir W. BYLES: I hope something more will be said on this side of the Committee in support of this Sub-section. It appears
  3090
  to me that all the argument so far has come from the other side, and I share many of the opinions which Members opposite have expressed. It is probably well-known to my colleagues that I have a perfect horror of handing over to our great permanent Civil Service, for which we all have such profound respect, duties which are primarily devolved upon us by our constituents. Therefore I have some difficulty in supporting my right hon. Friend because the extension to the 31st December next year appears to me to be a very large one, and one which demands a greater defence than we have yet had.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman opposite. It seems to me that the Government have Made no case for the prolongation of these powers. They were given powers under circumstances which no doubt the Committee remember. They were given powers in the original Act, against the protest of the Opposition, permitting them through the Commissioners with the consent of the Treasury to modify the Act practically in a very wide way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer when his attention was called to the fact in the House said:—
  "I have been considering this point, and I agree that on the face of it it looks as if the powers conferred on the Commissioners by this Clause are almost unlimited. That is certainly not the intention of the Act. As I explained earlier in the Session it is purely to deal with temporary difficulties."
  The right hon. Gentleman said that that was the reason, and he made it perfectly clear that it was to deal with temporary difficulties. He then went on to say that he proposed that the power should only be exercisable to the 1st January, 1915. I objected to that, and in answer to my objection the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
  "I do not think hon. Members quite realise the whole difficulties of the time. If the Committee thinks that 1915 is too long, I shall be perfectly prepared to cut it down to, say, two years after the passing of the Act. That would be making it quite temporary. We want to have these powers which have been in Al recent Acts."
  I then called attention to the fact that in the Irish Local Government Act, which had been quoted as a precedent, the powers were only given for five months, not two years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—
  "I intend to suggest the 1st January, 1914, if that will meet the views of the hon. Gentleman."
  As a matter of fact, that did not meet the views of the hon. Gentleman, but notwithstanding, it was put into the Act. As the

  3091
  Committee will observe, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he wanted it until that date purely for the purpose of meeting temporary difficulties, and that although the powers looked to be very wide, they would be limited to temporary difficulties. The Secretary to the Treasury has not given us any reason why these powers, which were limited in time by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are now being extended. I do not know if he suggests that the temporary difficulties are still going on, which snake it necessary to alter the Act. I wonder if Members realise the sort of orders which are being made under these powers. Here is a book-full. They are not all orders under Section 78, but a large number of them are. Let me read the first recital:—
  "Whereas, by Section 78 of the National Insurance Act, it is amongst other things enacted that if any difficulty arises with respect to bringing into operation Part I. of the Act, the Insurance Commissioners, with the consent of the Treasury, may, by Order, do anything which appears to them necessary or expedient for making that part of the Act come into operation, and that any such Order may modify the provisions of the Act so far as may appear necessary or expedient for carrying that Order into effect."
  Mr. FALCONER: That is a quotation from the Act.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I told the Committee that it was the recital in the Order, and of course the recital in the Order recites the powers under the Act. I wonder whether the Committee realise that that power is now to be continued for another year for no reason that has been given to the Committee at all. When the power was objected to in the House of Commons the Chancellor of the Exchequer met us, although not sufficiently I think, by cutting down the period, and now the Secretary to the Treasury without any reason whatever asks us to give another year. It seems to me that we shall be failing in our primary duty to our constituents if we allow these powers out of our hands into the hands of the Commissioners and the Treasury, who are working together in this matter.
  Mr. FALCONER: I desire to say in one sentence why I oppose this Amendment. I do so because it is in the interest of the friendly societies and of everybody working the Act that the Clause should stand is it is. It has been shown that these provisions are invaluable for enabling defects to be overcome. It is in the interest of everybody who desires that the Act, should work smoothly that the Commissioners should have the power to make such
  3092
  adaptation as may be necessary in circumstances that have not yet arisen. For these reasons I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.
  Mr. BOOTH: It is essential in the interests of the large organisations working the Act that the Commissioners should have elastic powers. If that were not so, and if we were to adopt the view of the Opposition we should have innumerable law suits, and instead of these matters being dealt with by mutual bargaining and arrangements between the societies and the Commissioners who want the Act to be a success we should have any amount of law cases, with members of the legal profession drawing big fees. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles) knows I am usually with hint in not wanting to give too much power to State Departments, but in this case the powers the Commissioners possess have been such a success that I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow the Commissioners to go on working the Act as in the past, rendering this service to the insured million.
  Mr. THOMAS: The view we hold in relation to this question is this, that while we would take our stand with gentlemen opposite in resisting powers being given to anybody that Parliament should legitimately retain, we desire to emphasise the, fact that members of approved societies dealing with work prior to this Act coming into operation always have had the power on emergency of calling special delegate meetings, and it was important that anything that particularly or pecuniarily affected them should be immediately dealt with. That was a power not infrequently exercised and was of advantage to the societies as a whole. This Clause gives the Commissioners practically power to do what the approved societies have done all along. I think it is absurd to assume that on matters of this description Parliament in future should be concerning itself.
  Mr. GOULDING: I only rise to say that. I am not surprised that the earthly twins who sit on either side of the Gangway opposite are going to act together in this matter as they did in other transactions, but I am surprised that representatives of labour in this House are still determined that they should be temporarily governed by the extension of this power.
  Question put, "That Sub-section (2) stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 32; Noes, 11.

  Division No. 6.]

  AYES.

  Addison, Dr.

  Dickinson, Mr.

  Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

  Alden, Mr.

  Esmonde, Dr.

  Macnamara, Dr.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Falconer, Mr.

  MacVeagh, Mr.

  Booth, Mr.

  Gwynn, Mr. Stephen

  Masterman, Mr.

  Boyle, Mr. Daniel

  Harcourt, Mr. Robert

  Millar, Mr. Duncan

  Bowerman, Mr.

  Harvey, Mr. Edmund

  Money, Mr. Chiozza

  Buxton, Mr. Noel

  Hazleton, Mr.

  O'Grady, Mr.

  Byles, Sir William

  Hinds, Mr.

  Roberts, Mr. George

  Carr-Gomm, Mr.

  Jones, Mr. Glyn-

  Scott, Mr. MacCallum

  Dawes, Mr.

  Lardner, Mr.

  Thomas, Mr.

  Devlin, Mr.

  Lynch, Mr.

  NOES.

  Bathurst, Mr. Charles

  Goulding, Mr.

  Newton, Mr.

  Boyle, Mr. William

  Lawson, Mr. Harry

  Ormsby-Gore, Mr.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Locker-Lampson, Mr. Godfrey

  Worthington-Evans, Mr.

  Forster, Mr.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  LAUSE 13.—(Short Title Construction.)
  (1) This Act may be cited as the National Insurance Act, 1913, and the principal Act and this Act may be cited together as the National Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1913.
  (2) Any provisions of this Act which supersede or amend any provisions of the principal act shall be deemed to be part of that. Part of the principal Act in which the provisions superseded or amended are contained.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (2) to insert the words, "This Act shall be deemed to be part of Part I. of the principal Act except that."
  This is a fulfilment of a promise I made to the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel), in order that the meaning might be made quite clear. I think he raised the question on the Casual Labour Clause. It is purely a matter of drafting.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask whether, for public convenience, when this Bill is passed into law the Act will be reprinted showing the Amendments made by this Act, or what will be done to enable those concerned easily to see how far the principal Act has been amended?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I will see whether something of that sort cannot be done, or whether we could not issue the two Acts together.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: Would it not be possible between now and the Report stage, where we have the amending
  3094
  Clauses of the principal Act repealed, too repeal such Clauses and to re-enact the Clauses as amended, because it does seem to me that some such course would be necessary. Some Sections will be amended and some will be repealed. Sooner or later we will have another amending Bill, and we will never know where we are. If we could come to sonic understanding so that it would not be, necessary on Report to re-open the whole Act it would be a great convenience. Otherwise I submit the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mile End is a good one.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I will see what can be done. Perhaps we can issue the two Acts together with a memorandum. Ultimately, if these amending Acts go on we will have to have a Consolidation Act.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: It would be possible in the House of Lords to pass Amendments that might be agreed to.
  Sir W. BYLES: What is the advantage of declaring this to be a principal Act?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: There was a doubt whether the application of the Regulations Clause to Special Orders under the Casual Labour schemes did actually apply, and this is to meet that particular point.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In Subsection (2) after the word "of" ["provisions of the principal Act"], insert the words "Part III."
  In Sub-section (2) leave out the words, "that part of the principal Act in which the provisions superseded or amended are contained," and insert instead thereof the words "Part III. of the principal Act."
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (2) to add the following new Sub-section:—
  "(3) This Act shall come into operation on such date or dates as the Insurance Commissioners may by order appoint, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and different provisions of this Act, so, however, that no date later than the 13th October, 1913, shall be appointed for the coming into operation of the provisions of this Act altering the rates of sickness or disablement benefit in respect of any class of insured persons, nor later than the 15th January, 1914, in respect to any other purpose or provision." This Amendment is to meet the promise I made to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding), that the 13th October, 1913, should be the date on which the new sickness benefit should commence.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Change of Name of Post Office Fund.)
  "The special fund constituted under Section forty-two of the principal Act shall be known as "The Deposit Contributors Fund," and consequently references in the principal Act to the Post Office Fund shall be construed as references to the Deposit Contributors Fund."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time." This is a very small point, and I hope it will be accepted without discussion. The Post Office have represented to us that there is some confusion in the remoter districts between the Post Office Savings Bank Fund and the Insurance Fund, and consequently, they get Insurance books presented when they want the Savings Bank books and vice versâ, and so they have asked us to change the name of the Fund and call it "The Deposit Contributors' Fund," which indeed it is.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Before we proceed with any more of the new Clauses, may I ask whether it would not be possible to combine the discussion on the Clauses
  3096
  which bear upon the same subject? Most of these new Clauses originally appeared on the Order Paper as Amendments to the particular section to which they refer. I have never quite understood why in your ruling it was necessary that they should be put down as new Clauses. It appears to me that many of them deal with the same subject and might be considered together, and unless that is done it may be said when one new Clause has been passed or rejected, that there will be no further opportunity of discussing another new Clause upon the same subject. I want to know if you can arrange, Mr. Chairman, for us to take these Clauses together.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the Chairman has any power to arrange the order of the new Clauses. Obviously the same rules must be applied here as in the House, otherwise individual Members would lose their place. Of course it is quite open when one Clause is being discussed and there is another on the paper later on dealing with the same subject for the hon. Member in charge of the second Amendment to point out how much preferable his form of words would be, and the Committee having both Amendments before them could say which they will have.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: All these new Clauses fall into certain groups, dealing with various suggestions which have been again and again advanced. Would it be possible on a new Clause for us to take a general discussion, and any alternative proposals which the Committee might like to carry, might be carried as Amendment to the new Clause after it has been read a second time.
  The CHAIRMAN: Obviously the procedure is that on the Motion, "That the Clause be read a second time," the whole principle is discussed, and on the question "That the Clause be added to the Bill" it is open to Amendment in the way the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.
  Mr. BOOTH: I hope we shall follow the usual practice of the Committee, because my experience is that these innovations invariably lead to confusion. The practice of the House has been arrived at after a great deal of experience, and whenever we vary it we invariably waste time. I submit that the hon. Member has been industrious enough to get the premier position on the Order Paper, and I do not think it would be fair to mix up the discussion with five or six other subjects.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think any deviation has been suggested from the usual course.
  Mr. BOOTH: And I hope you will not permit it.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I should like to ask whether the next new Clause to be moved by the Ion. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), which as I read it is to alter Section 8 of the principal Act, by inserting certain words, is in order. It seems to me quite an impossible thing to add words like those which the hon. Member proposes to Section 8 of the principal Act.
  The CHAIRMAN: I admit that legislation by reference is a very undesirable way of proceeding if it can be avoided, but it is too late in this Committee to take exception to this practice.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I know that we have amended the Act by saying that certain words should be read with it, and that certain interpretations could be put upon those words. But the wording of this new Clause is to insert in the principal Act certain words in certain places.
  Dr. ADDISON: There are two or three other proposals all relating to maternity benefit, and I would like to know if under your ruling, Mr. Chairman, we can discuss the whole question of maternity benefit, or shall we have to confine our remarks to a specific point.
  Mr. ALDEN: I think it would be better if we could widen the area of discussion just a little. There are many points arising under the hon. Member for Salisbury's new Clause which ought to be discussed immediately. I think the hon. Member will see the advisability of having a little wider discussion, and I hope the Chairman will be able to allow it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: For the general convenience of the Committee what I would suggest is this: There is a specific point raised in the hon. Member for Salisbury's new Clause, and it is whether maternity benefits shall be mothers' benefit or fathers' benefit, or some modification of the present relationship in connection with maternity benefit. I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee that all the subjects relevant to that ques-might be dealt with in one discussion, and questions such as a midwife's certificate
  3098
  might be dealt with in the Clauses as they come up.
  Mr. FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. There is another question which is that an insured woman should get the double maternity benefit instead of four weeks sick pay to which she is entitled. That does not arise on this Clause, and it would be better to deal with these different points as they come up.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is the natural course unless the Committee wish any special exception to be made.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Maternity Benefit.)
  "Maternity benefit shall in that 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,' or some woman nominated by her, after the first word 'payment,' in that paragraph; and Sub-section (1) of Section eighteen shall be repealed."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to, move "That the Clause be read a second time."
  I shall move this Clause in a very few words, because many hon. Members will desire to speak. Although my name happens. to be first on this Amendment it does not in the least preclude Members from making suggestions upon it, and if they make good suggestions to improve the Amendment I shall be the first person to vote in favour of them. If this Amendment is adopted the principal Act would read: "Subject to the provisions of this Act the benefits, conferred by this part of this Act upon insured persons are:—and payment to the mother or some woman nominated by her in the case of the confinement of the wife, etc., etc.—a sum of 30s. called maternity benefit." I very much hope that the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. I believe that maternity benefit was one o the benefits which very largely induced the people of the country and the House of Commons to accept the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme. I think that maternity benefit was one of the benefits which struck the popular imagination, and I think the reason it struck the popular imagination was because it was felt that this benefit was going wholly to the mother, and not only for the benefit of the mother but for that of the child also. I do

  3099
  feel that there ought not to be any leakage in the 30s. maternity benefit. I feel very strongly that the whole of this benefit ought to go without any doubt whatsoever to the mother for her benefit and for the child's. If you look at the original Act, Section 19, it is quite evident that the man who receives the maternity benefit need not hand the whole of it over. All the Section says is that the man has to maintain the woman during the period of confinement, and that if he does not properly provide for her, certain penalties ensue. It does not in the least say that he has to hand over the whole of the maternity benefit. Section 19 simply says that it is the duty of the husband to make adequate provision to the best of his power for the maintenance and care of his wife during the confinement.
  Therefore, nothing occurs to prevent the husband, even morally, if he thinks that 15s. is enough, from spending the other 15s. on himself. I do feel that it is important that the whole of this benefit should go to the woman without the slightest doubt about it at all. Under the existing system there is a considerable amount of leakage. I have a great many cases here which I do not propose to give to the Committee, because I do not want to make out that there are a great many men in the country who would hold back the money in cases of urgency. I do not want to make out that case at all. As a matter of fact I have various cases in front of me here which go to show that in certain instances the maternity benefit has been kept back, and has not gone to the benefit of the mother. After all, it is an enormous temptation to a very poor man who is suddenly given 30s., possibly the largest sum in cash that he has ever had in his life, to spend it on his own account before it gets into the hands of the mother. I should like to mention that the Association of Approved Societies, I believe, are very much in favour of this Amendment. The Association of Approved Societies is the association of which my hon. Friend the Member for Wilton, is Chairman. I may also mention that the Women's Co-operative Guild with 30,000 married working women members is also in favour of this proposal. I am also right in saying that the Domestic Servants Association with no less than 67,000 members is in favour of it. I have their letter here. Therefore, I very much hope, without detaining the Committee, that the Government will very seriously consider this question. I do not think that it is at
  3100
  all unreasonable, for reasons which I need not go into, to say that it may be handed to the mother or some other person. I do not think it would be at all advisable that the money should get into the hands possibly of some man not related to the woman by ties of blood. I think it would be very much better that the alternative should be some woman friend, who possibly, might be recommended by the approved society. Anyhow, I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer and I beg to move the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps, in preceding the few remarks I have to offer on the subject, it would be to the convenience of the Committee if I made a general statement in regard to new Clauses. We have got our twelve Clauses in the Bill, as we proposed, and I should like to express my gratitude to all parties. As to the new Clauses, there may be some in which I shall have to say that if money is involved we cannot bear the expense. There may be some, which, after careful consideration with my advisors, I should think were deliberately harmful, and I should have to tell the Committee in that case that the Government could not accept them. As to the majority of the new Clauses I do not want to put anything in the nature of what is called Government pressure, if there is such a thing, upon any Member. I want to see if we cannot get, in the time at our disposal, as much non-controversial and generally agreed matter into the Bill, as it stands, as possible. This is emphatically one of the Clauses in which I think every Member of the Committee should make up his own mind very carefully. Speaking not now on the part of the Government—because I believe my right hon. Friend who is sitting in front of me takes a somewhat different view to myself in the matter—but speaking as an ordinary Member, I have just one or two observations to make upon the Clause introduced by the hon. Gentleman. It is quite true, as we all know, that there is a certain amount of abuse of maternity benefit and that ought to be remedied. The extent of that abuse is a very doubtful matter, and is a subject of controversy, because when you are dealing with 18,000 cases a week where maternity benefits are received there is no difficulty at all in getting

  3101
  a considerable number of very bad cases which really bear no large percentage relationship to the general total, and I think the Committee should consider very seriously how far they are prepared to tear up completely the existing system for the sake of meeting these exceptions, or whether these exceptions could not be more satisfactorily met by dealing with them in some other ashion.
  I have no doubt at all in my own mind that the giving of the maternity benefit to the husband, in the vast majority of cases, is resulting in the sum being expended to the benefit of the wife and child, and I believe, from some knowledge I have of the class of insured persons, that if the particular Amendment suggested by the hon. Member was carried there would be a very great resentment among the working-class population of this country. Not only does he wish to say, as I think ought to be said, that maternity benefits ought to be administered for the benefit of the mother and child, but he wishes to prevent the husband under any circumstances, getting the maternity benefit, from even acting as a transmitter between the approved society and the wife, although the wife ex-hypothesi at the moment, is in bed and cannot get up herself. I should like to know rather more of what might happen as to the other women who are to be dragged in as intermediaries between the approved society and the wife. I should think that in 99 cases out of 100 the proper intermediary would be the husband himself. There is, however, a real desire on the part of the Committee to meet these difficult cases. I believe they could be met if you laid down certain definite propositions. I think there is an Amendment later on the paper which perhaps would partly meet the difficulty. It is in the name of the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. H. Roberts)—page 16, first Amendment—which I think could be considered in connection with the suggestion of the hon. Member who has just moved this Amendment. That Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwich allows approved societies, if they care to do so, and if they think the maternity benefit might be abused, to pay the sum to the wife, the latter's certificate to count,
  3102
  and the receipt of the mother to be regarded as an efficient discharge to the society. That, I suggest, is an important point that should be considered. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who is going to move it afterwards will, instead of preserving his right, give his observations upon it in in connection with this debate. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Salisbury that it should be definitely set out that the maternity benefit should be administered for the benefit of the mother and the child, and if we could put some such form as that in in connection with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich I think it would be less open to objection on the ground of what I may call panic legislation that the deliberate attempt to prevent the husband touching the maternity benefit under any circumstances, from even acting as an intermediary between the society and the mother. These, I say, are only my own observations on this rather difficult matter, and I commend them to the attention of the Committee.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: I am speaking entirely for myself in the observations I am about to offer. I have been assured that the remarks I will be called upon to make will be unpopular in character. For that I never care. If I think they ought to be made I never lack the courage to make them. For my own part, mainly for reasons I adduced in reference to a previous Amendment, I have a real abhorrence against the unnecessary intervention of the State between a man and his wife. I believe abuses do exist. I think, however, their number is greatly exaggerated. I am not satisfied that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman will avoid the abuses.
  Those who have an intimate acquaintance with working-class life can conceive that abuses will arise in both directions. For my part I think it would be a regrettable thing if Parliament were to lay down that the husband shall not have any hand in administering a benefit of this character. I believe that in general practice the woman does get the benefit of this 30s. I believe that already it has done incalculable good, and I think it would be a positive disaster for the State to set up irritating conditions between a man and his wife. So far as I am able to ascertain, the great mass of married women would just as strongly resent as I do the setting up of this unnecessary provision.

  3103
  I think also we ought to have regard to this fact, that although the State is now making a very wide provision of this character, it is not quite novel. One large friendly society has been bestowing this benefit for many years and in the experience of that society it never had that benefit abused, and. I think for you now to say to them, "although you have done great good for years past although there has been no abuse arising in your experience, for the future you must depart from your customary practice," I say that would be an arbitrary proceeding, to which I am not inclined to give my personal sanction. I do not think we ought to legislate against sex. I am as keenly desirous as anyone can be to set up conditions which will ensure that the objects of this benefit shall be fully carried out. I want to avoid a man being able to devote any portion of the 30s. to unwise expenditure. Equally I want to avoid a woman who is placed in that ext timely delicate position at the time being subjected to temptations, whereby the 30s. would not be expended on her behalf in the best possible fashion. These temptations will exist, but you are not going to remove the real evil by an Amendment of this character. All these dangers, all these abuses are part of the great poverty problem. What will happen in actual administration? You will have the delegate of the friendly society or the trades union, the secretary or the sick visitor, the person who is responsible for paying out the benefits going to the house. The man is there, and almost invariably where these cases arise, it is a question of a one or two-roomed tenement. There is the man, and you have got to instruct the agent to sweep the man aside, although he is invested with the moral and legal responsibility and say to him, "You are unworthy to be trusted with this benefit and therefore we must call into requisition some woman who has no interest, perhaps, apart from a purely pecuniary character." [An HON. MEMBER: "The neighbour."] Yes, you may trust the neighbour but you cannot trust the husband. I do feel very strongly on this matter, whether what I say is unpopular or not. I do resent unnecessary interference in a statutory manner as between a man and his wife.
  Mr. BOOTH: You have it now.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: I said unnecessary interference.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: That is the whole question, whether it is necessary or not.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: I said unnecessary interference. I recognise there is an occasion arising out of experience for some change being made, but I think we may very well entrust the approved societies with the ability to administer this benefit. I know in some cases the secretary of these societies has entered fully into the spirit of the Act and has taken steps to ensure that husbands do not squander the money, and that it shall be devoted to the intended purpose. If we proceed on these lines, it will be the safest and wisest course for us to adopt. The new Clause I have put down does allow that course to be pursued. Societies which have been paving to the wife direct are under the apprehension that they are doing something which lays them open to action, and therefore, we propose that where the societies believe that it is proper and necessary that the benefit should be paid direct to the wife and that the husband should be made to stand apart in this matter, then the signature of the wife for the receipt of the money shall be sufficient—in respect to the administration of the Act. I have generally expressed my view and I have done so I hope with due appreciation of the sympathy which animates those who are pursuing a contrary line to myself. I am entirely with them in their desire to ensure that the benefit shall be administered as Parliament intended it should be. Nevertheless, I think I may urge one further point. It is far too early to make such a drastic alteration as this. If subsequent experience proves that it is necessary, it should be only changed as the result of further inquiry. I respectfully suggest that it is quite too early for us to have any definite data to guide us in this matter.
  At a quarter past one the Committee adjourned till two o'clock, when the proceedings were resumed.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have had an opportunity of thinking over some of the remarks made on this Amendment, and I should like to say that I should be quite prepared to substitute in the Amendment the word "person" for the word "woman," so as to make it read "to the mother or some other person nominated by her." I thought I would just say that, because it might possibly shorten the discussion.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I am sorry that even the suggested modification does not help me to support the particular proposal which is now before the Committee. I realise that sentiment may enter on one side or

  3105
  the other into the consideration of the matter, but I test the proposal in the first place in this way. I do not think that there is a married Member of this Committee who, if he were making some special provision to meet the circumstances arising from his wife's confinement would not resent being told that he should put that money into a money box and hand the key over to his wife. I do not think that there is one of us who would not bitterly resent that suggestion, and I am not prepared to act as if the men of the insured population required some different enactment by law than that which we consider needful for ourselves. There is another very serious consideration. The responsibility of providing for the woman at that time is the husband's, and we do not, of course, propose to take away from him his legal responsibility to provide for her. Amongst other things, he ought to provide her with proper attention, he ought to provide her with a midwife or with a doctor, and, even if the wife engages the nurse or the doctor, the man is responsible to pay those people. Having by law said that it is a legal responsibility resting upon the husband to make the provision, it appears, as the Amendment is now suggested, that the only person who is to be prohibited from touching the money is the husband.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. Member has misunderstood me. I proposed to say "to the mother or some person nominated by her," and that brings in the husband.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. If the wife chooses to nominate the husband, he may take the money—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes"]—but it is to be the wife's privilege of saying whether that is to be done or not.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Hear, hear.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I agree that not only in the insured classes but in every class of the community there are exceptional husbands who do not treat their wives properly at a time of this sort. You are now recognising the difficulty of the exceptional woman, but you have, I think, forgotten the difficulty of the exceptional man. If there are husbands who are not to be trusted with money, there are also wives who are not to be trusted with money. What about the thrifty husband who has made this provision? If the wife, who in law is not responsible for any debt she incurs in connection with her confinement, is to have the 30s., or some other woman or
  3106
  man whom she chooses to nominate, the money could be used to pay some surreptitious debt incurred by her without the knowledge of the husband. It might be ill spent. Then the husband within ten days or a fortnight would receive a bill from the doctor or the nurse, and it would be no answer for him to say, "Oh, but the 30s. was given to my wife." I cannot help thinking that those responsible for this Amendment are not doing women as a class an injury by bringing it forward. Has it really come to this, that a certain number of British working men's houses are so conducted that you have to earmark each penny, or each loaf that goes into them, and to say that, by law, it belongs to the wife, the husband, or the children? I hope not. I do not think that time has arrived. The question of the economical position of women is a big one. It may be the time will come when we shall have to make women absolutely independent, economically, of their husbands, but so long as the family life is run as it now is, such a proposal as this would, in fact, be deemed, although not so intended, to be an insult by most of the working men of this country. It is one which we should not impose upon them, unless we are satisfied that there are really so many exceptional cases that they ought to be dealt with.
  We have had some exceptional cases put before us by circular. In one case it was said that the man used the 30s. in order to run away with another woman. What was the complaint? That he ran away, or that he stole the 30s.? It seems to me an extremely paltry thing to do to take the 30s. and say, because there are such cases as that, we are to step in between the working-man husband and his wife and say that certain things shall by law be done between with regard to the 30s. I submit that that would be a great mistake. The Amendment suggests that approved societies may decide this point. I have no objection at all to men and women who are members of these societies deciding whether the man or woman shall be paid the money, but it must, in my view, be a universal rule. I do not think it would do to leave it to the secretaries or agents to decide in individual cases whether the man or the woman is to be paid the money. I think if working men themselves, in their own societies, choose to make a rule that this benefit shall be paid to any particular person they have a perfect right to do so, because people need not join a society if they object to any such rule, but for Parliament to come in and tell my

  3107
  Constituents that they cannot be entrusted with money which the State had enabled them to provide in order to meet their own legal responsibilities will arouse great opposition, and for one, am not prepared to use this method of protecting the minority.
  Sir H. CRAIK: The hon. Member has used an extraordinary argument. He tells us, on the one hand, that we are appealed to by the women of this country. We learn on authority that is absolutely unimpeachable that there are cases—and I know of some from my own knowledge—where abuse of the worst sort has happened in regard to this payment—where a wrong has been done to the woman. What is the argument of the hon. Member? We are not forsooth to redress that wrong. The House of Commons, which is legislating for the good of the whole community, must not, we are told, do this thing, because it might be interpreted as an insult to a particular class of the community. The hon. Member, however, says he would leave to the friendly societies themselves to make a general rule. He allows that it would not be sufficient to leave it to the secretaries or other officials to decide the point in particular eases. In saying that he absolutely overturns the course which is proposed by the hon. Member for Norwich, which is to leave it to the societies. The Member says that an absolute rule must be laid down, and that the officials must not judge in particular cases.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I want to make myself quite clear. What I mean is, that it should not be left to individual agents, or individual secretaries, to decide in each individual case, bin: it is preferable that the society, as a whole, should pass a rule applicable to all members of the society.
  Sir H. CRAIK: That is exactly what I was saying.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I do not suggest there should be a general meeting each time; all I suggest is that there should be a rule by the society that the benefit should be paid either to the man or to the woman, and that it should not be left to individual agents to deal with individual cases.
  Sir H. CRAIK: That is exactly what I said. The hon. Member agrees it should not be decided in individual eases by officials of the society, but says there should be a general rule, and thereby he overthrows the proposal of the hon. Member for Norwich. If such a general rule is adopted will it not
  3108
  equally be as much an insult to the members of the society as for this House to lay down the provision here? We, as a Committee, ought to decide this question here. We have here a crying evil and a growing wrong done to women which we ought to put right, and I do not think it would be interpreted for one moment by the better men of the working classes as an insult if we lay down this regulation. The hon. Member asks if we ourselves consider it wrong for a wife to have the administration of some property or some money which she can deal with on her own responsibility. I think everyone of us would be very sorry indeed if he were not perfectly satisfied that his wife had a certain share of the income with which she could deal absolutely independently of himself, and if she had to draw upon that income and could only delegate him to draw in her name, she herself, so far from considering it an insult, would quite approve of it. I am sure none of us would feel that our domestic life was properly regulated unless we were certain that our wives had some income to deal with independently of ourselves. That is all that is asked in this case. This burden which the rules of Providence have laid upon this one sex gives them a claim to the right of administration of any benefit given for the great duty performed. It gives them a claim that such benefit should be in their hands and not in the hands of those who, possibly, if evilly disposed and bad men, may disuse it, but who, if they are right-minded husbands, will be very glad that the wife shall have the administration of the money. I fervently hope that the Committee will act upon what is, to my mind, the only reasonable course to follow, and which will give to the mothers of England the rights they are demanding.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am rather glad that on this occasion I can give whole-hearted support to a. Resolution which comes from a Conservative member. Of all questions, this is one which can be looked at apart from party, apart from the interests of the Government, and apart from the interests of any particular kind of approved society. As hon. Members know, I sometimes have the duty of speaking for the National Conference of Industrial Insurance Approved Societies, whose members number over five millions, representing every nationality. On this occasion I have their authority to say that they do not wish to influence the Committee in the slightest degree. They consider it purely a question for the politicians who try to interpret the views of the country. They will work it any way. There is no difficulty

  3109
  as far as they are concerned. They have given me a perfectly free hand, and, therefore, on this occasion I am going to speak somewhat as the Member for Pontefract unmuzzled. I am one of the few men in this room whose mother, if the Act had been in operation when they were born, would have drawn the maternity benefit. I know a few, but there are not many of us. I want to appeal to hon. Members not to look at this so much as man and wife, as from the mother's standpoint. My father, as a workman, never would have taken it as a slight upon him that my mother should have the 30s., and they are not voicing the working classes who suggest that. It is a maternity benefit. It is the intention, I should have thought, of everybody that the mother should enjoy it—this 30s. I do not agree in the least with the hon. Member (Mr. G. H. Roberts), who talked of it as the man's property. It is not in any way. It is hers. When he suggests that the State is stepping in between man and wife, I say it will do if it follows the hon. Member. This belonging to the woman, unless we step in by our regulations and laws and insist that the man shall draw the money, it will go to its natural home, namely, the woman's purse. Surely the State should not step in, as the hon. Member suggests, between man and wife, and say that although this is her benefit it must be paid to him! The man has not paid for this benefit. It is a joint scheme in which the man pays 4d., the employer 3d., and the State roughly 2d., and the employers and the State paying 5d. out of the 9d. are entitled to a voice as to where id. a week of it shall go. Maternity benefit costs a 4.d. a week. All the other benefits are drawn by the man—temporary sickness, permanent invalidity, all will he paid to the man for him to spend. One benefit only out of all the list in the Bill was specially apportioned to the woman, and designed by the State for her, and I appeal to the Committee not to arrest it on its way. I speak very feelingly on this question. Many employers of labour in welcoming the Act and in paying their contributions, have been influenced by the fact that the maternity benefit was in. I am at the head of a concern which employs 2,000 trade unionists, and my colleagues did not at all like this large contribution; but the one thing that reconciled us to it was that we were helping to stamp out consumption from the national standpoint, and also we were providing maternity benefit for the homes of our workers. When a man goes down a mine, as our employés do, and his wife is pregnant, she does not know whether
  3110
  she will ever see the breadwinner again, and it is a satisfaction to the employer to know that he is contributing into the scheme, and recognising that women whom he does not see are receiving this benefit.
  I have one other warning to give. I hope the Committee will not be led away by the idea of leaving the choice to the approved society. I appeal very strongly in the interests of the women on that point. If you leave it to a subordinate official, the tendency will be to pay the first person he meets—the one he can get a receipt from easiest. If you put it upon him to make a selection of character—if the approved societies are asked to pay to the man where he is a good character, and to the woman where they suspect he is a bad character, it will not work. You cannot expect the societies to stigmatise numbers of workers as unfit to receive them. They do not want that ordeal, and they will not face it. Surely it is her benefit. Surely she can be trusted. If she misspent it, after all she is misspending her own money; but if the man misspends it, he is misspending his wife's money, and that is all the difference in the world. Even if there was an equal number—I do not say there would be—of mistakes made in wrong expenditure, if the woman had sole control or the man, that is not a reason for withholding her benefit, because no one can defend the misappropriation of a woman's benefit, not by her but by man. I look upon it purely as a sex question. I have gone back in my mind to the time when I was born. I have tried to picture the state of Lancashire, which was recovering from the cotton famine, when nearly all the operatives—and my parents were cotton operatives—were suffering from insufficient food. We have all had mothers. I appeal to the Committee not to look at it from the man and wife standpoint, but to ask theme selves whether the mother is not the proper person to spend her own money.
  Mr. LYNCH: I rise to support this Amendment. At the same time, in following all the speeches, I have felt that the Debate has been conducted in the best possible temper, and as each speech has been delivered I have been greatly impressed by it. I was particularly struck by the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. G. H. Roberts), though finally I failed to agree with him. The argument on which he based his speech was not entirely sound. He says it throws a certain slur upon the husband to deprive him of the privilege of handling this money, but no slur can accrue, because the money was never his. This is like manna dropped

  3111
  from heaven, and he has no more right to feel that any slur is placed upon his character than if some outside person left a legacy entirely to the wife for her benefit. The money is the wife's, and that if it be a slur on the husband that he should not be allowed to touch money which is not his, surely with far greater force it is a slur upon the wife not to be allowed to use money which is hers. Then with regard to the alternative scheme that the approved societies shall decide, I think the arguments of the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) is absolutely overwhelming, because if there be a slur upon the husband, what will be the position of an approved society, which has to say o one husband, "You are worthy to touch this money," and to another, "No, we cannot trust you with thirty shillings." You must consider also that in nearly all these cases it is the husband who has the greatest influence with the approved societies, and that his word would prevail. If there is any odium at all in refusing to allow the husband to touch this money, let us here, as a Committee of Parliament, once and for all take that odium upon our shoulders and then the matter flows automatically, and by Statute it is determined not in one individual case but in all cases, so that all possibility of odium in any one particular case is entirely removed.
  Dr. ADDISON: This question becomes a great deal mixed up with the so-called sex considerations, and we are inclined to get ourselves away from the actual facts of life. I certainly think the number of husbands who abuse this benefit is exceedingly small. I quite think that if the first proposal of the hon. Member were adopted it might lead to all kinds of undesirable practices. Many times I myself have seen Mrs. Gamp's beer jug at the bottom of the bed, and if Mrs. Camp should be authorised to get this money—I am not speaking of properly qualified midwives but of the neighbourly woman who serves in poor districts—it is open to abuse. We shall not remove the abuse by altering the words "in this Act." The suggestion of my hon. friend would not do at all. It would not do for the society to have to decide whether it should be for the man or the woman. We must take upon ourselves that responsibility. It would be very unfair to throw upon the society the burden of such a decision. Personally, I do not like the words of the hon. Member's Amendment.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have altered them.
  Dr. ADDISON: However, I can quite see that there is a sufficient number of cases where it is open to abuse, and it is necessary for something to be done to prevent that abuse as far as we can. The money is intended for the benefit of the wife, and she ought to have it. I do not think that anybody can fairly say that it is the man's because he paid for it. It is only a halfpenny a week, and if he is paid eightpence halfpenny a week benefit out of the whole ninepence no one can say that he has paid for this. So that there is no validity in that argument. Morally, it belongs to the woman. Therefore, I think that the best way of dealing with this is to adopt a form of words which should make it quite clear that we intend that it shall be for the benefit of the woman and that we should place the responsibility upon the society of administering it for her benefit. In the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Alden) which appears on the following page, there are the words "maternity benefit shall be treated as a benefit of the mother." I think that some words to that effect would be desirable, and we should really get away from the question as to whose property it is.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It leaves it unsettled.
  Dr. ADDISON: I do not think that it is necessary to try to settle it. If we settle it in words here it will not make any difference as to what is going to happen outside. It is a benefit to the woman and her child, and should be treated as such. Instead of racking our brains to invent a form of words which shall say that it is either the man's or the woman's benefit what we should say is: how this money has got to be used. I think that the words of my hon. Friend meet this case. I hope that the Government will be able to accept some words to that effect. That would mean that in Section 18 (1) of the Act the words "in any other case the benefit shall be treated as a benefit for her husband" certainly ought to come out. The benefit is intended for the woman and her child. I would like to omit those words and to insert some such words as those of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the hon. Member speaking to this Amendment or to a later Amendment?
  Dr. ADDISON: I am speaking to this Amendment, but I understood from the

  3113
  ruling of the chairman that we could speak on the general question. If the hon. Member's Amendment means anything it means that we are going to alter the words to which I have referred in Section 18 (1). I think that the words "for her husband" should come out, and that we should say that it should be treated as a benefit for the wife or administered for her benefit. I do not think that any one of the three Amendments on the Paper puts the matter in the precise form in which it ought to be. I have not myself any form of words to suggest, but if the Government would undertake, if it is the sense of the Committee, to introduce words to that effect I should be satisfied. But in any case I think that the words "for her husband" should come out of Section 18 (1).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I think that the Committee is fairly well agreed as to what it would like to do. The difficulty is to devise a form of words which would, first of all, declare our intention, but it is also quite as important to see that the administration of this 30s. is efficient. The speeches that have been delivered seem to have been divided into those two sections. We have an hon. Member opposite (Sir Henry Craik) delivering a most glowing, eloquent speech from the clouds without any reference to the difficulties of administration. We quite follow this hope and we appreciate his fervid oratory. But while we agree with his sympathies to the full extent, he did not. contribute any proposal or any idea as to how this was going to be carried out. What the Committee has got to do is to combine the two if we can manage it. I should be the very last person to resist the appeals that have been made to us, that the woman, the mother of the child, should have some sort of statutory recognition as in some respects at any rate the owner of the benefit. But when we come to say that, as I trust we shall, if we content ourselves with that declaration, we have not gone very far. The amended proposal of the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment is undoubtedly much better than the original proposal. I am bound to confess that I have got a great suspicion of third parties coming in. I can quite see the one point where the third party might in many cases be necessary, and it is this: we can declare that the benefit is the mother's benefit.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: There is no third person necessary.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Yes, there is a third person.
  Mr. McVEAGH: She may nominate her husband.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: But she may nominate her neighbour, and that is the third person. My hon. Friend does not follow quickly enough the point I was going to make. Where a third person can come in usefully is here. We can declare that the benefit is either the property of the husband, in which case no third person is necessary, provided he is present, because he can sign the receipt himself and the receipt can be taken as a discharge, or we can declare it is the property of the mother. Now if the 30s. are going to be handed to the mother right away after the birth of the child—a very desirable thing, in a great many cases at any rate—then we have to hand that money over either to the husband or to a third person. I think we ought to be very careful before we allow this third person to receive the money and to sign a receipt for it, which would enable the responsible society or the agent of the responsible society to say, "Well this fully meets all my obligations; I have handed it over to a third person." I dm quite sure that if the hon. Gentleman really knew—and I am sure he does to a large extent—the peculiar circumstances under which in so many homes this event takes place, he would see how enormously wide he is opening the door for maladministration. That is the chief difficulty that I have in accepting the method of administration which he proposes, although I admit it is a very great improvement upon his original proposal. Let us think for a moment of the question of maladministration. I have here a letter from the Women's Labour League which has submitted a memorandum on various points in this Bill so far as they concern women. This League says, "We see that the question of maternity benefit to the wife instead of to the husband has been raised. This is not a matter on which we feel very strongly, as we have noticed that bad cases have been dealt with by the Courts fairly drastically. We know quite well that the selfish or drunken husband will find it a little more difficult to get hold of the money when it conies to the wife than he does today. Further, the point has been raised that what the money is wanted for is not to pay back rent, etc., but for the comfort and use of the mother, but we realise that when it is paid directly to the mother, there will be just the same likelihood of its going to pay rent or life insurance, etc., as there is now when it is technically paid to the husband. The wife may use it to relieve her

  3115
  mind of anxiety about the rent or anything else instead of using it for extra food, etc., for herself. The only way to prevent that would be to give the payment in kind, and that seems to us objectionable. Family needs are often just as important to the recovery of the mother as her own individual needs."
  We think, therefore, that while there are no objections in principle to this Amendment, there are no very great inducements if it would cause any administrative difficulty. The situation is this: if that list of grievances which was issued when this agitation was started first of all is the real cause of the change, then hon. Members may be perfectly well assured that had this money been paid to the mothers instead of to the husbands we would have been able to have brought forth just as long a list of bad expenditures as this list with reference to the men. After all we regard this as a family benefit. That is how I prefer to put it. If we do that then it will not be the property of the mother exclusively. It will be the property of both, and then the only question we have to settle is what receipt can the responsible society accept for its discharge. We have tried to meet that point. We take away the property from the husband; we make that clear in our Amendment; then having made that clear we put in a proviso that a receipt from the mother will be a full discharge so far as the society is concerned. The Amendment I am referring to is that of the hon. Member for Norwich. I think it does make it clear, if not by declaration, then at any rate by operation, and we propose to move it as an Amendment to the new Clause which the hon. Gentleman had just moved. It will require to be slightly altered in the wording from that which appears on the Paper. The way I would advise my hon. Friend to move it is this: "Maternity benefit, when it is payable in respect of the husband's insurance, may be paid by the approved society, or the Insurance Committee concerned, as a benefit to the mother of the child, and not to the husband, and the receipt of the mother shall be a sufficient discharge to the society or Committee." This is the attempt we have made to combine the declaration of family property and the machinery of a safe receipt. I do not think there is a difference of opinion upon this matter, but whatever form of words the Committee finally settle upon I do beg of it to try and settle both questions, whether by declaration or implication does not matter to me much. We must consider
  3116
  not only who is to get the money, but under what circumstances the money is going to be administered. We must see that it is administered in such a way that the baby and the mother get the maximum benefit from it.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask my hon. Friend if he would explain whether the effect of the Amendment he has suggested would not be to preclude the possibility of the husband ever receiving the money?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: No, I do not think it would have that effect, but we must very carefully consider it. As the law now stands, the husband gets it, and no receipt is acceptable except the husband's receipt. The effect of this Amendment is to attach it as a benefit to the mother.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: But not for the husband.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: As to the words "not to the husband," I can see that there is a possibility of a double meaning being attached to them, and we shall have to consider the words. What we really mean is that it may be paid over either to the mother or to the husband, and we legalise the mother's receipt.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I believe we on this side, and the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, desire exactly the same thing. We want to secure just in these extremely rare cases where theme is reason to fear that the benefit may be misapplied, where there is a risk that the woman may not receive the benefit, that, in fact, the benefit should accrue to the woman. Of the three propositions that are before the Committee, I am going to support the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), because I believe that it does cover the ground better than any of the alternative propositions. I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that we want two things. One is a declaration as to whose property the benefit is, and for what purpose the benefit is given. We want, in the second place, powers to carry it out, administratively, in accordance with that declaration. I do not mind the description that it is a family benefit. I rather like that, but it is not in the Amendment proposed by the Labour party. I believe myself it is better to describe it as the woman's benefit, payable if you like by the husband's contribution. That is immaterial. No one can say that the working woman does not contribute

  3117
  just as much to national insurance as any man does, simply because it happens to be deducted from the man's earnings. I agree with the hon. Member for Hoxton (Dr. Addison), that there must be a consequential Amendment in Section 18 (1) to make it clear that the benefit shall be treated as the benefit of the mother although the contribution is paid by her husband. We want two declarations. First, that it is the woman's benefit, and the declaration in Section 18 should be altered. Then we come to administration and the question as regards administration is, Shall we leave it to the society to say whether in any given place the man is to be trusted or not? That is a necessary discrimination, if we accept the Amendment of the Labour party. That is a discrimination which I think is hardly necessary or practicable, and which ought to be avoided if it possibly can.
  What then is left? What is left, as a matter of fact, is the difference between the two Amendments. My hon. Friend's Amendment requires that the woman shall make a nomination. I think she will nominate her husband in 999 out of 1,000 cases. I have not a sanguine hope that anything which we will do can be a protection in the cases where it is most needed. But still, we ought to give an opportunity to her to nominate someone else than her husband in that one case out of 1,000. My hon. Friend has altered the word "woman" into "person." I confess I was largely responsible for the original form of my hon. Friend's Amendment. I originally suggested that he should put in "woman," but I am quite convinced now that that is the wrong form of words and that "person" should be substituted for "woman" The difference between us now is that either the woman has to nominate or to give a receipt. The Labour party's Amendment suggests that she should give a receipt and that her receipt should discharge the society. It does not matter to me which it is. I do not think it really amounts to very much whether it is a receipt or nomination. It means that some actual step has to be taken by the woman in order to enable someone else to receive the benefit for her, and whether this form is "I nominate——" or whether it is a receipt for 30s., it requires her signature. If that is agreed, what have we got which is really practical? We have iii my hon. Friend's Amendment the declaration that is required, and the administrative step which is required, that it shall be paid either to the woman or else to whomsoever she nominates. I believe we are all
  3118
  agreed as to what we desire to be done and I believe the Amendment practically carries it out.
  Dr. ESMONDE: I must apologise for the few remarks I am going to make; but as I have had some little experience in these cases I venture to say a word or two. I strongly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. I cannot conceive how anybody who really looks into the facts of the case can oppose it. You have got a woman who is going through the confinement and she is suffering all the physical and mental pain and surely she is the person to be consulted. The money, according to this Amendment, is to be handed to her. If she has got a decent husband, a man who looks after her and respects her, it is a thousand to one she will ask him to collect the money and see that the money is properly spent. I do not think it is going to cure every bad case, but on the other hand, if she has a bad husband, she will be in a better position to know the man or woman whom she will select for the money, and see that it is applied for her benefit and for the benefit of the child. I have seen many many cases. It is all very fine for us to be afraid of speaking of the working classes. I have nothing to say about the working classes. As a rule they are most kind to their wives and families, but there are undoubtedly cases where they treat their wives very badly indeed. [An HON. MEMBER: "And rich men too."] I am speaking of the insured person, and I have known cases like this happen where a woman has put by sixpence a week for almost a year in order that she should have sufficient to pay a doctor. I have known cases where the husband has got hold of this money and drunk the money and left her without medical attendance at all. That is one kind of man, but I am quite sure that no respectable working man for one moment would consider he was insulted because his wife was allowed to collect the money. She will also have the opportunity of making up her mind what doctor she will have. It may seem a small matter to us here, but I can assure the Committee that in no disease or complaint is it so necessary for the person concerned to have somebody in whom she will have confidence. Unless the woman can have the opportunity of knowing she has the money, she cannot get the doctor she wants. He may not be as good as the other doctor the husband would select for her, but he is the doctor she has confidence in and in these cases confidence has a great deal to do with it. The suggestion of the Member for Leicester is simply relegating

  3119
  what we ought to decide to the friendly societies. You may have a case where a man has had a quarrel with his wife or does nor treat her well. This case has to come before the lodge or club and they are to decide that this man is not fit to get the money and that it must be given to the wife. I think that the whole question is one that ought to be settled by the Act of Parliament, and we ought to say that where there is a bad husband the woman will be protected. I believe in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the matter will go on in the ordinary way, and the decent working man will not be a bit upset because the Act makes it necessary that the wife should get the money.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think we are agreed upon the principle, and perhaps it will save time if Members will address their remarks to the means by which it is to be carried out.
  Mr. D. BOYLE: What is the principle?
  Mr. ALDEN: I think the matter has now been thoroughly discussed, although I cannot say that the Committee has made up its mind. There are many of us who are not quite clear as to what this new Clause ought to be. I really think it would be better not to decide to-day [HON. MEMBERS: "No, No"]. I honestly think that if two or three people could sit down together, they would be able to give us a form of words which would satisfy the whole Committee much more than what we will get by discussion. My objection to the new Clause moved by the Member for Leicester, or suggested by him, is to the word "may." I do not say that I have no other objections, but they are not so serious. I do object to the word "may," and that is why I have put in the new Clause I propose the provision that maternity benefit "shall" be treated as the benefit of the mother. I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken, that it ought not to be left to the approved societies.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I say it may be paid.
  Mr. ALDEN: That amounts to very much the same thing. The approved society will have to decide in each case, and they will have to have a rule or regulation guiding themselves as to whether the 30s. should be really paid to the husband or the wife. I think it is rather hard lines on the approved societies to ask them to come to that decision. I think it is a matter we ought to decide. I should be perfectly prepared to support
  3120
  my hon. Friend if only he could see his way to substitute "shall" for "may." I do not believe there is anything else very much matters. I am certain the approved societies do want our guidance in this matter. I am quite convinced they want help in this matter, because there is just as much difference there as here. We are nothing more than average men, and we are divided on the point, and lots of working men are divided, and many of them take the view that this benefit ought, if possible, to be given and handed to the woman. They do not want anything to do with it or to be called into account in this matter. Plenty of working men take the view, "This is a benefit for my wife and I do not want to have it." There are plenty of men, or no doubt a good many, who would like to get some of this money, not necessarily for themselves or for their own use, but possibly for some use in connection with the household. I am perfectly persuaded that there are not many men in the approved societies who really object to this benefit being given to the wife. If it were made a necessity and laid down here that the benefits should be treated as a benefit of the mother. I believe that the men who are opposed to it would very shortly give way and be reconciled to it.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: So few of the Unionist Members have been lucky enough to catch your eye so far, I may be permitted to deal with the matter for a very few minutes. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) is so dexterous in balancing his arguments when be is in a somewhat difficult position that one does not quite know on which leg he stands. I quite endorse what he said that this thing must he decided not on the ground of sentiment, even though that was what guided the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), but on grounds of expediency. I say that in the highest degree it is expedient and necessary to insert in the words of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), who introduced this Amendment with his usual tact, the principle that the maternity benefit is the woman's benefit. Those words must be laid down and that must be the principle on which the Committee must go. I will refer subsequently to the question of administration. I think it is only fair at once to dissociate myself, and I think my hon. Friends, from bringing any general charge against the insured class. It is not justified by the facts. I have here the experience of the Prudential Society which settles 2,500 of these claims per week, and

  3121
  they say, as far as can be judged, the average working man is acting generally justly towards his wife. That is the fact. I do not attach too much importance to the number of hard cases collected by the Women's Co-operative Guild, showing the necessity for maternity benefit being made the legal property of the mother, especially when they deal with the wholly exceptional instances of vice and crime. But there is one very suggestive case and that is the case where the money is often ear-marked for rent. That is very often done in the woman's interest as much as in the man's. But if you establish the principle of this being the woman's benefit, then the man will not be able to ear-mark any of it or promise any of it, as they are often forced to do, under threats by the landlord or the collector for rent. That is a very important thing. I do not say that you can prevent it wholly by adopting this new Clause, but I do say that once you establish the principle of law, the man will be fortified in refusing to give an undertaking that the money shall be paid in rent. That surely we as a Committee desire to establish.
  I do not gather that the friendly societies, or many of them, have any great objection to the principle of this Amendment. I have received no protest or very strong expression of opinion on the point, though I believe some of them do favour the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwich. When you come to the matter of administering the benefit, when you have established the principle, then, I quite agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, you want to get workable machinery. I am afraid it would be difficult to get any real expression or general expression from the society as a whole. I am afraid if you leave it entirely, especially without this preliminary guidance, to the friendly societies it means in most cases that the secretary or, still more, the visitor will have to decide it; but supposing that the man understands that it is the will of Parliament, as my hon. Friend proposes to make it, that this is the woman's benefit, and that in no case is the man paid, and. if you have it laid down and enforced by rule of the Insurance Commissioners, and they make enough regulations so that they can deal with this, then I think a great gain will have been made. But what I refuse to believe is that men will regard this as in any sense an insult. I believe that in most cases they look upon it as a protection against themselves in their weaker moments, not necessarily from moral causes, but from the difficulty of eking out their livelihood,
  3122
  and instead of paying it in rent, or to the tally-man or the tradesman. I think the Committee ought to be very slow, even if we adopt the Amendment, to endorse the charge which is made, no doubt in good faith, by the women, who have rather overstated the case in order to secure a necessary reform. I suggest that the hon. Member should lay down the principle of law in the first line, and afterwards to accept words to allow the friendly societies so far as is possible under regulations to carry the principle into effect.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I do not want to go into the general question because it has clearly been thrashed out, and I cannot help feeling that a majority of the Committee have come to the conclusion that a change must be made. I hope we shall come to the Second Reading of this Clause very soon, and so be able to get on to the Amendments, because I think it very essential on this occasion that our efforts should not result in something about which there can be any doubt. We want something very dear. It seems to me that the only two points are whether the benefit should be to the husband or the wife. All that Parliament can do is to say that one or the other is to receive it. In the principal Act, we definitely went out of our way to say that this was to be given for the benefit of the husband. Parliament interfered in that respect and laid it down that in every case of a married woman the benefit should be the benefit of the husband. I think it is absolutely essential that we should definitely lay down that those words in Section 18 are to be repealed, and that the benefit must be for the benefit of the wife. Then, of course, the question of administration comes up, and of Amendment. I would suggest that we should come to a decision as to the Second Reading of the Clause, and we might also come to a decision upon the first words standing part. As far as I am able to fathom the feeling of the Committee, the majority accept the principle that the maternity benefit shall, in every case, be the mother's benefit. When we have got so far, then possibly it might be well for us to adjourn and consider whether anything else is required. I do not think that anything else is required. It seems to me, if we lay down the one principle that this is to be to the woman's benefit, we can leave it to the Friendly societies exactly as it is left at the present moment.
  I understand that there are friendly societies which lay down a rule that in every case maternity benefit is to be paid to the

  3123
  woman, and that in those instances it has worked perfectly satisfactorily. Therefore, I think that if we pass the general principle and leave the manner of payment as I have suggested, the result will be what we desire, and the payment will be made by the friendly societies in the 'host reasonable way.
  Mr. SANDYS: I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Salisbury will keep to his Amendment. It seems to me to clear up the whole situation and to do what we desire, namely, to repeal that portion of the original Act and definitely make it clear that the maternity benefit is to be the mother's benefit and not the husband's. So far as the speech by the hon. Member for Leicester is concerned, he did not make his point at all clear—to me, at all events. He did not explain satisfactorily that his suggestion was in any way better or clearer or could be more easily worked than the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. He said that if the scheme proposed in this Amendment were carried there would be practical difficulties in the way, but he did not indicate at all clearly what those practical difficulties were. Nor did he make it clear to me that if there were practical difficulties they would be avoided by leaving the decision in the hands of the societies. It appears to me that if there are practical difficulties, and I have no doubt there are, they will be far greater if the decision is left to the societies themselves as the hon. Member for Leicester suggests. The hon. Member went on to make some suggestions which I did not understand, although I tried to follow him very closely, as to what would happen if this power of handing over the right of receiving the maternity benefit to a third person were given to the wife. He made some very vague suggestions which did not appear to me to have much value. I am strongly of opinion that the whole matter is far more clearly and effectively decided by the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. After all, we must take upon ourselves the responsibility, and not be always trying to shift it on to the friendly societies, whose position is difficult enough as it is. This is one of the occasions when I think we should make our position perfectly clear, and say that we believe definitely in the principle that so far as this benefit is concerned it should be regarded in future as belonging to the mother and not to the husband.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: My only reason in rising is that I am in charge of the Bill.
  3124
  Everyone wants something to be done; therefore, I think we could unanimously give this Clause a Second Reading immediately. When that has been done I understand that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwich will be taken as the first Amendment to the Clause. I should think that after the very long and interesting discussion that we have had Members of the Committee would be prepared to make up their minds as to which way they would vote on the point. If that Amendment is carried, it would become the substantive Motion; if it is rejected, hon. Members may pass the Clause of the hon. Member for Salisbury. I am very anxious that we should not carry on the discussion and start it afresh, perhaps with other Members present, on Monday. I have to warn the Committee that we, are not making anything like the progress which is necessary if we are to get the Bill through next week.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I take it that does not mean that we shall be unable to move to omit the words "or some person nominated by her"?
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: I beg to move to leave out all the words after "Maternity benefit shall in every case," and to insert the following: "when it is payable in respect of the husband's insurance may be paid by the approved society or the Insurance Committee concerned as a benefit to the mother of the child, and the receipt of the mother shall be a sufficient discharge to the society or committee." I think that most Members of the Committee have made up their minds now as to what they should do in respect of this Amendment.
  Mr. BOOTH: May I ask whether this is not really negativing the decision to which we have already come? I should have thought that if there were any operative words at all to which the Committee had given its sanction they were those in the first line of the Clause.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have consulted the Chairman of Ways and Means, and we are perfectly in order in taking any Amendment after the first word.
  Mr. BOOTH: I was not drawing your attention to the Amendment on the ground that it comes very early in the Clause, but because by taking out these words we are really negativing the decision already come to.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can vote against the Amendment. There is no point of Order involved.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: I should have felt bound to challenge the previous Motion if the case had stood as the hon. Member for Pontefract wants to represent it. I think it was clearly understood that we should have an opportunity of moving this as an Amendment to the other. I want to avoid, if possible, this Committee legislating, as it were, against a whole sex in the community. The desire we have is that this maternity benefit shall not be admitted as the exclusive right of either the man or the woman, but shall be the property of the two conjointly. Certain societies have already administered the benefit in that particular way. They have exercised their discretion, and where they have felt that, by paying the benefit to the husband, it might not be effectively administered, they have taken upon themselves the responsibility of paying it directly to the woman. There is a legal doubt as to whether the action of these societies might not be challenged. I think that the adoption of this new Clause would safeguard that, and would, in my opinion, secure all that Members of the Committee generally agree upon. It is in that spirit I venture to move it.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I cannot possibly accept the Amendment that has now been moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not think it ought to be a doubtful point at all whether this benefit is to be the benefit of the husband or the benefit of the wife. Here we have a clear case, not of sentiment, as was suggested by a Member opposite, but, to my mind, a clear case of justice. Here is the wife who does an eminent service to the State, and it seems to me the maternity benefit belongs exclusively to her, and not to her husband. I cannot for one moment see that any insult is offered to the husband by the fact of its being recognised that this maternity benefit belongs to the wife. Take another case, which occurs in a different section of society. I do not think any insult is offered to a husband when a marriage settlement is made upon the wife. We are not considering whether cases of abuse may arise or may not arise. We are not concerned in considering cases of undesirable husbands, or undesirable wives. We ought to look upon this question from a much higher standpoint, namely, whether this maternity benefit ought to belong to the wife or to the husband. Now it has been suggested in
  3126
  the Amendment that has been moved that a discretionary power—to use the words of the hon. Gentleman opposite—is to be left to the friendly societies. I object altogether to any discretionary powers being left to a friendly society or to anybody else in this particular matter. We shall be throwing an onus of responsibility which I think the friendly society is unable to exercise if they are to determine whether, in any particular case, this benefit shall be given to the wife or to the husband. There the case of insult to the husband may arise, but if it is laid down by Parliament that in all cases this benefit shall accrue to the wife and not to the husband, then the matter will be perfectly clear.
  Mr. BATHURST: There are one or two points which I would like to put to the Committee. I desire to say there is no single Amendment upon the whole of the Paper about which I feel more strongly than I do upon the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. Surely, this is a matter about which women know best, and we know the universal opinion expressed by all the women's societies who have given us advice in this matter—the Women's Co-operative Guild, the Domestic Servants' Society, and the others—is to the effect that this should be nut merely the benefit of the woman, but should actually be paid to her without any discretion on the part of the society. What I want, to point out is that this attempt to make the Clause permissive may rob it of the whole of its efficacy. After all, if you leave the discretion with the society, you enable a possible and unscrupulous member of that society to put undue pressure in order to deflect the benefit to himself, and there will be a great temptation to such unscrupulous persons to go so far as to bribe the official of the society responsible for this payment in order to prevent it reaching the wife. After all, in these cases, we are not dealing with the normal case where there is absolute confidence between husband and wife, and where the husband is a perfectly reputable person. What we have to do is, in the interests of the wife, to afford adequate protection in those cases which are not normal. I want particularly to refer to a case which has not been mentioned at all yet—that is the case of a man whose employment may be called of a migratory character, which takes him away from his wife very often for a considerable portion of the year. In such cases it is very unfair that the woman should not get the full benefit of the sum to which she is entitled immediately. Such cases are perfectly well

  3127
  known to my hon. Friends hailing from Ireland. A large number of potato raisers come over from Ireland to work in this country, leaving their wives, possibly in this condition, in their own country, and even in our own hop-picking districts, there are a large number of women or men separated from each other, and thus delay may be caused owing to the discretion exercised by the society in favour of making the payment to the husband rather than to the wife. The hon. Gentleman opposite said just now in support of his Amendment that according to his knowledge and experience there was one great society which never had this benefit itself. My answer to him is that the societies do not know, they have no means of knowing, when it is best to pay the wife, and there is no matter upon which a wife is more likely to be reticent than upon this particular subject. I say the knowledge in many cases will not reach the society, and the society ought not to have any discretion in the matter. If true justice is going to be done to the woman, payment ought to be made to her or to sonic person duly appointed on her behalf to receive the money.
  Mr. FORSTER: I appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on this matter. I think every member of the Committee is fully seised of all the important points which have to be decided. Time is becoming a matter of urgency. If there were any points still requiring elucidation, I would not suggest we should come to a decision now, but I think the matter has been so fully discussed, we might take the vote immediately.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I just want to point out the dangerous power that the hon. Member's Motion confers. If the Committee are to judge upon that point alone, they would decide in favour of our Amendment. He raises a very important point in his Motion when he adds words to the effect "or some persons nominated by her."
  The CHAIRMAN: That can be amended afterwards.
  Mr. O'GRADY: May I go on discussing the general issue.
  The CHAIRMAN: No. The question is that instead of "the" after the words "not maternity," the words of the hon. Member for Norwich could be substituted. If they are carried that settles the point. If they are not carried, the hon. Gentleman can still
  3128
  have an opportunity of raising his point later.
  Mr. C. W. BOWERMAN: May I suggest that the last Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich exactly meets the point? I hope, therefore, he will give us his support. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Baronet who preceded him, he claims that unless the original proposal was carried an injustice would be done. I would remind him of what the hon. Member for Mile End said a short time ago, when he paid a very proper tribute to the way in which British workmen have carried out their responsibility to their wives in certain circumstances. But he went on to suggest that no protest had been made against the new Clause by the great friendly societies. I think, when inquiry is made, he and other hon. Members will find that the great friendly societies are not definitely opposed to the new Clause, which is now under discussion. Anyone would think, on listening to these discussions, that this is an entirely new benefit—something new, both politically and socially; whereas these great friendly societies have been paying this benefit for many years. I venture to say, if there were any strong abuses, they would be the first to conic to the House and to endeavour to have them rectified. You might carry the matter a little further; you might charge the workmen with neglecting their wives and families, and with drinking.
  The CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member that we have carried the principle of this Clause. We are only discussing in what way the object the Committee have agreed upon can be achieved. Therefore, the wider subject the hon. Member is touching upon is out of order now.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: Some remarks were made by the hon. Member for Pontefract during an earlier part of this Debate, when he produced a document, and laid great stress upon it. I would remind him that if he subscribes to one portion of that document, he ought to subscribe to it all.
  Mr. BOOTH: I did not subscribe to it.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: We fully recognise that there are cases where a husband does an injustice to his wife, and we want to remedy that; but, at the same time, we want to avoid condemning working men as a class. Therefore, we hold that the Amendment moved by the hon Member for Norwich will fully meet that case, and I hope it will be carried.
  Sir W. BYLES: I have a conviction that the Committee is not fully seised of the meaning of this Amendment. If it is not out of order, I should ask you, Mr. Chairman, to put it again, so that we may clearly understand it.
  Question put, "That the words 'shall in every case be the mother's benefit' stand part of the proposed Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 28; Noes, 10.

  Division No. 7.

  AYES

  Bathurst, Mr. Charles

  Goulding, Mr.

  MacVeagh, Mr.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Harcourt, Mr. Robert

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Booth, Mr.

  Harvey, Mr. Edmund

  Money, Mr. Chiozza

  Boyle, Mr. William

  Hazleton, Mr.

  Newton, Mr.

  Byles, Sir William

  Hinds, Mr.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Cassel, Mr.

  Keating, Mr.

  Sandys, Mr.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lardner, Mr.

  Scott, Mr. MacCallum

  Dickinson, Mr.

  Lawson, Mr. Harry

  Worthington-Evans, Mr.

  Esmonde, Dr.

  Locker-Lampson, Mr. Godfrey

  Forster, Mr.

  Lynch, Mr.

  NOES.

  Boyle, Mr. Daniel

  Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

  Roberts, Mr. George

  Bowerman, Mr.

  Millar, Mr. Duncan

  Thomas, Mr.

  Dawes, Mr.

  O'Grady, Mr.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Jones. Mr. Glyn-

  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to move, in the proposed new Clause, to leave out the words "or some person nominated by her."
  I voted in the Division which has just taken place with some doubts, but I urge my hon. Friends opposite to consider very seriously the Motion and especially the words "or some person nominated by her." I am perfectly sure that there was a considerable number who voted with the hon. Member, and voted with him very gladly who strongly objected to those words. If it is not the wife it ought to be the husband. There ought to be no third person. Opinions have been already expressed upon the subject, and I will content myself with formally moving the omission of the words "or some person nominated by her."
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Will you substitute anything for that?
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I will leave the new Clause, in fact, as it is printed upon the Paper and leave out the words which the hon. Member has introduced.
  The CHAIRMAN: You propose to omit the words "or some person nominated by her"?
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Yes.
  Mr. BATHURST: I should like to ask the hon. Member what he has in his mind and how this money is going to reach the
  mother. It is clear that the officials of the society are not going to obtain entrance into the woman's cottage or room where she is lying ill, and surely it is necessary that there should be some intermediary between the mother and the society in order to ensure that she gets the money!
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: That is surely easily settled. We may first take out these words and then find words to substitute in their place.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: What is the hon. Member's substitute?
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: We can substitute a form of words after further inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think if the hon. Member contemplates a substitution of words he ought to put them before the Committee.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I move this, now, and hon. Gentlemen can accept the Motion on the understanding that we can frame other words afterwards.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. Member said he gave his support to this Clause, and I understand that he suggests that I should carefully consider the omission of those words and the substitution of others. I do not mean on the spur of the moment. We must have time and there will be plenty of time on Report. I could not do it on the spur of the moment.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on the definite understanding that the hon. Member will carefully consider it.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I beg to move to delete the words "or some person nominated by her." I objected to the Amendment being withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the hon. Member object to the withdrawal of the Amendment. I thought he wished to speak on the broad issue which he raised a

  3131
  few days ago. The question before the Committee is, Shall the words "or some person nominated by her" stand part of the proposed Clause?
  Mr. O'GRADY: I would point out that the Amendment vitiates the whole benevolent intention of the hon. Member's Clause. We have been discussing as to whom you are going to discriminate against. That is the whole substance of the idea of this benefit being given to the woman, so that you are going now after all to allow the woman to nominate some person, and you were arguing prior to this that you wanted to legislate against the husband who does not act fairly and squarely by the woman. We will take a case, and I regret to say there are some hundreds in this Kingdom, largely the result of the conditions under which the people live, where the husband is a very bad fellow. I think we know him, and we frankly admit that there is such. He is quite exceptional, but there he is. I venture to say that they are the very persons who will he nominated by the wife to receive this benefit. If the hon. Member knows anything of the conditions in working-class districts, he will find that that particular man will be the very man nominated by the wife for reasons which I need not explain. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Why not,"] Do not let us be too lenient about the woman's side of the question. The hon. Member knows full well that in districts like Ancoats and some Manchester districts and in Leeds, and certainly in the Holton district, there are certain classes of women who group together, and I regret to say that sometimes they gravitate into the public-house. Is one of that coterie the right person to be nominated by the woman, who may be lying in her confinement, for the purpose of receiving maternity benefit? The hon. Member must know that a certain amount of the money, after the midwife and doctor are provided for, will go in a certain direction which is very undesirable. On the whole it seems to me that the mere inclusion of these words has destroyed the whole purpose of the proposition. From the practical point of view I submit to him that our proposal is very much better.
  Certain statements have been made about the discrimination that is left to the friendly societies with regard to this benefit. I do not know whether many hon. Members comprehend the customs which are followed in trade unions and friendly societies. What happens is this. The sick visitors of the friendly societies and trade unions are
  3132
  appointed for the purpose of visiting the sick and carrying these benefits to the sick. Those men know the locality and the members of the trade union branch. Quite apart from the questions of sick benefit, men have got the courage to come along to the branch and declare what are the proceedings of a man who is known to almost everyone of the members. Without dragging the whole character of a man before the branch, the visitor says or simply declares "John So-and-So" is not a very desirable person to receive this benefit, and will you permit me to pay it to the wife?" I venture to say that in ninety-nine per cent. of cases the branch will certainly give him that consent to pay to the wife and nothing follows from it. I think we ought to look at the preventive side of this question. If these things exist, and unfortunately they do, though I do not say to the degree some hon. Members say, then the effect of these words being deleted and the practical acceptance of the Amendment will be this, that it will make the husband extremely careful upon occasions such as we are considering as to being in that particular state whereby he would he deprived of receiving maternity benefit on behalf of the wife. I never heard the question submitted or discussed before this Committee as to what the wives would think of taking this maternity benefit out of the control of the husband.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Ask then?
  Mr. O'GRADY: I believe if a plebiscite of married woman was taken upon that question that they would, by an b overwhelming majority, protest against it. I think that the words "some person nominated by her" would be of a most damaging character. They would damage the object the hon. Member has in view, and lead to such scenes among a certain very great minimum of working-class women of such a character as I think we ought not to contemplate for one moment.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: It is quite obvious we have reached a point of very great difficulty. I think it is clear that a considerable number of Members desire to remove these words, but do not see clearly the words to put in their place. It is also a misfortune that when I moved this Amendment I carried it to the word "mother," as au Amendment could have been put in at an earlier point in the new Clause. Under those circumstances I do suggest we should adjourn now the consideration of this matter, because the Clause is in a very unsatisfactory state, and I am sure hon. Members will be inclined to agree.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We could not in any case go on for more than ten minutes, and it is evident there is some divergence of opinion which might be met by general agreement on Monday next. I, therefore, submit for your consideration that you might adjourn at this moment, only I make this one caveat, that we should all agree that on Monday we should not go on discussing the whole subject over again, but that we should confine ourselves to the very narrow point, because really I am getting very despairing at the present moment at the progress we are making with the Bill.
  Mr. GOULDING: I had an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the whole maternity question. I dare say it was through inadvertence when the Amendments were ruled out that the matter did not come up as a special Clause. The Amendment I had down was "payable to the woman or to the husband, if nominated by her." I have never quite liked the words "or some other person nominated by her." I do not believe in the very few cases that the tyranny of the husband will be such as to force the woman to nominate the husband. I should like to see the words "or some other person" left out, and the words "or to the husband, if nominated by her," inserted. I will put it down.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I do not resist the adjournment, but I hope that between now and Monday some great effort will be made to come to some sort of agreement. I want to say, quite definitely, that we cannot on any account accept the wording that has been moved. I quite agree with the hon. Member's intention, I do not think we disagree with that at all, but those of us who sit on these benches are profoundly convinced that the latter part of this new Clause is most unfortunately worded, and will give rise to all sorts of abuses of administration. I appeal to the hon. Member to get into communication with other hon. Members and to try and see if amongst them they cannot arrive at an understanding.
  The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members will recognise that by accepting the Amendment the words of the proposed new Clause as far as the word "mother" ["to the mother"] stand part of the Clause, so that the ingenuity of Members must be exercised in connection with the words after it.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: We do not object to the words so far as we have got.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. Member withdraws his Amendment we have only dealt with the first line. Is not that so?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Would it not get over the difficulty if the hon. Member for Salisbury agreed to alter the Clause so that it should read, "or any relative nominated by the wife"?
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Do I understand that if I withdraw my Amendment the only part of the Clause that stands is the first line?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think it is. But if this Amendment is voted upon, we are on the fourth line ["to the mother"].
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I am willing to withdraw on that understanding.
  The CHAIRMAN: Will hon. Members permit the Amendment to be withdrawn? [HON MEMBERS: "No."]
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: By permitting the Amendment to be withdrawn, do we mean that these words have to stand?
  The CHAIRMAN: No. If the Amendment is withdrawn the words of the proposed new Clause will stand only as far as "maternity benefit shall in every case be the mother's benefit." It seems to me that it is much more possible to come to an agreement after those words. Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  Mr. BOOTH: We certainly oppose that. We have got down to the words "to the mother." I do not see my way clear to allow any withdrawal.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: You have allowed an Amendment to be discussed after the words "to the mother." How is it possible now to go back to the first line?
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: If this Amendment is pressed to a Division, we shall start again after the words "to the mother."
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is there any doubt on the point of Order?
  The CHAIRMAN: If a Division be pressed on this point, it carries the Committee as far as the words "to the mother."
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: We need not allow ourselves to get into a difficulty because one Member of the Committee refuses to agree to what everybody else desires. If we find that between now and Monday we can come to an agreement, and if we cannot give effect to that agreement, I shall do everything I can to get my Friends to agree to the matter being raised on the Report stage. I want this matter settled in the spirit of the hon. Gentleman who raised the

  3135
  question. If we cannot, on account of red-tape, get it done in Committee, we will do it on Report.
  Mr. BOOTH: I objected to the withdrawal, and I intend to persist. It is not a case of red-tape. The hon. Member and I have voted on opposite sides, and there is a vital difference between us. My suggestion is that we should adjourn the discussion of this Amendment and start the next sitting where we are now.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: May I make a very strong appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract in the interests of all? If this Amendment is withdrawn now, we shall have endorsed the statement that maternity benefit shall, in every case, be the mother's benefit. Beginning with that, we may be able to come to some common agreement.
  3136
  If the hon. Member presses his Amendment, it may be impossible to do that, although all the Committee want it. Therefore, I would strongly appeal to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. GOULDING: I intend to put on the Paper for Monday an Amendment substituting the words "payable to the mother or to the husband or some other relation, if nominated by her," for the words "or some other person nominated by her."
  Mr. BOOTH: I suggest that I am perfectly fair to both sides in suggesting that we should adjourn at this point. If between now and Monday any form of words can be agreed upon, and I hope one will be, when we meet we can withdraw the Amendment. If no agreement is come to, I hold the Committee to the fact that we have got so far.
  The Committee adjourned at 3.58 p.m. till Two p.m. on Monday (28th July).

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  [Mr. J. W. WILSON in the Chair.]
FIFTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.
Bill further considered.
FIFTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Maternity Benefit.)
  Maternity benefit shall in every case be the mother's benefit, 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, or some person nominated by her," after the first word "payment," in that paragraph; and Sub-section (1) of Section 18 shall be repealed.—[Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time; read the second time.
  Amendment proposed [Friday, 25th July]: To leave out the words "or some person nominated by her."—[Mr. Chiozza Money.]
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause. Debate resumed.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I think that it will be for the convenience of the Committee, as there was a little confusion last Friday afternoon, if I state exactly the position in which we stand with regard to this Clause. The new Clause of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson) is under discussion, and we have already passed the words "Maternity benefit shall in every case be the mother's benefit." Those words stand part of the Clause. An Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Chiozza Money) has been moved and is now before the Committee—after the word "mother" to leave out the words "or some person nominated by her." If the Amendment is withdrawn, then we go back to the statement that "maternity benefit shall in every case be the mother's benefit," and any Amendment which may
  3138
  be suggested may be moved after the word "benefit." If it be not withdrawn, the following words stand part of the Clause, "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.'"
  The result of those words standing part would be that Paragraph (e) would then read as follows: "Payment to the mother in the case of the confinement of the wife." Of course, those words make nonsense of everything anyone has ever intended. There is some doubt whether it would be to the wife's mother-in-law or to the husband's mother-in-law, but there is no doubt that it would not be to the wife if those words were to stand part, and I am sure that is not the intention of the hon. Member for Salisbury. They would have to be excised somewhere else if they were carried here. I would strongly appeal to the Committee—I think that it would be the general agreement—having decided, as we have, that maternity benefit should in any case be the mother's benefit, to allow the hon. member for Northamptonshire to withdraw, instead of passing purely nonsensical words, which would make the Committee look foolish, and then take what further discussion may be necessary—and I hope that it will be brief—not on the general question whether the maternity benefit belongs to the mother, but on the question of what administrative provisions necessarily follow. I am induced to ask the Committee to do that, because, after refreshing my memory of the Debate, I find that many of those who voted for the fact that the maternity benefit should be the mother's benefit had alternative suggestions as to dealing with questions of administration. For instance, the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson), who voted for that, thought it would be better to leave the question of administration to regulations in connection with the approved societies. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Northamptonshire very strongly objected to the exclusion of the husband as possibly giving a receipt for the benefit which is the mother's benefit, and I must say from conversation I have had with some representatives of approved societies, that they think that so long as the man receives the benefit from the man's society and the man is registered in the man's society, even although it shall be as we have

  3139
  decided, the mother's benefit, it would be practically impossible to take receipts in numbers other than that of the mother or the husband, and that the bringing in of third persons would mean an impossible check in their cases. The same view, is taken by my auditing department, who also say that in auditing there would be great difficulty in dealing with anyone but the husband or the mother. I must ask the Committee to leave anything else out of the question. There are Amendments on the Paper on the question of administration, and, if the hon. Gentleman could see his way to withdraw, I am sure that all the Committee would ask him to do so. We can then get straight on to the question of administration.
  Mr. GOULDING: How can we get back to that point? The Committee has already carried down to the word "mother" (by the insertion of the words "to the mother"), and it has been moved to omit certain words after the word "mother."
  The CHAIRMAN: If the Committee either votes on or negatives the hon. Member's Amendment, it will have carried the Clause to that point; but, if the Amendment be withdrawn, I think that it would leave the way open, as the Financial Secretary suggests, to put in words after the word "benefit" ["Maternity benefit shall in every case be the mother's benefit"]. Failing that, the only suggestion I would make would be that the Committee when it comes to the question, "That the proposed Clause be added to the Bill," should simply negative the whole Clause, and bring up a new one later. That would be unfortunate, but perhaps the Financial Secretary would consider whether he would take that course. I hope, however, that the Committee will agree to the withdrawal of the Amendment.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I would once more appeal to my hon Friend (Mr. Booth) to allow me to withdraw these words. I can assure him on my own account that there is no intention of going back on the principle that has been affirmed. We only desire to withdraw these words in order to place such words in as shall express the opinion of the Committee with regard to just administration. If my hon. Friend will not allow me to withdraw, then I shall beg leave to
  3140
  propose to amend my Amendment by adding other words.
  Mr. BOOTH: I think that the Financial Secretary should remember that he commenced the discussion by saying that he would leave this entirely open to the Committee, and I certainly hold him to that announcement, which he made on behalf of the Government. He indicated that another Member of the Government sitting by him took a different view from him, and I notice that neither of them voted, so that I assume they agreed to pair. The Financial Secretary has expressed his views, but they are not mine. I do not agree with him, and the Committee did not agree with him. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) and his friends moved an Amendment, and were defeated. It is all very well to say that although we took a vote, we are all agreed. If we were all agreed, why did we vote? I do not think we can make progress by perpetually going back. The Committee at its last meeting by an overwhelming majority made up its mind that this should be the woman's benefit, and that the woman should have the 30s. The Committee will see by the new Amendments put clown that all sorts of ingenious methods are suggested by which the man can spend the money. As long as that is the case, what is the use of saying "peace," when there is no peace. The majority of the Committee did not want the man to spend the money except on the distinct authority of the wife. I submit, with all respect, that we cannot go back upon that. You made an appeal. I do not know quite on what grounds to allow this Amendment to be withdrawn. I cannot see my way to accede to that, nor can I see what good it would do. The Financial Secretary says that if these words stand part, which, as the hon. Member for Worcester says, the Committee voted in when we rejected an alternative form of words which would have left them out, they will make nonsense. I suggest that they are now in, and I say frankly they will remain in so far as the Committee is concerned. It is no use to say on a technical point that the words read nonsense, because they do not.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member objects to the withdrawal of the Amendment, I think the Committee had better proceed, and I call on the hon. Member for Northampton to move his Amendment.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I should like to make an appeal on this matter. We have decided that the maternity benefit shall be the mother's benefit.
  Mr. BOOTH: Much more.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I thought the hon. Member had finished.
  Mr. BOOTH: We have decided much more than that. We have decided that it should be the mother's benefit, and we also decided that the money should go to the mother, which is a very different thing. I understood that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) and his Friends—that is why they got my vote and support—were sincerely anxious not to alter the declaration that it belonged to the mother, and that they wanted to see practically that she got the money. If that is their object I am still with them, and I believe that the great majority of the Committee are still with them. That is what these words mean. The insertion of the words "of the child" after the word "mother" would show that it did not mean the mother-in-law or the grandmother, or anything of that kind. To attempt to put out the words by such an observation is not very respectful to the Committee. It is the second point to which I attach importance. What the words down to "to the mother" decide is that the money shall go to the mother, and that is what we want. I am not dealing now with the question of machinery. That will come later. Whether the mother is fit to sign a receipt or anything of that kind the Committee can easily decide afterwards. I submit that we cannot withdraw from the decision, first, that it is the mother's benefit, and secondly, and more important, that she is to get the money.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our desire is, and we have agreed, that the mother of the child shall get the benefit in all cases as far as we can secure it. If you go back again to the first line, you can see the best way of affecting that. There may be a variety of suggestions as to the best way. We do not want to go back in the least—least of all do I—upon what we have done, but unless you allow us to go back to the first line we cannot decide what is best to be done to carry out our intentions in the best possible way. That is all that is
  3142
  desired. I make a strong appeal to my hon. Friend to let us go back so that we may carry out our intentions in the best way possible.
  Mr. BOOTH: Whose intentions?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The intentions of the Committee.
  Mr. BOOTH: Of the minority?
  The CHAIRMAN: In view of what the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) has said, the Committee are bound to assume that they have passed the words of the proposed new Clause as far as the word "mother" ["to the mother"]. The Committee will, therefore, proceed to consider the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northamption (Mr. Chiozza Money).
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: How has it got out of order on the Paper?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is simply clerical. The Amendments were handed in at the end of Friday's sitting, and the printer who marshalled them, seeing that one came in line one, assumed that it would come before the Amendments in line four. But the record kept at the Table shows that. I had put an Amendment on line four, and to that I adhere unless it is withdrawn.
  Mr. BATHURST: May I point out that the Amendment standing in my name comes in exactly the same place, and precedes on the Paper that of the hon. Member for Northampton.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is simply a printer's error in arranging the Amendments.
  Mr. GOULDING: I distinctly handed in the Amendment at that place, because I wanted it to come in front of the hon. Member's.
  The CHAIRMAN: The records of the Committee kept at the table show that the hon. Member for Northampton had moved his Amendment on line 4 after the words "to the mother," while the hon. Member for Worcester had not moved. Therefore in printing the Amendments the Amendment of the hon. Member for Worcester ought to have been put after that of the hon. Member for Northampton.
  Mr. GOULDING: The hon. Member for Northampton only moved the first few words. Certainly he had not moved any addition when we separated last week.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I am bound to confirm what the hon. Member has said. I only moved to omit certain words. The other words on the Paper were handed in by me at the close of the meeting. I do not know whether that makes any difference in the matter of procedure.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I understand that the Amendment we are discussing is the same Amendment as was moved on Friday. Inasmuch as leave to withdraw has not been given, it must be exactly the same. The Amendment on the Paper is not exactly the same. It proposes to substitute certain words for certain other words. The Amendment we were discussing on Friday was simply to omit certain words. I submit therefore that we must either go on with that Amendment or allow the Amendments on the Paper to take their ordinary course.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Question I put on Friday was "That the words 'or some person nominated by her' stand part of the proposed Clause." Obviously it is impossible for the hon. Member for Worcester to move to insert words before that Amendment. If the Committee decide to eliminate those words, it will be open to any Member of the Committee to move that certain other words be put in; but first of all we must deal with this point.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: May we take it that the whole discussion—if there is to be a discussion I hope it will be brief—may be taken on the Amendment before the Committee, and that Members in the course of that one discussion will offer their suggestions as to what words should be inserted?
  Mr. GOULDING: That would be very difficult because, to effect the desire of the Financial Secretary, we must get in the words "of the child," and then shall come the words as to whether the money should be paid to anybody nominated by the mother.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to move to leave out the words of the proposed new Clause "or some person nominated by her," and to insert instead thereof the words "and the benefit shall be paid by the approved society or insurance committee administering the benefit either to the mother herself, or to her husband, or, in the absence of the husband, to sonic relative nominated by the mother."
  3144
  All that the Committee desired to do, I think, was in the first place to affirm that the benefit should be the mother's property, and secondly to secure the just administration of that benefit. They did not desire—and I think this is important; it was expressed very forcibly by my hon. Friends behind me—to cast a very undeserved slur upon the husbands of the United Kingdom. I respectfully suggest my Amendment, because it is worded in a form which expresses the feeling that the husband is a little more than a worm in this connection. At any rate, the words are very clear. I suggest that they put the husband in his proper place, and they give him, at any rate, some credit for being a decent fellow in the ordinary case, which I think the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salisbury did not effect. I am not in any way dogmatic about this expression, and if the hon. Member for Worcester thinks his form of words a better one, I shall be very glad to hear his arguments. We must get a form of words which does not put it on record that this Committee believes that cases of this kind are anything but exceptional. I do not think they are more than one in a thousand, and, believing that, I consider that the words of the Clause ought to express it.
  The CHAIRMAN: I put it to the hon. Member that we had better keep to the Amendment as it stood last. Friday—to omit the words, "or some person nominated by her." Then we can consider afterwards what words shall be put in.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I quite agree.
  The CHAIRMAN: Therefore, I do not put any further question. The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left cut stand part of the proposed Clause." The Noes have it. [HON. MEMBERS "The Ayes have it."]
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Is there not some misunderstanding? I understood the Secretary to the Treasury to suggest that the general discussion should take place on this Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether there is any misunderstanding. I put the question that the words stand part of the Clause, and declared that the Noes have it. I understand that the Ayes wish to challenge it. Consequently there must be a Division.
  Question put, "That the words 'or some person nominated by her' stand part of the proposed Clause."

  Division No. 8.]

  AYES.

  Baker, Sir Randolf

  Locker-Lampson, Mr. Godfrey

  Scott, Mr. MacCallum

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lynch, Mr.

  Tryon, Captain

  Dickinson, Mr.

  Roberts, Mr. Charles

  Warner, Sir Courtenay

  Esmonde, Dr.

  Sandys, Mr.

  NOES.

  Addison, Dr.

  Gwynne, Mr. Rupert

  Newman, Mr.

  Booth, Mr.

  Harcourt, Mr. Robert

  Newton, Mr.

  Boyle, Mr. William

  Harvey, Mr. Edmund

  O'Grady, Mr.

  Bowerman, Mr.

  Jones, Mr. Glyn-

  Ormsby-Gore, Mr.

  Byles, Sir William

  Keating, Mr.

  Pearce, Mr. William

  Cassel, Mr.

  Lawson, Mr. Harry

  Roberts, Mr. George

  Dawes, Mr.

  Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

  Samuel, Mr. Jonathan

  Devlin, Mr.

  Macnamara, Dr.

  Scanlan, Mr.

  Falconer, Mr.

  MacVeagh, Mr.

  Spear, Sir John

  Forster, Mr.

  Masterman, Mr.

  Thomas, Mr.

  Goulding, Mr.

  Money, Mr. Chiozza

  Worthington-Evans, Mr.

  Gwynn, Mr. Stephen

  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move after the word "mother" ["to the mother"] to insert the words "of the child." The object of this Amendment is to make sure that the mother-in-law should not be allowed to creep in.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Clause," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to move to leave out the words "or some other person nominated by her" and to insert instead thereof the words "and the benefit shall be paid by the approved society or insurance committee administering the benefit either to the mother herself or to her husband, or, in the absence of the husband, to some relative nominated by the mother."
  Mr. GOULDING: I think my Amendment comes before that. My Amendment is after the word "mother" ["to the mother of the child or some person nominated by her"] to insert the words "or to the husband or other relation, if nominated by her."
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I think that is going back upon what we have already done.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is impossible for me to judge which of the Amendments were handed in first on Friday, but if the Committee wishes I will have inquiries made.
  Mr. FORSTER: I think the hon. Member for Norwich is entitled to move his Amendment, and I suggest that if the hon. Member wishes to move it he could adapt
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 11; Noes, 34.
  it by bringing his Amendment in after the word "child" ["to the mother of the child"], and by the insertion of the word "but" at the beginning.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: If I am in order now I prefer to move my Amendment with the modification suggested.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I point out that if we insert all these words at this point, the Clause will not be readable. We are amending the principal Act, and if hon. Members will turn to the principal Act they will see that the words then become so complicated that they will not scan at all. I suggest that if the hon. Member wants to move this he must make it a new Sub-section.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is all right.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: It is very difficult to properly follow the discussion, but my Amendment, if I am allowed to move it, would now read "but where the benefit is payable in respect of the husband's insurance," and so on.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I suggest that that would come in more properly as a proviso at the end of the Clause.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: I think, Mr. Chairman, as you have ruled my Amendment to be in order, I had better move it briefly. I think everybody will agree that the proposed new Clause, as it stands, is in a very unsatisfactory condition. I have no desire to go back upon the views of the Committee of last Friday, and I desire it to be perfectly well understood that I have been animated throughout with the single

  3147
  desire that the mother should get the full advantage of the maternity benefit. On the other hand, I have been concerned to avoid casting even the appearance of a slur upon the great mass of decent husbands in the community. For, after all, despite a few obvious cases the great mass of the working men are men of decent character, and are concerned to do the right thing towards their women folk. I take objection to irresponsible third parties being brought in. If that were done, an obvious abuse would at once become apparent to the minds of all people. I do not desire to give any illustrations, because I believe that the introduction of third parties opens the way for abuse in connection with these benefits, and we want to obviate that if possible. My Amendment brings in jointly the husband and the wife, and a receipt from either would be taken as an adequate discharge for the society or the committee concerned in the matter. At the same time, this Amendment does declare the real intention of the Committee and the Parliament generally that this maternity benefit shall go for the use of the woman at the time of her confinement, and shall be expended solely, as far as practicable, upon the woman and the child at that particular period. I do not think after what has been said in the course of previous Debates that there is any need for me to labour this point further.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether it is in order to move the insertion in the principal Act of words which will make it quite unintelligible and ungrammatical. It is in order to avoid that that I suggest this matter might be moved in a separate proviso where it would come in quite correctly.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is always difficult to legislate by reference, and many of the Amendments do this. And it is impossible for the Chair to rule whether it reads into the principal Act or not. If necessary the representative of the Government in charge of the Bill will have to put these straight at the end.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If this Amendment is carried I should ask the Committee to move out after the first word "payment" in Paragraph (e), and on Report stage I will bring up words to make the meaning perfectly clear.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: It is perfectly unintelligible as it stands. It would now read:—
  "Subject to the provisions of this Act the benefits conferred by this part of this Act upon insured persons are: Maternity benefit shall in every case be the mother's benefit, and payment to the mother of the child or some person nominated by her; but where the benefit is payable in respect of the husband's insurance, his receipt or his wife's shall be sufficient discharge for 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 of the wife or child. In the case of the confinement of the wife, or where the child is a posthumous child of the widow of an insured person, or of any other woman who is an insured person, of a sum of thirty shillings (in this Act called "Maternity Benefit").
  It is neither grammar nor sense, and it is wholly unintelligible in this way. On the point of form I believe the objection is insuperable. I think also on the point of substance there is a real objection to it, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment is entitled to put it in this form.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It could be got to read quite easily, and I think there is a general desire on the part of the Committee to discuss this Amendment. If the hon. Gentleman would be willing to withdraw it here, and insert it after the word "paragraph," it would come in better there. It would then read, "Maternity Benefit shall in every case be the mother's benefit, 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, or some person nominated by her'—after the first word 'payment' in that paragraph"—but where the benefit is payable in respect of the husband's insurance, his receipt or his wife's receipt shall be a sufficient discharge for 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; and Sub-section (1) of Section 18 shall be repealed. I think that makes it quite plain."
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I think the hon. Member for Worcester should first move his Amendment.
  Mr. BATHURST: There are other Amendments that would come in before this Amendment should be moved after the word "paragraph."
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I think it would be far the simplest and most intelligible way that this Amendment should be moved at the end of this Clause as a new proviso.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD:Is not the real difficulty this: Supposing the Amendment of the hon. Members (Mr. Goulding and Mr. Bathurst) opposite were inserted it would then be impossible for my hon. Friend to move his Amendment. If my hon. Friend's Amendment is moved with the slight irregularity that now exists then we could move out certain words. If my hon. Friend's Amendment is divided on and lost then the hon. Members opposite can move their Amendments, but if they move first and get in, this Amendment could not be moved.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I think, Mr. Wilson, you have only to decide whether this Amendment is acceptable at this point or not. It has been shown, I think, that it makes nonsense of the principal Act, and I submit that the next Amendment is that of the hon. Member for Worcester.
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: I do not see why a privileged position should be given to an Amendment which we all recognise should moved in another place. I do not see why the hon. Member for Worcester should lose his fair chance, and I think he had better stick to his position. I think this Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. George Roberts) had better be withdrawn and brought up in its proper place.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think it would read perfectly well if put in in the place I suggested.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the Amendment is accepted and these words are added then a further Amendment will have to be moved to leave out other words.
  Mr. BATHURST: I think we had better come to the hon. Member for Worcester's Amendment and make that the basis of a general discussion and ascertain the feeling of the Committee as to what words should be subsequently inserted. It does not matter what the basis is so long as we start in the right place.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have put the Amendment as it stands, and until it is
  3150
  withdrawn, it has first place. I understand the hon. Gentleman desires to move it in the form indicated.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I should be very sorry to call any ruling of yours in question, but may I ask you to apply the words of this Amendment to the words of the principal Act and you will find that the result is that the whole is left without any real meaning.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point or Order.
  Mr. GOULDING: May I suggest that if the hon. Member (Mr. G. H. Roberts) will withdraw his Amendment and move the one standing in my name and in the name of my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Bathurst) we will be satisfied. It is perfectly immaterial to us who moves the Amendment. I should advise the hon. Member to withdraw his and straighten things out with the aid of our Amendments.
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: I am very anxious not to waste any time, but my hon. Friends and I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendments.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I submit that this is nonsense, because it reads after the first word "payment." It is only in order after the word "paragraph," and if that is so, it becomes out of order as it stands.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think hon. Members had better leave points of Order to me. The Amendment before the Committee is to leave out the words "Paragraph (e) of Sub-section (1) of the Section 8 of the principal Act shall be altered accordingly by the insertion of the words 'to the mother,' or some person nominated by her, after the first word 'payment,' in that Paragraph; and Sub-section (1) of Section 18 shall be repealed," and to insert instead thereof the words "but where the benefit is payable in respect of the husband's insurance, his receipt or his wife's receipt 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. BATHURST: As we have now reached the substance of this Amendment, I desire to say that I am entirely opposed to it. It seems to me that it is founded solely upon the sentimental objection that you are dethroning the husband, or inter-

  3151
  fering with the position which he is entitled to as the head of the family. The Amendment does absolutely nothing, and leave the position as it is now. In all cases where the wife has suffered we do not desire that the position should be left untouched. In the future this difficulty will remain the same as it was in the past. The husband's receipt, if the approved society or the Insurance Committees so decide, will remain a sufficient discharge, and where it is paid to the husband, it is provided that he shall pay it to the wife. What is going to happen if he does not pay it to the wife? The law now is that he shall pay it to the wife, but if he is a scapegrace or a drunkard, and gives way to temptation, he can misapply the money, and therefore, it is no good saying that he shall apply it for this benefit. I suggest that this Amendment does not carry the matter one jot further than the principal Act does. There is a good deal of verbiage in this Amendment without anything practical in administration, and the law will not be in the smallest degree different. By a decision we have already come to, you clearly intend that the law shall be different, because you have insisted in every possible case that this benefit shall be the mother's benefit. Therefore, you clearly mean that she is to be placed in a different position in the future than in the past. The mother, for the first time, is going to claim this as her benefit, and not his benefit, and a proper discharge can only be obtained by her receipt or the receipt of some persons she chooses to nominate. For these reasons I desire, with all the strength at my command, to oppose this Amendment.
  Mr. FORSTER: I am always reluctant to differ from my hon. Friend who has just sat down, but I do differ from him on this occasion, as the result of a great deal of reflection I have given to this question since we adjourned on Friday. We have to remember that we are attempting to deal with a very small percentage of those persons to whom maternity benefit is payable. We have to remember that there are bad women just as there are bad men, and I confess that I was a good deal impressed by what I heard as to the misuse that might be made of the power of nomination. I have been in communication with those who know the conditions of the working-class population even more intimately than I do, and I am assured
  3152
  that the power of nomination is a very dangerous one, leading, as it may well do, to grave abuse. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), when he put this Amendment on the Paper originally, wished payment to be made to the mother, and to no one else. I am not prepared to sanction payment to the mother in every case, because there are bad women, and we do not want maternity benefit put to any bad use. I do not want to give to the bad woman the power of nominating the bad man to receive the benefit on her behalf. I recognise the necessity of declaring, as we have declared, that maternity benefit is to be a benefit for the mother, but I want to preserve some elasticity in the administration of the benefit, so that those who know each individual case can judge whether or not it would be more properly paid to the man or to the woman.
  Mr. BOOTH: Who are they?
  Mr. FORSTER: I will not elaborate the point further, because I am anxious to save time, but I am bound to say that after thinking very carefully over the whole position I believe the words proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite will carry out the purpose we have in view better than any alternative form of words on the Paper.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I should not like to give a silent vote on this matter, and I am in complete harmony with the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Norwich. I think we are very much indebted to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) for the very courageous speech he has just delivered, in which he has declared himself in favour of this Amendment. Anybody accustomed to working-class life knows quite well that there are on both sides bad men and bad women, and I think that the intention of this Committee is to safeguard that the alternative benefit should be for the benefit of the mother, and we should see that it is spent in favour of the mother. We are all agreed about that, but I think it is a very great libel on thousands of working men in this country to allege that they are not devoted to their wives, and that they do not spend this money on their wives. I quite agree with the remark that it is an insult to working men to assume that they do not spend this money on their wives [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I claim to have

  3153
  as much knowledge about working-class life as any Member of this Committee, and I speak without fear of contradiction on that point. When a man has stood behind the counter in business for twenty years as I have done, you do grow accustomed to the ways and customs of working-class people. Again, when you sit on the Bench as a magistrate, you remember the large number of cases that come before the Bench where women do spend their money unwisely. I have a case in mind where a workman was sentenced to imprisonment for two months, and he had given £2 a week to his wife every week, and she had spent it on drink, and the children were neglected; but nevertheless the husband was held responsible with her. You get that sort of thing in a very large number of cases, and if you give the money to the mother in absolutely every case you will have a large number of cases where that benefit will be abused. [An HON. MEMBER: "Thousands of cases."] I think it is only right that where the husband pays the, insurance, and where he is a respectable man, he ought to have a. right to the money, and where there is any danger that the husband would not spend the money upon his wife, then I think there ought to be some safeguard that somebody should see that the money is spent on the maintenance and care of the wife and child during confinement. I think that will protect everybody, and I am unwilling to do more than that. If you pass this Clause, as it is, it will give umbrage and offence to thousands of working men. I think we ought to take with a grain of salt the representations of Members of this Committee, that they speak for large bodies of persons in connection with this. Very few of the approved societies—I am speaking of the members—have discussed the matter in detail. When you converse with insured persons upon this point you will find among them a great difference of opinion. I do say that, taking the majority of the working men, they believe they are entitled to this money. These men will spend it wisely upon the wife and child. This Amendment gives protection to secure that the money has been wisely spent. That protection ought to be in the Clause, so that the money will be spent upon the wife and child.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I regret that I cannot wholly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. He
  3154
  seems to think the Amendment is well worded. It seems to me to put things back exactly as they were. If the Committee is disposed to accept the Amendment in part, at any rate, the last words should be left out. The last words seem to be fatal. If the Amendment is passed it will simply re-enact Section 19 of the principal Act, which says that, "The husband shall make adequate provision, etc." We all know very many cases where the benefit is abused. The hon. Member for Norwich says the husband "shall apply it for the maintenance and care of the wife and child." If he is satisfied to go down to the words "shall be paid to the wife," it might mitigate some of the hardships in a number of cases, and amend the Act substantially. Otherwise, we shall have done nothing in this very long discussion beyond leaving things as they were.
  Mr. BECK: I differ from my right hon. Friend and from my hon. Friend behind me. I cannot personally support these words as they read. And I particularly support the hon. Member who has just spoken. I cannot support the inclusion of the words "or apply it to the maintenance and care of the wife and child." The hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Samuel) spoke about the husband having paid for the insurance. That is ridiculous, because the insurance means 10d. after this Act is applied to it, and the husband only pays 4d. He gets a very good return for the money. We who take an interest in this question desire in the first place that the maternity benefit should be kept exclusively for the mother, and we will not support any words which will weaken that exclusive privilege. I have not ventured to speak on this Committee before. I have had some cases brought to my notice, I have not got the names, but they are cases in which a decent respectable affectionate husband has got hold of the money and spent it on perfectly foolish things which would in no way benefit the wife and child. I have two letters here from representatives of the wives who state that the husbands spent the maternity benefit upon things that were no use to the wives at all, although the husbands acted in good faith and meant well.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: How will you regulate that?
  Mr. BECK: You can regulate that by giving the money to the wife, or by giving the wife control of the money. We do

  3155
  feel, and I am sure the great majority of the Committee feel, very strongly upon this point. There is really no chance whatsoever of our accepting any words which will weaken what we desire to have. As for the statement that the money being given to the wife will be an insult to the husbands of this country, I do not think that will be so. If the workmen would be insulted by such a provision it would be equally an insult to the wives of this country if you take it out of their control, because you have it stated that there are bad wives who should not have control of this maternity benefit. I think these two arguments kill each other. I do not think that either of them is of very much value. Although I do not object very much to the Amendment on the Paper, I do very strongly object to the words "or apply it for the maintenance and care of the wife and child." I am prepared, if necessary, to move an Amendment to leave out those words.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I do not intend to pursue the arguments which have been used by the hon. Member on the Front Bench opposite, because, as regards the merits of this question, we have already discussed and decided it. It is a great pain to me to differ fundamentally and decidedly from the representative of the Front Opposition Bench, but I am sorry to say that my conscientious convictions in this matter lead me to take an entirely different point of view from that which has been taken by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. I am sure he will acquit me of doing so in anything but a conscientious spirit. We have decided, I think, quite plainly on the merits of the case in favour of the principal Clause. Practically, the words that are now being moved would make that decision nothing more than a pious wish. I wish this to be effective, I wish it to have sanction. I wish it to be put clown plainly in black and white, that this is a right belonging to the mother, and that she is not to be deprived of by any chicanery or any trickery. I think the words are perfectly clear as we passed them on the Motion of the hon. Member for Salisbury, and I should be very sorry to see any deviation from those words, but the words now proposed make that Motion which we passed on last Friday absolutely worthless. They merely re-enact what was enacted in the principal Act, a pious wish, nothing but the declaration of an intention, without sanction, without any secu-
  3156
  rity that anything is to be carried out. I am sorry to say that in these circumstances I must vote contrary to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks and against this Amendment.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I be allowed to say a single word in support of the form of words which I have put down on the Paper. I suggtst that everyone of us is anxious that no slur should be passed upon the insured men under this Act. If we pass this Amendment we go right back to what we have done and put things exactly where they were before. The words I have put down are not going back upon that but yet will remove the slur.
  Dr. ESMONDE: On a point of Order. Are we going on to another Amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN: I was just going to caution the hon. Member. I think those hon. Members who disagree with the Amendment on the Paper might confine themselves to voting against it. The Amendments of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding) and the hon Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Chiozza Money) could be taken after that.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwich, after the word "Committee," to insert the words "unless some other relative has been nominated by the wife."
  There seems to be a great deal of agreement among the Members of the Committee that the object which the Committee has in view is to safeguard matters so that this benefit shall go to the wife. The only dissent I have heard came from the hon. Member for Stockton, but I do not think he meant exactly what he said. He said that the husband, if he was a self-respecting man, should get the benefit. That was not the intention of the Act. This is a maternity benefit not a paternity benefit. It is common ground among all the people that there are bad husbands and bad wives, and that has been repeated very often.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Would not this be substituted for an Amendment already on the Paper?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: I think we were all aware of that fact already. My view of the words proposed by the hon. Member for Norwich is that we ought to be very careful not to use a form of words such as we have in this Clause, which would

  3157
  eventually give offence to a great mass of the working classes of this country. The husbands who will misuse the maternity benefit, and divert the money to a source other than Parliament intended, are a very small proportion indeed of the total number, and therefore I submit that whatever form of words we use we ought to be careful to make it clear that we are providing for the exception and not for the rule. In my Amendment we would be proceeding in that way. The husband would collect the money on behalf of the wife, but at the same time we give an option to the wife in a case where there is a bad husband to nominate some other relative who would collect the money. That would obviate the difficulty suggested by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks and the danger of some outsider being brought in. After all I think no one could object to the wife bringing in some other relative if it is really necessary that she should protect herself against a drunken husband. I hope my hon. Friend will see his way to accept the Amendment which, on the whole, I think, meets the views of both sides of the Committee.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am in a little difficulty about taking the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member. It seems to me that a better way would be to negative the Amendment which is before the Committee and then take the Amendment of the hon. Member for Worcester.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: But I am in favour of the Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: If I allow the hon. Member's Amendment to the Amendment it shall be on the distinct understanding that no point of Order will be raised against putting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Worcester if this one is negatived.
  Mr. THOMAS: I think it is rather unfortunate that we should be debating the rights of the matter further to-day. We are all agreed that that question was definitely settled on Friday. The Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich is not intended in any way to upset that particular decision. I see an hon. Member shaking his head, but I submit to him that the whole question is a question of the abuse of this particular Grant. The whole Debate on Friday centred round that. That abuse was discovered not by the Members of this Committee, not by the experience of the Members of this Committee, but by the ex-
  3158
  perience of those who were administering the Act itself. You decided upon that experience that it was wise to make this not the property of the husband but the property of the wife. That was determined. But when we come to give effect to your decision, the words of the hon. Member for Salisbury, in the opinion of some of us—I believe in the opinion of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks—makes the decision worse than it was before. It is because we believe that these words of ours are the only words that will enable the decision of Friday to be carried out that we ask the Committee to accept them. What is the position I Prior to your decision, no matter if everyone was persuaded that the husband was a bad husband, and that the money would be wasted or abused, if the man took the money home and gave it to the wife, the society was liable to be surcharged with it. That was the position. You altered that, and you say that it shall now be the property of the wife. All that the hon. Member's Amendment does is to enable the society to have a receipt from the only people that can come and say the benefit is properly administered. I am absolutely persuaded, whatever our intentions may be, that we ought to put aside all questions of sentiment in this. It is a question of administration. There is no one with any experience but what cannot imagine thousands of ways where it would be abused. A midwife or an agent can get as many maternity forms as she likes—to leave entirely out of the question the doctors. You have no right, with knowledge like that in your minds, to lend yourselves to such abuse. It is not fair to discuss the question again as between the wife and the husband. Having come to the decision it has, it is for this Committee to apply itself practically to give effect to what was the decision on Friday.
  Mr. NEWTON: It is desired that these words should accomplish two things. It has been supported by some for administration or machinery reasons. It was certainly, to judge by the speeches which have been delivered this afternoon, supported by others on the ground that by inserting this Clause, we should not be giving benefits to the husbands. We shall not be passing a slight upon the husbands by expressions of that sort. I should just like to say to the Committee that in my opinion, there is no risk whatsoever of the husbands of this country regarding our action in definitely earmarking

  3159
  benefits to the wife, as any slight upon them. I know perfectly well that when I was explaining this Act to my Constituents, there was no part of the Act which met with warmer reception from the working men themselves, than when I put before them the paragraph which laid a heavy penalty upon the husband for misapplying any of this money. Therefore, we are only carrying out, I submit, by the decision at which we have arrived, and the express desire of the men that there should be no doubt as to whom it belongs. I would go so far as to say that I believe it would be well if the Members of the Committee bore it in mind that the husbands of this country will be delighted if this benefit is made, so far as this Committee can make it, the absolute property of the wife.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT:I am opposed to this Amendment as it stands, and as it is proposed by my hon. Friend to amend, because, if carried, it would reduce the principal Act to gibberish. It could have been put in a form that would have been intelligible if it had been moved as a proviso at the end of this new Clause. But it is now moved in a form to insert certain words, a paragraph, in Clause 8 of the principal Act. It inserts them in the very middle of the phrase in such a form as to reduce the sentence in which they are introduced to mere—
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member takes that point, I cannot allow him to continue. It has already been explained that by putting quotation marks to the part that is being inserted in the Clause, it is made perfectly intelligible. I have no doubt he will recognise it when he sees it in print. Perhaps he will kindly keep to the point as to what the Amendment is intended to do.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: As I understand it is proposed to insert these words of the Amendment, not merely in the Clause proposed by the hon. Member for Salisbury. As the Amendment stands now, it proposed to insert all those words in the principal Act. [HON. MEMBERS "No, no."] But, Mr. Chairman, it says so—verbatim et literatim.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member has already said—and if he had not, I should, in the interests of the Committee, have said—that these words would have to be moved out if this Amendment be carried. This only refers to the principal Act as to the mother.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: What words will have to be moved out?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The words after "paragraph(e)."
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: We have been deprived of the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues when we have come to discuss this very important subject. They did not think it desirable to vote or to express any opinion. They occupy a very important and responsible position here. They have voluntarily resigned their responsibility which they had upon this Clause. They have not taken the responsibility to vote as they thought, right upon this important question. It might quite easily suit their convenience that this Committee should get itself into a mess and a muddle, and that then we should go to the House.
  The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. Member to continue that line. I have already said that he is going against, the ruling of the Chair. If he would kindly discuss the particular Amendment before the Committee, that is the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, that is to insert the words "Unless some other relation will have been nominated by the wife," I shall be glad.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: On a point of Order. Do I understand that you wished just now to confine me to the Amendment to the Amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN: I am obliged to do so.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: If that is so, others have not done it. I am quite willing to obey your ruling and to reserve my remarks till the Amendment to the Amendment has been disposed of.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I understand now that the Amendment before us is one that raises the question of nomination. A good deal of sentiment is being talked about the whole question. I do think at any rate that those of us who have something to do with administration right throughout the year should have some voice in the matter. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen here to say that the woman should nominate some relative. I cannot help thinking that members of this Committee who are talking about the subject really do not appreciate what lies at the bottom of this matter, and the present difficulty that at present exists in the manner of its administration. It is a great pity that this question came before this

  3161
  Committee without the Government having made up its mind to provide for us the machinery which would carry this out. Hon. Members said nomination. By that you mean that you are to enable the woman to protect herself against the exceptional husband. How can she? That is the very man who will be nominated, if I know anything about it. Of course he will take care that she will nominate him. You have said already it is her benefit. Is it her legal property? Is that woman coming to us as a Committee, and will we be in direct dealings with her, and with the approved society? You have rightly said that the benefit shall be for her. Is that 30s. her legal property?
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We have just said so.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: The husband is the only person who has contractual arrangements with the approved society. No claim can be made apart from the husband; what is the good of pretending to protect the woman in this way, by saying that she may nominate somebody else. The first thing she has got to do is to get hold of a card for the evidence that will enable that claim to be made. I am not sure that unless you are amending the Act in other particulars that the woman is at all likely to act apart from her husband in this matter. You have said the benefit is her benefit. I think he said that the benefit is hers, and that she may give a discharge for it. Then you go and say that the husband may give a discharge. That is all that is reasonable to be expected to be done in protecting her, and I cannot see from an administration point of view how the Insurance Committee are going to deal with this matter if you bring in the other items "nomination." How are we to verify these nominations? It is difficult enough to verify claims.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member complained that the Government have not given guidance in this matter. It is difficult for us to put any pressure on the Committee to adopt this Amendment. I am going to stick to the narrow point of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. The Amendment to the Amendment involves the question of nominations. Those nominations, as I told the Committee at the beginning of this Session, are almost impossible to work in practice. They give rise to a lot of grievance and abuse, and whether we accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwich or not—personally, I shall vote for it—I think we had better clear nominations out of this Amendment;
  3162
  and if hon. Gentlemen do not wish to accept the Amendment, they need not. Perhaps the hon. Member would be willing to withdraw after hearing that statement.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member will be willing to withdraw. We can take nominations on the next Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: On the proposal made by the hon. Member for Norwich, which is supported by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, it seems to me to be a fair compromise in a difficult question. We have decided that this should be the wife's benefit. It is proposed by my hon. Friend that for the complete safeguarding of the benefit to be used for the maintenance and care of the wife and child, the husband should receive the benefit. We wanted to preserve cases where the husband may spend the money on himself, or in some other fashion than on himself and his wife and child. I do not think anyone suggested that the husband was so much distrusted—that he was not to be allowed to spend the money for his wife and child, even if the wife wanted him to do so—and what is said here is that where the benefit, is paid to the husband, he shall pay it to the wife, that is, if the wife is in a condition to use it, and there is nothing wrong with the wife; but, that, if there is anything wrong with the wife, and it is not suitable that it should be paid to the wife, it should be applied to the maintenance and care of the wife. Without going into conditions that will break down the whole of the Act, I think that is a compromise which the whole of the Committee would accept.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The carrying of this Amendment will reduce the principal Act to gibberish. It is proposed that all the words of this Amendment—in fact this long paragraph—should be inserted in the principal Act.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in order when le makes that point.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Do I understand that you are giving a ruling as to the meaning of he words in the Amendment, or on a point of Order? I am discussing the words in the Amendment, and I claim that I have a right to express my view of the meaning of those words without being argued with by the Chair as to the meaning of them. [Hon. MEMBERS: 'Order, order."]
  The CHAIRMAN: I think I must appeal to the Committee to support me. ["Hear, hear."] The point to which I called the hon. Member's attention was that he was asserting that the principal Act was reduced to "gibberish," by this Amendment, and secondly, that certain words proposed to be inserted in the Clause, which had been explained three or four times this afternoon, are not going to be inserted. When the hon. Member comes to see it in print he will see that the draughtsman and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury are correct in what has already been said, and it is on that point I submit that the hon. Member is not entitled to say what he did about the Chair.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I withdraw anything that I have said which is offensive—["Hear, hear"]—but seeing that I take a certain view of the words in the Amendment, I think I should be satisfied why my view is held to be wrong. I understand that inverted commas have no significance in an Act of Parliament—that we must be guided by the actual words inserted in the Act. It is proposed here in the very words of this Amendment that the original Act shall be altered by the insertion of the words on the Paper, whereby it is proposed that the money shall be paid to the mother of the child, and the wife's receipt shall be a sufficient discharge, and the money shall be applied to the maintenance and care of the wife and child. That is the Amendment on the Paper. For my part, I cannot see that this Amendment can have any other meaning than the insertion of these words in the Act. It could have been done by moving the whole thing as a proviso at the end of the new Clause. That would have made it intelligible and grammatical, but in the form in which it is proposed it is that the specified words should be inserted in the principa Act at a certain point. My opinion is that this reduces the Act to unintelligibility. The right hon. Gentleman, who has for the moment, resumed the guidance of the Committee on this particular question, suggested that it was possible it might be unintelligible, but when we came to Report then he would propose a new Amendment, which would give this Section significance. I object altogether to that kind of procedure. Without his guidance, we have come to a certain decision. He now finds that that decision is not quite suitable to him.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I never suggested that on Report the first word "payment" should be omitted from this paragraph.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I suggest that we have come to a perfectly clear and definite decision. It mar have some consequences which the right hon. Gentleman thinks undesirable. Still, let us pass this new Clause in a perfectly clear and definite manner, then, when we come to the Report, let the right hon. Gentleman make his recommendations as to the alterations which he desires, but do not let us put ourselves in the position of rendering the principal Act unintelligible, and put the right hon. Gentleman in the position of being able to say to the House of Commons, "Look what a mess the Committee has got itself into. Now I will come, like Deus ex Machina and rescue the Committee.—"
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I must confess that I do not quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. I believe it is the first occasion during the whole of the Insurance debates horn the principal Act up till now, that I have differed from him in the least. I have put down this Clause with the intention of making it perfectly undoubted that the mother shall in all cases get the sum of 30s. in cash maternity benefit. I must confess, reading the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwich, that to my mind it undermines the principle that this Committee agreed upon on Friday last. That is my personal impression. I am quite prepared to agree that the words I suggested "or some person nominated by her" may not quite meet the case. But I should think it would have been infinitely better—this is only my private opinion—to have passed this Clause, and to have considered some Amendments on the Report stage if necessary. I do feel that this Committee is stultifying itself by passing an Amendment which does to a very large extent lundermine the principle they agreed to on Friday last. I do not think we have had sufficient time to think it over. I have had a lot of correspondence this morning, and I am sure every Member of the Committee also had some correspondence on the subject this morning. There is no doubt whatever that this correspondence has had a certain effect upon hon. Members' minds. Personally, I have not had time to digest the correspondence properly. I do wish the Committee could agree to defer deciding upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwich until the Report stage, and abide by its decision on Friday last.
  Mr. LYNCH: I hold that we who are in favour of the Amendment of the hon.

  3165
  Member for Salisbury should stand absolutely firm, and if possible, reinforce it. I should like to go further and not only secure that this money shall be paid to the wife, and no one else, but, if it were possible by the exercise of the talent of the Under-Secretary, I should like to see some additional words inserted so that this money should be inviolate, and should not be legally paid for any other debt whatever incurred by the house. The argument of the hon. Member for Norwich, to whom I always listen with the utmost sympathy, was that it would be a slur to the husband, but that was knocked on the head by one of his own colleagues, the hon. Member for Derby, who said it was not a question of sentiment at all, but purely a question of administration. We must brush completely aside any notions that we are casting a slur upon the husband. O'Connell said that "Corporations had neither a body to be kicked or a soul to be saved." The same thing may be said of Acts of Parliament. An Act of Parliament is entirely impersonal, and once it is passed there is no slur upon anyone affected by it. But there would be a slur upon the husband if the friendly society, or if any other person were to step in between husband and wife and say that in one case the husband should receive the 30s. and in another case the husband should not receive the 30s. With respect to the Amendment itself of the Member for Norwich, I would say that it does not supply what the hon. Member for Derby declared was the most important thing required, that is, the machinery of administration. In the Amendment we are to stop at the word "wife." The husband would be merely transmitting agent, paying the money over to the wife and his role would be a very small one indeed; but what guarantee is there that the husband shall apply it for the maintenance or the care of the wife or child? What safeguard is there? I am willing to believe there are very few cases where the husband would misapply the money. But the Member for Norwich has agreed that there are cases in which it would be misapplied, and we must legislate for those exceptional cases. I heard of a case from another country where they have a much wider and more generous way of dealing with poor people. Where they give a bonus of £5 for twins. A doctor from Australia told me this morning that on one occasion, visiting a household he found the wife in consternation. He asked her what was the matter. "Bill," she answered, "has gone and drunk the twins." Now I am willing to believe that these are extremely
  3166
  rare cases, but they do happen. And, after all, it is the rare cases that we have to deal with by law. We must provide that the woman, in this unfortunate situation in which she stands so much in need of sympathy, shall be adequately protected, and everything done for her comfort and sustenance. I will say only one word more. Nothing is further from the mind of any member of this Committee than to cast a slur upon the working classes. If we were dealing with peers of the realm I would take precisely the same course. I should like to see the distinction swept away, so that every working-man should in all respect be a peer of the realm. There is no slur intended, and I appeal to those who supported this Clause to stand firm and carry it in its original state.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not propose to detain the Committee for more than a moment or two. I ask the Committee to support the Amendment of the Member for Norwich, as I believe it is the best compromise we can arrive at. I think my friend the hon. Member for Salisbury is to be congratulated on having brought forward his new Clause. By it he has done something very real for the benefit of the insured people. He has declared that the maternity benefit in every case is to be the woman's property, and I believe that yon cannot get any further without creating so much confusion in the administration of this benefit by the societies themselves, that your legislative effort will do more harm than good. But the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwich does do something in addition. It declares that the receipt either of the husband or wife may be accepted by the Committees or the societies, and it declares that if the husband does receive the money he is to apply the whole of it—that is the important thing—to the benefit of the wife. The hon. Member who last spoke wanted to know what protection there was for the wife that it should be so applied. The only protection that Parliament can give is to impose a penalty if their legislative provisions are not carried out, and that penalty is in the Act, and a very' severe penalty it is, in Clause 19 of the Act. We have also to remember this, that in order to get at the one case out of a thousand where the benefit is abused you must not make the administration so complicated that the 999 are going to suffer. I therefore ask the Committee to support this fair compromise.
  Mr. ALDEN: I do hope the Committee will come to a decision soon. I do not know what the women will think after reading this discussion. I think the best thing we could do would be to stop at the point indicated by the hon. Member for Salisbury. I do not believe we shall get a clear decision this afternoon, and if we can postpone the discussion as to the exact meaning of this proviso, we should be able to clear the ground. I do not know what the Commissioners think, and I am not at all sure whether it would be accurate without any additional words. The sickness benefit is administered in the original Act. I do hope we won't attempt to decide that point this afternoon, but that we will accept the

  Division No. 9.]

  AYES.

  Addison, Dr.

  Gwynn, Mr. Stephen

  Masterman, Mr.

  Bowerman, Mr.

  Gwynne, Mr. Rupert

  O'Grady, Mr.

  Cassel, Mr.

  Harvey, Mr. Edmund

  Roberts, Mr. George

  Clay, Captain Spender

  Hinds, Mr.

  Samuel, Mr. Jonathan

  Dawes, Mr.

  Jones, Mr. Glyn-

  Scanlan, Mr.

  Devlin, Mr.

  Lardner, Mr.

  Thomas, Mr.

  Falconer, Mr.

  Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Forster, Mr.

  Macnamara, Dr.

  Worthington-Evans, Mr.

  NOES.

  Alden, Mr.

  Esmonde, Dr.

  Nield, Mr.

  Baker, Sir Randolf

  Goulding, Mr.

  Ormsby-Gore, Mr.

  Bathurst, Mr. Charles

  Harcourt, Mr. Robert

  Pearce, Mr. William

  Beck, Mr.

  Keating, Mr.

  Roberts, Mr. Charles

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Lawson, Mr. H.

  Sandys, Mr.

  Booth, Mr.

  Locker-Lampson, Mr. Godfrey

  Scott, Mr. MacCallum

  Boyle, Mr. William

  Lynch, Mr.

  Spear, Sir John

  Byles, Sir Wiliam

  MacVeagh, Mr.

  Tryon, Captain

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Money, Mr. Chiozza

  Warner, Sir Courtenay

  Dickinson, Mr.

  Newton, Mr.

  The CHAIRMAN: I think the Committee well recognise that a pretty general discussion has taken place upon the whole subject, and it would be a convenience to Members if the next Amendment could be briefly moved and voted on at once.
  Mr. GOULDING: I beg to move after the word "child" in the Amendment last inserted, to insert in the proposed Clause the words "or to the husband or other relation if nominated by her." This Amendment places it beyond doubt that the benefit shall be secured for the mother and the child. In case she is unable to get the money herself, she will be able to nominate her husband or some relative to get it for her. I put in the name of the husband especially, because we do not want in any way to cast a slur upon the individual who ought to be the chief counsel of the wife. For these reasons, I beg to move the Amendment,
  suggestion of the hon. Member for Salisbury.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I should like to ask the Financial Secretary whether, if this Amendment is passed, it is his intention to move the Amendment lower down which does to some extent tie it up to the mother and child.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That is consequential upon its being a woman's benefit, and that is why I propose to move it be inserted.
  Question put, "That the words of the Amendment be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 24 Noes, 29.
  Mr. CASSEL: I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has fully appreciated the effect of the word "relation." What is a "relation"? There may be cases where the mother herself has no relation. Take, for instance, the case of the mother who is herself an illegitimate child. In that case she would have no relation, and, assuming that her husband is away, whom could she nominate? If you have these words at all, ought they not to read "to the husband or other person." It seems to me that, if the mother nominated a second cousin twice removed, the society would have to have elaborate machinery in order to inquire whether the person was in fact the second cousin twice removed, and we have not in this Bill set up any table of consanguinity showing how far the relationship is to extend. I would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge

  3169
  of the Bill whether he has considered the effect of the word "relation" and whether he does not consider that the substitution of the word "person" would be better?
  Mr. LYNCH: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the word "relation" is a word which ought to be concentrated in an Act of Parliament?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I rather assumed that this was the alternative to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts), and that the wish of the majority of the Committee was to have this Amendment. Personally, I should prefer—and if any one chooses to move it I shall support it—to leave out the words "or other relation." I think that the relation, as the hon. and learned Member opposite has said, is quite grotesque, and I would suggest that an Amendment might be accepted in the terms "to the husband if nominated by her," but, as to question of the wife having to nominate her husband, I think that has already been decided.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: I think that the suggestion of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would defeat the object many of us have in view, and that is to prevent an undue slur being cast on the bulk of the working classes. My Amendment would be "or to the husband, unless some other relative has been nominated by the wife."
  Mr. BATHURST: I understood that the sole reason we did not accept the suggested Amendment, of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G Locker-Lampson) was that some undesirable woman, "Mrs. Gamp" or some other person, might get hold of this money. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the money shall be actually applied for the benefit of the wife or shall actually reach her hands. I do not think that we ought to take up further time in discussing how this can be done. I should have thought myself that we were sufficiently agreed on the principle without going back on the question whether or not a slur is cast upon the husband, and that we might now, or on the Report stage, agree to some words to carry out this purpose. I should have thought that it would have met the objection of our legal purist if we were to have added to this Amendment some such words, "or failing such relation at the discretion of the society or committee." They would only exercise their discretion if there were,
  3170
  in fact, no person answering to the description of either "husband" or "relation." We want to ensure that a woman who cannot trust her husband shall be in a position to get the money, either by direct payment to herself or by her appointing a responsible person to receive it on her behalf, and I think that can be done without a long discussion. I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the footing that, if any further words are required they will be put in on the Report stage, and that, we do not in any way go back upon the principle which we have now accepted, that the woman herself shall dictate how the money shall be received.
  Dr. ADDISON: I sincerely hope that the Committee will not pass this Amendment as it is now, because, if it does, I shall vote against the whole thing It would mean that paragraph (e) of the principal Act would read "payment to the mother of the child or to the other husband or other relation if nominated by her," and with great respect to the Mover that is really nonsense. This is a piece of administrative machinery, and, if it is to come in anywhere, it should therefore, come in Clause 18, which deals with administration, and. certainly should not come in the definition of the benefit in Clause 8. I heartily agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that the expression "relation" is quite impossible. Really a large number of working women have not got any relation within 100 miles, and to put in "relation" would make the thing absolutely unworkable. We must remember that this is a definition of the benefit. The benefit, as we see later on, applies to the case of the illegitimate child where there is no husband. This is a definition of the benefit, and it would shut out those cases. Then again, in the case of a posthumous child, it would introduce endless difficulties. I therefore sincerely hope that we shall reject the Amendment.
  Mr. DICKINSON: We voted some time since on the words "or some person nominated by her" standing part of the proposed Clause. The Committee by a large majority rejected that Amendment. I submit that settled the question of nomination, and that we cannot put it in an Amendment now.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have looked at that point. That Amendment was perfectly general; this is more specific. Still, I agree that there is no possibility of a general discussion on this now without repeating what has been said before.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: If this Amendment is open to grave objection, I consider that that proposed by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would be still more impossible, because it would require that in every case the husband should be nominated by the woman. I do not think anybody wishes to see that done. Whilst being generally in favour of the Amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), I imagine that the almost invariable case will be that the money will be paid to the husband if the wife is incapable of receiving it. We also have to think of the exceptional case, and there was a suggestion made, in spite of the technical objection to the word "relation" that the husband should receive it unless another relative were nominated. In any case, I certainly could not vote for making it compulsory for the husband to receive the nomination of his wife.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: The decision come to on Friday makes it necessary to introduce some other party than the wife, but when you proceed to do that you come up against all manner of difficulties. Just try to contemplate what will happen here. We have always made a proud boast of the fact that we are desirous of retaining inviolate family life, but in my opinion you are here opening up any number of cases of family disturbances by the introduction of these remote persons who are presumed to be relations. It would be utterly impossible for any society to administer the benefit. The secretary would have to conduct the necessary research to determine whether the person nominated was a relation or not, and it is not possible yet for anybody to determine what is a relation. I therefore submit that you would be placing responsibilities upon the society which could not lead to anything but chaos.
  Mr. FALCONER: I have taken some trouble to ascertain how the Act is working in Scotland in this very particular, and in my view the most satisfactory arrangement is that the benefit should be paid to the mother or to the husband, that it should be left at that, and that nothing else should be added. I find that societies or friends have intervened where it is necessary for the purpose of trying to make some special arrangements for some special cases, and there has been no strife and no trouble at all. I should have thought that everybody would have been absolutely decided that the one thing which ought not to be done was to introduce some relative nominated by the
  3172
  mother. It would not only lead to a very great amount of disturbance in the family and of trouble to the society, but it would be impossible for the society or their representatives to decide what persons were entitled under the Act to the benefit. If it would be quite consistent with all that has passed, my Amendment would be to leave out all the words after the word "husband," and I believe that would be the real practical way to carry on this business. There is one point that I should like to have made quite clear. We have in a few cases—I admit very few—found a difficulty through the fact that neither the husband nor the wife take the trouble to see that the doctor is paid his fee. I think that is a case which should be provided for.
  The CHAIRMAN: There is a subsequent Amendment on the Paper dealing with that question.
  Mr. FALCONER: Would the passing of that exclude that which we have been doing and which others have been doing, namely, seeing that the doctor gets a reasonable fee before handing over the balance to the husband? I should like to be assured with regard to that matter.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman will see that I have an Amendment further down on the Paper making it quite clear that the same condition shall prevail—"shall be administered in the interests of the mother and child in cash or otherwise by the approved society."
  Mr. GOULDING: I put in the words "or other relation" in case there were some unfortunate occurrence in which the wife did not wish it to be paid to the husband, hut, if it would meet the wish of the Committee, I would be quite willing to move the Amendment in this form, "or to the husband if nominated by the wife." I am not at all impressed with what has been said about the difficulty of finding a relation. I am thankful to say that the friendly societies' secretaries do not carry on their business in such a red-tape and stupid manner as that if the wife is in need of the 30s., and they cannot find a relation, no red-tape will prevent them from seeing that the 30s. reaches the mother.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Is the nomination to be in writing?
  Mr. GOULDING: We have so many things done by regulation under this Act that that certainly would be the most easy form of giving effect to this provision.
  Dr. ADDISON: On a point of Order. This is a definition of a benefit, and I submit that it would not be in order, in accordance with the general provisions of the Bill, that we should introduce into a definition of a benefit that it might be a benefit for the husband if nominated by the wife. I submit that this is a question of administration, and has nothing to do with the definition of maternity benefit.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: If this Amendment is carried, would it not mean that the benefit could not be paid unless a nomination had been made?
  Mr. BOOTH: I was going to raise the question of the word "nominated." I hope the Committee will get that word out if possible. All that my friends want is that the person should be authorised by the wife, or should receive it with her sanction. I do not think hon. Members will accomplish what they want if they keep to the word "nominated." It means the printing of a paper. The papers will be printed by the thousand long before the event, and the various societies will take an early opportunity of getting the nomination put in by the wife long before she is ill. Therefore, I suggest, that even those who agree with me and want the woman to have the money, will not secure their object. All that can be asked is that the money shall be paid either to the woman or, if she wishes it, to her husband. After all, we must look at some practical outcome. By putting in a technical word of this kind, we may very easily defeat our main object. There is no finality about this. We can only do the best for the next year or two. I should like to try it in that way. I am asked to state that the Insurance societies think there will be very great difficulty unless they are asked to get the receipt either of the husband or of the wife. If they cannot get that as a discharge of their obligation for the 30s., those who administer the societies will be in great difficulty. They will not know what to do; and I am afraid that where there is any difficulty or doubt it is the woman who will suffer. We have agreed that the money belongs to the woman, and also that it must be paid to her. One of the most convenient ways of paying it will be to let the husband take it to her, but that ought never to take place without the woman's consent. I agree with the hon. Member for Salisbury that if the decision of the Committee on Friday had been accepted, and the machinery had been dealt with between now and Report, we should have saved the whole of to-day.
  Sir W. BYLES: May I ask by what authority the Committee is sitting after four o'clock?
  The CHAIRMAN: By Resolution of the House on Friday last.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I wish to make a suggestion which may save time. We have decided that this benefit is the woman's property, and that it must be paid to her. Why can we not, for the moment, leave it there, and let the question of administration be settled between now and Report? If all these Amendments are withdrawn, it will be for the Government, with its expert advice, to find what is the best machinery for giving effect to what we want.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I really think that that is the best suggestion. We have stuck for three hours on this subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "Two hours."] I cannot promise to get agreement, because I think the problem is almost insoluble as it has been left to us; but I will promise to accept the decision of the Committee as far as it has gone—that this is the woman's benefit, and that it is to be paid to the woman in some fashion or other. If you like to leave to me the difficult problem of trying to find which of the administrative changes might be most satisfactory, I will consult with the various parties in the House, and see whether any method can be arrived at.
  Mr. FORSTER: I want to enter a caveat. The right hon. Gentleman and the Committee must not take it that the substance of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts), will not be moved again on Report and submitted to the House, because I am perfectly convinced that the more people study the difficulties involved in the administration of this benefit, the more they will be driven, as I have been driven against my predilections, to come to the conclusion that the proposal of the hon. Member for Norwich is really the only line on which it would be safe to settle this problem. I only want the right hon. Gentleman to realise that a further attempt will be made in the House on Report to get the matter settled on those lines.
  Mr. BATHURST: As my name also appears to this Amendment, I should like to say, in spite of what my hon. Friend has said, that if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to adopt the express wish of this Committee, both in letter and in spirit, and to bring up Amendments on Report, I for one am quite satisfied, and am prepared to leave it there.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am prepared to promise now, if this is accepted, that I will offer words to carry out the Committee's suggestion. I cannot make any other promise, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, but I will try to offer administrative possibilities if they can be found.
  Mr. GOULDING: If what is accepted? I am prepared to withdraw this Amendment now if the right hon. Gentleman, having considered it, and taken the necessary advice, will have drafted an Amendment to give administrative effect to what has already been passed, namely, that the benefit is the mother's, and is to be spent for herself and the child by herself or by her deputy. If the right hon. Gentlemen understands that, I am perfectly ready to ask leave to withdraw; otherwise, I think we had better settle the matter now.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to do, but I hope he is not going to commit the House of Commons to everything that may have been done here, because our Amendment will certainly go down. It would be very much to everybody's advantage if what has been said by the hon. Gentlemen opposite could be carried out, namely, that those who are going to consider this matter later on should do it with an open mind and a free hand, so that they may clearly understand what are the grave administrative difficulties which we have been trying to get round and which I believe are adequately got round in the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I want it to be quite clear what I have promised. I thought I was quite frank. I cannot promise in the least degree what action the Government, if necessary, will make on Report. Everyone realises that. What I do promise is that if the thing stands as it is now, after the Debate on the Report stage, I will be ready with an Amendment, if I can manage to do so, which will really carry out administratively the decision and the result as it stands at present. Is that quite clear? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is as far as I can go.
  Mr. GOULDING: On that, I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to put these Amendments on the Paper before we get to the Report stage, and as Government Amendments?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In any case, I could not put them down as Government Amendments.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will they be put down?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Would not that raise the whole discussion over again in Committee?
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, on Report?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I will see that they are put down in some form.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: My right hon. Friend used the phrase "as the thing stands now." Is he going to put down an Amendment which will include the principle of nomination? I understand that hon. Gentleman opposite withdraws the principle of nomination.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think we had better leave it like this. I shall consult the various interests between now and the Report stage, and I shall try to get an Amendment—I cannot put it down as a Government Amendment, but it will be on the Paper—representing the maximum of administrative agreement if this is upheld in the House. I think that a wrong decision has been come to; but let it be followed by no administrative chaos. If the House comes to the same decision, we will do what we can.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I have not consented to withdraw the Amendment standing in my name.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not think that we should be left entirely with the remarks of those who have voted in the minority. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks, the hon. Member for Leicester, and the Government were in the minority. I hope that in the consideration of this matter the women will be considered, and that before the House deals with the subject a very large volume of opinion of women of every party will be collected. It all tends in one direction, and it will lead to the support of the action of this Committee.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I hope that no attempt will be made to get the academic opinion of women or the opinion of academic women.
  Mr. BOOTH: The real article.
  Amendment to the proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I have not consented, to withdraw my Amendment

  3177
  [to insert the words "and the benefit shall be paid by the approved society or Insurance Committee administering the benefit either to the mother herself or to her husband, or, in the absence of the husband, to some relative nominated by the mother"]. I desire to move that Amendment with a variation of those words.
  The CHAIRMAN: It seems to me quite impossible for the Committee to discuss the hon. Member's Amendment without repeating what has been already either decided or discussed during the last two hours.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I bow to your ruling, but with a protest.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, to leave out the words "Sub-section (1) of Section 18 shall be repealed." and to insert instead thereof the words "in Subsection (1) of Section 18 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 'shall be administered in the interests of the mother and child in cash or otherwise by the approved society of which the husband is a member.'" This is purely consequential on the declaration that the benefit is the woman's benefit.
  Amendment to the proposed new Clause agreed to.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I beg to move, at the end of the proposed new Clause, to add the words, "(2) Where the maternity benefit has been paid to the wife the midwife's and the doctor's fees for attendance at the confinement shall not be recoverable as a debt from the husband."
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does not this Amendment raise an entirely separate point?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is an entirely separate point. The hon. Member had better bring it up at a later stage.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I beg to move at the end of the proposed new Clause to add the words "(2) Section 19 of the principal Act is hereby repealed." The object of the principal Act was that, the maternity benefit should be expended for the benefit of the woman. That was the object all along, and the principal Act secured this by imposing heavy penalties, including the possibility of imprisonment with bard labour, if the man did not make
  3178
  adequate provision for his wife. Section 19 of the principal Act provides that "where maternity benefit is given or paid to the husband," and we have now provided that that shall be the wife's benefit and shall be paid to her, and it would seem consequential that these heavy penalties upon the husband if he does not meet his liability should be repealed.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not sure that that is not consequential on the Amendments already agreed to, but we are not quite sure in what form those Amendments will finally emerge. If the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment I think he will be able to raise this point on the Report stage, and if he will do so I shall be very grateful to him, because by accepting his words we aught cover more than is intended.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption, from Stamp Duty of Documents under Part I. of the National Insurance Act, 1911.)
  "Stamp Duty shall not be chargeable upon the documents in connection with business under Part I. of the National Insurance" Act, 1911, specified in the Second Schedule to this Act."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This Clause is to meet a promise made to the approved societies which puts them on the same level as far as exemption from Stamp Duty of documents is concerned. The trade unionists at present are handicapped in comparison with registered friendly societies, and I promised this Amendment either in this Act or in the Finance Act. I have decided that it is more convenient to make it in this Act.
  Mr. CASSEL: The right hon. Gentleman tells us that these are documents in regard to which friendly societies are exempted. If that is so are not the approved societies already exempted under Section 76 of the original Act? That Section was accepted on the ground that it would have that effect. I do not know whether it has now been discovered that that Section has not that effect. I should like to have some explanation as to whether it has now been discovered that Section 76 does not cover this point. Section 76 provides that "any enactment applying to the society in relation

  3179
  to the transaction of such ordinary business shall apply accordingly in relation to the business transacted by the society under this part of this Act." Therefore, any enactment which applies to friendly society business also applies under this part of this Act. The form of the Clause was provided by the Government and they would not accept my original draft, which was clearer. The Clause which was inserted by the Government was intended to have this effect.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am told that in spite of this Clause there is a differentiation in respect of the Stamp Duty between registered friendly societies and trade unions. If there is any doubt perhaps the hon. Member will allow us to have this Clause to make it quite clear.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exceptions for Casual Labour.)
  "A person whose normal occupation is not employment within the meaning of the principal Act, but who nevertheless is engaged in such occupation for a short period, shall not be all insured person under the principal Act."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  I think the state of exceptions under Clause 7 is very uncertain. I asked the right hon. Gentleman when we were discussing Clause 7 if under it the Insurance Commissioners would be able to cat casual labour out of insurance altogether, and I gathered from his reply that they would not be able to do so. The words of Clause 7 are extremely vague. Sub-section (1) of that Clause provides that—
  "The Insurance Commissioners may by Special Order modify the principal Act in its application to persons whose employment is of a casual or intermittent nature."
  The Clause goes on—
  "and any such Order may apply either generally or to any one or more particular trades or industries."
  It seems to me that the Insurance Commissioners, as a matter of fact, under these powers could cut out casual labour altogether if they thought fit to do so, but we have to go upon the statement of the right hon.
  3180
  Gentleman, and he told us the other day that they would not be able to do so. We were told that casual labour in the future, as in the past, would come under the Insurance scheme. Therefore on the basis of that statement this Clause is extremely unsatisfactory, because the right hon. Gentleman has given us no indication of what benefits these people are going to get in the various industries and in the different districts. We do not in the least know what their contributions are going to be. In many cases they will be so small that the benefits will practically not be worth having at all. In some cases the contributions are so small in the aggregate that possibly even medical benefit would not be able to be given. The Government have given no indication of what the benefits are going to be, and, therefore, I formally propose this Amendment, in order to get an explanation from the Government.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not proposed in Clause 7, which gives general powers for preparing schemes, that we should affect either by the Clause or any schemes under the Clause the provision for exemptions in the second part of the first Schedule or in the provisions for exemptions in the original Act under Section 1, Sub-section (b). Therefore I think there has been some misunderstanding. If the hon. Member hag in mind employment of a kind subsidiary to some other employment which forms his main source of income, then undoubtedly the original Act, which will not be affected by Clause 7 of this Bill, covers the case he has in mind.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Intermittent labour?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The point is sufficiently covered by the original Act. There is a Clause that a person excepted under Part II. who has some occasional occupation is rendered liable to compulsory insurance. I think Section 2 of the principal Act dealing with exceptions might possibly be extended with advantage. Sub-section (1) of Section 2 provides that—
  "Where any person employed within the meaning of this part of this Act proves that he is either."
  Here follows paragraph (a), and then comes the following words—
  "(b) Ordinarily and mainly dependent for his livelihood upon some other person; he shall be entitled to a certificate exempting him from the liability to become or to continue to be insured under this part of this Act."

  3181
  I am not sure whether some extension of that is not necessary in order to avoid a grievance. There are two Amendments on the Paper in the form of new Clauses which I think might very well be added after Paragraph (b) of Section 2 in the principal Act. One stands in the name of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Alden), and the other in the name of the hon. Member for Hoxton (Dr. Addison). The hon. Member for Tottenham has on the Paper the following proposed new Clause—
  "In paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section (2) of the principal Act which relates to exemptions, the following paragraph shall be added—
  "(c) Ordinarily and mainly dependent for his livelihood on the earnings derived by him from an occupation which is not employment within the meaning of this Act."
  I think that is a wise and expedient extension, and we shall be prepared to accept that proposal.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to a very interesting proposal on page 75 of the Amendment Paper but it has nothing whatever to do with the proposal made by my hon. Friend. The proposal on page 75 may be right or wrong, but it will be a day or two before we get to it, and I am not sure whether we need discuss it now. The proposal made by my hon. Friend has to do with casual labour, and not the more artistic forms of labour referred to on page 75 of the Amendment paper. What my hon. Friend wants is that people should not be compelled to contribute for occasional labour when that labour is not their ordinary occupation in life especially where the contributions obtained from them under those circumstances are so small that no possible benefit can be given to them in return. To say that another Amendment on a totally different subject is going to receive the support of the Government does not answer the case made out by my hon. Friend, and if his proposal is pressed to a division I shall certainly vote for it, because I am conscious that there are a very large number of cases where contributions are exacted without thought or prospect of any benefit.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: They will be met in the way I have described.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The way to meet them is to exclude them from contributions until the Government at any rate has produced some scheme for giving them benefit.
  Mr. WING: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment because I think it will lead to a large amount of confusion. In my opinion it is a very dangerous Amendment indeed.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: I hope the Government will reconsider their decision, and agree to this new Clause. There is one particular class who are compelled to be insured, and who in all probibility will get no benefits. I refer to men in the position of overseers, estate agents, and farm bailiffs, who during harvest time assist the farmer and by actually doing work in the field come in under the Act.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope the hon. Member will not press his proposal. I think as far as there is any injustice to the persons concerned it is fairly met by the Amendments we propose to accept to the present arrangement. If they are mainly dependent upon someone else, they do not pay insurance. Take for instance a woman who goes fruit-picking when she is mainly dependent upon her husband's earnings. She obtains exemption under the Act if she desires it, but some of them do not desire it, and it would be hard to put them out if they did desire it. The only place where there is a leakage is where people come in to this sort of casual employment and are not dependent upon their husbands. That we meet by accepting the new Clause put down by the hon. Member for Tottenham. I think the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) will agree that it does give the power of exemption which is desired, and that it is as much as ought to be desired in the present circumstances.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Not as much.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If you are going to put out all who are engaged in casual labour for a short period you shut them out, not only from their own contributions, but from the employers' contributions and you are offering an enormous inducement to employers to employ 'casual labour instead of normal labour. I respectfully suggest that in all quarters it would be felt that that was a disastrous mistake.
  Mr. BATHURST: I want to be quite sure that I am going to save my own Clause dealing with a portion only of this subject, which may be lost if this is defeated. With regard to my Clause it deals with harvest time and says: "Farmers and members of the families of farmers employed in assisting neighbouring farmers

  3183
  temporarily in time of harvest shall be exempted from the provisions of Part I. of the principal Act." I have had special requests from the Northern counties, and particularly from Lancashire, that such a Clause should be accepted. I shall not go into the details. I simply wish to ask, if this wider Clause is defeated, would it be possible for me to move the Clause dealing with the specific case to which have I referred?
  Dr. ADDISON: I respectfully suggest to hon. Members opposite that although this is a matter which meets with a great deal of sympathy from many Members on this side, I think it is hardly the right way of obtaining what we want, because what you are specifically doing by this Amendment is to shut out a number of persons according to this definition, which would be exceedingly difficult to apply. You shut them out of insurance altogether from both the employers' and their own contribution. I think it would be much better to proceed by way of exemption, and leave if you like the onus upon the Government to devise some scheme which will give these people some benefit commensurate with their contributions, but do not cut them out so that they will make no contribution at all. If you do that you will be causing them a serious injustice. If you look at the terms of the Amendment you will see that it will be exceedingly difficult to apply. It speaks of a person who is "engaged in such occupation for a short period." "A short period" may be a recurrent short period, and there is nothing in the Clause to say what "a short period" is. A woman hop-picking in one district may be engaged for a short period, but she may come from a district where she has been picking strawberries, and has also been engaged for a short period. I think the thing would break down if you tried to apply it. It is better to proceed by way of exemption rather than by way of exclusion.
  Mr. GWYNNE: The hon. Member for Hoxton who has just spoken has asked us to leave this difficulty for the Government to settle. Usually the Government tell us to leave it to the Commissioners to settle. Anything at all, except face the difficulty ourselves in this room. The hon. Gentleman also tells us that the words of the Amendment are vague. I suggest that if

  Division No. 10.]

  AYES.

  Baker, Sir Randolf

  Forster, Mr.

  Locker-Lampson, Mr. Godfrey

  Bathurst, Mr. Charles

  Gwynne, Mr. Rupert

  Tryon, Captain

  Boyle, Mr. William

  Lawson, Mr. H.

  Worthington-Evans, Mr.

  Cassel, Mr.

  he reads the Amendment on the same subject which is in the name of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Alden), to which the Secretary to the Admiralty has referred, he will find it much more vague, because it raises many more doubts.
  Dr. ADDISON: That is an individual business. You can judge each case on its merits. This is a general exemption applying to the Clause.
  Mr. GWYNNE: If one is vague the other is more vague. I do think it is very unfortunate that the only answer which we get on a matter of such importance is a reference given by the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara) to an Amendment some ten pages further on which is not down in the name of the Government, and which we have no right to discuss at the present moment. That does not answer the point of the Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). I ask the Government what are you going to do to meet the difficulties of these men who are engaged in casual labour and who undoubtedly do not get benefits worth contributing for It cannot be denied for a moment that many of these men are paying these forced contributions and are getting nothing at all in return. If the Government cannot accept this, if they are afraid of wholesale exemption, will they tell us how they are going to get over the difficulty and make the position of these men more reasonable and fair?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. C. Bathurst) will come up on the proposed new Clause of the Member for Tottenham, because these farmers' sons and brothers would not be ordinarily engaged in that employment within the meaning of the Act. In the present case, I think it would be fully covered by the exemption which we propose to adopt in connection with the new Clause of the Member for Tottenham. The effect of this new Clause would enormously encourage casual labour in this country, and no one on the Committee, I think, would like to vote for a thing which would be the result of accepting this Amendment.
  Question put, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 10; Noes, 18.

  NOES.

  Addison, Dr.

  Jones, Mr. Glyn-

  O'Grady, Mr.

  Alden, Mr.

  Lardner, Mr.

  Roberts, Mr. George

  Booth, Mr.

  Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

  Pearce, Mr. William

  Falconer, Mr.

  Macnamara, Dr.

  Scott, Mr. MacCallum

  Harcourt, Mr. Robert

  Masterman, Mr.

  Warner, Sir Courtenay

  Harvey, Mr. Edmund

  Money, Mr. Chiozza

  Wing, Mr.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Certificate of Midwife).
  "At the end of Sub-section (6) of Section 8 of the principal Act, the following words shall be inserted: 'Where a woman is entitled to sickness or disablement benefit under this Section, a certificate of the midwife in attendance (if one be in attendance) shall be accepted by approved societies as showing that the mother is incapable of work for the first four weeks after confinement.'"
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  As it stood on the Paper there were in the Clause, after the words "shall be accepted by approved societies," the words "instead of a doctor's certificate," I do not move the words "instead of a doctor's certificate," because I do not think they are really necessary. I think this new Clause will add to the convenience of insured persons under the Act. One of my reasons for moving it is that at the present time the procedure differs a good deal in different societies. For instance, the Federation of Trade Unions, one-fifth of whose members are women, I believe, and the Workers' Union, arid the Shop Assistants' Union all accept, the midwife's certificate up to the fifth week, and they do not insist upon a doctor's certificate until then. On the other hand, the National Amalgamated, the National Deposit, the Royal London, and the Refuge all insist upon doctors' certificates and will not accept midwife's certificates. I think that it is only reasonable that the procedure should be made uniform. This Amendment, exactly as it stands, has not been approved of by any of the societies so far as I am aware, but something, very like it is very much wanted, among others, by the Joint. Committee of Approved Societies and the Women's Co-operative Guild.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think if I tell the Committee what the Government propose to do, with, I think, general satisfaction to the Committee, on the question of the four weeks' sickness which succeeds confinement, the home. Gentleman will see that there is no need to press this Motion. I
  3186
  have been very much pressed by all parties in the Committee, with some reason, to allow all approved societies, especially women's societies, to substitute for the four weeks at 7s. 6d. per week sick pay after maternity, a maternity benefit of 30s. subject to regulations to be made by the societies. There has been a great practiced difficulty in getting doctor's certificates for sickness benefit, when the societies require it. The doctors themselves are not attending the patients in those cases, and consequently they demand payment, and, in some cases, they do not give certificates where the case are attended by midwives. In a great number of cases the midwives depart after ten or fourteen days and the woman is then left without any one who can give a certificate of illness. The original intention of the Act, and the actuarial calculation, were undoubtedly designed to meet, the standard laid down by the Factory Laws. By that standard under the Act the wife was to receive in respect to confinement 7s. 6d. per week fur four weeks on condition that she did not return to work during those four weeks and should give her attention to the care of the child.
  The Amendment of the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), which is also in the name of the Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman), deals with this subject, and it is the most satisfactory. It says—I am only reading the operative words—that where a woman confined of a child is herself an insured person she shall in lieu of any sickness or disablement benefit to which she may be entitled under Sub-section (6) of Section 8 of the principal Act be entitled to receive a maternity benefit from the society of which she is a member or from the Insurance Committee as the case may be, in addition to the maternity benefit to which her husband may be entitled in respect of his insurance. She will receive 30s. maternity benefit which may be paid weekly or may be paid in one sum of 30s., instead of the 7s. 6d. per week sick pay, and it goes on to say "that 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 to abstain from unremunerative

  3187
  work during the period of four weeks." I think that fully covers what the hon. Member desires, and if he will withdraw it we can take the Amendment of the Member for Derby when we come to it on the Paper.
  The Committee adjourned at forty-five minutes past four p.m., and resumed its proceedings at ten minutes past five p.m.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I certainly should not withdraw at this point, as any further Amendments may be made afterwards. It will simply delay matters if we go on postponing everything; it is much better to accept it now.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is really not a case of withdrawing a Clause in order to accept a similar Clause further on. If the Committee pass the new Clause this will be unnecessary, and might really be harmful, because I do not want to make a differentiation between midwives' certificates, doctors' certificates, and all other kinds of certificates. I think the hon. Member for Salisbury will realise that the point will be covered if the necessary regulations are made for maternity benefit.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope my Friend will not withdraw this Amendment. There is something quite different in my hon. Friend's Amendment from that to which the Financial Secretary has called attention, and when we come to discuss the other Amendment, there will be points to be taken into consideration which do not arise on my hon. Friend's Amendment. I do not want to discuss that Amendment because it will not be in order. There is an extra charge falling somewhere if the double maternity benefit of 30s. be substituted for the four weeks' sickness. Who is going to pay the extra charge? Is that to fall on the funds of the societies, or is the Government going to make some extra Grant for it? I hope when that Amendment comes up for discussion the Government will make a statement with regard to it which will remove the apprehension in my mind and enable us to support it. But until they do that, it is by no means certain that the double maternity benefit proposed will receive the support of the Committee. I, therefore, think that my hon. Friend would be unwise to withdraw his Amendment, which is an Amendment to facilitate the administration of sickness benefit, without costing the societies more. Under the proposal, 30s. is said to be equal to four weeks' sick benefit at 7s. 6d. each
  3188
  week, but even if it were understood to be four weeks in each case, it would not follow that it would amount to 30s. For example, a woman might be in arrear. The benefit would then be reduced below 7s. 6d., and therefore she would not be entitled to 30s. She might have had a period of sickness which exceeded six weeks and therefore be entitled to disablement benefit of fourweeks, and entitled not to 30s., but only to 20s. There is, consequently, a considerable extra liability being thrown upon the societies. I am not suggesting that the woman ought not to get 30s., but where does the money come from? It might be included in the actuarial calculations or it might not; but if it is, it ought to have been made clear long ago, and the Act ought to have provided for the money being paid. The hon. Member for Hoxton said that disablement benefit was provided, but it is a disablement benefit of 5s. and not of 7s. 6d. Therefore, as it now stands, they under the proposed Amendment, be getting only 20s.
  The CHAIRMAN: I hope the Committee will be willing to keep to the point from which they have been rather diverted by the Financial Secretary's statement—whether a midwife is to give a valid certificate or nor. The other part is much better met on a subsequent Clause.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot reply to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not want this Clause in because I do not wish to limit the approved societies by saying they should accept the midwife's certificate. There is no need for them to be restricted to that choice, but I only brought in a short point showing that if we pass the Maternity Benefit Clause as I have outlined it, the whole of this will be swept away, and I very much want the Committee to pass that Clause. I hope this Amendment will be negatived.
  Mr. FORSTER: Until we know whether the Committee are going to accept the other Amendment, I think we should have this one inserted. If subsequently we make the alterations proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, this can be excised on Report. What my hon. Friend submits is that if, instead of insisting upon a doctor's certificate, societies may be authorised to accept midwives' certificates, that is a step in the right direction. If, owing to these proceedings, this should prove to be unnecessary, it might be taken out.
  Dr. ADDISON: I quite agree that they should have the sick benefit on the certiti-

  3189
  cafe of a midwife in attendance, but I should like to say that there are at least 120,000 women in connection with whom there is neither a midwife nor a doctor, and there fore I think that to limit it in that way is very undesirable.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is not limited.
  Dr. ADDISON: It is the certificate of a midwife in attendance. By so stating it a society would take it that they were not, at liberty to accept it. If that is what you mean, why pot in the words? The fact of confinement should entitle a woman to sick benefit. That is what you mean. Why then this certificate of a midwife? If you say "satisfactory evidence of confinement," that is all you want. There are half a million women attended by midwives at the present time and that will continue to be so. I only want to leave it open. Any satisfactory evidence of confinement should entitle a woman to sick benefit, as long as they are satisfied that the woman has had a child.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: A large number of societies, and especially the trade unions, have always recognised midwives' certificates as being equal to those of the doctors', and we were anxious to safeguard that by the Amendment standing in my name further on in the Paper. If that Amendment be accepted—as the Financial Secretary has intimated it will be accepted—there is certainly no need for the proposal of the hon. Member because the larger proposal will include the lesser. I urge that in view of the fact that our Amendment gives more advantage to the woman than does his suggestion, he should withdraw in favour of our Amendment
  Mr. FREDERICK HALL: The hon. Member for Hoxton was drawing attention to the words "in attendance." If that is the crux of the situation, perhaps the hon. Member for Salisbury will agree to delete those words. He wants to come to some common agreement with regard to the Clause, and if this is the only point to which the hon. Member

  Division No. 11.]

  AYES.

  Bathurst, Mr. Charles

  Gwynne, Mr. Rupert

  Newton, Mr.

  Boyle, Mr. William

  Hall, Mr. Frederick (Dulwich)

  Sandys, Mr.

  Cassel, Mr.

  Lawson, Mr. H.

  Tryon, Captain

  Forster, Mr.

  Locker-Lampson, Mr. Godfrey

  Worthington-Evans, Mr.

  Goulding, Mr.

  for Hoxton refers, perhaps my hon. Friend will be inclined to withdraw those two words, and thus meet the Opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN: Would it suit the hon. Member to withdraw now, and simply put the words down again?
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am not quite satisfied with the explanation. I do not definitely know whether this alternative proposal is going to be accepted by the Government.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: As far as the Government are concerned, we intended to accept it.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is an extraordinary procedure to point out some. Clause ten pages further on in the Order Paper, and to say that the Government are going to accept that Clause which will meet what I want to be done. I cannot see any objection to accepting this Clause if the Government are able to agree to the principle. If, later on, the right hon. Gentleman accepts the hon. Gentleman's Clause which he thinks is better than mine, it will be easier to delete the Clause I bar e put.
  Mr. GOULDING: I do hope my hon. Friend will stick to his Amendment. We, have several pages here of new Clauses. On this system of postponing everything to the future, not a single question is passed and dealt with, and I do hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division on the question of whether we accept the principle or not.
  Mr. ALDEN: The intention of the Government is to face this question at once. They have faced double maternity benefit, and the right hon. Gentleman has given his decision. If that were accepted a good deal of this talk would be unnecessary. I think it would be the easiest way out of our difficulty. We all want the same thing, and that is the way of getting it.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 13; Noes, 21.

  NOES.

  Addison, Dr.

  Harvey, Mr. Edmund

  Rendall, Mr.

  Alden, Mr.

  Jones, Mr. Glyn-

  Roberts, Mr. George

  Booth, Mr.

  Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

  Samuel, Mr. Jonathan

  Dawes, Mr.

  Macnamara, Dr.

  Scott, Mr. MacCallum

  Esmonde, Dr.

  Masterman, Mr.

  Thomas, Mr.

  Falconer, Mr.

  Money, Mr. Chiozza

  Warner, Sir Courtenay

  Harcourt, Mr. Robert

  Pearce, Mr. William

  Wing, Mr.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Payments to Members of Insurance Committees.)
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: When I move this Clause, I hope the right hon. Gentlemen will not tell us that about ten pages further on there is another Clause, put down by an hon. Member who generally supports him, in a better form, and that therefore he thinks we ought to take that Amendment instead, because I have a suspicion in my mind that he does not quite approve of the new Clauses which really remove grievances in the present system being moved too frequently by hon. Members opposed to each other in politics. This Clause meets a very real grievance, and I believe it is backed by a large body of the working population. To begin with, this Amendment is supported by the Women's Co-operative Guild, who went in deputation to the right hon. Gentleman the other day, and it is strongly supported by the Hearts of Oak, and, I believe, by the large trade unions. Besides that, a memorandum has been addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the last few days—I am quoting DOW from. the "Daily Citizen" of the 23rd July—by the following societies: The Women's Co-operative Guild, the National Federation of Women Workers, the Women's Labour League, the Shop Assistants' Union, the National Union of Clerks and the Railway Women's Guild. They insist in this memorandum on the absolute necessity of some payment being made to working people who attend these Insurance Committees, because unless some such payment is made they will be unable to attend consistently in future to all these committees should like to quote one extract from the memorandum. They say:—
  "Much sacrifice is being entailed in being away front home for ten hours a day. Absence from home for eight hours is a common experience with the working woman for attendance at Insurance Committees. It means either extra expense in supplying a substitute or in supplying extra work."
  Also while absent he either spends from 4d. to 2s. per day on meals, or gets nothing to eat between breakfast and supper. To the wage-earning woman there is a loss of a day's wages, and there is the loss of wear and tear of clothes. In most of the counties railway fare is paid, but the in-
  3192
  convenience of waiting from three to six months for payment is very serious and prevents regular attendance. This is specially so in the case of wage earners on short time or temporarily out of work. I do feel that it does not require very much argument to show that it is impossible that these working people can attend Insurance committees. These committees have to deal with questions which affect the working classes and unless you do something to remunerate these people for the time lost a great many of them will not be able to afford to give up the proportion of wages that they otherwise would earn. I venture to hope the right hon. Gentleman will not refuse this Amendment merely because it comes from a hon. Member who very often is opposed to him in politics. I therefore beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I do not oppose the principle of this Clause but the hon. Member has said nothing in it about the discrimination. The member must "request such allowance." I think that is very unfair. I think all members ought to be placed upon the same footing, because if not you will have very strong arguments when members undertake to represent certain societies that they are prepared to do so without any cost to the approved society at all. If the money is coming out of the approved society, there would be a fight between the members as to who would be paid and who would not be paid. It is the same now with the payment of Members, if I may use that as an illustration. Some candidates are coming forward prepared to say that they will represent the electors in Parliament without being paid at all, therefore I do not think that this ought to be an optional matter. I think that these words making it optional ought to come out and every member be placed upon the same footing without any discrimination.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: May I just say, Mr. Wilson, before the Debate goes further, that there is a Clause in my name on p. 69 which deals with the same point as that raised by the hon. Member opposite? I think he is not quite entitled to say that in substance his Amendment is the same as mine. My Amendment is also in the name of the hon. Member for Derby. I ant bound

  3193
  to confess to the Committee right away that have not been able to put down my Amendment in any other than an imperfect form. My intention in putting it down in that way was to raise this particular point, and I was afraid you would rule it out of order. But in its present form the Amendment is in order I think. What I would like to argue is this, that if the Insurance Committees are asked to pay this motley out of their own allowance all sorts of invidious questions would be raised—questions like those which my hon. Friend in front of me, who preceded me, has spoken about. It is far better I think that the Insurance Commissioners themselves should agree with the Insurance Committees to some sort of scale and to a set of rules and regulations under which these payments shall be made, and that the whole thing should be worked pretty much on the Board of Trade Advisory Committee's lines. If the rules and regulations which are now in operation in connection with the Board of Trade Advisory Committees were only taken by the Insurance Commissioners and the Insurance Committees as a basis for their arrangements, I think they would work very satisfactorily. The Board of Trade had to face precisely the problems we are now facing. I have been talking to various members serving on those committees, and their experience has been quite satisfactory. My Amendment is really not merely a variation of the hon. Member's intention, but it is substantially different. I should like to ask the Government if they could not accept my Amendment. It is true it is not sufficiently full, but they might combine it with the Amendment of the hon. Member that we are now discussing. Could not the Government meet us both and put down an Amendment of its own which would meet the points that I have raised? I think if the Government would do that, it would leave the matter in a much more satisfactory position than it is in now.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: At the outset I want to repudiate, if I may, in courteous terms, the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Salisbury. I have no wish in any degree or in any fashion not to accept Amendments from hon. Gentlemen on the other side. I asked them to join with us in this work, and I shall be only too glad to accept from them as many Amendments as I can which seem to improve the Bill. In fact, the first Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman I accepted immediately—mean the Maternity Benefit. We accepted
  3194
  it unanimously, and we gave it a Second Reading unanimously.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: You did net vote on it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We could not vote, because it was a unanimous decision. One word also as to the general principle, raised by the hon. Member for Worcester, as to having to take Clauses which are on the Paper and which are not exactly the Clauses which come first. Anyone who has run a Bill in Committee—and I have run several under these conditions—knows that the decisions which are made as to the Government's approval of new Clauses are not made on the spur of the moment by the Minister in charge. He and the Commission and everyone concerned has to consider all the Amendments on the Paper—Pages and pages of them having decided to meet a particular point they then choose the Amendment which seems to them the most suitable to meet that point; that is all I have tried to do in connection with these new Clauses. As to the particular point raised by the hon. Gentleman, and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, no matter has given us so much trouble during the past six months in the administration of the Insurance Act as this particular point. It is not newly raised by this Committee, I have seen dozens of deputatations from all the approved societies, and from the women's co-operative and other societies, and I have had to watch very carefully the working of our Insurance Committees as they have been able to work without some suggestion as this, and I tell the Committee quite frankly that I think this is a case which must be met in some way or other. The whole desire of the Members on all sides of the House is, I think, to make these Insurance Committees as democratic as possible, and to allow the members of the Insurance Committees who represent the approved societies a real possibility and not S sham one of attending the committees from day to day. In order to do that we arranged travelling expenses to be paid, and travelling expenses are at present paid, but many deputations have assured me that travelling expenses alone do not meet this particular point. Especially is that so in the case of women who sit on the committees. I regret to say that there have been a very considerable number of resignations from those who have not been able to afford to attend under present conditions, and further resignations are threatening if nothing can be done.

  3195
  Even if resignations do not take place there will be great gaps in committees where these poorer members are not able to attend. The hon. Gentleman suggests giving so much for each day. I do not think that would meet the case. Take for instance the case of some of the small county boroughs. There the committees meet at night and do all their business after the ordinary day's work is over. There is really no case for giving members of these committees half-a-crown for subsistence allowance or compensation for out-of-pocket expenses.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the words "where necessary."
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not quite realise how I can interpret those words "where necessary," unless I have some definite arrangement, such as a scheme drawn up by the Insurance Commissioners or the Treasury. Some of the men who attend these committees do it as part of their ordinary day's work, and I do not see any reason why they should be paid in addition to the salaries they get. I mean I do not think they should be paid anything for loss of time or loss of work when they have not in fact lost any work. I want the cases of the County Committees to be regarded as distinct from the towns. The journey to the County Committee often involves travelling from thirty to forty miles. I am assured it is impossible for many members of those committees to undertake such a journey without having at, least some subsistence allowance. I believe, in fact, that in Scotland, under the Scottish Law, subsistence allowance is given in these cases. The other case is that of Town Committees which do not meet at night, and where members have often to give up, say, a couple of hours' work to attend them. I think in cases of that kind they might be indemnified for their less. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester that the best thing to do is to follow some such precedent as has been set by the Board of Trade already. We agree with Members on all sides of the Committee that we cannot legitimately thrust this expense upon the Insurance Committees or the approved societies, and in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer we are prepared to pay a certain amount of money towards these expenses out of State funds. I am prepared to put our suggestion either as an Amendment to that of the hon. Member for Salisbury or as a new Clause.
  3196
  If he desires it, it can be incorporated in his Clause. My suggestion is this (and the words have been carefully thought out with a view to meet this particular point): I would leave out all the words after "in addition to" to the end of the Clause, and insert "any allowance for travelling expenses which may be paid under 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 the 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." [An HON. MEMBER: "If any?"] Yes, each borough or county will have to consider for itself. In the case of a very little county borough where the committee met, at night there might be no demand. If the committee would like to know what sort of suggestion we have as to the cost we propose in the first estimate to put down something between £25,000 and £30,000 a year. If the financial experts on the committee desire that to be put in the Bill, we shall be prepared to add the words "So that the aggregate amount so paid shall not exceed £30,000 in any one year." I am prepared either to move that as an Amendment to the hon. Member's proposed new Clause, or to bring it up as a separate Clause.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg formally to move to leave out the words "third-class railway fares, where necessary each member of an Insurance Committee shall be allowed the sum of 2s. 6d. for each attendance at a meeting of the committee if he so requests, such allowance to be a charge against the administration expenses of the committee," and to insert instead the words "any allowance for travelling expenses which may be paid under Sub-section (2), 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,

  3197
  with the consent of the Treasury, may determine."
  Mr. FORSTER: As far as I am able to judge, I think the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is satisfactory. It is at any rate satisfactory to me, because I remember when the Bill was in the House two years ago I pointed out the difficulty that members of Insurance Committees would labour under in being called upon to travel long distances and to give up remuneration upon which they depended for their living. But I should like a little further information with regard to the proportion of the cost that the State is going to bear. In the earlier part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman said that the State would bear some proportion of the cost of the subsistence allowance, but in the latter part of the Clause it appeared to me that it was the Insurance Commissioners, with the consent of the Treasury, who would fix not only the total amount of the Grant, but the amount that would be paid to each of the Insurance Committees. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether there is to be a general proportion which the State Grant will bear to the other provision of this charge, or whether it is to be a matter for Treasury decision in each individual case?
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I am glad that my hon. Friend has seen his way to accept this as an Amendment to his own Clause, and I very much sympathise with the hon. Member for Leicester that an Amendment of this democratic nature has not been moved from those benches. But that is not the object of my rising. I want to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if this Amendment covers the case of members of committees of county boroughs, who at present do not get their travelling expenses paid, although the members of Insurance Committees for counties do. Many large county boroughs are now approaching almost the size of London, at any rate in its divisions north and south, and it is a question whether we ought not to make provision that in those cases, where necessary, travelling expenses should be paid. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has considered that question.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. Member wishes to raise that point, I think it would come on Section 61, which deals with the travelling expenses of members. If he feels strongly on that point perhaps he will put down an Amendment to the Section to that effect. The Clause as drafted does not
  3198
  deal with railway expenses; it is confined to subsistance allowance and payment in lieu of wages. As to the point of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, the design is to treat this, as there is great difficulty in estimating the cost in somewhat similar fashion to the mileage Grant—that is to say, that we should limit the State Grant to some such sum as £30,000; all the schemes would be sent up to us for consideration, and if those schemes could be brought into harmony with the amount of £30,000 there would be no demand for any other expenditure at all. If not, the scheme would probably have to be cut down to the amount which we are prepared to contribute.
  Mr. BATHURST: As a member of a County Insurance Committee, I most warmly welcome the reception by the right hon. Gentleman of the suggestion of my hon. Friend. I candidly confess that the form of his Clause, bolstered up by a Treasury Grant, is more satisfactory than the form of my hon. Friend's Clause. In the first place, he is prepared to include all travelling expenses, not merely railway expenses. In country districts the travelling expenses are very largely other than railway expenses in addition to that, he is prepared to provide not merely for the loss of possible remunerative employment, but subsistence allowance during the time that a person is engaged upon this important public work. I can testify to the fact that not only has it been extremely difficult to get those who should be representing the interests of the small rural societies to serve upon these committees at all, but that these rural employés are drifting away from the service of these committees simply because they cannot afford, even with the provision of travelling allowances, to attend to this important public duty. It is difficult enough in the case of working-men magistrates, who have been appointed in large numbers recently, to attend to their duties. But this duty is far more important than magisterial duties from their point of view and from the point of view of the public. It involves an enormous amount of self-sacrifice for which they are not adequately remunerated under the existing system. The right hon. Gentleman has used a rather curious expression which I have never heard in Parliamentary language before, namely, "the loss of remunerative time." It may be a right expression; I think I know what he is driving at. Insurance Committees, in counties at any rate, very often meet on Saturday afternoons, and where there is a

  3199
  half-holiday given—in most cases there is; one wishes it were so in all cases—to employed persons within the area, there is no actual loss of remunerative time if the right hon. Gentleman means to meet the case I am entirely with him, because these persons had not a fair claim for compensation in respect of employment upon which they would otherwise have been engaged. Still I rather question_ whether the expression "loss of remunerative time" is the best. It may be open to ether interpretation; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, will be prepared, if necessary, to accept an Amendment on report to make it perfectly clear. There is one other expression of which I doubt the advisability. He makes the provision permissive. The Insurance Committees "may" pay. Why not "shall"? It is going to be extremely difficult for the Insurance Committees to differentiate between one person and another, even with the help of those rules and regulations emanating from the learned Commissioners, of which we have heard so much. I think you are going to put a most invidious task upon your Insurance Committee to differentiate between one person and another by saying that one is to receive this allowance and the other is not. The only way, in my opinion, is to make it mandatory, and say that the Insurance Committees shall make these payments in every case where it is demanded, or where presumably the person is one who requires it. If you are going to make this permissive you will only create a number of loopholes.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why he has fixed the sum at £30,000? I imagine that it is based upon some estimate, and as it has been put before us in a hurried way the right hon. Gentleman might tell us roughly how much per head he is allowing under this scheme. I suppose he must have some idea of the amount, and he must know how many members of these committees he is providing for. Does he propose to pay not only members of approved societies, but also representatives of county councils and borough councils as well as members of the medical profession? Does he propose that they should all be paid a flat rate all through the country, and that men in the south should be paid the same as the men in the north, and vice versa? Does he mean that there is to be a hard-and-fast line? Suppose the number of
  3200
  representatives increases, will the allotted sum then be reduced because there are more members on the committee, or is the 2s. 6d., or whatever it works out to be so much per head, or is it to be a sliding scale, so that if the number of members increases the allowance decreases? Otherwise the right hon. Gentleman will have to make this Grant elastic. I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman has some good reason for fixing £30,000 as the limit, and perhaps he will inform the Committee on this point.
  Mr. DAWES: I would like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the district committees and attendance at sub-committees? I think he ought to put in some words to cover attendance at those committees.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: With regard to what I said in my speech I should like to unreservedly withdraw anything which the right hon. Gentleman thought unfair.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I want to amplify one question which has been put by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. R. Gwynne) with regard to county councillors who represent the county council upon Insurance Committees. A very large number of these men are working-men representatives who represent the county council upon the Insurance Committees. Therefore there should be no restriction upon those men being qualified to receive this remuneration. I should like to point out that a very large number of these men in our large counties attend weekly upon county council business for which they are not paid, and therefore I contend that they should be entitled to receive remuneration just the same as anyone else when they serve upon these committees after having been selected to do this work in addition to their work on the county council. I do not think that this will be such a serious cost because a large number of our county councils have divided the counties into sub-committees and district committees, and therefore the cost of attendance at those places will not be so great as the attendance at county council meetings. For these reasons I think the county councillors who represent the county councils upon the Insurance Committee ought to be paid as well as the others.
  Mr. NIELD: One point to be remembered is that a great many of these representatives may be persons in receipt of

  3201
  definite wages. I wish to know will the Commissioners require them to show a loss before they remunerate them? If they do they will be putting them on a different footing. Suppose there is a small shopkeeper who gets an assistant to do his work, while he is away attending the committee. Would that be a ease of remuneration?
  Mr. HALL: The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) asked a question about the 2s. 6d. fixed as the allowance. We have heard that the total amount is to be £30,000. That to all intents and purposes has been calculated to meet the payment of 240,000 single attendances. I do not know whether £30,000 is the correct amount or not, but it is most important that this point should be cleared up. With all due deference to the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst) I do not agree as to the advisability of making this compulsory, and I rather favour the idea of the Government that it should be permissive because there are many people who would be only too happy to give their services without question of any remuneration at all. If the right hon. Gentleman could enlighten us on that point it would be of the greatest assistance to us in coming to a decision.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I thank the Committee for haring received this Clause with general agreement. I thought it would meet with approval, especially when hon. Members realised that the money was being provided out of State funds. I will consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Wilton about remunerative time, but the idea is that in the schemes which are devised it is to be arranged that the members of the committee who actually lose their wages by coming to the committee shall receive some compensation for that loss. I do not think we want to continue it further, because to pay all the committees would not only involve an enormous amount, but it would form a very substantial precedent which I am not sure that every member of the Committee would accept. Each scheme will come up from the committees. I agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne that there should be some elasticity, and the mount may vary from year to year. If there is a statutory increase we may have to mike some variation in this particular arrangement. I will tell the hon. Member for Dulwich how far we have got figures and facts. We have tried to estimate the cost of what the hon. Member for Wilton proposes and we have tried various sample committees in different parts of the country
  3202
  to see how many persons would come under the necessity of receiving remuneration for service on these committees. We found it very difficult because the committees are sitting much more numerously now, and it is difficult to find out how many members would require this allowance under ordinary circumstances. We think, however, that all substantial claims will be met to keep people on the committees who ought to be kept on by some such sum as we propose, and therefore we invite the Committee to accept this general Amendment in order to see what the result is in respect of the schemes sent up to us. The hon. Member for Walworth (Mr. Dawes) asked me a question about the subcommittees and district committees. I may say at once that they would certainly be excluded by my Amendment. It is impossible to begin providing money for district committees now. We are prepared to find this £30,000, but we are not prepared to find more at the present time. I think hon. Members will agree that that is a fair statement in connection with this matter if the district committees are included there must be a greater division.
  Another point is that the district committees are only just being set up, and we do not know much about their composition. It may be that in the case of district committees the need may be less than in the case of council committees. At any rate I ask hon. Members to accept this offer in connection with the county committees and not divert this money to the district committees. They can then await the result of this scheme in order to see if it does not meet the case under consideration. I might say, for instance, that we do not anticipate in dealing with remunerative time that a doctor will claim £20. We really want this money for those members of the committee who need it.
  Mr. HALL: Upon what basis has this £30,000 been estimated?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have told the hon. Member as much as I can. I have been carefully through this suggestion of 2s. 6d., and I find that it is very difficult to make an estimate even with 2s. 6d. as the basis. Some will not require even 2s. 6d., and some will require more, and therefore, I am unable to give an exact estimate. Nevertheless I got the most I could out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, realising that it might cover the majority of cases of hardship.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: We have not yet seen the actual words of this

  3203
  Amendment, but I understand it is not intended to make any allowance or compensation for loss of wages to any of the members of district committees. I regret that decision very much indeed because there is no justification to my mind for distinguishing between the work done on the district committees and the county committees. I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman to increase the money, but I do say that it is an invidious distinction to draw between two sets of men doing exactly the same work to say that one man is to be paid his travelling and subsistence expenses and another man doing no less useful work which takes up just as much of his time, should have to do it at his own expense. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that once he has conceded the principle it is logically-impossible to draw the line where he now draws it by excluding the district committees. I hope this matter will be attended to before the Report stage, because it will not be open for us to move this Amendment including these committees, during the Report stage. Therefore we have got to do it now or not at all because it will add a charge, and therefore it would be out of order on the Report stage. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree to adjourn the discussion on this question, so that we may take this matter up first thing in the morning after having seen on the Paper the actual words of his Amendment, and after having had an opportunity of putting upon the Paper an Amendment to include district committees.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I ask the hon. Member not to press his request for an adjournment of this case. A certain number of members of the Committee are not present, and no doubt the whole thing would well up into a debate of two or three hours unless we decide the matter now. If the hon. Member will make his Amendment in such a form that the amount of money to be provided by the State is not affected that will not add to the charge, and if he thinks this £30,000 should be divided up among the district committees he can move his Amendment on the Report stage, for it will then be in order. District committees are not elected in the same way as big county committees. They are appointed by the county councils instead of being directly elected by the approved societies and therefore, I do not think there is anything like as much necessity to provide for them. I urge that this Amendment shall now be
  3204
  allowed to be made providing that the money should go to those county committees who really need it.
  Mr. WING: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks this method of giving a limited sum is better than giving the administration of the 4s. to the societies and allowing them to settle the payment? Will he take that into consideration whether it would mean more money to find what will be necessary to leave the societies the 4s. and to allow them to administer it.
  Mr. CASSEL: I think in the form in which the Chairman read out the Amendment it did not have the limitation of the £30,000. If it is passed in that form. I am afraid it will be impossible on the Report stage to insert district committees.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I rather understood it was the wish of the Committee that the £30,000 should be inserted.
  Mr. CASSEL: I think the Chairman in reading the Amendment did not add those words.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment. reached me without any addition. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman intended to ask leave to introduce the words if they were acceptable to the Committee.
  Mr. CASSEL: I think it will be difficult to add the limiting words until we have further information as to what the sum required would be. It is difficult to know the proper sum that would be necessary without more information from the right hon. Gentleman. Whilst he agreed to the sub-committees receiving it, do not think there is anything in the words of the Amendment authorising payment to the subcommittees. It is very difficult to follow Amendments which are simply read out and are not before us on the Paper. I think the right hon. Gentleman will have to do something to modify it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I will consider that on the Report stage. The only reason why the Amendment is not on the paper is in order that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) should have the credit of having an Amendment. I thought we should take it on a later Amendment but he challenged me that I would not let him have an Amendment to his credit, and I then asked leave to move this, as an Amendment to his Clause.
  Mr. CASSEL: I was not complaining, I was only pointing out the difficulty of dealing with it without having seen it in print, and especially of deciding whether sub-committees were included or not. As it stands the Insurance Committee may pay members subsistence allowance and compensation for loss of remunerative time in accordance with a scheme prepared by the committee. With regard to the district committees I shall put forward a strong claim on their behalf. They were contemplated by the original Act. Unless you have that, also, you are likely to lessen the importance of the work of the district, committee.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am willing to move it with the addition of the £30,000 limit. That will enable hon. Members to be in order on the Report stage.
  Mr. CASSEL: You will add the limit.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I will put it in that form with the addition of the limit.
  Question, "That the words 'so however, that the aggregate amount so paid shall not exceed £30,000 in any one year' be added to the proposed Amendment of the new Clause," put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'third class railway fares, where necessary each member of an Insurance Committee shall be allowed the sum of two shillings and six pence for each attendance at a meeting of the committee if he so requests, such allowance to be a charge against the administration expenses of the committee,' be left out," and the following words inserted instead thereof—
  "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 the 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 pounds in any one year."
  Mr. BATHURST: May I ask the meaning of one expression? Is it intended that
  3206
  the £30,000 shall cover travelling expenses as well as the new expenses.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No, it is in addition to the travelling.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words '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 shall not exceed £30,000 in any one year,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Proposed Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Mr. FORSTER: I think the Committee might now adjourn.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Before the hon. Member moves the new Clause may have a statement from the Chairman with a view to saving time. The new Clause deals with the same subject as a long Amendment which is down on the Paper later on in the name of the Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding). Cannot we save time by having a general discussion on these groups of Clauses, taking that general discussion on the first one on the Paper. We are now approaching an Amendment dealing with maternity benefit which many Members think would be much better than the one we have added to the Bill. That happened because we were not discussing these new Clauses as a group. I do appeal to the Committee and to you, Mr. Chairman, and I think that if we were to adopt the course I suggest we should save several days of discussion. There are twenty-one pages of new Clauses yet to be discussed, and we have only considered one page to-day, although a great part of the subject we have been discussing this afternoon was already discussed last Friday.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We propose to accept with alacrity the adjournment, which

  3207
  has been asked for, but I should like to say that we are making very slow progress. I do not mean that the discussion has been excessive in connection with the subjects involved. I appealed to the Committee that we may get the Bill this week. I cannot go back from that appeal. I will confer with the hon. Gentlemen who are leading the party opposite and with my hon. Friend who is leading the Labour Party and the Irish Party, but I think that we must suspend the Four o'clock Rule for the Committee at least on Wednesday and Thursday, and see if we cannot really push on arid get the Bill through completely. I can make no announcement now, but if I have an announcement to make I will make it to-morrow morning.
  Mr. FORSTER: I only desire to make one or two observations: I will remind the right hon. Gentleman that there has been nothing in the nature of obstruction, but I think the Committee must face the fact that where you are dealing in Grand Committee with a Bill like this, and the Government have taken the course, and the proper course as I think, of inviting the unrestricted assistance of Members from all quarters, for the improvement of the further provisions of the Bill it is inevitable that progress should be comparatively small. We know we have only a limited amount of time. I do urge the Committee not to waste a large proportion of their time simply by galloping through Amendments in order to get them cleared off the Paper. It is infinitely more important that we should discuss fully the proposals that are important rather than that we should clear the Order Paper of all the new Clauses before the expiration of the time which is available. If later on the Government come to us and say, "The time has now come for reporting this Bill, and we can give you no further time." I am sure the Committee, though with the greatest possible regret, will meet them in every possible way. I do urge the Committee not to gallop through pages and pages of Amendments without due discussion and so run the risk of incorporating in the Bill proposals which had better be left out. Subject to that I do not know that I can usefully do anything further. I can only say that we will do our
  3208
  best to get on with the Bill in the time which we fully understand we have.
  Mr. ALDEN: Would it not be possible to group the new Clauses dealing with the same subject.
  The CHAIRMAN: In reply to the hon. Member and the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Chiozza Money) I have to say that it is not possible for the Chairman of this Committee to do anything in the way of grouping, but it is possible where there is no party concerned, and where the Committee is working together, to have a meeting before the Committee sits and to agree to take a particular discussion on a particular Clause. It has been shown by a difficult discussion, one of the most difficult I remember in Grand Committee to-day, that it is impossible for the Chairman to see even that the Amendment which has most support in the room is eventually carried, subject to the restrictions, the necessary Parliamentary restrictions of debate. I venture to think that if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) suggests a conference between half-a-dozen leading Members of the Committee he could indicate to them beforehand the Clauses that the Government intend to accept, and the Committee would be able to come to a discussion such as the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) has suggested, and would concentrate the time at disposal around these proposals, without discussion of new Clauses which the Government has no power or intention to accept. I think that might be done.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: As you have been so kind, will you be so kind as to take the general sense of the Committee when approaching a new Clause, which is evidently affected by several others. Could you take the general sense as to whether or not they should be taken as a group?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is what I always do when I put the Question, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Motion made, and Question "That the Committee do now adjourn"—[Mr. Forster]—put, and agreed to.
  The Committee adjourned at 6.22 p.m., until 11.30 a.m. to-morrow (Tuesday).

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL
  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  [Mr. J. W. WILSON in the Chair.]

SIXTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.
Bill further considered.
Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. I do not rise with the object of challenging what was done, but perhaps you will be kind enough, Mr. Chairman, to explain to the Committee as to what happened on Friday. A Resolution was then passed in dumb show that this Committee should sit on Monday, notwithstanding the sitting of the House.
Mr. FORSTER: It was decided to ask for leave.
Mr. BOOTH: It was decided that Wu should sit on Monday.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It was decided to ask for leave.
Mr. BOOTH: Hon. Members may say that, but I have verified it at the Table, and I do not think they should interrupt me. The Resolution passed on Friday was that we should sit here on Monday, notwithstanding the sitting of the House. Asking for leave is another matter. I submit that the proper thing is that each day we should do what is contemplated by Rule 47. Each day the Committee, just before, a quarter to three, should decide whether it will go on, otherwise, as on Friday, Members who do not intend to come on Monday at all, vote upon the Resolution that you should sit notwithstanding the sitting of the House. I do not think that ought to be fixed before we know what is the business.
The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member kindly address himself to the point of Order.
Mr. BOOTH: Yes, Sir, and what I submit is that we ought to decide each day, because on Friday we do not know what the business of the House will be on Monday, and therefore the Committee should have the right on each day to decide whether it
3210
will go on sitting notwithstanding the sitting of the House.
The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member will see that we were perfectly in order. The Resolution, which was taken in very full Committee on Friday morning, was as follows—and the Committee will remember that I interrupted business to take it when the hon. Member came in from the House to say that it was necessary: "That the Committee do continue to sit on Monday next notwithstanding the sitting of the House." Then the House authorised us to sit after four o'clock on Monday under Standing Order 47, which I will read: "And the said Committee shall not sit while the House is sitting after four o'clock without an Order of the House." It says nothing about the day it should sit. It does not limit it. It does not say 2.30, 3.30, or any time. My interpretation of the rule is also strengthened by this paragraph:—
"In the case of a Committee desiring to meet on Friday at 12 o'clock, or later, the Resolution authorising them to do so shall be moved at the previous Sitting."
Mr. BOOTH: That is only for Friday. I submit that Friday is always treated under the Standing Order. There is always a special reference to Friday, and I submit with all deference that it is not given over a week-end. There may be a totally different body of Members on the Friday to those attending on the Monday.
The CHAIRMAN: I give my ruling as on the Standing Order, that a Resolution of this sort is not limited to a particular day. [Hear, hear.]

SIXTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Fees.)
  "Section 12 of the principal Act is hereby repealed."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: On a point of Order. Before you call that Clause, will you kindly say why some of the new Clauses bearing a star which were put down yesterday, have come in before other Clauses that have been down for some days? Mr. Duncan Millar has one down which is starred and comes in before a large number of others that were down earlier.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: May I point out that those stars have been retained with

  3211
  respect to Clauses put down on Wednesday or Thursday last week. Two or three of the Amendments which I put down on Wednesday or Thursday retain the star.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Members will refer to page 70 of yesterday's Order Paper, they will see that the Amendment referred to by the hon. Member who has just spoken is on the Paper and has been for some time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I desire to move, that Section 12 of the principal Act be repealed, and perhaps I may be allowed to remind the Committee what are the provisions of this Section. It relates to the mode in which sickness, disablement, or maternity benefits shall be applied in the event of the person who is entitled to it being an inmate of any workhouse, hospital, asylum, convalescent home or infirmary supported by any public authority, or by a charity or voluntary subscriptions, or of a sanatorium or similar institution approved under the Act; and it makes provision that in such event the sum which would otherwise have been payable on account of the benefit referred to shall either be paid for the maintenance of the dependants of the person so accommodated, or if he is a member of an approved society and is an inmate of a sanatorium shall be paid to the Insurance Committee as being the authority which controls sanatorium benefits; or alternatively if an inmate of a hospital or similar institution shall, if an agreement has been made between the society or Committee with the hospital or similar institution, be paid towards the maintenance of such person in such institution. If there is any part of the sum remaining unapplied it may, if the committee or the society think fit, be applied to the provision of surgical appliances. I do not know that I need deal with the rest of the Section, which refers to the case of the married woman, and also to the possibility of defraying the expenses of the conveyance of a consumptive person to the sanatorium. But what I desire to say about this Section is that it is practically a dead letter at the present time, and where it is not a dead letter there is no uniformity whatever in its administration as between the various societies and Insurance Committees referred to in the Section. As far
  3212
  as the societies themselves are concerned, it simply imposes upon them the necessity of finding some plausible excuse for paying sickness benefit in such a way that it will ultimately reach the sick person, and only the sick person.
  It is perfectly clear that it is not desirable to retain upon the Statute Book a Section of an Act which every effort is being made to evade, and which, in fact, is being successfully evaded. I desire, without suggesting what should be the alternative, to move the omission altogether from the Statute Book of this particular Section, upon which I think we shall all be agreed, at any rate all those who know anything about the approved societies. Without entering upon the much more difficult task of suggesting what shall be the alternative process, upon which it is quite possible we shall not be agreed, I want to say further in support of this Amendment that it is entirely contrary to the old practice of the voluntary societies. They always gave their full sickness benefit to their members when in hospital, and they evidently desire to continue that practice. At the present time there is no reason in logic or justice why that sickness benefit should not pass into the hands of the employed contributor. If the hospital represents an equivalent to anything, it is mainly the equivalent of the medical benefit, and not the equivalent of the sickness benefit. Furthermore, you are placing even the hospitals in a very difficult position by this Section, because you make provision for an arrangment being made as between the societies and hospitals that this sum shall, in part at any rate, go towards defraying the cost of the maintenance of these persons in the hospitals. Why, Sir, hospitals are very much in the position of the doctors at the present time. They are supported very largely by the voluntary contributions of the workmen themselves. In South Wales, with which I am best acquainted, they are supported almost exclusively by the contributions of working men, and the hospitals are not going to enter into any arrangement with the societies which might act to the detriment of their working class supporters, upon whose contributions they largely depend for the maintenance of their institutions. This Section imposes upon them a delicate, difficult, and, as I suggest, in many cases a wholly impossible task. I should like to suggest that we frankly accept the inevitable position, and decide upon the alternative Amendment that is going to

  3213
  be proposed that sickness benefit shall be paid in all cases to the employed contributor after he leaves the hospital.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): If he has no dependents.
  Mr. BATHURST: I should have mentioned that. Of course, if he has dependents, it is right that it should be applied to their maintenance when he himself is not in a position to earn money to support them. If he has no dependents, let it be paid out to the individual himself as soon as he leaves the hospital. I suggest that an arrangement such as that would meet the approval of Members in all parts of the House, and will certainly meet with the approval of the majority of the approved societies, and still more, with the approval of the working classes. I beg to move that this Section 12 of the principal Act be repealed. I venture to express to the right hon. Gentleman that the issues shall not be confused by suggesting any Amendment to this proposal. Let us get rid of our old love before we take on the new. Let us get rid of what we agree is undesirable before we enter upon the consideration of an alternative upon which, possibly, we shall not so easily agree.
  Mr. GOULDING: I rise to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. He has stated very clearly and specifically what is the grievance which we desire to remove. Everyone is agreed that the present position is mischievous and chaotic. There is no uniformity. Relief is given in an indirect way to evade the Act; often given to meet arrears of rent; and frequently given in the way of food and comfort; one society doing this in one direction, and another society interpreting the Act in a very rigorous form. The Section as it stands gives no security at all to the approved societies, while at the same time it creates a great deal of difficulty. I have put down upon the Paper the full Section as it exists to-day with these Amendments moved into it, so that the Committee can see exactly how it is proposed to meet the difficulty. It is on page 778 of the Amendment Paper. It has one omission. In line (d), 29, of course, there should be the words "if such person having no dependents." That is, of course, really the whole purport of the rectification that we desire to make. Last night the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to talk to me about this
  3214
  Clause, and he expressed his willingness to accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, and to substitute part of the Amendments that I desired to move which appear upon the Paper. While he was perfectly willing to accept the Amendment as set out in Sub-section (c) on page 778, he was not prepared to accept Subsection (d), which gives power to pay a portion of this money to the individual, and the balance to the hospital or infirmary. The right hon. Gentleman, having given his consent to accept (c), I said I would be satisfied with that so far as I myself was concerned, and would be prepared to vote with the Government when they came forward with Section (d). I am making this clear so that there shall be no mistake. I have spoken to some of my hon. Friends upon the matter, and they say that they lay a great deal of importance upon Section (d), and that they cannot join with me in excluding that Section. They want power to be given to the approved society, where there are no dependents, to divide the sum that is due between the hospital and the insured person. The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to hand me another Amendment. I do not see how I can move that Amendment by reason of the pledge I gave, but when my own Amendment comes on, I shall move it as it is, and I shall certainly abide by the promise I gave. I cannot for the moment, see why we cannot get this Debate on the substitution of the Section as amended. I do not see that the deletion of Section (d) in the least prevents the giving of effect to the rest of the Amendment in the Section, which the Government say they are good enough to accept. Everyone is agreed that the present position is chaotic, and that there must be uniformity, and I do hope there will be give and take in this matter, so that we may get rid of a thing which everyone agrees is unsatisfactory.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Worcester, has very fairly expressed what is the present state of affairs with regard to this question. I do not think we ought to get rid of the whole of Section 12, in order merely to meet one particular point. In regard to that particular point, I am anxious to meet it. The matter has been put very lucidly by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilton. I hope we can move an Amendment meeting this particular point to his Amendment. The later Clause which the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Worcester, has on the Paper, on page

  3215
  777, really first abolishes Section 12, then re-enacts four-fifths of that Section, and makes one or two alterations in two Sub-sections. I agree that may be useful for clearness and lucidity, but it is a great mistake to send a Bill down to the House of Commons with such enormous alterations to which Amendments may be moved in the House. Really, there is only one tiny point which can be met by an Amendment to the Clause. What is that point? As far as insured persons, who have dependents, are concerned, nothing arises in connection with this Clause. As far as I know, the sick pay is paid to the dependents of the insured persons when they are in institutions. What happens in the case of insured persons who have no dependents? As the Clause stands at present, it is left optional to the societies to use the money which would have been their sick pay, if they had not gone into a hospital, for any purpose which is for their benefit. It is doubtful if they can pay over any of the money in cash. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilton has said, there has been a good deal of difficulty in connection with this Clause.
  I may say that the actuarial calculations on which the Bill was framed assumed that, in every case, the man or woman without dependents would receive full sick pay in some form or other, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Wilton, that the time has come when we might clearly state in the Act that the man or woman without dependents shall receive full sick pay in some form or other. I do not want entirely to take away the discretion from the societies. I am not sure that it is always advisable to take a man, for instance, who has been in the hospital for a large number of weeks, and give him a lump sum of £5 or £10 at the end; but I do think he ought to have either in cash, or in kind, the full amount of his contribution, and I have an Amendment to the Amendment to omit the Clause, which I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilton will accept, which will have the effect of securing to the insured person all the sick pay that he requires. Of course there may be an argument that some of it should go to the hospitals. Well, if he wishes to pay it to the hospital, and if the hospital is willing to have it, it can be paid under this Clause to the hospital, but I should be very chary of making any kind of arrangement by which the hospital should secure all the
  3216
  money. That would really raise the whole question of the voluntary hospitals in the least favourable form to the hospitals themselves. They have not taken paying patients from among the poor, and I have had no request from them that they could take paying patients from among the poor. If they do begin to take part of the sick pay in the hospitals, I think the result will be a very great decrease in their subscriptions from other sources, because their boast has been that they have not made the poor pay, and, as a consequence, they have in the past received enormous voluntary subscriptions. Take the case of a woman earning say 15s. per week; she meets with an accident in the street and is taken to hospital. There ought to be no pressure put on her in that hospital to sign away her sick pay. Probably she has a room, the rent of which is getting into arrears, and, if she does not pay up those arrears, her furniture may be thrown into the street. Perhaps, after spending some time in hospital, she may require a week at the seaside, and she would need her sick pay for that purpose. I think this Amendment ought to meet both possibilities—the making arrangement with the hospital, and also the view put forward by the hon. Gentleman. I propose, later on, to move an Amendment of the Clause to leave out certain words, and to insert the following words:—
  "Section 12 of the principal Act shall have effect as though the first provision of Sub-section (2) of that Section were omitted therefrom, and that 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, and if the society or committee administering the benefit thinks fit, be applied in the provision of any surgical appliances required by 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."
  It is the last four words that really make the change in the Act. Instead of the option being left to the society to absorb

  3217
  the money which this man would otherwise have had in sick pay in the general funds of the society, it is to be paid to him in a lump sum after leaving the institution or in instalments, as the society thinks fit. I hope that that is quite clear. As a general condition I may say that these conditions do not vary the conditions laid dawn in the Act. Any approved society may make arrangements with a hospital if they think fit so that a certain number of their patients will be received during the year in return for the endowment of a certain number of beds set aside for that purpose. That was the original idea adopted by many societies, by which the hospital problem was expected to be settled in specific cases.
  Mr. GOULDING: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was going to move this, because he said it was a misfortune to rule out the whole of Section 12, and to substitute anything for it would really be introducing new business. But he is really putting down an entirely new Clause, no doubt with the object of giving effect to the objects we have in view. His Clause, however, is not in the hands of a single Member, and surely that is not calculated to expedite business. It would be much better to amend the scheme in any directions that may be deemed desirable.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hen. Member will look to the Clause he has put down on pages 777 and 778, it occupies a whole page of the Paper, he will see it re-enacts forty or fifty lines of Section 12 without any change at all. I am only-proposing that the first proviso of Section 12. I am amending four lines instead of first ruling out something like sixty lines and then ruling in fifty-six lines.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Are you not amending Sub-section 1?
  The CHAIRMAN: I may point out that it is not possible to move this until we get into consideration of the Clause itself. Therefore, hon. Members are quite at liberty to discuss the whole question.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think my hon. Friend has taken a business-like course in putting down exactly what he proposes to the Committee so that hon. Members can see it. But the Government, following their usual practice of rush and scurry, have produced a long and utterly and absolutely unintelligible Amendment. I take leave to say that no Member of the Committee can understand
  3218
  what the right hon. Gentleman is going to propose. The right hon. Gentleman himself had the greatest difficulty in reading it and he could not make sense of it apparently without interjecting large number of comments. It was extremely difficult to follow, and I do not believe any Member of the Committee could tell what referred to the Amendment and what was mere comment. I undertake to say that nobody, unless they had seen the draft beforehand, could say what it was the right hon. Gentleman was proposing. I ask the Committee to come to, a decision upon a simple point, whether or not Clause 12 should be omitted from the Bill, and then, afterwards, we can come to a decision, if desired, as to what shall be put in its place. The hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) made out a very good case for omitting Clause 12 altogether, even if the Committee cannot agree upon what should be put in its place. Let us see what it is that the Clause does. It is doubtful under it whether you can pay in cash any benefit to any insured person who is not dependent so long as that insured person is in hospital. It is doubtful. Some societies are doing it and are taking the risk. There is a certain form of competition which has sprung up between societies on this point. Some societies are, I say, paying and taking the chance; other societies are not paying. Clearly there ought to be one rule for all societies. If you omit Clause 12, and do not put anything in its place, you have one rule for all societies, namely, that the sick pay will be given when an insured person is in hospital. If we do nothing more, if we cannot agree upon anything else, we shall have remedied a real grievance that exists under this Clause.
  Let me point out to what extent that grievance exists. A case was brought to, my knowledge a little while ago, and asked the Secretary to the Treasury a question upon it in the House. A hospital porter, who was an insured person employed in his ordinary occupation as porter in a hospital, was taken ill, and was invited by the hospital to go into one of its wards during the time he was ill. He could not get any sick pay at all during the time he was in hospital. If he had not been in a ward, if he had been looked after in some other way, it is at least doubtful whether he was entitled to sick pay. At any rate he did not get it while he was in the ward. Then there is another

  3219
  case to which my attention was drawn. A girl, an insured person, was in the Nelson Hospital paying 5s. weekly as the paying patient. She was sick for nine weeks, and she got one week's sickness benefit out of the nine, because during the other eight weeks she was in the hospital, paying 5s. weekly for maintenance. The right hon. Gentleman said that hospitals did not make these charges. I do not know if many do so, but here at any rate is one case to which my attention has been called. Why on earth should not that girl, during the time she was actually paying for her maintenance in hospital, have received her 7s. 6d.? She wanted it; she was not a dependent, but nevertheless she was actually paying 5s. weekly. If we omit Clause 12 and do not complicate the position by considering what we are going to put in its place, we shall meet these two grievances.
  This applies not only to hospitals, but also to convalescent homes, and there the case becomes still more urgent, because it may be well that an insured persons may be insured not only under the Act, but on the voluntary side of his society. On the voluntary side he will be paid sick benefit while in hospital or in a convalescent home. It seems to me it is highly desirable that a man should be allowed to have his sick benefit so as to enable him to go into a convalescent home. He should be allowed, if he chooses, to pay for going into that convalescent home out of his sick benefit. I do not want him to be in the position of signing away his sick benefit. I do not want the hospitals to be allowed to make it a condition of their treating patients that they should sign away their benefits. After all there are, among insured persons, persons of very different classes. Some are quite willing to pay for their maintenance at a convalescent home, and it is unfair you should deprive them of their ability to pay during the time they are in the home. Therefore, I urge that the Committee should support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, which will omit Clause 12, because under that, whatever else happens, you do remove a great grievance under this Act, and you do not create any other grievances that are worth speaking of. After that, it may be well to consider, if anybody is able to understand it, the Amendment moved by the Secretary to the Treasury. I infinitely prefer the Clause down in the name of the hon. Member for Worcester for the reason that it is in print
  3220
  and we can see what we are voting on, whereas the proposal of the Secretary to the Treasury is not on the Paper and we do not know exactly what we are voting about.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I think the Committee generally agree with the intentions of both the Mover of the Motion on the Paper and of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Worcestershire. But so far as I am concerned I should strongly oppose the suggestion of nomination or any kind of pressure whatever. It is all very well for the hon. Member to say that it is optional. It will be optional if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is carried, and it is paid in a lump sum, and surely if a man has any desire to pay the hospital, he can far better do it when he has a lump sum free, than if pressure is brought to bear upon him when he is in hospital. There is a further point. Do not let us forget that while nominally a man is maintained in the hospital there are ninny luxuries that the sick pay enables him to enjoy which otherwise he would not get. Therefore, it having been agreed to remove this difficulty, which the majority of the societies are now doing, is there any necessity for deleting this Clause and then re-enacting four-fifths of it, when it is met by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman? If it is not so met, then surely as we all know and agree with the object aimed at, it will be easy on the Report stage to insert necessary words without wasting further time at the present moment.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I wish to address myself to the merits of the case from the hospital point of view. I have had a great deal to do with hospitals, and I must say that the Government have never, either in this House or here, properly appreciated the position of the great hospitals. Two years ago there was a strong protest made in the House of Commons on behalf of the hospitals, and everything which was then said by those who spoke for the hospitals at that time has since turned out to be absolutely true. The Financial Secretary does not seem to appreciate what has happened with regard to the great hospitals. Of course, a broad line must be drawn between provincial hospitals and the great London hospitals. In the case of the provincial hospitals 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the cost of maintenance is furnished by the working classes by means of collections at factories and workshops, but in London, where we

  3221
  have the great schools as well as the hospitals, the schools from which practitioners go out with the trained capacity which makes them useful to the community elsewhere, only 10 per cent. or 12 per cent. of the cost of maintenance is paid by working people, and the rest collies out of the voluntary contributions and subscriptions of the well-to-do. What has happened as a result of the Insurance Act is that there has been additional work imposed upon the hospitals in the more serious cases. There has been a slight falling off in the outpatients' departments, but the more costly part of hospital work has grown both in cost and in extent. The subscriptions have fallen off. Letters are received every day by hospital secretaries from employers of labour saying that as they pay insurance they cannot continue their subscriptions, or cannot continue them to the same amount. The quinquennial subscription list of the great hospital with which I am connected, the London Hospital, has been very much smaller than was ever known before. That is only an example. The Financial Secretary says it would be a great mistake for hospitals to accept payment for the services they render out of the Insurance money of the working people.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I did not say that. "Imposed" was the word I used.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Anyhow, the right hon. Gentleman seems to wish to make it a little more difficult than before for hospitals to obtain from the Insurance money any subscription which would to some extent at least cover the cost of treatment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: That is certainly what I want to guard against very strongly. I am not quite satisfied as to what the effect of the Amendment will be. This treatment is becoming much more costly to hospitals. I do not know where the money is to come from, unless you are prepared to face it from the Insurance point of view. That has not been done. It seems to me as if the Committee were going to take a backward step in that regard. I do not believe in the danger of compulsion on the part of the hospital authorities, but I am bound to say that I do think that if a workman receives a lump sum after he has had the highest form of special treatment in a great hospital, he
  3222
  ought to be under an obligation to pay part of it over to the hospital. I think it is a monstrous thing for him or anybody else to think that they can get everything for nothing. In the provincial hospitals the men are paying. In London they are not. In London it is entirely a matter of chance in regard to the workingman except what is collected by the Hospital Saturday Fund. I view with disfavour any Amendment which will make the case of the hospitals more difficult. I do not want to see a rate in aid for the great hospitals. I think it would be a great misfortune from every point of view. The Committee must take care if they are not going to decrease the amount which goes to the hospitals at present. Under Section 12 the Insurance Committee can make a payment if it thinks fit. If that power is taken away and the money is handed over to a man as he quits the hospital—no doubt there are very hard cases and no doubt comforts are required at home, and there is no superfluity of them—at any rate it is a strong order to deprive the hospital of this assistance.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We do not propose to touch that power, which will only be taken away if we delete Section 12 altogether. If we do not delete Section 12, but accept my Amendment, that power remains as in the original Act.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I should have preferred to see it strengthened. I am not afraid of the word "compulsion." I do not say it should be used. What I want is to make it more a normal matter for the money to be paid to the hospital which has given the special treatment. I warn the Committee that if, because they want to hand over—it is a very pleasant thing to do—a lump sum to the workman on his leaving any hospital, they are going to decrease the resources of the great London hospitals, which really advance the science of therapeutics, upon which the health of the country depends, they are doing a great dis-service to the working classes. I look with concern upon any Amendment which makes it easier for a man to keep the money and not to give the hospital any return for the work they have done for him.
  Mr. BOOTH: Can the Government tell us whether any societies have used this Section and made contributions to the hospital under it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot tell. I know a number of the old friendly societies used to do so. I have a question in the House to-day about it, in reply to which I say I have no knowledge on the subject. I believe there are some who do it.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: There is not a word in the Insurance Commissioners' Report about it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Insurance Commissioners would not know without sending out a circular to 23,000 approved societies and branches.
  Mr. FORSTER: The question whether we should delete Section 12 seems to be one of convenience more than anything else. It is recommended by my hon. Friends as being a convenient method of leading up to new proposals they wish to substitute for the provisions of Section 12 which axe now in the Act. The thing which really matters is what we do in the way of amendment to Section 12. I feel very strongly that what has fallen from my hon. Friend (Mr. Harry Lawson) is well worth consideration by the Committee. The Secretary to the Treasury said it would he a great mistake if the voluntary hospitals imposed charges upon insured patients. None of us want them to impose charges. What we want is that there should be some opportunity given to an insured patient to contribute towards the funds of the hospital while he is in the hospital. I do not think the suggested Amendment of the Secretary to the Treasury enlarges the powers which are contained in Section 12 as it stands. So far as I understand it, the power given in Section 12 is given to a society to contribute towards the cost of maintenance in the hospital where an arrangement is made beforehand between the society and the hospital. The case I want to cover—and I believe it is a fairly common case—is this; an insured person is really seriously ill and goes into the hospital, where he gets the best treatment. Unless he is a member of the society which has an existing agreement with the hospital, there is no power to make any contribution towards the funds. The Financial Secretary says "Granted, but under the proposal I make, when that man comes out of the hospital he will, provided he has no dependants, have an accumulated sum, perhaps £5 or £10, out of which, in gratitude to the hospital, he may be able to make a contribution." Look at the
  3224
  position. The man comes out, he has had his treatment, he comes into the enjoyment of a lump sum or a sum paid in instalments. Anybody in that situation will be able to find his own personal uses for the money. The balance is weighted heavily against the hospital in such circumstances. I know there will be many men who in gratitude for the services they have received will no doubt make some contribution, but I want the opportunity to be given to the insured patient to make the contribution while he is receiving the treatment. I cannot see why such a enlargement of the provision could not be made. I do not believe in the danger suggested by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas). I believe it would be a useful thing, and I am certain that if the insured patients had an opportunity of doing it, many of them would avail themselves of it.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Would you exempt the contributor?
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: The suggestion of endeavouring to impose a payment on a patient while in hospital should not be carried out. It would inevitably destroy the voluntary character of our hospitals if, by any device whatever, you place the responsibility on the patient by any form of direct or indirect pressure to make that payment. It would inevitably give rise to a demand that the hospitals should be brought under public control. You have to recognise that if you seek to press a man to make any payment just at the time of treatment or at the point of discharge you would not achieve the object you have in view, viz., bringing support to the hospital funds. I know of many cases where men have had hospital treatment which has created a life-long gratitude, through which they have devoted themselves to the work of raising contributions for the maintenance of that hospital. That is a point which ought to be borne in mind, so far as my experience has gone, the working man who receives benefit in the hospital is invariably the man who displays his gratitude. By this means you get much more voluntary support for your hospitals than you would if you set up any device to compel him under any form of pressure to make a payment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps the Committee would now be willing to come to a decision on the matter.
  Mr. BATHURST: I should like to make my own comment upon your Amendment if I may do so. I have now, so far as I can, digested the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, intricate though it is, and presented to us rather at the last moment. So far as I can see, the part of the Section to which we mainly object, is left in. No part is excised by this Amendment until we come to the proviso at the end of Sub-section (2). That brings in the whole of paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) of Subsection (2). It is paragraph (c) to which I particularly object, and which I suggest is causing a great deal of difficulty and lack of uniformity, and, in many cases, is being evaded and will continue to be evaded. If the first proviso is cut out and the whole of this is left in and the Amendment is tacked on to the end of the three paragraphs, what will be the effect in fact of this somewhat cumbrous scheme, which will then take the place of what the Section of the Act provides? First of all, the dependants will have a prior claim. About that there is no division whatever between us. If there are no dependants and there is an agreement, either as to the whole or a part of the fund, the result of such an agreement would be that it would be handed over either in whole or in part towards the maintenance of the sick person in the hospital. That is the position which is anomalous and has caused great difficulty in the past. Failing that being carried out, if the society, under the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, thinks fit, a portion, at any rate, may be applied towards surgical appliances. This is the expression to which I take the greatest exception—
  "Or otherwise for his benefit."
  What does that mean? It is going to be left to the society or the Insurance Committee, as the case may be, to decide what is for his benefit otherwise than what the previous paragraphs provide. How are we going to decide that? I say quite candidly that as a member of an Insurance Committee I should not like to have to consider what is otherwise for his benefit, failing the dependants and failing payment for maintenance in the hospital and the provision of surgical appliances. Only then and not till then can any payment of the money be made to himself. That is what we all desire should be done in nine cases out of ten. That is what the societies have been trying to do, that is what the societies will try to continue to do, whatever machinery you now incorporate by way of substitution in this Section.
  3226
  We ought frankly to accept the position, and we ought to say that the sick person shall be entitled to his sickness benefit, and sickness benefit is the equivalent of wages. The sick person shall be entitled to his sickness benefit as he was under the voluntary system, whether he is in hospital or not, and leave it to him, as it ought to be left, to provide, out of the money he will receive after he leaves the hospital, for his keep in the hospital, as nine self-respecting men out of ten do to-clay.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: That is not so.
  Mr. BATHURST: It may not be in London where the hospitals depend largely on the contributions of rich men. In the provinces, especially in industrial districts, they depend almost exclusively, at any rate to the extent of a majority of their funds, upon the insured persons themselves. What will happen? If it is going to be the custom that this money, which is really the equivalent of their wages, shall be applied as a matter of course towards the cost of their maintenance, it will follow that these men will not regard it as a moral obligation any more to contribute voluntarily to the support of their hospitals, and the hospitals themselves will suffer. There is another word to which I take exception, and that is the word "shall." The right hon. Gentleman proposes that any sum which, but for the provisions of this Section, would have been paid to the person on account of sickness or other benefit, shall be applied, if the society thinks fit, for surgical appliances or otherwise for his benefit. I think that ought to be permissive, if you are going to have the provision at all, and if it is not permissive the last words mean nothing, because you say definitely they shall be applied in this particular way, and then you go on to say that if it is not so expended it shall be paid in cash to the individual himself. You cannot have it both ways. If you are going to make it, mandatory that it shall be paid in a particular direction there is an end of it. You cannot have an alternative to that. So far as that is concerned, the Amendment is not sense. May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to cancel this Section, of which we disapprove, at once and get rid of it, and then consider which of these alternatives shall take its place. I am quite sure, if you are going to leave the whole of this cumbrous provision, with the still more cumbrous Amendment tacked on to it, as the future machinery

  3227
  for the working of this benefit, you are going to make confusion worse confounded, and you are going to bring no solace either to the friendly societies or to the working classes who support the hospitals.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have a very great desire to meet the hon. Gentleman, but I think he will see that the course he suggests is a very unusual and a very unwise one. I have no power to express an opinion, but I am not quite sure, if we now delete Section 12, how far it would be in order to re-enact practically nine-tenths of the Section afterwards in the Act. There is only one point in the controversy before the Committee. If you delete the whole of the Section you delete many provisions which no one has any desire to delete at all, and you would only have to laboriously re-enact them again, and the Bill would have a very strange appearance when it went down to the House. As to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster), he does not object to our new Clause, but he wants something more in connection with hospitals. I do not want to tear up the arrangement at present on the experience which we have had of only six months working, and we ought, at least, to let the friendly societies go on for a little longer working the Act under the conditions of this proviso in relation to the hospitals before we re-open the whole hospital problem, which will be a very big problem if re-opened. But I can assure the hon. Member (Mr. Harry Lawson), that so far as this Amendment doing any injury to the hospitals, in so far as it has any effect at all it will benefit them, because what is the result? As the law stands at present, the funds of the insured person who is in the hospital—the sick benefit—may go entirely back into the general pool, and not a penny may be paid to him or to the hospital. The Section now asserts that the money shall go in his interest or to him, and in so far as the money goes to him instead of to the general pool of the insured person, the point raised by the hon. Member (Mr. G. Roberts) comes in, and he now will have the opportunity, which he would not have but for this Amendment, of directly contributing to the hospital which has cured him. Therefore, so far as it has any influence, it makes for the benefit of the hospital, but benefit on the voluntary system instead of an imposed system. As to the words objected to by the hon. Member
  3228
  (Mr. Bathurst), "or otherwise this benefit shall," in the original Act, it occurs in the original Act in many places. Friendly societies have always had this discretion, and they have had the discretion in connection with maternity benefit, and I do not want to take it away unless it is abused. Everyone knows why it is given them.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what it means?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Suppose a man wants to pay his rent or to have a bath-chair, or any other of these necessities. It has always been done by friendly societies. Why should you take the power away now they have become approved societies? As for the word "shall," I am assured by my advisers that, as read, it offers a real choice. "Shall, if the society or Committee think fit, be applied, or, if it is not so applied, shall be paid in cash." If that is not a good point I will promise to put it right on Report. I therefore ask the Committee now if they are in general agreement with the Government, first, to read the Clause a second time, and then to read my Amendment into the Clause, and then to vote for the Clause. If my Amendment is not carried I should vote against the Clause as a whole.
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. Are you, Sir, going to put an important Amendment like this which we have not seen? We do not know what we are talking about. I shall be obliged, unless there are some copies circulated, to ask your leave later to move the adjournment. I cannot take any responsibility.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I want to put one short point on the general question which has not been put before. Anything which we do which would provide for payment in the hospitals will give rise to difficulties with the medical profession. A committee that I know of has made arrangements with a hospital in London which deals with consumption. They have arranged to pay for insured persons in that hospital the cost of maintenance. That went on for a month or two, and then that hospital came to this committee and said: "We want you to increase your payment to the hospital, because the medical staff of the hospital, who formerly gave their services free, say that now we are being paid for our patients, they, as medical men, claim a right to payment." That is an important consideration, which we shall have to settle with the medical

  3229
  profession if we do anything which will provide that patients in the general hospitals pay for the treatment they receive there. I only instance what happened at this hospital which has come within my own notice as member of a committee, where the medical profession have now made a fresh demand for payment for their services if inmates are paid for in any way by the Insurance Committee or society.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not arrange this so that before voting on his Amendments we may have them on the Paper. I am quite willing to support him in rejecting the Amendment on the Paper now, but before voting on the Amendments which have been suggested by him I should like, and I think the majority of the Committee would like, to have an opportunity of seeing them on the Paper. Could he not simply ask us to reject this Amendment now and promise to put down his own Amendments on the Paper on Report.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The substance of my Amendment has been on the Paper for many days. It is Sub-section (c) in the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Goulding).
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Why not accept that?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot accept it in its present form, but I have given it in the form in which the Government are prepared to accept it.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is materially different?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The substance is the same. If it had not been, I should have had some difficulty on pressing hon. Gentlemen, but as it has been on the Paper for their consideration for many days I think I have a right to invite them to accept the Government Amendment.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: As far as I can read it from the manuscript Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman proposes that some of the money might be used for providing surgical appliances as the committee administering the Act should think right, but that committee would not have an opportunity of coming to a decision until the man had left the hospital. We have been told already that the man is not to have the control of the money until after he has been discharged from the
  3230
  hospital. Therefore, how would the hospital authorities know whether they were going to get the money for surgical appliances?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The proviso that we take out is this. Section 12, Sub-section (1), provides that any part of such sum which is not so applied as aforesaid, may, if the society or committee thinks fit, be applied in the provision of any surgical appliances required by the insured person or otherwise for his benefit. The only changes we make are the changes on the Paper. The whole sum shall be applied for his benefit. We leave the surgical appliances or otherwise, and we say if it is not applied for that it shall be given him in a lump sum when he leaves the hospital.
  Mr. GWYNNE: The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that because a thing appears in the original Act it has a sort of cachet, a passport for sensibility, and that it is sufficient for him to give that as a reason. That is the very reason, so far as many of us are concerned, for opposing it and wanting to know further details about it. It emphasises the reason why the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bathurst) is right in omitting this Section, because it is a very foolish Sub-section altogether.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move to, leave out the words "is hereby repealed" and to insert instead thereof the words "shall have effect as though the first proviso of Sub-section (2) of that Section were omitted therefrom, and that 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, shall, 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 not so extended, 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. HARRY LAWSON: May I move, by way of addition, an Amendment to the

  3231
  proposed Amendment? The words which I propose to add are part of an Amendment of which the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding) has given notice.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have had other Amendments handed in, and I must know the line in the proposed Amendment where the hon. Member wishes his Amendment to be made. I think the Committee should

  Division No. 12.]

  AYES.

  Astor, Mr.

  Clay, Captain

  Locker-Lampson, Mr. Godfrey

  Baker, Sir Randolf

  Forster, Mr.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Bathurst, Mr. Charles

  Gwynne, Mr. Rupert

  Parkes, Mr.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Hamilton, Mr.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Boyle, Mr. William

  Lawson, Mr. Harry

  Worthington-Evans, Mr.

  NOES.

  Addison, Dr.

  Esmonde, Dr.

  Millar, Mr. Duncan

  Alden, Mr.

  Harcourt, Mr. Robert

  Money, Mr. Chiozza

  Beck, Mr.

  Harvey, Mr. Edmund

  O'Grady, Mr.

  Booth, Mr.

  Jones, Mr. Glyn-

  Roberts, Mr. Charles

  Boyle, Mr. Daniel

  Jones, Mr. Haydn

  Roberts, Mr. George

  Bowerman, Mr.

  Keating, Mr.

  Samuel, Mr. Jonathan

  Buxton, Mr. Noel

  Lardner, Mr.

  Scott, Mr. MacCallum

  Byles, Sir William

  Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

  Thomas, Mr.

  Carr-Gomm, Mr.

  Macnamara, Dr.

  Warner, Sir Courtenay

  Dickinson, Mr.

  Masterman, Mr.

  Wing, Mr.

  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I desire to move to leave out the word "shall" ["shall if the society or committee administering the benefit"] and to insert instead thereof the word "may." I want to make it permissible for approved societies to apply this money, if they choose, in the way of paying it in a lump sum to the person when he leaves a hospital, and not making it a mandatory obligation upon them to find some kind of benefit to which it shall be applied in his interest.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the Amendment does make the wording of the Clause more clear, and I shall be glad to accept it.
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  Mr. BATHURST: I beg to move to leave out the words "or otherwise for his benefit." I wish to make it perfectly clear that discretion will not lie with a society to find some other benefit, but that it shall pay the money in a lump sum on discharging the person.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I would ask the hon. Gentleman not to press this Amendment. He knows there are certain cases where it is undesirable that the money should be given in a lump sum to the
  take a general Division on the proposed Amendment, and see whether it is going to be made. Hon. Members would then have an opportunity of altering the words of the Amendment when positive words are put.
  Question put, "That the words 'is hereby repealed' stand part of the proposed Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 15; Noes, 30.
  person. It has been the custom ever since friendly societies existed to have the right of exercising that discretion. I think it would be a great mistake to press the Amendment.
  Mr. BATHURST: I do not desire to press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I beg to move at the end of the proposed Clause to add the words, "or if such person has no dependent, and gives authority in writing to the approved society of which he is a member, it shall be lawful for such approved society to pay the whole or part of such benefit towards the maintenance of such person in the hospital, asylum, convalescent home, or infirmary." The House of Commons is famous for clumsy drafting, but I think that to-day it establishes a record. May I ask whether it would be possible to add my Amendment in the way proposed?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): If you put in the words "has no dependents" after the words "if such person" it would better express what you wish.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I have put in the words "has no dependent."
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This has been quite fully debated, and we can now make up our minds upon it. The scheme of the Act is clear that the money is payable to the person. In addition to that we have given the right to insured persons to contribute towards the hospital in return for services received. What is now suggested by the hon. Gentleman would mean, I think, that insured persons would be compelled, or in a majority of cases compelled, to sign a form giving away his sick benefit.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSONindicated dissent
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In some cases there would be action of that kind. I do not wish to say anything offensive, but I think that in a number of cases convalescents would have to fill up a form saying that they would give the money of their sick pay to the hospital, and it is in order to protect the individual member against such pressure that I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether everything which is proposed to be done by the Amendment could not be done under the words as they stand at present in the right hon. Gentleman's own Amenclinent1 A society has power to apply all this money for the benefit of a member, and therefore, even if a member signed a form giving it to a hospital, the society has power to do that already, because that is applying the money for the benefit of the member.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: He has to do it by agreement beforehand, or pay it out of the lump sum at the close.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: He has power to do it by agreement beforehand, but if it is not done by agreement beforehand, then I submit that the society has still power to do it, if requested, for the benefit of the member.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: That is applying the money for the benefit of a member.
  Mr. BOOTH: I want to protest in the name of many of these people, not always very well educated, who read these Acts, particularly this one, and who cannot understand it. This sentence, as proposed by the Government, is 166 words long, and is read in connection with fifty-two more words, which makes a total of 218 words in one sentence.
  Mr. BATHURST: I would appeal to my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment because with all candour it does not make sense.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: That is a general charge against the whole Clause.
  Mr. BATHURST: I hope that the hon. Member will not be sensitive about charges. If read in connection with paragraph (c) it partially contradicts it, and so far as it does not contradict it, it makes it anomalous.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I will not press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. GOULDING: I hope that what the Government have done will give effect to the object which we all have in view. But I still am pretty clear in my own mind that the Sections as down on the printed Paper are far more clear and specific, and far easier to be understood outside. I doubt very much whether, when this comes to be interpreted with its 166 words, there will be any understanding conveyed to those who have to interpret the Act outside.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I must make a protest against what has been done. I do not believe that anybody now knows what words there are in the Clause which we are asked to agree to. We have heard them read out, I quite agree, but it is a very different thing struggling after the Chairman, however slowly he reads it out, and seeing the thing in print in the Paper, when we are trying to move Amendments, and we do not even know which line it is in. It is in line 5 if the writing is small, but it is in line 15 in the Amendment of my hon. Friend. It is not treating the Committee fairly. The Government have no ground for complaint that this Committee has not, up to to-day, done its work in a businesslike way, and they are the first to come down in the most unbusinesslike fashion that I have ever seen and throw this thing at us and then say, "It is all right. It is not all that is on the Paper, but it is as much as we are going to give you." If they had taken the Amendment on the Paper we could have had it in print and have amended it to produce a result that would have been the same as this, though I confess that I do not at this moment know what we are asked to vote on. I do know this, however, that a uniform practice is to be made in future for approved societies, and if they, do not expend the sick benefit in one or other of these ways provided for, then at any rate the insured person is to

  3235
  have it. That being the main object of the Amendment which we have moved I am not going to vote against this Clause standing part, but I cannot let it pass without protest because I think that the fashion in which this has been put into the Bill is extremely dangerous, and, if it is applied any longer, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that he is not facilitating the work of the Committee.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am only trying to meet the hon. Gentleman in every way. Clauses are on the Paper. I first see whether we can meet those Clauses. When I see that we can meet the essentials of them, I have to go to my draftsmen and take their expert advice as to how they can best 132 brought about, and inserted in the Bill. The only alternative would be to refuse the Clause on the Paper altogether. Nor am I able to put it down as a Government Clause, because hon. Gentlemen want to move their own Amendments and have shown very great jealousy when we have tried to work under a different system. The hon. Member for Worcester was informed of this last night, and he agreed with me that the Amendment meets the substance of his Amendment. In those conditions I have to ask the Committee to accept somewhat complicated Amendments solely in order to meet the wishes of hon. Members as they arise.
  Mr. FORSTER: I think that the difficulty which has arisen may be unavoidable, but it really is occasioned by the fact that we are necessarily called upon to sit day after day, and there is so little time for consultation between the various sittings of the Committee, that I am afraid bomb-shells will be continued to be exploded either on one side or other of the Committee until we have finished our work. I do not want to say anything unkind of the right hon. Gentleman. I think he is doing his best in circumstances that we all find difficult, but I think that my hon. Friend had some very substantial ground for protest, because I think the Committee generally feel that the Amendment, that was put before us to-day for the first time was complicated and it was very difficult for all of us to fathom precisely what it meant.
  Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I think that it is not realised by many hon. Members that this sort of thing has happened before. I remember quite well during the passing of the Workman's Compensation Act that the Member for West Birmingham used to read corrections to new Clauses and corrections
  3236
  to Amendments in exactly the same way as that in which they have been read to-day, and it is a precedent that is often observed not only in Committee here but in Committee of the Whole House, though it is regrettable I know.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I think that the speech of the hon. Baronet requires an answer to this extent, that I do not recollect any case where for ten days together the Grand Committee has been asked to sit day after day in the way in which we are sitting now. It was not asked to do so in the case of the unemployment section of the Insurance Act, because I was a member of the Committee. If the Government does this thing it must expect to get this hopeless, faulty, bad drafting and the impossible positions into which we are plunged.
  Question; "That those words be added to the proposed Clause" put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Fees.)
  "In the event of a duly-qualified medical practitioner being summoned in pursuance of the rules made under the Midwives Act, 1902, the prescribed fee shall, notwithstanding anything in Section 18 of the principal Act contained, be irrecoverable as, part of the maternity benefit."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time
  Mr. BATHURST: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This is a technical point but quite a short one. The Amendment, relates to fees under the regulations drafted under the Midwives Act of 1902. Perhaps I may refer to the proviso which I seek to amend. It is in Section 18 of the principal Act, Sub-section (1), and is to the following effect:—
  "Provided always that the mother shall decide whether she shall be attended by a duly qualified medical practitioner or by a duly certified midwife, and shall have free choice in the selection of such practitioner or midwife"—
  and this is the point—
  "but if in the case of a midwife being selected a duly qualified medical practitioner is subsequently summoned in pursuance of the rules made under the Midwives Act, 1902, the prescribed fee"—
  that is the fee prescribed by those rules—
  "shall, subject to regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners, be recoverable as part of the maternity benefit."

  3237
  This really means in effect that the prescribed fee is now recoverable by the doctor as part of the maternity benefit, and the statutory period to which reference is made is the period of twelve days during which it is impossible to say whether the doctor will be called in and whether therefore any part of the maternity benefit, if not the whole, will be deflected to the pockets of the doctor. If anything happens during that period to necessitate the employment of a doctor then the midwife under the Midwives Act is bound to call in a doctor, and until the approved society knows whether or not a doctor has been called in it is utterly impossible for it to pay that maternity benefit either to the doctor or otherwise for the benefit of the woman—that is to say, possibly to the midwife. So it means a great delay and this Amendment is in the interest both of the midwife and of the mother because there is this delay of twelve days during which no one gets the maternity benefit at all, because it is almost impossible to say whether a doctor will have to be called in, and part at any rate of the maternity benefit be diverted to the doctor, and not pass either to the mother or to the midwife.
  What I seek to do by this Amendment is to sax that, for the purpose of the Midwives Act and rules issued under that Act, the prescribed fee to which reference is made in the Act shall not be taken out of the maternity benefit at all. In other words, that the maternity benefit shall pass to the woman, or if the woman has employed her—she is entitled under the Act to employ a certified midwife—to the midwife for her remuneration, and so far as it is not so employed, if a doctor is called in, then something will be available out of it, if he chooses to send in his charge to the mother for the payment of the doctor. There is no reason why the Midwives Act should be mixed up with the National Insurance Act in this connection. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see the reasonableness of this, and in fairness both to the mother and to the midwife will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I entirely accept the principle of the new Clause. Everyone who has had anything to do with the administration of the Act knows that the original proviso, however desirable it, might have been in theory, has proved impracticable, and it has no friend. The doctors, the midwives, the approved societies, and the insured persons, dislike it. Therefore, I hope that it may be unanimously rejected by the
  3238
  Committee. The only point is the question of form. The form that I would like to take is the form on page 776, which says at the end that it shall be irrecoverable as part of the maternity benefit. I think that we should give a second reading to the Clause of the hon. Member for Wilton, and we could then move in as an Amendment the substance of the Clause proposed by the hon. Member for Derby. I think that that would meet the convenience of everyone.
  Mr. BATHURST: I am bound to say that I have no pride of paternity, and as long as this is settled to the satisfaction of the Committee I do not mind who moves it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: My suggestion was to read the Clause of the hon. Gentleman a second time and by a little alteration of the Clause we can incorporate into it the Amendment which stands in the name of the, hon. Member for Derby.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Amendments made: Leave out the words "In the event of," and insert instead thereof the words "So much of Sub-section (1) o Section eighteen of the principal Act as provides, that if."
  Leave out the word "being" ["being summoned"], and insert instead thereof the word "is."
  Leave out the words "notwithstanding anything in Section eighteen of the principal Act contained, be irrecoverable as part of the maternity benefit," and insert instead thereof, "subject to regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners, be recoverable as part of the maternity benefit shall cease to have effect."
  Question proposed, "That the proposed Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
  Sir P. MAGNUS: As far as I understand this Clause provides that the doctor's fee, if called in, shall not be recoverable out of the maternity benefit. I think it is very desirable that the maternity benefit should be handed over entirely to the woman herself, but I should like to know from whom under these circumstances will the doctor's fee be recoverable. It seems to me according to this new Clause the doctor may be required to discharge an important office without receiving any fee at all. I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he has made any arrangement by which the doctor called in an emergency, a great emergency, shall have his fee?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to that is that the doctor is in exactly the same position as before the Act was passed. He will adjust his scale of fees, as he did before the Act was passed, to the needs of the person, instead of having one prescribed fee; and he will have all his statutory rights to recover that fee without interference with the maternity benefit.
  Dr. ADDISON: I am sure the hon. Gentleman opposite has unnecessary misgivings. Personally, I am heartily in agreement with this Amendment. It is very essential to the smooth working of the Act. In many cases the medical man recover; fees from the statutory authority, in respect of the Midwives Act, which is really the county council, and in other cases they are able to recover fees where they give attendance. There is no alteration in that respect, and I think this is a very desirable Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision as to Marriage Certificates.)
  "The provisions of Section 114 of the principal Act, which relate to certificates of birth, shall apply to certificates of marriage in like manner as they apply to certificates of birth, except that the fee shall be 1s. instead of 6d., and that the person from whom the certificate and form of requisition may be obtained shall be the registrar or superintendent registrar or other person having the care of the register in which the marriage is entered."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time." I had given notice to move the Clause in the following form:—
  "Where, for the purposes of this Act, the marriage of any person is required to be proved by the production of a certificate of marriage, any person shall, on presenting a written requisition in such form and containing such particulars as may be from time to time prescribed by the Local Government Board for England, Scotland, or Ireland, as the case may be, and, on payment of a fee of 6d., be entitled to obtain a certified copy of the entry of the marriage of that person in the marriage register, and forms for such requisition shall on request be supplied without any charge by the Local Government Board concerned."
  3240
  By arrangement with my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Alden) I submit it in the form in which I have moved it, with the addition of the four words "and form of requisition." I do so because I understand it is technically more correct and effective than in the form in which I had intended to move it. Clause 114 of the principal Act provides that for the sum of 6d. a person having to prove his age under the Act can obtain a certificate. Hundreds and thousands of birth certificates, and, in the course of some years perhaps millions, have to be obtained, but though a smaller number, yet a considerable number, of marriage certificates have also to be obtained, and at present those certificates cost in each case some shillings.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Three shillings and sevenpence.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: It is urged that a sum of is should be made statutory in the same way that we make sixpence so in regard to birth certificates. There does not seem to be any need to argue the merits further, and I beg to move.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope the Government are going to tell us why they want a shilling for a marriage certificate and why they should not do with sixpence as in the case of birth certificates. I do not know whether it is because there are two people to a marriage and they want sixpence each [An HON. MEMBER: "And there are two people to a birth"]. There seems to be no reason why they should not do with sixpence in this case. I notice that in the original proposal of the hon. Member he put sixpence, but I suppose there were some negotiations because he is now content to take the more modest suggestion of the hon. Member for Tottenham. There is no use splitting small sums like this, and while we are about it we might as well make it sixpence for all certificates.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The marriage certificate at present costs about 3s. 7d. There are more particulars to fill in and a certain amount of search in the case of those certificates, and I do not think we can reduce the charge to sixpence as it is more complicated. We are very glad to accept the proposal of is which we think is a reasonable fee in this case for the work which has to be done, and we agree to it in that form.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  Mr. GWYNNE: I beg to move to leave out the words "the fee shall be one shilling instead of."
  The object of this Amendment is to make the fee sixpence instead of a shilling. The right hon. Gentleman's only explanation is that in the case of a marriage certificate there is snore search. Are we to understand that the Government thinks that a man remembers more easily where he is born than where he is married, and that there is more search to find out where the marriage event took place? Surely a man is much more likely to remember where he is married than where he is born! That is the only argument of the right hon. Gentleman and he says he believes that the ordinary cost is something like 3s. 7d. The right hon. Gentleman really has not considered this matter at all. He managed to stop an hon. Friend on his own side and he thought that the answer which was good enough for the hon. Member for Northants (Mr. Chiozza Money) was good enough for us. I beg to say it is not, and we are not induced to accept the argument so readily. For that reason, unless he offers some better reason than he has already given, I beg to move that the charge for the certificate be 6d.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have to tell hon. Members that I have given attention to this point and have consulted people.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Have you consulted the hon. Member for Northampton?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I have not consulted the hon. Member for Northampton about this matter. On this occasion, however, he has not been asked. I have consulted those responsible for making up the register, and although I sympathise with the view taken, when you consider that you have to go to a church and take out the details and that you are directly responsible, a shilling is a reasonable fee. I ask the Committee to accept that, in view of the responsibility of those who carry out the work.

  Division No. 13.]

  AYES.

  Addison, Dr.

  Buxton, Mr. Noel

  Jones, Mr. Haydn

  Alden, Mr.

  Byles, Sir William

  Lardner, Mr.

  Astor, Mr.

  Carr-Gomm, Mr.

  Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

  Baker, Sir Randolf

  Devlin, Mr.

  Macnamara, Dr.

  Bathurst, Mr. Charles

  Hamilton, Mr.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Beck, Mr.

  Harcourt, Mr. Robert

  Masterman, Mr.

  Boyle, Mr. Daniel

  Harvey, Mr. Edmund

  Money, Mr. Chiozza

  Bowerman, Mr.

  Jones, Mr. Glyn-

  O'Grady, Mr.

  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that in order to get this certificate you have to search a parish register? Surely, the right hon. Gentleman must be badly informed! Is it not the case that these registers are kept at Somerset House? I am not very sure myself, but I have an idea that that is so.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There are other cases.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, before the year 1834; but I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that all the marriages since the year 1830 are in registers kept at Somerset House, and there is no more reason for charging a shilling for these than for any other of the certificates. Unless it is for some ancient marriages which have to be found at the parish churches, the Government ought to take the risk.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is not the ancient marriages; it is the modern marriages. They are with the clergy or the people keeping the registers. It is a question of how much you are going to take from the people keeping the registers. They get 3s. 7d., and we do not think it is fair to make them reduce that amount. Surely, as a compromise between paying nothing and 3s. 7d., a shilling is a very fair offer, when you realise that you are influencing the money which is paid to other persons, and reducing the income of those other persons.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how long these registers are kept in the parishes, and when they go to Somerset House? It is a year, I think.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We have no reason to resist this proposal if it was at all practicable, but it is only after the fullest consultation, and even an attempt to put pressure on the Registrar-General, that we found we could not ask the Committee to go lower than a shilling.
  Question put, "That the words 'one shilling instead of' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes 33; Noes 9.

  Parkes, Mr.

  Samuel, Mr. Jonathan

  Tryon, Captain

  Roberts, Mr. Charles

  Scott, Mr. MacCallum

  Warner, Sir Courtenay

  Roberts, Mr. George

  Thomas, Mr.

  Wing, Mr.

  NOES.

  Boyle, Mr. William

  Gwynne, Mr. Rupert

  Locker-Lampson, Mr. Godfrey

  Forster, Mr.

  Hall, Mr. Frederick (Dulwich)

  Remnant, Mr.

  Goulding, Mr.

  Lawson, Mr. Harry

  Worthington-Evans, Mr.

  Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question, "That, notwithstanding the Sitting of the House, the Committee do sit till 4 o'clock this day—"[Mr. Masterman]—put, and agreed to.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Payments under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1891.)
  "In Section 48, Sub-section (1), of the principal Act, the following words 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 under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment, 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 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."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. WILLIAM BOYLE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The object of the Clause is to enable an approved society to pay sickness benefit in respect of masters, seamen and apprentices, who have dependants, during the time that they receive no wages when ill. I think that when the Committee appreciate what a great hardship is being done in certain cases, I shall receive their sympathy and support. This matter was brought to my notice by a letter from the Secretary of the imperial Merchant Service Guild, in which it was stated that at a recent meeting of the Committee of Management of the Seamen's National Insurance Society the chairman of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, Captain T. B. Walker, pleaded the case of a wife and four children of the chief officer of a steamer who, through illness, had been left behind in hospital in a port on the River
  3244
  Plate. Captain Walker suggested that out of the funds of the society the wife of this officer should be granted an allowance of 10s. a week, but the chairman of the committee advised the committee that they had no power to make such an allowance while the officer was in hospital in a foreign country. It seems to me that there is a case involving very great hardship. Here was a woman, with four children dependent upon her, whose husband was in hospital on the River Plate. Probably the woman was unable to communicate with him in any way. His wages were stopped, and there was no income coming in upon which the woman could depend to provide for the children. I do not think that any member of this Committee who really put himself in the position of the woman to whom I have referred would for one moment doubt the urgent necessity of changing the law in this respect. I hope I may have the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. It is not often that I have troubled the Committee with any remarks. If any prize is offered in order to get the Bill through and to prevent Members speaking, except when they have something to say, I think I am entitled to that prize, and in asking for it I might say that the right hon. Gentleman could not help me more than by accepting the Clause which I now move.
  Mr. THOMAS: I have on the Paper a new Clause which has precisely the s me object as that of the hon. Gentleman opposite. The case which the hon. Member has cited may be an isolated case, but the principle that we desire to establish is applicable to thousands of men. At present if any man is in hospital his vice or dependents are entitled to the sick pay of 10s. a week; but if a seaman is taken ill and deprived of his wages the Commissioners have decided not only that his wife and family are not entitled under the Act, but that the approved societies who have all along been willing to pay cannot pay. The result is that in a town like Grimsby, where there are hundreds of fishermen t o whom this applies, there has been serious hardship and distress as the result of the operation of the Act. Therefore, since the hon. Member is aiming

  3245
  at precisely the same object as I am anxious to secure, I whole-heartedly support his proposal. I do not know whether his wording or mine is the better, but that is a detail. We are anxious to secure the principle, and in so far as this Clause does that I am in whole-hearted agreement with him.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I very much sympathise with the views which have been expressed. Under Section 48 (1) of the original Act, sickness benefit is not paid during any period in which the owner is liable to pay the cost of medical treatment and maintenance. But if a man is on foreign service and is put into a hospital the owner's liability for wages ceases, although he is continued liable for medical treatment. But no sickness benefit can be paid to dependants in that case. That is one aspect of the case. That is the point which the hon. Member desires to meet. If the man is brought back to the United Kingdom and put on shore he is entitled to the full benefits of the Act, and no question arises. If he is in the home service and has by any chance to go into a hospital in a foreign port around these Islands, there is a real difficulty; because, although he is in the home service and has paid full contributions, if he is put into a foreign hospital the societies cannot pay sickness benefit to his dependents. That is the whole field which it is desired to cover. The proposal of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) is restricted to the case of the man I have last quoted. I should have been prepared at once to accept the more restricted form, but I think we shall have to give the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (Mr. Boyle) his prize. We shall have to agree that in all cases, whether the man is on foreign service or on home service, if he fall sick and is put into hospital his dependents, whose conditions under these circumstances is often very serious, ought to have the sickness benefit. The matter is one of considerable urgency, and while, as I say, I should have been prepared first of all to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Derby, I am sure my hon. Friend will not mind my accepting the broader form covering both forms of service. A slight modification of the wording will be necessary. The words "under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment" do not apply. The liability does not wise in connection with that Act. It arises in connection with a contract under common law. Therefore, these words are not necessary and ought to be taken out. I hope the hon.
  3246
  Gentleman will agree to the acceptance of the Clause with the omission of these words.
  Mr. D. BOYLE: Which words?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The words "under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment." As I say, those words are not applicable, and therefore should be taken out.
  Mr. FORSTER: We will have to take our guidance in this matter from the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Personally, being a layman, I am not in the least qualified to express an opinion as to whether or not the excision of these words will widen or narrow the thing. We must rely upon the guidance that the right hon. Gentleman gives us, and I understand he is finally dependent—
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am advised.
  Mr. FORSTER: In those circumstances I think my hon. Friend should agree.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment to the proposed new Clause—to leave out the words "under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment"—put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I believe there is a point about the wages or payment of the apprentices. I regret I was not here while this matter was originally discussed, but I understand the apprentices do not get wages in the ordinary sense of the term, and I have forgotten for the moment what the allowance is called. It is given by the shipowners. I refer to those boys who are under articles of apprenticeship. Is the word "wages" in this new Clause inclusive of this payment or allowance to the boys?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I will look into that matter between now and Report.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN: As a matter for the convenience of the Committee, might I appeal to hon. Members who have obviously duplicate Clauses down to hand in notice before the end of the day to have them off the Order Paper? If they do that it will greatly simplify the references. I have no power to take off the duplicates, and there are a great many. Members, perhaps, will be good enough to look over the Paper, and see what are obviously duplicates.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman. If Amendments are exactly similar, is it not possible for all the names to be printed with the same Amendment? I gathered from you just now that it was not in order to do so. Is it necessary that Amendments which are exactly similar should be written out separately as new Clauses? It makes the Order Paper very much more complicated. If an Amendment is exactly similar to another, I do not see why hon. Members concerned should not have their names printed over it.
  The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the procedure adopted is the custom of the Committee. Obviously, when an Amendment is handed in, as the next one on the Paper, in the names of three hon. Members, it stands in their names, but the officials are naturally very jealous of interfering with precedent. Still, if hon. Members will kindly adopt my suggestion, it will simplify the Order Paper, and I am sure will be most acceptable to the Committee.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Voluntary Contributors.)
  "Sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the principal Act shall be read as if there were inserted therein after the word 'Act,' second therein occurring, the words or who are voluntary contributors.'"
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: I beg on behalf of the hon. Members in whose name it stands, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. Fell and Mr. Munro, and who are not members of the Committee, to move, "That the Clause be read a second time." The point of it is not very dissimilar to the one we have just considered, but it affects a small and special class. For the purposes of clearness I may perhaps just read the Section of the principal Act on which I am proceeding to engraft the Amendment:—
  "The Board of Trade shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, cause a society to be formed, to be called the Seamen's National Insurance Society, of which any masters, seamen, and apprentices to the sea service and the sea fishing service who are employed within the meaning of this part of this Act …. shall be entitled to become members …"
  I desire the Committee to make it read: "who are employed within the meaning of this part of the Act or who are voluntary contributor." Hon. Members are aware
  3248
  that there are various difficult questions connected with the legal position of what are called share fishermen. It is fortunately unnecessary for me to discuss that point here. They are dealt with in twenty pages of the annual report—that is, the fishermen relating to Scotland. I believe several of the questions are under consideration by the Courts at the present time. There is, I believe, legally nothing to prevent a man who may be called a share fisherman and who has a contract of service from being an employed contributor, especially if a Special Order has not been made. Fishermen may be called joint adventurers who benefit, I suppose, under contract service, and would not be able to be voluntary contributors. They would, I understand, be excluded from the benefits of the seamen's society, which are very special benefits, and which have been set up under Government patronage. The society gives most valuable benefits, such as medical attendance in each port in which the members may land. These men could not by Act of Parliament become voluntary contributors and would, ipso facto, be excluded from membership of that society even if they desired to join and the society desired to receive them. That really is the case. The position, as I understand it, involves no hardships upon anybody. It merely enables persons who desire this insurance and those who desire to join this society to be received by the society, if the society so determines. I am not entitled to say that the Seamen's National Insurance Society are asking for this Amendment, but from correspondence which I have seen, and which, if necessary, I can read, I am authorised to say that this Amendment will be welcome. The only piece of criticism which has been raised is the question as to whether the doctors would object to taking these voluntary contributors under the fee system. I understand Clause 5, which we have passed, makes the situation satisfactory, and I believe this would be one for the convenience of the fishermen.
  Mr. WING: I should like, if the hon. Member who has just submitted his proposal would accept an Amendment which I have on the Paper to much the same effect; if so, I shall be very pleased. If the hon. Member will do so, and move my Amendment, I shall be very pleased to second.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There appears to me to be no reason why seamen such as these who do not come within the meaning of the Act, should not be eligible to become members of the Seamen's National Insurance

  3249
  Society, if otherwise eligible to become voluntary contributors. My hon. Friend referred to the fishermen who own their own boats and to the share fishermen. They are exempted under the First Schedule, Part I. of the principal Act, and I think they came into this category. Hon. Members will remember that Sub-section (8) Section 48, provides that persons who leave the sea for some other reason would probably be shut out and I do not think that this is desirable. They should still be qualified as voluntary contributors.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: Would not that be met by an alteration of the rules?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No; I think the proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Wing) is the better Clause, if I may say so. It is as follows:
  "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"—
  That is the point my hon. Friend's Clause does not cover—
  "and who is or continues to be a voluntary contributor, to remain a member of the society."
  That I think is in better form, and is the form in which I should like to accept it.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: Shall I be in order in moving that Clause? The only reason I did not put that in is that I believed it was covered by an alteration of the rules. May I be allowed to move it now in that form?
  The CHAIRMAN: If the Committee are agreeable, but the hon. Member had first better withdraw his own Amendment.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Voluntary Contributors in Seamen's National Insurance Society.)
  "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
  3250
  allowing a member who leaves the sea service and who is, or continues to he, a voluntary contributor, to remain a member of the society."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  Mr. BOOTH: May I ask a question on the actuarial point? I suppose this is for the Seamen's National Insurance Society, and I believe they have several actuaries at work. I want to put this point: Is not this a fund into which contributions on behalf of foreign seamen come, and I want to know has the actuarial point been considered? I always understood that they paid a low rate of contribution owing to the fact that there are a number of foreign sailors who cannot receive any benefit, but for whom the employers' contribution is paid, and there is a large income from that source, and that it is owing to that that they are enabled to give the benefit they do. What I ask is, if you receive any considerable proportion of voluntary contributors who are not accompanied by any foreigners, would not that alter the actuarial side of the scale?
  Mr. WING: I think the hon. Member is in error. They pay less, but I think that is owing to the fact that the shipping companies are providing medical aid, and that they have not the same calls made upon the fund. Is not that the reason why they charge less?
  Mr. FREDERICK HALL: May I ask whether there is going to be a general discussion with regard to foreign seamen on this Clause? The hon. Member for Pontefract referred to that. I really do not think it does come under the Clause we are discussing. If it does, I have various points to bring forward.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the Committee is prepared to accept this Clause.
  Mr. BOOTH: As a matter of fact, I did not go into that at all. I merely asked, "Has this point been considered from actuarial standpoint?"
  Mr. GWYNNE: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will explain what is the position of fishermen who are generally known as share fishermen under this part of the Act? Are they dealt with as if they were all upon the same basis?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: What I said was that where fishermen own their own boats, and where they were share fishermen, they were exempted under the Second Schedule, but they would be accepted as voluntary contributors.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope the Government are going to continue to accept this Clause. The hon. Member has spoken of a number of others not accepted on the same terms. They are frequently employed for a short time on shore, and they are fishermen at other times. In respect to these men at this moment there is considerable doubt, and it depends upon what their particular occupation is when the Act came into force, whether they were employed people, or whether they were to join as voluntary contributors. The hon. Member for Pontefract raised an actuarial point on which the Government ought to give some information. It is true, as he said, that the employers' contribution in respect to foreign seamen had gone to the Seamen's National Insurance Society, and it is also true that lower contributions were taken from them because, owing to the Merchant Shipping Act, employers are already liable to give part of the benefits to those people, but the Merchant Shipping Act, so far as I know, does not apply to share fishermen at all, and I want to know, therefore, whether the share fishermen are coming in at a lower contribution, which is fixed at a lower rate because the employer is liable in respect of those who did come under the Merchant Shipping Act. Is that contribution going to be a contribution of the share fishermen? Otherwise as the hon. Member said, it will alter the whole actuarial basis of the National Seamen's Society in two ways. First, as there will not be so large a proportion of employers' contribution in respect to foreign seamen, and there will be a larger number of men coming in at a lower rate, because the employers were liable to provide some of the benefits under the Merchant Shipping Act. The point the hon. Member for Pontefract has raised is one that requires consideration. I do not know whether it has been considered, but perhaps the Government will tell us.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: These men will come in as at present, and if the hon. Gentleman will look at Sub-section (7) of Section 48 he will see that the scheme provided that it shall include "pensions for masters and seamen with long sea service, and the scheme may provide for preference being given to masters and seamen who have served in foreign-going ships or ships engaged
  3252
  in foreign trade other than those who have served in the coasting and home trade ships."
  It is possible that they will come in as voluntary contributors, paying the amount in proportion to the benefits they receive.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: There is a serious point which has not been considered, which I would like to bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend. The Seamen's Society is unlike all other approved societies in that it has not got the choice of its members. Every employed contributor in the service has a right to become a member whether the society wishes it or not, and now it is proposed to give voluntary contributors the same right of becoming members whether the society wishes it or not. Is this not loading the risk against the society?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No, there is no right given. The rules provide that they "'may' notwithstanding anything provided," etc.
  Question, "That the proposed Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Provident Funds, etc.)
  "A separate section of a society which consists of persons entitled to rights in a superannuation or other provident fund established for the benefit of persons employed by one or more employers shall not be approved if the employer makes membership of such society a condition of employment."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The object of this Clause is to give effect not only to the various promises that were made during the passing of the Act, but, in my opinion, to give effect to what was the original intention of the Insurance Act. When the Bill was being discussed there was a Clause accepted which placed the power in the Commissioners' hands to refuse sanction to any society that made membership of any employers' fund a condition of service. We accepted that Amendment as carrying with it freedom of choice so far as the individual was concerned, but, to our surprise, what the majority of the railway companies did was, instead of making what hitherto was compulsory societies approved under the Act, they made a section of the society approved and said to the men, "You are perfectly at liberty to join this society or not, but we are going to compel you to

  3253
  belong to the parent society just the same AS hitherto." What is more than that, the great bulk of these funds was absolutely insolvent. The men had no choice because the employers made it a condition of service. They stopped a contribution from their wages every week, and the men, while they knew all the time that the funds were insolvent, felt that the fact that the directors were behind them was sufficient guarantee for them. But a large number of the railway companies went further than that. The Great Western Railway Company not only retained this as a condition of service but they made it free for new entrants, and they said to the men, "We will give you all the advantages of the Insurance Act for 6d. a week instead of 7d," or, in other words, "If you will only make this your approved society, you may come in at 1d. per week less than anyone else." What we endeavour to do by this new Clause is what Parliament originally intended, namely, that no employer of labour, whether a company or an individual, who makes it a condition of service that a man shall belong to a particular shop dub in which he or they are interested, shall have the right to say that they will be approved by the Commissioners as a section of the society, and in that way defeat what was the original intention of the Act. I submit that this being the first opportunity that we have had of reviewing the case, we are justified in saying that advantage should be taken of it to give effect to what was the clear intention of the Act.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member who has just spoken, if, as a matter of fact, the course he has stated is being taken in connection with the Insurance Act. I do not, however, think the difficulty can be met by any amendment of the Insurance Act as such. The Insurance Act and the Insurance Commissioners come into no relation with any society except approved societies, and if a society is a section of another society, the only regulations they can come in connection with are the regulations that deal with that section. The hon. Member states that his real grievance is that railway companies make or may make membership of the Superannuation Fund a condition of service. That may be a good or a bad thing, and I am not going to comment upon it, but in any case it cannot be dealt with under the Insurance Act. It will have to be dealt with by an amendment to the Shop Clubs Act. Under these circumstances, as the hon. Member has made his protest, with which I have considerable sympathy, be-
  3254
  cause it does break the spirit, if not the letter, of the Act, perhaps he will be good enough to withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. BOOTH: Although I have my own view upon this point I prefer to follow the advice which has been given to this Committee. If it is admitted that the railway companies are breaking the spirit of the Act—
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I did not say that. I said "if it is admitted." I have no knowledge on the subject.
  Mr. BOOTH: I think the hon. Member for Derby made a very straightforward statement. If his facts are challenged it is another thing, but if they are going unchallenged, then it is a serious thing to be told that any class of employers can evade the Act in spirit while they may be complying with it in letter. I am sorry there is any possibility of that. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury says that whether right or wrong he sees in this a way to dodge the Act, and if that is so, I regret it very much. It was the intention of the House that this condition should be bonâ fide observed, and it is most unreasonable that the Insurance Act should be used in any indirect way to compel men to join a particular form of approved societies. If this Amendment is pressed to a division, I shall certainly vote for it.
  Mr. THOMAS: The facts cannot be challenged. They are well known to the Commissioners because the men themselves have appealed. The facts stated by me are absolutely true in every particular, and there is no element of doubt. What was the spirit and intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in accepting our original Amendment has been broken by the companies sidetracking the whole situation. I realise the difficulty, and it is useless to move a Clause if it is not going to be operative. I want, however, to point out that the men have felt so keenly upon this point that they thought of stopping it themselves by the brutal method of a strike, and surely that would be a disastrous thing to do on a matter of this kind. I repeat that there was a definite promise given as to the intention of the Act when it was adopted across the floor of the House, and the men said, "At last we have got freedom; we will join our own society in our own way as we think best." Now they find by a sort of subterfuge that they are prevented from doing that, and alternatively they have to pay

  3255
  into two societies, which they cannot afford to do. I think it is monstrous that we cannot deal with the situation.
  Mr. GWYNNE: The hon. Member for Derby seems to be playing the part of the pot calling the kettle black. His complaint is that, certain railway companies are desirous that all their employés should belong to some particular society which they run and control. I think he must admit that the Railway Servants Society, with which he himself is connected, endeavours to force everyone to join their society. However much we may deplore the principle of compulsion, it, is the beginning and the end of this Act, and I do not think it comes well from the hon. Member for Derby to talk about what has happened as a monstrosity.
  Mr. THOMAS: Can the hon. Gentleman say where my society makes membership compulsory?
  Mr. GWYNNE: I do not think it is disputed that the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants tries to induce every railway servant to join the society. I did not know that that was a point of difference. On the contrary, it is an admitted fact. If that is the case it rather makes an unprejudiced person believe that the reason why they object to people joining the railway companies' societies is because the other societies wish to force them to join their society. If we are going to refuse compulsion on one side, at any rate let us refuse it all the way through.
  Mr. WING: I would like to point out that they have not only broken the spirit, but also the absolute letter of the Act. They are allowed to become an approved society if the employer does not make membership of such society a condition of employment. The hon. Member who has just spoken seems to think that is a very small matter, but it is a very great matter.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: If it is admitted, as stated by my hon. Friend, that there is a violation of the Act, hon. Members opposite should get up and defend that violation. We, however, feel that if there is a wrong, it should be remedied. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury suggests that it cannot be remedied in this way. May I ask him whether, if an Amending Bill of the Shops Act were introduced, he would, on behalf of the Government, give my hon. Friend facilities for getting that Bill through?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I will certainly consider that, but, if there is a breaking of the letter of the Act, we shall see that is put right. The letter of the Act has got to be administered by the Insurance Commissioners. We cannot, however, interfere with societies which are not approved societies. If we began to do that, we should have to interfere with trade unions, and we might have to interfere with the private business of friendly societies and industrial companies, and all that would open up vast vistas of possibilities. Those matters must be dealt with in separate Acts. All we can do in this Bill is to deal with the approved societies as such.
  Mr. THOMAS: Having regard to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Insured Persons in Ireland.)
  "So much of Sub-sections (9) and (10) of Section 81 and of Part II. of the Second Schedule of the principal Act as excludes insured persons in Ireland from medical benefit and fixes the contributions payable by such insured persons shall cease to have effect and such other provisions in the principal Act as relate to the payment of contributions and the provision of medical benefit shall apply to insured persons in Ireland."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This Amendment asks the Committee to insert in the Act a provision which would bring Ireland within the scope of medical benefit. Members of the Committee will know that when this Act was being discussed in the House Ireland was exempted from the provisions of medical benefit on the ground that it had already a State medical service. That medical service, as I understand, is under the Poor Law with the taint of pauperism attaching to it. It works very well so far as the rural areas are concerned. I am quite aware that if we were to ask that Ireland, as a whole, should be placed under the Act for medical benefit, purposes it would involve an increase of the contributions of employers and workmen, particularly in the rural areas, and to that extent it would work very harshly in the case of people in receipt of very low wages; but the point has been brought to our

  3257
  attention by people in the large industrial areas of Ireland, particularly in the trade unions of Ireland, who feel very much the fact that they were cut out of the Act, and who have deputised my hon. Friends and myself to try and get them brought within the scope of the Act. They would, of course, be prepared to pay the extra cost involved. I know that this is a very thorny subject. I understand that a Committee was appointed by the Government to consider the matter, and they have come to a conclusion as to the way out of the difficulty without involving the whole of Ireland within the scope of the Act. It seems to me as an outsider pure and simple, and speaking only for the trade unionists, that it might be possible to meet the difficulty by including the six county borough areas of Ireland. That would embrace the great industrial centres like Belfast, Dublin, Cork, and Waterford, with certain areas outside, and I think that my hon. Friends and myself would be prepared to accept a compromise of that character. I beg to move the new Clause, however, for the purposes of discussion, and I hope that subsequently we shall arrive at a compromise on the lines I have suggested, and that the Amendment will be considered in that light.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I wish that my hon. Friend would not advance things for the purposes of discussion in this Committee, if, as I think he knows, they are impracticable in connection with the present situation. I have no wish to give any opinion as to whether medical treatment ought to be extended to Ireland or to any part of Ireland, because that is not the consideration I put before the Committee. A very important Departmental Committee was appointed to go into the whole question of medical benefit in Ireland, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons gave a pledge that no alteration should be made in the present law until not only the Committee had reported but the Report and the evidence had been in the hands of Members of the House of Commons for some appreciable time in order that they might be able to make up their minds on the matter. In these circumstances, it is quite impossible for me to go behind the pledge he made to the House of Commons, and I would submit that it would be better that the Committee should not spend much time on the discussion of this Amendment. If, as the result of the Report of the Committee and the reading of the evidence during the Recess, there is any general agreement that medical benefit ought to be extended either
  3258
  to Ireland or to any part of Ireland, I can assure the Committee that the Government will have no reluctance in bringing in legislation to that effect. Under those circumstances, I would urge that we should not go into any general discussion now as to Ireland and medical benefit.
  Mr. FORSTER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us something about the proceedings of the Committee to which he has referred? I know that some months ago they went to Ireland, and carried out investigations there, but surely their Report is considerably overdue. I forget how many months it is since they began their work, or since they visited Ireland, but really I should have thought that they would have had time to put their proposals into shape, seeing that they have not been taking evidence in Ireland for a very considerable time. I never liked the removal of Ireland from the general scope of the Insurance Bill while it was a Bill. I always thought that it would have been very much better if the whole scope of the provisions of the Bill had applied to Ireland. I think that the hon. Gentleman opposite has done good service in bringing this matter forward, and if he goes to a Division, I shall vote with him.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of this Bill has not seen his way to accept the proposal which has been made by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. O'Grady). I should just like to say that I do not think the statement of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) in regard to the Committee which was recently appointed was altogether justifiable. As far as I know, up to the present, the only charge that has been made against that Committee has been a charge that it was rushing its business.
  Mr. FORSTER: I never made any charge of rushing against the Committee.
  Mr. DEVLIN: No, the right hon. Gentleman made here precisely the opposite charge from that made in the House of Commons, namely, that we were not giving that placid and careful attention to all these proposals which is given, say, in a Committee of this character. In my opinion, there never was a Committee which did its work with more promptitude or with a greater desire to gather general knowledge for the solution of a problem. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware of the fact, but the Committee sent in their Report over a fortnight ago.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Where is it?
  Mr. DEVLIN: I do not know. It passed out of my hands when I signed it. I do not carry it about with me. All I know is that the Committee took evidence in all the great centres in Ireland, and the evidence was practically unanimously in favour of the application of medical benefits to the six county boroughs in Ireland. Evidence was taken from employers, from employed, from insured persons, from representatives of the various societies, from trade union bodies and from friendly organisations, and they were absolutely united in their demands for the application of medical benefit to the county boroughs. We were anxious to take evidence also in the agricultural parts of the country, but that would have been a gigantic task which would have occupied far more time than could possibly be given to it, and so completely did we feel the urgency of the problem as it affects the county boroughs, that our Report was not one dealing absolutely with the whole question, but with that part of Ireland which was clamorous in its demands for the application of medical benefit. Therefore, when my hon. Friend put down his Amendment, I thought that it might have been accepted by the Government.
  I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is bound by the promise given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons, and I should be very sorry to ask him to depart from that promise, but in view of the fact that the Opposition are so anxious to have the medical benefit applied to these six county boroughs, and that there is an opportunity, through this Bill, when it comes up on Report, to include the changed Amendment of my hon. Friend, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to make such representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as would enable him to take this part of the Report which recommends medical benefit, and have it put into the Bill, so that it could be accepted by the universal consent of all parties. I may say that at present Ireland is being robbed of £500,000 in connection with this matter. We are entitled to have 5s. for each insured person. That amounts to £100,000, and we have only received £50,000. We want this money for medical benefit. The cities of Belfast, Dublin, Cork and Waterford are clamouring for medical benefit, and I think that the Government ought to concede it. They have in rural Ireland a service of their own, with which I am by no means satisfied, and I would like
  3260
  to see it abolished altogether. It is a service which the people regard as putting upon them an indignity if they have to take advantage of it, but since the people are not pressing for the medical benefit, and seeing that we do not want to do anything against the will of the people, and that we only want it in those parts of Ireland which have demanded it, and pressed for it, I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to concede our demands.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot really interpret, unless I have some authority to do so, statements made by hon. Gentlemen opposite as releasing the Chancellor of the Exchequer from a pledge given to the whole House of Commons. I should be surprised if in this case they have even a right to speak for their party. I certainly could not accept the Amendment, and I must appeal to hon. Gentlemen to maintain that pledge. I learn that the Majority Report of the Committee was only received last Friday, and that the last of the various Minority's Notes was only received yesterday. It was, therefore, quite impossible for us to get the Report out before. The fact that there are Minority Notes shows that the solution of the question is by no means as simple as some hon. Members might think. I am quite sure that the only sane and reasonable course is to adopt the course the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated, and to allow Members of the whole House and persons in Ireland to see the whole Report and the evidence on which the Report is based, and then, if necessary, to legislate separately next session.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) has made a most important speech, and I think that my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee ought to take note of it. I, for one, am perfectly prepared to accept his assurance that the Committee were unanimously in favour of extending medical benefit to county boroughs in Ireland.
  Mr. DEVLIN: What. I stated was that the evidence from all sources was in favour of the medical benefit. I did not say the. Report was in favour of it.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: But the Report was strongly in favour of it. That being so, and, looking at the opinions we entertained last year, I am bound to say that I see no reason for rejecting this Amendment now. It is all very well to say we shall have another Amending Bill which may be passed next year or may not. Next year there will be

  3261
  great pressure of legislation and a good deal of noise downstairs, and no Amending Bill may come before the House at all. If it is true that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of this change, then I think, looking at the unanimity of the Irish members of the Committee on this point, the hon. Gentleman opposite would be well advised to press his Amendment to a Division before the Report stage. The evidence will have been published by the time of the Report stage, and if there is any reason for removing the Amendment it can be done then or in the House of Lords. Under these circumstances I think we ought to vote upon the Clause.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: I want to say that we did not regard this proposal as impracticable when we placed it on the Paper, nor did we put it down simply for the purpose of wasting the time of the Committee through the discussion that would ensue upon it. Very strong representations have been made to us by the organised labour bodies in Ireland. Of course, we are always fearful as to the extent to which these bodies may make representations, and, therefore, we are particularly glad now to be reinforced by the statement which has just been made by the hon. Member for West Belfast, which shows that there is a very strong and widespread demand for the extension of this benefit to Ireland. We always felt that it was a flaw in the original Act; nevertheless, in the absence of sufficient evidence we did not feel it was competent for us to take decisive action then upon the floor of the House. However, after we had been in touch with the various representative bodies in Ireland, and had heard their representations, we decided to place this new Clause on the Paper. I do not want to endeavour to force the right hon. Gentleman to break a pledge that has been given to the House. That is not the purpose of my hon Friends or myself. As I understand it, the Committee's Report may be published in the course of a few days; then we shall be in a position to judge the extent to which this benefit can practically be applied to Ireland. I apprehend that there are some difficulties respecting the agricultural parts of Ireland. I am certainly not in a position now to judge exactly how the benefit should be applied to Ireland. However, there seems to be unanimity as to the desirability of its being extended to certain large boroughs which, in my opinion, should include industrial areas. I think we shall serve our purpose best if we ask leave to withdraw now for the purpose of further considering the matter after this Report has been issued, and with a
  3262
  view to dealing with it upon the Report stage. We will then be in a position to decide the exact terms upon which we can submit the question for decision. Therefore,. I beg leave to withdraw for the purpose I have stated.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I cannot help commenting upon the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I want to say that, in moving this Amendment, and in suggesting an alteration of the Clause itself, I thought the matter was one for consideration and discussion. I will not, however, press my Amendment now. In view of what has been stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast, we will reserve our right to put this question down upon the. Report stage. I therefore beg leave to withdraw.
  Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN: Before we pass from this, I think we might ask the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to give an undertaking that the Government will not close their mind to the possibility of dealing with this matter on the Report stage after the Report of the. Committee has been laid before the House. May we take it from him that we are not now getting a final answer, and that this matter be dealt with in the present year?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot say, of course, how far such an Amendment would be in order on the Report. If it lays an extra charge, I doubt whether it would be in order. Anyhow, I do not think that the pledge which was given to the House, and which was given in response to an appeal from hon. Gentlemen on that side, could be broken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will make certain representations to him. I think it would be a mad course for the Committee at this moment, without having seen the Report—an absolutely irresponsible course, quite apart from the pledge to the right hon. Gentlemen—to try now and decide this, which involves perhaps twenty or thirty consequential Amendments, and gives a general extension of medical benefit to Ireland. That certainly ought not to be done on a stage like this of a Bill. I very earnestly hope that the Irish Members themselves may see their way to accept the withdrawal of the hon. Gentleman, guaranteeing, as I do, that if, during the Recess, I find there is a general feeling to give this benefit on the lines indicated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast, we will next year legislate on the subject.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Committee has just heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the

  3263
  Treasury that unless the Committee puts this in now it will not be competent to put it in upon Report; and the best the Government can promise is that they will try during the Recess to ascertain the feeling of other people in regard to it, and some time next year, or never, bring in another Amending Bill with a view to giving medical benefit in Ireland. Sir, I hope the hon. Member who moved this, and who apparently intended sincerely to ask the opinion of the Committee upon it—although the Financial Secretary did not give him credit for that, but accused him of having moved it only for the purpose of wasting time—will not withdraw if he really was sincere in bringing it forward. After the answer of the Financial Secretary I do not see how he can possibly withdraw it now. We have had the very interesting statement that Ireland now has come round to the opinion that medical benefit ought to be extended to it; or, at all events, to the county boroughs. I will deal with the difference between the county boroughs and the agricultural districts. The hon. Member who moved this was inclined to limit it to the county boroughs, although he did not actually do so in his Amendment. But the Committee should remember that the low paid labour in agricultural districts has already had provision made for it by a large reduction in contributions, and if the total benefit which is to be given in respect of those reduced contributions is taken into account, I do not think anyone can honestly contend there is any real difference in the ability to pay the contribution between the boroughs and the country districts, if the lower contribution payable in respect of the country districts is taken into account. I do ask the hon. Member, if he was sincere in bringing forward this Clause, to stick to it, and get the opinion of the Committee upon it now. It cannot be done on Report; and if the Government is genuine in its desire to meet the wishes of the Committee it will help the Government if this Committee has expressed itself strongly in favour of the medical benefit. I, for one, have never believed that it was desirable to cut up national insurance into four so-called national sections. I have never believed that it was right to cut out Ireland from medical benefit, if it was right to include the rest of the United Kingdom. It created an enormous difficulty in connection with transfers, with the Army and Navy Fund, and in many other ways, all of which are self-created difficulties arising from treating the various
  3264
  parts of the country differently. I hope now that the Committee has an opportunity of expressing its opinion that it will not allow it to go by.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: I only want to deal with the practical point affecting the Division. As I understand the situation, I think leave to withdraw has been asked and refused.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Question has not yet been put.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I am really very much surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Colchester. It is well known that when the original Bill was introduced medical benefit was given to Ireland, and at the request of the Nationalist Members it was withdrawn. It was done at their request, I think, because of the medical service in Ireland. During the discussion at the time it was understood that a Committee would be appointed to consider the whole matter. In this Amendment there is nothing about the six county boroughs. I ask the hon. Member for Mile End and also the hon. Member for Colchester are they prepared to legislate now upon the statements of one of the members of that Committee without having an opportunity of reading the Committee's Report? The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was attacked right and left this morning because he had not information to supply to the Committee. Now the hon. Member for Mile End complains that the Government are bringing in Amendments without furnishing the Committee with the necessary information. We have the hon. Member for Colchester actually asking us now to legislate upon this very important point after the Nationalist Members had asked the Government to withdraw the original provision in the Bill giving medical benefit, and also asking us to legislate without having the Report of the Committee before us.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Where is the Report?
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: You have heard the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill say that it was only received last Friday, and that the Minority Notes only came in yesterday. I think it is most unfair to us members of the Committee to decide an important point like this under such circumstances. If Ireland is agreed, we are all in favour of giving her medical benefit. There is no dispute at all upon that point. It is only a question of whether we should give it now, after the pledge that was given to the House of Commons, or deal with it later. I am

  3265
  really surprised after the demand that hon. Members opposite made that they should try to press this now.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think I should have pointed out that there are a variety of consequential Amendments that ought to be upon the Paper before this Clause is accepted. I have taken a cursory glance at the Act and there are several paragraphs in the original Act which ought to be repealed in order to make this new Clause in order. That is to say nothing of the three or four other points that are mentioned in the Clause itself. I can rule it out of order now, but I think it would be much better if we had the Clause withdrawn.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: We moved this Clause because we wanted to get a statement from the Government on the subject. We have got that statement. It is not quite so satisfactory as we should have liked it to be. It is not so satisfactory as my hon. Friends the Irish Members would have liked it to be. But this pledge apparently has been given. I am bound to confess that I knew nothing about it, and that this is the first time I have ever heard of it. But the pledge has been given. Well, we ask leave to withdraw. If that leave is refused, then we shall put our desire to withdraw the Clause into operation in voting, and we shall do it without the least fear or the least shrinking' Medical benefit must be extended to Ireland without any unnecessary delay. If my right hon. Friend says he cannot do it now, and says that this pledge is in existence, and that this Report has not been fully considered, well, I am prepared to say that those two reasons are valid ones, and if the Committee will be good enough to allow us to withdraw, well and good. If the Committee is not good enough to allow us to withdraw, very well, we shall simply take the action which is a necessary consequence of our not being allowed to withdraw.
  Mr. LYNCH: I want to say a very few words as representing an agricultural constituency in Ireland. I should be compelled on the general motive of this Clause to vote against it, and I think on the whole the Members representing agricultural constituencies in Ireland, who are in the great majority, would feel that the wisest course would be to have the Clause withdrawn, so that they could in a better manner subsequently deal with the whole question in all its details.
  Mr. GWYNNE: The hon. Member for Stockton pointed out that if we passed the
  3266
  Clause as it stands on the Paper, we should not be carrying out the recommendations of the Committee, but would include medical benefit for the whole of Ireland, whereas I understand from the hon. Member for West Belfast it would only include medical benefit for the county boroughs. If we include the Clause as it stands, there is nothing to prevent our cutting it down on Report stage, and if we cannot do it now, we should do it then. I think the right hon. Gentleman said fairly enough that he only received the Report either last night or the night before, and he has not had time to consider the responsibilities involved if he accepts it. If we put in this Clause and do not discuss it fairly, we will have it there and we, on this side, will understand that if we require to modify it, the right hon. Gentleman will let Members know what that Report contains. What is the good of having the report made at all if we are not to know what it contains? I am surprised that hon. Members from Ireland are not looking better after the interests of their country, especially the hon. Member for West Belfast. Would he like to see the Report pigeon-holed to some distant date for the want of making and effort now to get this Clause inserted? I should certainly object to the Clause being withdrawn. I think this is a case in which we might say of the Independent Labour party that they keep their Amendments on a string—"first they put them out and then they pull them in."
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: That statement is altogether untrue and unjustifiable.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I ask the hon. Member to say what is untrue.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: It may not be untrue, but it is exceedingly offensive to call it a "puppet on a string."
  Mr. GWYNNE: I did not say "a puppet on a string."
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member did not make a definite statement to that effect, but it may have appeared pretty clear what he meant.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I withdraw the adjective which I applied.
  Mr. LARDNER: The hon. Member for Eastbourne has been very impartial in his distribation of criticism to-day, and particularly about my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast in respect of his not looking after the interests of his constituents. That is another argument for Home Rule,

  3267
  because it shows the difficulty of the medical benefit question in Ireland. The difficulty of this question is at present as great as is the difference between the Highlands and the Lowlands, and if this is carried into effect it would lead to the greatest chaos and overlapping. The hon. Member for Colchester said that if medical benefit were introduced into the labouring districts the contributions would not be increased.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I did not say that.
  Mr. LARDNER: We are now talking about the rural districts. If medical benefits were introduced to-morrow into the rural districts in Ireland, the labourer would get the same service from the same doctor to whom at the present moment he objects. I respectfully submit that, having regard to the statement made by the Financial

  Division No. 14.]

  AYES.

  Baker, Sir Randolf

  Gwynne, Mr. Rupert

  Newton, Mr.

  Boyle, Mr. William

  Hall, Mr. Frederick (Dulwich)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Cassel, Mr.

  Mamilton, Mr.

  Tryon, Captain

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lawson, Mr. H.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Forster, Mr.

  Locker-Lampson, Mr. Godfrey

  Worthington-Evans, Mr.

  Goulding, Mr.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  NOES.

  Addison, Dr.

  Dickinson, Mr.

  Lynch, Mr.

  Ainsworth, Mr.

  Esmonde, Dr.

  Macnamara, Dr.

  Alden, Mr.

  Gwynn, Mr. Stephen

  Masterman, Mr.

  Beck, Mr.

  Harcourt, Mr. Robert

  Millar, Mr.

  Booth, Mr.

  Harvey, Mr. Edmund

  Pearce, Mr. William

  Boyle, Mr. Daniel

  Jones, Mr. Glyn-

  Roberts, Mr. Charles

  Carr-Gomm, Mr.

  Jones, Mr. Haydn

  Samuel, Mr. Jonathan

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Keating, Mr.

  Scott, Mr. MacCallum

  Dawes, Mr.

  Lardner, Mr.

  Wing, Mr.

  Devlin, Mr.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to Contribute Towards Expenses of Associations of Insurance Committees.)
  An Insurance Committee may pay out of the administration fund under their control as general expenses incurred by them in the execution of their duties under the National Insurance Act any sum, not exceeding ten pounds in any one year, as a subscription to the funds of any Association of Insurance Committees formed in Scotland or England or Wales whose objects are approved by the Insurance Commissioners, as well as any reasonable expenses of the attendances of representtatives, not exceeding in any case four, at meetings of such associations, on a scale to be approved by the Commissioners.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Secretary to the Treasury, the Report of the Committee might be considered. The magnitude of the problem can be better considered later, and it will be wiser to leave it until we come to deal with the whole question. We in Ireland are most anxious that in county boroughs and industrial areas medical benefit should be provided at the earliest possible moment; but the difficulty we are in is that we cannot apply medical benefit to the whole of Ireland without considering the wants of the rural districts; and I can tell the Committee that we would not settle that matter if the Committee were to sit for the next three weeks. I submit that in view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the course suggested should be followed.
  Question put, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 28.
  The new Clause which stands in my name has for its purpose the facilitating of the administration of the Act. It permits of the Insurance Committees meeting together from time to time in the course of the year. It is impossible for them under the Act to apply any funds for the purpose of paying this small contribution to meet the expenses of such meetings, and it is necessary to give them power to make a small contribution towards this purpose. I ask the Committee to accept the Clause in a form slightly altered from that in which it appears on the Paper, and I will read the Clause in the form in which I intend to move it:—
  "An Insurance Committee may pay"—I take out the words "out of the administration fund under their control"—and go, on "as general expenses incurred by them in the execution of their duties"—but leaving out the words "under the National Insurance Act" and continue "any sum,

  3269
  not exceeding ten pounds in any one year as a subscription to the fund of any association of Insurance Committees"—then I leave out the words "formed in Scotland or England or Wales," and continue "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."
  I hope that this new Clause will commend itself to the Committee, because we have already had useful experience of the meeting together of similar bodies in school-board associations and in county council associations. In Scotland we have had special Acts passed to enable county councils and burgh councils to defray the expense of meetings held for considering questions which are of common interest. I submit to the Committee that there is a very strong case here for the various Insurance Committees at the earliest moment seeking to standardise their methods of administration, and having an opportunity of discussing together the various problems of interest which require to be solved at the commencement of the Act. It will be a great advantage to the whole country if these Insurance Committees can meet two or three times in the course of the year, and if funds can be made available for their purpose. I move the Clause in the form on the Paper as slightly altered, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept it in that form.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as modified, be read a second time."
  Mr. AINSWORTH: I should like to say before you put the Question that there are remote counties of Scotland where it is not too easy to hold meetings of Insurance Committees, and also that the expenses of committee meetings are decidedly serious. It will be highly desirable that all the Insurance Committees in Scotland should be able not only to meet themselves, but to assist those who are under more difficult circumstances to meet whenever the public services require. The object of my hon. Friend's proposal is to make the charge a more or less general one for the whole of Scotland. I have great pleasure in supporting the proposal, and I think I can assure the Committee that it will also have the support of the Insurance Committees in Scotland.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: I do not wish to waste time if the Amendment is going to be accepted. It is not a particularly Scottish question, but already Scotland is in
  3270
  advance, and ha formed an association for this purpose. Very useful work is done by similar societies such as the Convention of the Royal Burghs and the Association of School Boards, and I think we should not be in error in allowing a small subscription to be given for this purpose. We are justified in saying that there will be universal support to this concession in Scotland.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I cannot support the new Clause. It is quite true that in Scotland an association of this kind has been established and there is also the Convention of the Royal Burghs and the Association of School Boards, but the expenses are not defrayed in this case from the ratepayers but from the taxpayers. In the other case the expenses come from the funds of the burghs and they are responsible for it. These associations include the school boards and there have been various other conferences, but I think they have cost a great deal more money than they have been worth from a public point of view. [An HON MEMBER: "In the Royal burghs there is an option."] As a rule, certainly; but this has never been adopted for England. It is perfectly unnecessary and would leave the way open to a large and dangerous expense. At all events, surely it is fair to allow some more experience of the working of the Act before we go to this expense, which may be very considerable! It is unlimited in regard to expenses. Although the Amendment says the subscriptions shall not exceed £10 in any one year, it goes on to provide for what are called "any reasonable expenses of the attendance of representatives." All that is included. The School Board Association has meant a very considerable expense which, in my opinion, has not been repaid by the amount of good it does.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend who has just spoken is really troubling himself quite unnecessarily. This is only a permissive power to those good people. It is quite true that the funds are limited, and I can quite understand why, as a Scotch Member, he should desire to husband them very carefully. The proposition comes from Scottish Members mainly, and we have had at least three representations already to that effect. Certainly the Scottish Members wish to have it. We have had conferences summoned by the Commissioners in connection with the administration of benefits by the Insurance Committees, and in that case the expenses of the representatives are charged against the fund; beyond that we have these other conferences which have been referred to.

  3271
  Municipal boroughs already have power to confer upon those lines. The school boards have power to hold conferences, and to provide for the attendance of their representatives. I believe that I myself acted as representative more than once in the case of the London School Board in the time of my membership, and certain county councils have also got powers. I think when we are bringing into force this great experiment of intervention in the social life of the people, that great good would probably accrue from the comparison of opinion and the varying experience of these Insurance Committees, and that it would be desirable to spend up to £10 a year upon it.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Personal expenses?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, but £10 is the general contribution. I think we will spend the money wisely by taking part in those conferences, and that it would be for the benefit of the insured person. We should find the result of these conferences would be all to the good, and therefore I accept the proposal in the form proposed.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I have put down a similar Amendment further on on the Paper at the request of several of the County Committees. It is quite true, as the last speaker stated, that a very large number of the county councils have power to form associations. The municipalities have also the power, and so also have the education committees. I should like to point out that the approved societies have their own conferences with a view to discussing the working of this Act, and I think it is only fair that the County Committees should be allowed to form an association so as to endeavour to bring about uniformity with regard to the working and the administration of the benefits of the Act. Therefore I am glad that the Government propose to accept the Clause.
  Mr. FORSTER: I do not believe the association will do very much good, as I do not think that such meetings are really needed. It is quite possible to exchange views and to secure uniformity of administration through the medium of the Insurance Commissioners. The money which will be spent is not very large, but it might be put to far better use. I would very much better like to see it made a contribution to hospitals, or some other useful work. As the money is not great, and as there is no very great vital objection to these Insurance Committees meeting together if they wish, I do not think it is necessary to resist the Clause.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not think anyone can suggest that there is any demand for this. I have been all over the country meeting many members of these Insurance Committees and I have never heard of it from them. I have interviewed these members of Insurance Committees and they have had meetings but they have not asked for this. I should think it would be much better if it was brought forward voluntarily rather than as a suggestion from headquarters. If they themselves formed their association then would be the time to consider it. The district councils, the county councils and boards of guardians have certain conferences but in that case they have all the same point of view. But these committees are composed of various constituent parts representing the friendly orders, the trades unions, the other societies, doctors, women, and so on, and if they went to a conference, they would go, I think, to represent their own particular point of view. I do not think we ought to pass this proposal to-day, although it might be necessary if there was a general demand later. I think we should spend our time discussing some amendments which the insured persons want. This is really a waste of time.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption during Harvest Time)
  "Farmers and members of the families of farmers employed in assisting neighbouring farmers temporarily in time of harvest shall be exempted from the provisions of Part I. of the principal Act."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. BATHURST: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  It is in the interest of those who follow a custom which is widely prevalent in the North of England whereby small farmers and their families help each other, especially when they are short of labour, and those who so mutually give their assistance as neighbours naturally desire that when they take that course they should not be treated as ordinary employed contributors. On the face of it it is a reasonable appeal, and I cannot imagine that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) will have any reason for not accepting it. These persons do not belong to what is vulgarly called the working class. They simply give at exceptional times temporary assistance, and because they happen to do that and to receive some honorarium in partial remuneration for such labour, it would be

  3273
  clearly unnecessary and illogical to treat them as employed contributors and insist upon the provisions of the Act being applied to them.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I thought I explained yesterday and had fully satisfied the Member for Wilton who has just spoken that this Clause is covered by a more general Clause to which I referred yesterday which is in the name of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Alden). He proposes to exempt persons who are ordinarily and mainly dependent for their livelihood on earnings derived by them from an occupation which is not employment, within the meaning of this Act. Ordinary farming is not compulsory as an insurable occupation, and therefore a person who is engaged in farming as his ordinary occupation is not all employed person within the meaning of the Act. The object of the hon. Member would be reached by the new Clause later on, and I hope he will withdraw in favour of it.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether under this other Clause it will be necessary to get a certificate of exemption?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, and so also it SN ill under this new Clause.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I should have thought not. That is the difference which applies to the other Clause. The proposal of the Member for Wilton does not require a certificate of exemption at all. Ipso facto the exemption will exist. They would not be employed people, and could never be brought under the Act.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No, no.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If he will read the Clause he will see that it says that farmers and members of the families of farmers employed in assisting neighbouring, farmers temporarily in time of harvest shall be exempted from the provision of Part I. of the principal Act. There is nothing there to say they shall be exempted by the Commissioners or that they shall apply for a certificate. It states they shall be exempted and shall not come under the provisions of the Act at all. The other Clause is a totally different affair. It simply provides still another ground for a certificate of exemption. In the nature of the case the farmer does not know whether he is going to be called in to help another or not. It may be an extraordinarily heavy hay crop, and ordinary labour may be scarce, as it is this year, and a neighbour may be asked to lend a hand. My hon. Friend wants to give him protection. Otherwise under the provisions of the new
  3274
  Clause of the hon. Member for Tottenham what has got to be done? A farmer who is asked to lend a hand to a neighbour will say, "I must apply to the Insurance Commissioners first to get a certificate of exemption." That is not practical business. If any remuneration is given there will be a contract of service, a deduction will have to be made from the wages, and a stamp put upon the card. An hon. Member shakes his head.
  Mr. ALDEN: It would only be temporary employment.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am bound to assume that there would be a contract of service. There would be some payment and in that case a stamp would have to be fixed. I think the right hon. Gentleman may just as well accept this Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: As we have only a minute to go, I want to make an announcement, if the hon. Gentleman would not mind continuing his observations to-morrow. I think the Committee will realise that if we are to get the Bill this week, I must make an appeal to the Committee to make some special effort during the next two days. It is beyond all things undesirable to continue late next Friday, and, therefore, I shall tomorrow apply to be allowed to continue these sittings, notwithstanding the sitting of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Unless we do that, I do not think there is any chance of getting the Bill this week.
  Mr. FORSTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is his proposal Is it intended to sit from 11.30 in the morning until 10 or 11 o'clock at night?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no intention of trying to brutalise things through. I mean that we should have a little longer time for debate, so that we may get the Bill through.
  Mr. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman put a limit on?
  The CHAIRMAN: Members will see that it would have been an advantage to-day if we I had a little more time to finish this Clause.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: There is a certain draft of a Clause dealing with societies who have members in several countries. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some notice and place it upon the Paper, so that we may put down Amendments if we desire to do so?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think I may have the Clause ready to-morrow.
  The Committee adjourned at 4.0 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. to-morrow (Wednesday.)

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  [Mr. J. W. WILSON in the Chair.]
SEVENTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.
Bill further considered.
SEVENTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption during Harvest Time.)
  "Farmers and members of the families of farmers employed in assisting neighbouring farmers temporarily in time of harvest shall be exempted from the provisions of Part I. of the principal Act."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made [Tuesday, 29th July], "That the Clause be read a second time."—[Mr. Charles Bathurst.]
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think I was in possession when we adjourned yesterday on this question, and I hope the Government are going to meet us on the matter. I do not want to go over any argument already put before the Committee, but there seems to be some question whether this word "exemption" ought not to be "exception." If the Committee will accept the word "exception," it will meet my hon. Friend's point, and will do away with certificates of exemption. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will accept that suggestion.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I feel great difficulty in the Clause as it stands, and I think the Mover does also. You are dealing with neighbouring farmers and relations of farmers, and I could not do anything that would lead to casual labour. I have had some communication with the hon. Member for Wilton, and he is prepared to bring a deputation to me on the subject. If that is so, I will see if there is a possibility—although I cannot make any promise—of meeting the point with which we have to deal with without any objections to the particular Clause.
  Mr. BATHURST: I should like to say at once that I was wholly unaware when I had a conversation last night with a gentleman from the Insurance Commission that I was, in a sense, negotiating with the right hon. Gentleman, and I did not expect what passed between us would have been quoted this morning. I think there are difficulties, but I think they would be largely removed if the word "exception" is substituted for "exemption."
  It was quite an oversight that the word "exemption" appeared at all, and if words are added after "the families of farmers" to show that they are not otherwise insured persons, that would put it right. As regards vagueness, I should like to say that there are a good many of these paragraphs under the head of exceptions in Part II. of the First Schedule which are couched in very much vaguer language than this new Clause. I am not quite sure that a deputation to the right hon. Gentleman is going to do what is required, but I think the Committee will admit that this is a case which ought to be exempted or excepted from the provisions of the Act. It is more a question of how the Commissioners will deal with the matter rather than what the right hon. Gentleman himself can do by receiving a deputation. All the deputation could say is what I can tell him to-day, and that is that here is a case which requires treatment; and we must leave it to him to see how it can be best dealt with, without leaving any gaps through which persons who ought to be insured persons may slip. I may illustrate the importance of the case by telling the right hon. Gentleman of the custom of receiving forecasts. It is becoming a very common custom in all parts of England; and it is quite conceivable that when hay is lying about the fields a message may be received from the Post Office on the following day that heavy weather is expected, which may be expected to last for a considerable time, and a farmer will ask his neighbours to join with him in getting his hay crop in as soon as he can; and the same would apply to the corn harvest. The case is a very strong one, and it rests with the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers to find a way out of this difficulty. It is a case that requires treatment. There ought to be a way of meeting the difficulty, and I leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to find some way out of it and to bring us something on Report to meet this case. I have made those remarks with the object of eliciting further assurances from the

  3277
  right hon. Gentleman that he will on Report meet our views without a deputation, which I think will result in nothing very much.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am sorry if I betrayed what I ought not to have done, but we will see if we can meet these very special cases that the hon. Gentleman mentions. No one of course wants a man to come into insurance for three days when he is not doing any work for the rest of the year, but we must not give preference to casual labourers. I will see if anything can be done.
  Mr. BATHURST: In those circumstances, and with that assurance, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
  Proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Societies having 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 three 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 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
  3278
  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

  3279
  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.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This is the Amendment which has already been circulated to the Committee, and which I have now put on the Paper. The Committee have had the Amendment and a memorandum upon it, and I do not think they will require any long explanation from me concerning it. It has been generally welcomed by the societies which are affected, and I have no doubt it will make a very great difference and improvement in their accounting arrangements. Practically, we do three things—first of all, small societies which have stray members in other countries in which they are registered will no longer have to count those stray members for a separate society. In the Bill as it stands, if a Welsh society has four members in London, those four members have to constitute a separate society. My Amendment puts those societies on the same basis as a London society having stray members in Norfolk. They will still count as stray members of the Welsh societies, and their sickness benefit and other benefits will be dealt with by the Welsh society. The second point deals with international societies and arrangements—that international societies shall all count as one society. They shall be valued together, their surpluses and deficiencies shall be reckoned among that society alone, and not in any degree pooled with any other society. They will transcend the limitations of the four nations. Each Insurance Fund will form the banking account for those societies. Sickness benefit will be paid out from those banking accounts, and contributions will be paid in to those banking accounts. Adjustments where neces-
  3280
  sary owing to migration—where persons leave their reserve values behind in the country from which they have moved—will be made at the time of valuation after the calculations have been made at what will normally be a three-years period. There is only one limitation I am suggesting, namely, that an option should be given to, those members or branches of an approved society which remain in one country, that they may be able to count themselves for accounting purposes as a separate society in that country. Supposing, for example, there is an approved society which is international in character, but which has a large number of its members in England and a certain number in Scotland, and those Scottish members wish to remain for accounting purposes as Scottish rather than as belonging to their own society; and supposing national considerations prevail over international considerations, in that case we give them three months to exercise the option, and, if they exercise that option, then they will remain as dealing entirely in their accounts with Scotland, just as if they were a local Scottish society.
  The third change enables us to make migration from all the four countries possible without adjustment of transfer values. That is the change which readjusts the Irish transfer values so as to deal with the very tiny amounts of those values which make them differ from the English reserve values. These amounts are entirely due to the absence of medical benefit in Ireland, and are entirely in respect of the possibility of medical benefit being given to persons over seventy years of age in Ireland. They represent something like twopence a year, a very tiny amount indeed. If the present system remains they would go into the ordinary profit of the Irish approved societies. We propose that these amounts, representing twopence a year, shall be accumulated, and ultimately emerge in profit when members of Irish societies pass over the age of seventy. If, therefore, medical benefit is extended to Ireland, as apparently is the wish of a large number of members of this Committee of all parties, then medical benefit will extend to Ireland up to the full age of the person, and it will not be limited to seventy. These amounts will then be credited in the Irish Insurance Fund for the extension of medical benefits over seventy. By adjustment we put all four countries on a level so far as transfer values are concerned. A man may move

  3281
  from the Clyde to Belfast a dozen times a year. At present a society has to make an adjustment of transfer value in every case of such movement. Under the system we propose there will be no need to have any readjustment of transfer value at all, and there will be no more difficulty in removing from the Clyde to Belfast than from London to Plymouth. It will mean an enormous reduction in the present work of the approved societies. There will be no need to account to the four Commissions with regard to transfer values. All international societies will be valued as one society instead of as four societies, and in the matter of accounting there will be practically no difference between a trade union that has a branch in London and another in Belfast and a trade union which has a branch in London and another in Liverpool. The scheme has been worked out with very great care, and a great deal of time has been spent upon it in discussion with many representatives of approved societies. If the Committee are willing to accept it, they will find it will be a very great benefit in the practical working of the Act.
  Mr. GOULDING: The right hon. Gentleman has attempted to deal with a most difficult and complicated question and one that has exercised the anxious attention of the approved societies throughout the length and breadth of the country. I am sorry to say that the right hon. Gentleman has only adopted a half-way house. He undoubtedly attempts to grapple with all the interminable difficulties from which we have suffered in the past as regards valuation, but if I take it aright all the difficulties of which we have complained in reference to book-keeping, and in reference to the four Commissions are still to remain, simply because the right hon. Gentleman will not face the situation. The upkeep of these four Commissions is a ghastly mistake. It entails enormous expenditure. The situation would have been more rightly dealt with by facing the question and simply abolishing the present position. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I had an Amendment to Clause 10 dealing with this specific question. In that. Amendment I proposed that all these international societies should straightway be put under the Joint Committee and be responsible only to that Joint Committee, or, failing that, that they should be responsible to the country in which the society has its, registered office. I really cannot say that, in spite of very close
  3282
  attention, I see clearly what all this long Clause entails. It seems to me it will take a great deal of working and experimenting upon before it is properly understood. I am faced with the fact that it is a halfway house and that it will not settle the difficulty, and I believe that eventually the right hon. Gentleman will have to come back to what is desired, namely, a jointure of all these Commissions, and the work placed under one department. The right hon. Gentleman gets rid of the entity difficulty. I am making no excuse for my non-appreciation of this matter, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman plainly how is this Clause going to deal with the great difficulty of book-keeping, and the great difficulty of contrary regulations from four different Commissions, and how is it going to relieve the officials of the great approved societies from this mass of detail work which prevents them from applying themselves to the administration of the Act in their particular cases? May I take a specific case as regards numbers, and explain to the right hon. Gentleman how I find the thing works to-day, and then ask him, Will his Amendment as regards valuation affect this case, or will it be dealt with by administration? I take the case of an approved society of 70,000 members; 65,000 are resident in England, 3,000 are resident in Wales, 1,500 are resident in Scotland, and 500 are resident in Ireland. If £1,000 is to be applied from the Commissioners for that particular society, with its different constituent parts spread about in the different countries, an enormous amount of book-keeping and contra accounts is entailed. That £1,000 has to be applied by the different Commissions in proportion to the members in the constituent parts resident under their particular authority. In this case there would be £50 from Wales, £25 from Scotland, £8 from Ireland, and the balance from England, where the greater number of the constituent parts of the society are resident. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, Does his Clause attempt to deal with the perplexities which will arise in a case of that kind? My own opinion is that the more one looks into this question it becomes perfectly clear that the right thing is to say that all these international societies should be placed under a Joint Committee for all the countries, that they should only be responsible to one set of authorities, that there should be no variety in the regulations issued from time to time, and that by these means we should do away with some of the chaos that exists

  3283
  to-day. I do not believe that, this Clause, as I understand it, will effect the object we all have in view. We all know that these things are handicapping the work of the approved societies more than anything else.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I quite recognise that from the standpoint of the international societies this is not only an important Clause, but probably one of the most important Clauses that could be proposed in connection with this Bill. After having carefully gone into the application of this Clause as it relates to a large number of its members, I most certainly do not agree with the last speaker that no attempt has been made to meet the real difficulty.
  Mr. GOULDING: I did not say that. On the contrary, I said the right hon. Gentleman had met the difficulty as regards valuation, but not as regards administration.
  Mr. THOMAS: I think that when we discussed the Clause last, I pointed out the real difficulties of tile societies. We upon these benches have been opposed to the four Commissions, but not because we did not recognise that there were local and national needs that might be dealt with from a national standpoint. I do not think any hon. Member in any part of the Committee who has had any experience of local societies can do other than say that the separate Commissions have done well for local societies. It is no use, under the guise of attacking the four Commissions, mixing up an international society with a national society. From the standpoint of the national society there is absolutely no complaint. Therefore, it is only fair, when we are discussing this Clause, which primarily relates to international societies and not to national societies, that we should clearly differentiate between them. I am satisfied that the international society is treated as one entity for valuation purposes. That is one of the most important points. It is the point that has been agitating the minds of the whole of the societies. As I have pointed out, we have societies with over 5,000 members in England, Scotland and Wales, but because we have not 5,000 in Ireland we have had to group with someone else. That is got over in this Clause, and it is, therefore, clearly an advantage to the societies. With regard to transfer values, here again it is useless for the hon. Member to say
  3284
  that that difficulty is not got over. I am persuaded that not only as it reads, but in its intentions as well, the Clause gets over the difficulty of the transfer values going from one country to another. But there is the difficulty outlined by the hon. Member, that of the four Commissions remaining.
  Four applications must be made, and the point I want a further explanation upon is this: If the society is relieved from keeping four separate accounts, as is alleged in the Memorandum, and they have to make four separate applications to four separate Commissions, they must have data to work upon, and they can only have that data by keeping four separate accounts. I should like the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to tell us clearly how we stand in this respect. The international societies are now called upon to keep four separate accounts, and, in making an application for money, they have to give an estimate for Scotland, England, Ireland, and Wales. How are they to give that estimate unless they keep four separate accounts? I submit it is useless to say that this Clause gets over the keeping of four separate accounts. It does nothing of the kind, and unless that point is met there will still remain one of the great difficulties that we have to contend with. It appears to me that the difficulty might be got over by a kind of clearing house. Let the adjustments he made by the Commissioners themselves, and instead of having four separate payments for England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, let the societies, so far as their estimate of income and expenditure is concerned, treat the society as a whole, and let the adjustments be made by the Commissioners themselves. In any case, I am perfectly certain it is useless to pretend that as matters stand at present, you need not keep four separate accounts under this Clause. I maintain that you are bound to do it or you could not give effect to the Clause. Having carefully considered the Clause, that appears to me to be the most fatal objection to it. Certainly, we require to have further information about it. However, having considered the effect of the Clause upon the international societies, I think it goes a long way to meet their difficulty, but it does not go sufficiently far, and it certainly needs some alteration, if it is possible to get it, to meet this point. I do think that we ought to recognise the difficulty—short of abolishing the Coinmissions—the absolute difficulty of dealing

  3285
  with the situation. I do say that a real, genuine attempt is made in this Clause to meet it, and if the right hon. Gentleman will give us a further explanation upon that point, I think it will go a long way to meet the difficulty we have experienced.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary will treat very seriously the remarks of the hon. Member for Derby, because he knows full well—
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Why do you say so?
  Mr. GWYNNE: I will tell you why. He knows full well that when one of the members of the Labour party speaks out in that way, it does not mean very much. I do not wish to stir up again the indignation—
  Mr. THOMAS: On a point of Order. I desire to ask your ruling upon the statement just made by the hon. Member. I spoke from practical experience, and whether that is not worth more to the societies than what is said by those who only speak what they are told. I will leave the Committee to judge.
  The CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the hon. Member. I was engaged with another matter at the time, but, as far as I understand it, it is hardly a point of Order.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I do not think that the taunt was unjustified, when we see day by day hon. Members opposite proposing Amendments and speaking strongly in favour of them, and then withdrawing them or not voting for them when we take them to a Division.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the point before the Committee. It does conduce to the good conduct of the business if that is done. We have always avoided personal attacks in Committee. Will the hon. Member, therefore, kindly stick to the point of the Amendment.
  Mr. GWYNNE: It is not a personal attack on an individual Member. It is merely the attitude and the relation of the whole party. I think I am justified in saying this sort of action does remind one of the nursery rhyme, "The King of France"—
  The CHAIRMAN: It is quite feasible to bring up such a matter in the House during a general attack on the Bill, but it cannot be brought up here on every successive Amendment. It is clearly out of order.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I do not wish to argue with you upon a point of Order, because I do not think it is a point of Order. I think I am justified in commenting upon the remarks of an hon. Member when I follow him.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's remarks were of a general character.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I was speaking first of the hon. Member's attitude, and I was pulled up before I had finished what I wanted to say. I do not think I had gone far enough for anyone to be able to say whether my remarks were general or particular. I think it is really wasting the time of the Committee when hon. Members opposite get up and make a strong stand upon any matter and then run away. If they mean to accept this—and it is quite obvious they will do so if they are told to accept it by the right hon. Gentleman—do not let us waste the time of the Committee. We have put Amendments down which we would like to discuss, and which we do not intend to run away from. I do, however, agree with one thing said by the hon. Member for Derby, and that is, that this is one of the most important Clauses of the Bill. I think it is unfortunate that it has been drafted in such a way. It is extremely complicated, and somewhat difficult to follow, but surely it is out of place to talk of this as an International Clause It is all right to talk about England and Wales from an international point of view if you are discussing a football match, but to make these distinctions in regard to administration seems to me rather a misuse of terms.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: They are administered differently now.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Really, the hon. Member will, if he gets up, be called upon by the Chairman. He seems to make it his business to keep up a running comment upon my remarks. I am discussing the matter quite seriously, and I wish to deal with the observations made by the hon. Member opposite; but, whenever I try to do so, I am interrupted or stopped. That is not the way to get on with the work of the Committee, but I do not mean to be put down by foolish observations. If this Clause does not meet what the hon. Member opposite says is one of the main

  3287
  difficulties, namely, the question of keeping the accounts, then I do contend that the hon. Member opposite is justified in pressing the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to give us some explanation why he has not got over the difficulty if he really wishes to meet it, and what he intends to do to put the matter right.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I desire to say that I think the suggested new Clause is one of extreme importance to Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman, in moving it, referred to the possibility that insured persons in Scotland might desire to treat this as a national rather than as an international question; but I think when he said that he rather missed the point. It is not merely a national question; it is a question of the best terms—of pounds, shillings and pence—and it is my belief that by this Clause in its present form Scotland stands to lose very heavily and seriously. It is the case that more than half of the insured persons in Scotland belong to international societies which are centralised and have their headquarters out of Scotland. Now these members at present have the benefit of a separate accountancy in Scotland. They are treated as separate societies for the purpose of surplus and deficit, and if the Act is administered in Scotland by the local societies and officials in such a way as to give a surplus, or if they manage the funds more thriftily in Scotland, they get the benefit of it. I believe it can be shown, from the experience of the various societies so far accumulated, that at present the sickness rate in Scotland is very much lower than it is in either Wales or Ireland. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, when the original Act was being discussed in the House, estimated that in England the sickness rate would be about the average, and that in Scotland it would be below the average, whereas in Ireland and in Wales the sickness rate would be above the average. I think the experience of the societies has justified that estimate. Now, by this Clause, the majority of insured persons in Scotland who are, as a matter of fact, members of centralised societies, having their headquarters in England, and who at present enjoy the benefit of being treated as separate societies, will be treated as if they belong to one society having its headquarters in England, and they will lose the benefit of their low sick-
  3288
  ness rate. Consequently, there will be a drain upon the funds of the Scottish members to meet the extra sickness rate in Ireland and in Wales. We in Scotland stand to lose very considerably by it. I submit that we ought to have any advantage that we have under the present system—the advantage of national habits and national characteristics. We ought to be allowed to retain that advantage.
  There is a certain provision in the Clause as it stands—a certain vague and illusory provision—for allowing the Scottish insured persons to retain that advantage if they shall express their desire to do so; but that is in the Second Clause of this Section. I will put down an Amendment later dealing with that, and will discuss it then. I want to protest now against bringing forward the whole Clause to-day. At the end of proceedings yesterday, I asked a question of my right hon. Friend. It is true that this Clause has been circulated for some days, though it has not been upon the Paper. As, however, it has been privately circulated amongst Members, we have had the advantage of seeing it. Having seen it, I was anxious to put down some Amendments, so yesterday, at the end of the proceedings, I asked my right hon. Friend this, "Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some notice and put it on the Paper, so that we may put down Amendments if we desire to do so?" Now, to-day, the Clause appears upon the Paper for the first time. If I had put down the Amendments which I desired to put down, they would have been very extensive, and it would not have been fair to the right hon. Gentleman to put down these Amendments, involving very considerable and extensive alterations, and to hand them in verbally. My object was to have them circulated with the Papers, so that they might have been considered and judged upon their merits. I recognise that it is hopeless to do that now I will, therefore, content myself with making this protest, and at a later stage, when we come to the Amendments, I will move some particular Amendments which I think may modify it.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: The hon. Member who has just spoken has stated that it is not a national concern but a question of pounds, shillings, and pence. One is not altogether surprised at his taking that view. May I remind him that there is such a country as England, and that most of the international societies—I think I

  3289
  may say the majority of them—have their headquarters in England. This is a question which very closely affects the members of those societies. I most heartily support the new Clause as drafted by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury, and say that nothing will give greater satisfaction to the trade unions, not only of England but, I believe, of Scotland also, than the passage of a Clause of this kind. I do hope the hon. Member is not going to press his objection, but will rather support the Clause.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I only want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. He may have dealt with the matter in his previous remarks, and I may have missed the point. The fourth Sub-section, for the purposes of this provision, begins:—
  "Membership of the society means the admission to membership, whether for the purpose of Part 1 of the principal Act, or for any purposes of the society."
  I want to ask whether the new Clause that he is bringing in is going to affect the voluntary side of approved societies, which has been very much affected by the National Insurance Act, and if something is not done they will probably disappear altogether? I should also like to know what the right hon. Gentleman means by the words "or for any other purposes of the society," and whether that refers to the voluntary work of approved societies?
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I should like to associate myself with the protest which the hon. Member (Mr. MacCallum Scott) has made in regard to the effect of this Clause upon Scotland. It is extremely desirable that in a matter of this importance we should have an opportunity of putting down our Amendments on the Paper, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will keep this in view, that if we have not got an adequate discussion to-day and an adequate opportunity of dealing with Amendments relating to Scotland the Scottish Members at any rate will hold themselves perfectly free to raise any question they think fit on Report. It is extremely desirable that the proviso in the first Sub-section of the Clause should be altered to give effect to the views which the hon. Member has already expressed, and that it should be left in the power of the Commissioner for Scotland, instead of the Joint Committee, to deal with the representations which the different members of societies representing other
  3290
  parts of the United Kingdom may think fit to make. I should like also to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the three months' notice which is referred to in that proviso is totally inadequate to deal with the situation, and that it is necessary to afford to members of societies an opportunity at least before each valuation to reconsider their position. I hope he will keep these points in view and will be prepared to meet us upon the Amendment which the hon. Member intends to propose and which I propose to support.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think the Committee is in rather a difficult position with this Clause. After all, it is put forward as the second best. I still believe that the right way is to abolish the Commissions as Commissions and leave them as delegated bodies of the Joint Committee to carry out the local administration. We have put that to the vote, and I regret to say that Members of the Independent Labour party did not support us on that occasion. The hon. Member (Mr. Thomas) rather took exception to some remarks of my hon. Friend (Mr. Rupert Gwynne) when he moved his new Clause to abolish the Commissions altogether. He supported it in a very strong and able speech, and he showed that all the large societies, trade Anion and industrial societies as well, all supported hint, and then, when the Secretary to the Treasury said he was going to produce this new Clause, the hon. Member said, "Our object having been achieved, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment." No doubt he thought his object had been achieved, but when he comes to consider the new Clause in cold blood, the first thing he does is to call attention to a very important omission in the new Clause. I thoroughly agree with him that although this new Clause goes some way towards meeting the situation it undoubtedly does not go far enough. It seems to me, as far as I can gather, to fully meet one point—the question of grouping. International societies now are not to have their smaller branches grouped with other societies, but they can be grouped with the head offices. That is an advantage. The next point he dealt with was that the transfer value difficulty had been got over. I invite the Committee to consider how that has been got over, at what cost, and whether that is the right way to get over it. There are in Ireland nearly 700,000 insured persons and the transfer value difficulty has been got over by giving them an increased reserve value—

  3291
  a reserve value not in accordance with the contribution that they pay, not in accordance with what is required for the benefits that they get, but, in accordance with the English, Scotch and Welsh practice, by a larger payment for a larger benefit. The right hon. Gentleman brought this Clause in and never told the Committee a word about the cost that is going to be incurred. I do not think that is treating the Committee quite fairly. The Committee ought to be told what different Amendments are going to cost. If we propose an Amendment which costs £10,000 the right hon. Gentleman holds up his hands and says, "We cannot have it; it will cost £10,000." He brings in one on his own account to get out of a self-created difficulty, and he does not tell us about the cost.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It will not cost a farthing.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is worth accepting that challenge and seeing whether the right hon. Gentleman is right. There are 700,000 insured people in Ireland and the difference between the reserve value of a man, say, between forty and forty-one, is 6s., so that if all the 700,000 people were of the age of forty there would in a cost of something like £200,000 in additional reserve values given to the Irish for the purpose of getting over the transfer difficulty. The difference at sixty is 17s., so if all the insured people were sixty the cost of the Amendment would be very much larger. I do not know what the age distribution of the Irish insured people is and it would be impossible in the short time that we have had to consider this Clause to make any calculation of what the actual total addition to the reserve value is, but when the right hon. Gentleman says it costs nothing I hope he will show how it costs nothing and say whether or no I am not right that a very large increase in reserve values is being given to the Irish people. As I understand, the difficulty of the transfer was that the reserve values of Irish and English insured people were different and that when a man being insured, say, in Glasgow, went to Belfast, a different reserve value being attached to him, a different transfer value had to be credited and debited each time he left or came back to one or other of the countries. It is to get over that difficulty, as I understand it, that the reserve value is to be made equal. I do not think there is any doubt about the reserve values being
  3292
  different now. It is due, of course, to medical benefit, and the right hon. Gentleman even admitted, in his opening speech, that it is equal to 2d. a year. The aggregate of this 2d., according to the Blue Book, is the figure I have stated. If that is the cost, and I believe it is right, we ought to consider whether at a lower cost this difficulty could not be got over and whether there are any other alternative methods.
  This does not meet the whole point. Four approvals and four sets of books and accounts are still necessary. I do not mean necessarily that individual accounts have to be kept, but certainly accounts have to be kept with the various Commissions for the purpose of advances from the Commission for benefits and administration expenses in the various countries and for reimbursements of expenditure already made which have to be taken up by the Commissions. The hon. Member (Mr. Thomas) said he hoped this could be met by setting up some clearing house, but that desire to set up a clearing house really amounts to this: If we do not have a clearing house, the international societies have to do this work for themselves. If we do have a clearing house, we shall shift the work on to the Commissioners and let them do it. It does not mean getting rid of the difficulty or getting rid of the work, but shifting it from the societies on to the Commissioners. That is not a solution of the difficulty. It may be, as far as the approved societies are concerned, a way out, but it still leaves what I believe to be a totally unnecessary amount of work to be done by someone and at someone's cost, either at the cost of the societies or at the cost of the taxpayers.
  In order to get rid of another difficulty it seems to me that a most dangerous provision has been introduced into the Clause. The real reason of the objection of the international societies to these four Commissions was the danger that the international societies should be broken up into four units. Under this Clause there is a provision made that any one of the national units shall be allowed to refuse to come back again into the original parent society. Within three months they are to decide whether they are to be treated as a separate society or come back again to the original society. The hon. Member (Mr. Millar) was not even content with that. He said that option ought to be extended for much longer than three months and not only was it to be an option

  3293
  to be exercised originally, but it was to be renewed triennially, and that after every valuation each national branch of the international societies was to be allowed to say "we will break off." Is that the Clause which the hon. Member (Mr. Thomas) is satisfied with and for which he withdrew the Amendment which, if pressed, would have been carried and would have secured him actually what he wanted? There are other difficulties in the Clause which I will just indicate, and I hope to deal with them when we get into Committee. At the bottom of the second paragraph there is an expression which I do not understand: "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 to which the society is not an approved society." That means four approvals to be continued in respect of societies which are likely to have travelling members or members who are sometimes employed in one part of the country and sometimes in another. If what has been hoped for in the past happens, namely, that once a man gets into a society his brothers and his sons and others of his family would also come into this society, it will be necessary on the ground of safety for all societies to continue their approval in all the four countries. Then there is the passage to which the hon. Member (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) called attention, which again is quite unintelligible to me. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us, if this is going to cost nothing, this making up of transfer values, that he will devise some means—not by means of clearing-houses—of getting over the necessity for four sets of accounts and four approvals, and will generally do everything he can to get rid of the muddle which has been imposed upon him by the desire of Irish and other supporters in his party for this experiment in Home Rule.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope the Committee will now be prepared to give the Clause a Second Reading. I regret that from time to time in this Committee—I think it is generally regretted by everyone in the Committee—Members who are quite capable of dealing with the subject as such should consider it desirable to fling gibes over the floor of the Committee. I think there is plenty of room on the public platform for that, without bringing it into a business discussion of this sort. I only wish to ask the Committee to concentrate their attention upon the real proposal which is being made. I say without hesi-
  3294
  tation that it not only meets, I think, ninety-nine hundredths, certainly nine-tenths, of the practical objections in connection with the bookkeeping of the international societies, but that it goes so far as anyone can go so long as we keep four international Commissions. The Committee has already decided that four Commissions should be kept, and I have no wish to go back on that subject again. Given these four Commissions, I think that without any doubt at all this proposal does remove the grievance of the international societies. The hon. Member opposite taunted me with not giving a statement as to cost. I do not know of any cost at all in connection with the subject—certainly no cost to these societies, or of any limitations of the different international funds. He says that owing to our crediting to the Irish reserve values the amount which would necessarily be credited to them if medical benefit was extended to Ireland, we are adding some cost to the Irish Fund. We are doing nothing of the kind. Every penny added to reserve value in Ireland will emerge as credit to the Irish Fund when members, attain the age of seventy.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: At whose loss?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is no loss at all; it is an additional credit which will come back to the Fund.
  Mr. GOULDING: Where does it drop, from?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It does not drop from anywhere. It is an adjustment of the account which, as I say, is a preliminary to the extension of medical benefit to Ireland, advocated so strongly yesterday by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the hon. Gentleman state what will be the total estimated increase in Irish reserve values when this Amendment is carried?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot say offhand. I will give the figure later on.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS:If it is a figure at all, it is a credit which has finally to be paid for out of contributions.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It all comes back when members attain the age of seventy.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Meantime the present insured people have got to pay for it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No, no. It would be an extension of the Sinking Fund, but there is no loss at all. It all comes back in the way I have stated.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does not the provision of the Sinking Fund postpone benefit to present insured people?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Only to the extent it would do if medical benefit is extended to Ireland, but as to saying that there is a loss to Ireland—
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I did not say it was a loss to Ireland. I said it was a loss to present insured people.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I can only say that it is no loss. The hon. Gentleman asked what was meant by the words "any other purposes of the society." That deals with the date of admission of the society. The question of the rights of members was raised by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding). If an international society, for example, requires £1,000 to pay benefits on the present system—I agree that the system is elaborate and complicated—under the new system they will be able to draw any proportion they like from any of the Commissions except that the total draughts in any period will have to be adjusted in accordance with the cash requirements of that period for the different Commissions. The international societies will be relieved from the onerous obligation of dealing with individuals on the transfer of individuals from place to place. They will have to keep a record analysing the cash payments which will be required from time to time for the periods of adjustment between the four accounts, but that will be a very simple record indeed, and nothing like the record which has to be kept at present. Except for that their accounts will be common accounts for the United Kingdom.
  Mr. GOULDING: Will it not be necessary for four sets of accounts to be kept—one in respect of the members in each country? Will not these four applications have to go separately to each body of Commissioners?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No, they will not have to keep four separate accounts. All they will have to do is to keep a record for future adjustments in regard to the different countries. The accounts will be kept as provided for in Section 83 (3) of the principal Act.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think it must be recognised that the question of four Commissions existing has been decided. It is impossible, as long as the four Commissions exist, in an amending Clause like this to alter the fact that there are four Commissions and four accounts.
  Mr. GOULDING: The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to answer my question, which I did not mean as an interruption of a hostile nature.
  The CHAIRMAN: I did not refer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Worcester, but to all the various questions in regard to the Commissions which have cropped up in the course of the discussion.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I make no complaint at all; but it is rather difficult to answer running comments. I am dealing with the various questions which have been asked. I can only say that, so far from there being anything in the suggestion that the Labour party first put pressure on the Government and then refused to put pressure, and all that kind of nonsense which has been talked this morning, the Labour party in these negotiations have represented to me, to a large extent, the international societies, and they have represented the trade unions.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I was stopped from commenting upon the Labour party and its relations with the Government. That being so, I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should be allowed to speak of the talking of "nonsense." We were told by the right hon. Gentleman that certain criticisms we made should be made on the platform.
  The CHAIRMAN: I can only rule in regard to the word "nonsense" that the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman referred to were nonsense from the point of view of Order, because I have ruled that it is not in accordance with the procedure of these Committees to make such remarks. If these points are really to be raised, they should be reserved for use elsewhere.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I withdraw. All I wish to say is that this is not the result of a kind of political agreement. It is really the result of long negotiations with the trade unions and the approved societies. It is because the proposal represents the result of these negotiations that I believe this is a thoroughly satisfactory conclusion to the controversy.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "where joint committee are satisfied, on representations made within three 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," and to insert instead thereof the words, "the Commissioners for any country are satisfied on representations made by and on behalf of any members of the society resident in that part of the United Kingdom which is not the part of the United Kingdom in which the registered office of the society is situated, that a majority of the members so resident."
  The effect of this Amendment may be stated in a word. It is to substitute the Commissioners for each country for the Joint Commissioners. The rest is merely verbal alteration to make that effective. This proviso to the first Sub-section mitigates to some extent the hardship of the whole Clause upon Scotland. The Amendment provides that the body which shall judge that a majority of the members do desire to be treated as a separate society shall be the National Commissioners. My reason for making that proposal is that the National Commissioners are in a position to form an opinion and to judge as to the wishes of members far inure correctly and far more judicially than are the members of the Joint Commission. The Joint Commission know nothing whatever about the members resident in Scotland, for they have no direct relations with them. They have not been administering the Act so far as the members in Scotland are concerned, but the National Commissioners have been doing so ever since the Act came into operation, and they have been in direct relations with those members. They have been in touch with them all the time, they know the officials, and they are, I submit, in a better position to form an opinion as to whether the members desire to be treated as a separate society or not.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman's Amendment desires to do two things—to abolish the time limit—
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I did not raise that now; that is another Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I will not comment on that. The Amendment is designed to substitute the Commissioners for the Joint Committee. I think that I must ask the Committee to adhere to the Clause as it stands on the Paper. The procedure of the office is that all things that affect only one country are dealt with by the Commissioners of that country, but things that affect more than one country are dealt with by the Joint Committee, which, as my hon. Friend will recognise, possesses its members for all the countries. Take a Scotch case for example. You cannot say that the verdict whether Scotch trade unionist members in Scotland wish to forum a separate society for the Scotch trade union in Scotland is entirely a local matter affecting Scotland. It is a matter affecting trade unions in England as well as trade unions in Scotland. Of course a report would be submitted from the Scotch Commission. The Scotch Commission would, to a very large extent, endeavour to ascertain the real feelings of the members, but I think that the ultimate decision must rest with the Joint Committee that controls matters of international interests. Perhaps after that explanation my hon. Friend will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I quite understand the feeling of the hon. Member for Bridgeton in moving this Amendment, but I am not going to support it because I would not support the original Clause that was in the Act. What he is endeavouring to do is to get a little more local power into the hands of the Scotch Insurance Commissioners and to extend the Home Rule that is already in the Bill. As I object to the whole of this power, and think that it should all be vested in the Joint Committee, I shall oppose this Amendment.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not think that is quite a fair way to state it. I intend on this occasion to support the Secretary of the Treasury, but I do it largely because I am an English Member. This is purely a Scotch move, and I do not think that it should influence us too much. The point is that the Government have tried, I think very honestly, to meet what was a great grievance, and I am inclined to support it and give it a fair trial. It has not arisen out of any nationalities or any political abstract notions at all. It. has been forced to the front by the men who

  3299
  are keeping the hooks and conducting the correspondence and working under this Act. That being so, I think it is a proper thing to appeal to the Government to suggest a scheme. They have done it. There are some aspects of it which might not suit a certain kind of society, but I think that the approved societies, speaking generally, have passed this Clause and desire to have it. They will not try to work it to the disadvantage of any nation or anything of the kind, and I think it ought to have a fair chance of being worked successfully.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has decided to resist this, because it would very largely defeat the very purpose which we have in view in setting up this Clause. For my part, I cannot conceive how it is possible to ascertain with fairness and accuracy what is the positive desire of Members of the respective parts of a country; but I oppose this for an additional reason, as to which I do not know whether my hon. Friend has quite taken it into calculation. The basis of this claim presumably is that the sickness liability in Scotland is less than in other parts of the country, and therefore by the incorporation of Scotch members in an international membership you may be depriving them of some ultimate additional benefits. If I apprehend the hon. Member aright, that is the case he is seeking to establish. I do not think that that would really happen. I do not know what data my hon. Friend has. After all, we are simply speculating at the moment. But the theory which I always found to obtain a considerable amount of force in the friendly society world was

  Division No. 15.]

  AYES.

  Addison, Dr.

  Dickinson, Mr.

  Newman, Mr.

  Baker, Sir Randolf

  Goulding, Mr.

  Newton, Mr.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Gwynne, Mr. Rupert

  O'Grady, Mr.

  Booth, Mr.

  Harvey, Mr. Edmund

  Parkes, Mr.

  Boyle, Mr. Daniel

  Jones, Mr. Glyn-

  Roberts, Mr. Charles

  Boyle, Mr. William

  Lardner, Mr.

  Roberts, Mr. George

  Bowerman, Mr.

  Locker-Lampson, Mr. Godfrey

  Samuel, Mr. Jonathan

  Buxton, Mr. Noel

  Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

  Thomas, Mr.

  Byles, Sir William

  Macnamara, Dr.

  Wing, Mr.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  M'Neill, Mr. Ronald

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Masterman, Mr.

  Worthington-Evans, Mr.

  Devlin, Mr.

  Money, Mr. Chiozza

  NOES.

  Davies, Mr. Ellis

  Jones, Mr. Haydn

  Scott, Mr. MacCallum

  Hinds, Mr.

  Millar, Mr. Duncan

  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I beg to propose to leave out the words "on repre-
  this, that sickness and other liabilities were determined more by trades than by localities. My hon. Friend in Scotland has a considerable mining membership, and I know that the sickness experience and general friendly society liabilities among miners is higher than among other sections of workers. Therefore in my opinion it is more profitable that you should average the liability over the whole mining industries than split it up into these sections, and thereby in my opinion deprive the membership of the real benefits which will ensue by the spreading over the wider area of this great liability. I have often heard it stated that in Scotland there is a large agricultural population and therefore the liability is less than in other parts of the country. There has always appeared to me to be a fallacy even in that respect, because even if there is a slight diminution in actual sickness experience during the working life yet the friendly societies have always experienced that there is an average' increase of non-activity and that the liability at the other end is much greater, and therefore I think, taking the individual members as a whole, there is no advantage added to Scotland in that respect. Therefore, because I believe that this would very largely decrease the very object which we have in view, and certainly split it up into sections again, and because in my opinion my hon. Friend is not quite serving the purposes even of Scotch membership, I feel bound to oppose this Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words 'joint committee are satisfied'" stand part of the Clause.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 35; Noes, 5.
  sentations made within three months after the passing of this Act."
  The object of this Amendment is to omit the time limit altogether. My reason is practically the same as before. I believe that in Scotland we should lose heavily by this Clause which is now being proposed. More than half of the insured people in Scotland are affected by it. That is a situation which does not exist in any other part of the United Kingdom. In England the proportion of people affected by it is comparatively small. I am perfectly certain that as soon as the insured persons of Scotland come to realise this they will desire to be treated as a separate society. Of course it will take a little experience, some years perhaps, before the full effect is seen. Some of the effect has already been seen by the small sickness rate of Scotland and the higher sickness rate elsewhere. But when the first valuation comes on and when the Scotch societies are separately valued, it will be seen how much better they stand than the members of friendly societies having their headquarters elsewhere. Why should the option of coming in and being treated as a friendly society be confined to three months after the passing of this Act? Suppose that after three years insured persons in Scotland discover that this is contrary to their interests to be treated as a friendly society, are they then to be denied the right of being treated as a separate society, although they wish to be so treated? I know that the effect will be exactly the contrary of what my hon. Friends on the back benches here believe. They believe that they are benefiting their unions and their centralised societies, but when it is discovered that by belonging to the centralised societies the people of Scotland are going to get smaller benefits then the tendency will be for these people in Scotland who are cooling into insurance for the first time, not to join the centralised societies, but to join purely national societies. The purely national societies will gain at the expense of the other societies. At present the members of purely national societies in Scotland are less than half the population, but as soon as the effect begins to be seen then all the members coming in at the age of sixteen will tend to join the purely national societies and not the great centralised societies for the purposes of the Act, and my hon. Friends on the back benches will lose then the object which they desired to achieve. I therefore, in the interests of the unions, wish to reserve for the members in Scotland the right at a later stage
  3302
  to be treated as separate societies if they so desire, and therefore I wish to abolish the time limit of three months which is proposed.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman very fairly said that he was really fighting the same battle in this case as in the last, and therefore he will forgive me if I do not give him a very long answer since, as far as I can see, the mind of the Committee is made up, judging by the last division, as to the general desirability of this system. Three months may be too short a time after the passing of the Act because it might be impossible for the Commissioners to arrange in connection with the regulations. The Chairman tells me there is an Amendment further down to increase the time from three to six months, and I would be prepared to accept that.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Three to twelve.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think it is long enough to make it six. It is most important. the choice should be made.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  Mr. LARDNER: I beg to move in Subsection (1) of the proposed Clause, to leave out the word "three" ["within three months"], and to insert instead thereof the word "six."
  My reason for doing so is that this is to be a final decision, and as it is a matter of such vital importance to the international society; situate in countries other than the head offices, I think they should get ample time to discuss the whole question as to what is best in the interests of the society. Three months is too short a time to deal with a decision of the kind on this point, and therefore I think it should be extended to six.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move in Sub-section (2) of the proposed Clause to leave out the words "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."
  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain what this means. Why should not a society admit as a member any person resident at the time of admission in any portion of the United Kingdom? If you

  3303
  are going to make the societies really international, what does it matter where the person happens to reside at a particular moment of admission, seeing that if he were admitted while resident in England and the very next day went to Scotland or to Ireland he would not lose his membership of the international society. The mere accident of residence for a Question of, perhaps, ten or twelve hours should not alter the power of the society, and this seems to me to be an unnecessary limitation on those powers.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think I can explain to the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman. Sub-section (2) only refers to local societies and not to international ones. If a society wishes to be international it must be able to recruit members in all four parts of the United Kingdom. If a society definitely declares, as it has to under Sub-section (2), that it only wants to be local, then all that we are giving them is the right to deal with their own strays. Supposing a society happens to be a local society in an English county, a local village society, it does not want to be international and to carry on business and recruit members in Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but does want to deal with three or four members possibly who may happen to have strayed, say, into Wales. We ask the societies to make a choice. If they want to be international they come under the full provisions of the international arrangements, and if they want to be local they want to make provisions for three or four strays, who happen to have strayed away possibly for a time from the locality. We say under those conditions that they must not recruit large numbers of members in other districts and still continue to be a local society and not an international society.
  Viscount WOLMER: It does seem to me that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman is a very bureaucratic one. I cannot see what harm the local society does if it wants to recruit a few members who are resident outside the country of a society. Suppose the case of a man going into employment for the first time whose relatives are all in a certain society which is localised in another part of the United Kingdom. Why on earth should he not be allowed to join the society to which all his relatives and friends belong. What harm is done? It seems to me that the attitude of the Government is very grandmotherly. I cannot conceive what harm it
  3304
  would do to the scheme of National Insurance as a whole or to the person insured or to the approved society. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman let the approved society do what it likes in this matter, and why should he put limits on their free will?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The society can do just what it likes. This is only an enabling Clause for a society which does not recruit members in any other part of the United Kingdom. If it does want to recruit outside and does require approval, then of course it can do so.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It will not happen; but the Labour Party ought to support me in this matter, because if this were carried there would be no necessity for four approvals since any society could be approved in any one country and could recruit members elsewhere. By leaving out these words we should in fact get rid of the difficulties we are now struggling against. I quite agree, however, that this is a back door way of dealing with the matter, and I prefer to deal with the position on Report, and therefore I do not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3) of the proposed Clause, to leave out the words "for the purposes of this provision admission to membership of a society means admission for 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."
  I move this because I am not satisfied with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman to a question I asked him a short time ago. I suspected that these few lines did refer to and roped in the voluntary side of approved societies, and it is perfectly clear from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that if we pass these lines the voluntary side of friendly societies will be included in the Bill. It is the first time during the passage of this Bill through Committee that we have dealt with the voluntary side of friendly societies. I believe I am correct in saying that the whole of the rest of the Bill has left the voluntary side of friendly societies alone, and I think this proposal is most undesirable.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We do not touch the voluntary society and I think I can meet the hon. Gentleman's point. This is

  3305
  merely dealing with the date of admission and nothing else. All we say is this, supposing there is a man resident in Wales who has been a member of a voluntary society for ten years and joins an approved society, and we say that for the purpose of this provision admission to membership of the society means admission to membership even if he was a member ten years ago. Surely that is not interfering in the least degree with the voluntary side of the society.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am not at all sure that that is what it really means, and I certainly do not like the words "or for any other purposes of the society."
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has an Amendment down to leave out those words, and perhaps he would proceed to move it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move in Sub-section (3) of the proposed Clause to leave out the words "or for any other purposes of the society."
  This is certainly a narrower point if the right hon. Gentleman is right on his previous point. These words seem to me to be very much too wide. I think we ought to do our utmost to preserve the autonomy of the voluntary side of the approved societies, and this is really the thin end of the wedge, and I am quite sure as time goes on the voluntary side of friendly societies is going to be raked in more and more into the Government machine.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is misreading the Clause. He is really raising the same point. The provision reads "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." That is merely dealing with admission to membership so as to bring in those who were not under the Act but were members of the society.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have consulted two or three leading members of friendly societies, gentlemen who are high up themselves in those societies, and they tell me that if the words really do not, mean more than that they are absolutely unnecessary, but they are very doubtful as to how far that provision would go. They
  3306
  say, if it does not mean more than the right hon. Gentleman says, then why have it at all?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am assured that members of friendly societies are satisfied. If there are any words by which we can make it clearer I will do so on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (5) of the proposed Clause.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am moving this because I want, if I can, to clear up what I think was the rather unsatisfactory way in which the financial question has been left. I have been making a little calculation in the meanwhile. The right hon. Gentleman told us in his speech that the difference in reserve values for Ireland would mean about 2d. per member. That is £5,833 per year and that on the twenty years' table would redeem a reserve value of about £85,000, so that it cannot be said, at least I believe it cannot., that this Amendment is costing nothing. On the contrary it is going to cost something which is equivalent to nearly £600,000 per year. The Committee will notice how it is to be dealt with. In the last portion of this Sub-section it is provided—
  "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."
  I think whenever we see those words we ought either to move to omit them or get from the Government a definite statement of what is intended to be done. What is meant by "dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed"? Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us if he has ascertained what the cost will be?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have difficulty in understanding what the hon. Gentleman understands by cost. This is the Irish National Insurance Fund, and the additional amount of reserve values will be credited to the members in Ireland, and will form a charge on the Irish National Insurance Fund Reserve Value Fund. If that were lost altogether, Ireland would lose to the extent to which that fund was continued after eighteen and a half years by the amount, and the money goes back to the societies and is credited to the societies when the men pass out of in-

  3307
  surance, and that money will be credited to the societies "in such mariner as may be prescribed." The hon. Gentleman asked me why we put in the words "in such manner as may be prescribed." It is because we anticipate, what I might almost now say is the probability, of the extension of medical benefit in Ireland. In that case this money will be wanted, and we should have had to go through exactly a similar process in order to pay over medical benefit to men over seventy years of age. If medical benefit is not carried on to Ireland, then this will form a fund which will be used for the benefit of members. We want to keep it as a fund accumulating until that question is settled, in order that we may have it when medical benefit is extended to Ireland for people over seventy years of age.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It seems to me we are doing this in a most unsatisfactory way. Yesterday the Committee refused to extend medical benefit to Ireland, and to-day the Financial Secretary asks the Committee to give them the money, just as if, so far as the reserve values are concerned, the Committee's decision had been in the reverse direction yesterday. I confess I am not going to press this Amendment because I want it. I want the facility of transfer that can only be got by this Amendment if the whole Clause is to be accepted. We have either got to vote against the whole Clause or leave this Sub-section in. That I admit. It is an unfortunate necessity of the course which the Government have taken. The Financial Secretary seems to think that it is going to cost nothing. I think it is going to cost £60,000 a year. He says it is to emerge in a profit some twenty years hence. It is going to be taken from those who are at present in insurance, and, if it ever does emerge in a profit about which I have some doubts, it will go to very different people twenty years hence. I do not consider that that is a fair method of dealing with the matter. I would like to ask a question on one point. The Financial Secretary states that the last words of this Sub-section were put down in contemplation of the grant of medical benefit to Ireland. If those words are left in, and it is carried, would it be possible to grant medical benefit to Ireland without a fresh Act next year?
  Mr. LARDNER: No.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I agree; it would not.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Sanatoria.)
  "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."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  The CHAIRMAN: This Clause, the next in order, stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Eugene Wason) who is not a member of this Committee. The Member for Montrose (Mr. R. Harcourt), has given notice to move it in his place.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  It raises a point of administrative convenience. The burghs and police burghs under 20,000 population in Scotland, although having separate town councils and being separate authorities for Public Health, are not entitled to direct representation.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: May I ask why the Clause [Employed Contributors] standing in the name of the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Leach) is out of order?
  The CHAIRMAN: It is in the same position as this Clause, only in this case the hon. Member for Montrose has given notice to move it. The other was put down by a Member who is not a member of this Committee, and therefore I passed it over.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: I am moving in the place of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan. These authorities are not entitled to direct representation upon the Sanatoria Committees. The Town Council of Alloa has written to my right hon. Friend who put the Amendment upon the Paper, and other burghs are similarly interested in getting direct representation upon these committees. In fact, they thought they were entitled to it. If I read

  3309
  a paragraph from a letter from the Town Clerk of one of these burghs, it will explain the matter:—
  "By the courtesy of the County Councils, representatives of the Town Councils of the Police Burghs, acted on the Joint Committee which prepared the draft scheme fur Sanatoria, and they unanimously urged that their Town Councils should be directly represented on the Joint Board for the Sanatorium to be constituted under the order. The County representatives were in sympathy with this desire, and were prepared to provide in the draft order for the direct representation of the Town Councils of the Police Burghs, and only refrained from doing so as they were advised that, in the opinion of the Local Government Board it would not be competent to make such provisions."
  From this letter it will be seen that the County Councils were perfectly prepared to agree that the Town Councils should have direct representation upon the Committees, but it was found that there were legal difficulties in the way. It seems to me to be a matter of administrative convenience, and I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This is to meet a purely technical difficulty which has arisen since the Act was passed. It does not occur in England. The law has been interpreted in Scotland in a sense which excludes those local authorities from direct representation.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Incorporation of Insurance Committees.)
  "Every Insurance Committee constituted or to be constituted under Section fifty-nine, 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 may, by such name respectively, have perpetual succession and a common seal and shall 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."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. ALDEN:I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The object is to meet the case where the Insurance Committees have had to obtain conveyances and things of that kind. It gives incorporation to these committees. I shall alter the Amendment as it is on the Paper by substituting the word "may"
  3310
  for the word "shall," after the words "and every such Insurance Committee."
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This has been found necessary in the working of the committees. It will allow the committees to act as incorporated bodies instead of leaving the responsibility upon the chairman alone.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the incorporation of these committees would make any difference in the power of the committee, or of this House to vary their constitution? I do not know whether, if this were passed in its present form, it would put a difficulty in any way of altering the constitution of these committees in the future.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It will not affect that matter. That is absolutely under the regulations of the Act as it stands.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) is out of order.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Do I understand that it is outside the scope of the Bill?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is outside the scope of the Bill. I call upon the hon. Member for Tottenham.
  Mr. ALDEN: On behalf of Dr. Addison, I have to say that he desires to withdraw this proposal. [Wife to be Competent Witness in Proceedings under Section 19 of Principal Act.]
  The CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment in the name of the Member for St. Pancras West (Mr. Cassel). I have notice from him that he desires it to stand over, and to come on at the end.
  Mr. ALDEN: Have we passed over the Amendment of Mr. Cassel?—[Removal of Disability of Metropolitan. Asylums Board under Sections 16 and 64 of Principal Act.]
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member sent me notice that he was detained, and that he would like it to come on at the end of the Clauses.
  Mr. ALDEN: I take it we have an assurance that this important question will be dealt with.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment simply goes, from the position in which it is now, down to the end of the Clauses.
  Mr. ASTOR: Would it not be possible to discuss the Amendment now?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think so. I will take notice to transfer the Amendments relating to it as well as the new Clause so as to save Members trouble.
  Mr. DICKINSON: Would it not be possible to have this new Clause put down for to-morrow?
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it must go light down to the end.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Local Pharmaceutical Committee.)
  "In every county or county borough there shall be elected in accordance with regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners, by the persons, firms, and bodies corporate, who have agreed to supply drugs, medicines, and appliances to insured persons whose medical benefit is administered by the committee, a local committee, and it shall subject to regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners, be consulted by the Insurance Committee on all general questions affecting the supply of drugs, medicines, and appliances to insured persons, and shall perform such duties and exercise such powers as may be determined by the Insurance Commissioners."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I beg to move, "that the Clause be read a second time." I think I can commend this Clause to the Committee in a very few sentences. It was on the Paper on the Committee stage or Report stage when the principal Act went through the House, and the year's working has shown that it is necessary that there should be some representative body of those who are engaged in supplying drugs, medicines, and appliances, in the same way as there is a representative body of the medical profession, who are engaged in the treatment of patients. I am quite sure that those who have to administer the Act will find that it is a great advantage. I understand that the Member for Leeds (Mr. O'Grady), has suggested an Amendment to my Clause, which he has been good enough to show to me. He proposes that I should leave out the word "pharmaceutical." He thinks that with that word in it might be held to exclude from the representative body people whom he thinks would otherwise be entitled to representation, I only
  3312
  use this as a label, and I am prepared to move the Amendment without that word.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the alteration which I understand the hon. Gentleman desires would be very useful. It would be useful to have a Statutory Committee in connection with the work of the chemists under the Insurance Act.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I only want an assurance with regard to the meaning of the word "persons" who are to form these committees. I want to be sure that the word "persons" does include men who are known as unregistered chemists for the purpose of supplying appliances, and if that is the case and the word "pharmaceutical" is deleted I will withdraw in favour of the hon. Member who has moved.
  The CHAIRMAN: Do I understand the hon. Member to move it in the amended form?
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: Yes, I move it without the word "pharmaceutical."
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time" put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott) has given notice that he wishes to move only the third Section of his next Amendment.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it in order for any hon. Member to move only the first part of a Clause. If not, I should like to move the first part of this Clause.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think it is not in order. It is quite possible for any hon. Member to put it down, after the hon. Member has moved it who is in charge of the new Clause.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not see that. Have we not within the last few moments had one hon. Member moving an Amendment which stood in the name of another—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Eugene Wason). Would it not now be possible to give notice?
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: Cannot the hon. Member put down the Amendment in the same terms?
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: By doing so will he keep his place on the Paper? My hon. Friend wants to keep the place originally occupied by the Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: As a matter of courtesy to the Committee I informed them that the hon. Member for Glasgow was not going to move the whole of his Clause. It is one Clause as he proposes to move it. I had nothing to do but to call upon the hon. Member. Those who object can refuse to give the Clause a second reading.
  Mr. GWYNNE: If that ruling is to hold good, it seems to me that any Member can put down a Clause and use it as a blocking Motion, and so prevent us bringing it on.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Women of British Nationality Married to an Alien.)
  "Sub-section (3) of Section forty-five 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."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This Clause is a very simple one. When a British woman marries an alien she thereby technically loses her nationality and also becomes an alien. I do not think it was the desire of the House when it passed the original Bill that a woman born and bred in Great Britain should be treated as an alien for the purposes of this Act and should be deprived of the Government Grants. I think that at any rate a British woman should be entitled to these rights and that she should not lose those rights merely because she marries an alien. She should not be treated as an alien; she should be entitled to the ordinary State Grants.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am told by an hon. Gentleman opposite that we promised to do this in the original Act. I am not quite sure of that, but I think it is fair that such provision should be made. It will involve some small increase of the State Grant, but we are willing to meet that increase and to accept the new Clause.
  Viscount WOLMER: I shall certainly vote against this Clause if it is carried to a
  3314
  Division. It is simply a method of making nationalisation easier. At the present moment there are certain difficulties in the way of people who are aliens in taking out nationalisation papers and their wives are alien also. The result of this Clause would be that people who are really aliens would be given all the privileges of insurance under this Bill. That is a principle which I strongly object to. I think that is a perfectly correct interpretation of the Clause.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: This Clause is limited entirely to a woman who having been a British subject before marriage, has ceased to be a British subject by reason of marriage with an alien, and who thereby technically loses her nationality.
  Viscount WOLMER: Technically, according to the law, if a British woman marries an alien she is an alien, and her remedy is that her husband should become a British subject. This is an alteration of the laws of nationalisation. They may be good laws or bad laws, but this is certainly not a subject which is germane to the question of National Insurance. By shoving this Clause in at the end of the Bill we make it more easy for people to marry aliens and who are really aliens to enjoy all the privileges of British citizenship. I strongly object to that. If the hon. Member wants to make it easier for English women to marry foreigners and enjoy all the privileges of remaining English people, he ought to bring in a Bill to do so, and say that a woman who leaves her nationality and allies herself with a person who is a foreigner, should yet have all the privileges of English birth and race. That is a thing I do not agree with.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the new Clause, to insert at the end the words "Provided that, in the case of an insured alien who is married to a woman who was before marriage a British subject, the State shall pay two-ninths of the maternity benefit."
  At 1.32 p.m. the Committee adjourned until 2.15, when the proceedings were resumed.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Committee do continue to sit this day, notwithstanding the sitting of the House,"—(Mr. Masterman)—put, and agreed to.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I propose, after the next Amendment has been disposed of, to ask leave to make a statement as to future business.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, to add as a new Sub-section,
  "(1) At the end of paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section forty-five of the principal Act the following words shall be inserted:—
  "Provided that, in the case of an insured alien who is married to a woman who was before marriage British subject, the State shall pay two-ninths of the maternity benefit."
  I was very much disappointed the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division did not move this Amendment himself. I entirely agree with the Clause which he has moved, and I am sort), he skipped over this first Sub-section. I feel that the present system under the Insurance Act in regard to women who marry aliens, is most inequitable, and I hope that the Members of the Labour party will do their best to support this Amendment. It deals with the case of a woman who is a British subject, but who happens to have married an alien. It therefore is no fault of hers that she is deprived, as a rule, of about one-half the maternity benefit. I have a list here of the maternity benefit amounts usually obtained by alien women. In the case of males, the maternity benefit at thirty-five years of age, which is a very usual age for obtaining the benefit, amounts to only about £1 10s. less than the full maternity benefit. In the case of married women, who are themselves insured, they get only about 18s. instead of 30s., and in the case of widows and spinsters, they only receive about h1 instead of 30s. I submit that this is very inequitable. It is not right that a woman, simply because she happens to have married a non-British subject should be docked of nearly one-half of her maternity benefit. She has been English all her life; she remains an English woman, but merely because she happens to marry an alien, she is suddenly turned into an alien herself and docked of at any rate one-third or one-quarter of the full benefit. Take the case of a seaport town. In such a town some of these aliens have lived practically the whole of their lives, and because they happen to marry a woman living in that town, although the man is practically an Englishman, he simply having failed to take the trouble to become naturalised, he is treated as an alien, and his wife is docked of a large part
  3316
  of her maternity benefit. I should like to point out to the Government that this will be a very inexpensive matter. The sum involved is very small indeed. It only amounts to a few thousand pounds, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not refuse the Amendment merely because it throws a certain amount of expense on the Government of the day. If this Amendment is accepted, it will, remove a very real grievance which, at present, oppresses the women of the country if they happen to marry aliens.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The Clause as moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division seeks to amend Section 45, Sub-section (3) of the original Act, which reads as follows:
  "A 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 …"
  That is to say she shall not suffer any disability imposed by Act of Parliament in certain cases. She
  "shall not be subject to the provisions of this Section if her husband is dead or the marriage has been dissolved or annulled or she has, for a period of not less than two years, been actually separated from or deserted by her husband."
  In other words, if she, being the British subject marries an alien, and if her husband is dead or is divorced, or she is separated from him, she is not to be subject to any disability in respect of full insurance. My hon. Friend says that she was a British subject, she has married an alien, and as a British subject she stood in a certain relationship to insurance, and he contends that that relationship should be continued, even although her husband is alive. That is the position which he takes up. She ought not to have to wait until her husband is dead, or until she has got a divorce or is separated from her husband. That is the position which he sets up. The Noble Lord the Member for the Newton Division (Viscount Wolmer) says: Oh, no, she has married an alien, and therefore she becomes an alien. Let her stand out from her full benefit. Let her stand out from having any reserve value. Either let her induce her husband to become naturalised or let the Act remain as it is." I do not know whether he saw the significance of the original Section which provides that she resumes her full insurance either

  3317
  when her husband is dead or there has been a divorce or a separation. I am bound to say that I cannot compliment the Noble Lord upon the advice which he gives us. We propose to accept the. Clause—Clause moved by my hon. Friend—We propose, in effect, that if a woman marries an alien she shall not wait to receive full insurance until any one of these things happens, but she shall receive full insurance at once. That is our intention. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Locker-Lampson) raises issues which are rather difficult. His Amendment together with the original Act would read this way:
  "This part of this Act shall apply to persons of the age of 17 or upwards at the date of entry into insurance who are not British subjects, subject to the following modifications:—
  (b) No part of the benefits to which such persons may become entitled shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
  Provided that in the case of an insured alien who is married to a woman who was before marriage a British subject the State shall pay two-ninths of the maternity benefit."
  That is very difficult. It is the husband's society which would have to pay the two-ninths, but he is an alien, and therefore you cannot add two-ninths to his benefit. It is not her benefit, she is not insured, it is the benefit of the man.
  Mr. C. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It requires a consequential Amendment.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There is only this advantage this would have if it were possible. You might say to an alien, "If you marry a British girl there will be two-ninths added to your fund in respect of maternity benefit." That might possibly be an advantage, though I do not know whether the Noble Lord would consider it so. From his speech, I should think that he would consider it a disadvantage. The complication arises from the fact that she is not insured and that it is his benefit. It is quite impossible under the Act to add two-ninths to his benefit, and, even if you could, it would be very serious indeed for the approved society. Therefore, whilst we accept the Clause of my hon. Friend, the difficulties in the way of the proposal of the hon. Member for Salisbury are so great as to make it quite impossible,
  3318
  apart from the merits of the case, that we should agree to it. There is not much State aid in regard to these persons. I think the number of these aliens is about 40,000, and it would only affect those who married English girls who on marriage wanted to remain in insurance. The cost of the Clause is not very great, and I think that we might accept it.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I did not put down any consequential Amendments, because I thought that the hon. Member was going to move his Clause, and that he would arrange for consequential Amendments. There is absolutely no confusion. The Government could perfectly well accept this. It would only mean a very simple consequential Amendment. There is a real injustice at the present time, and I shall certainly divide on the Amendment.
  Viscount WOLMER: I am very glad that the Government have refused to accept this Amendment. I should like to point out that it is not a question of philanthropy on our part. It is not a question of whether we desire to do an act of kindness to English women who have married aliens. It is a question of how the British taxpayers' money shall be spent, and it seems to me quite unjustifiable that it should be spent in increasing the benefits of insured aliens. That is what the proposal of my hon. Friend comes to.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Suppose she had been an insured person before marriage.
  Viscount WOLMER: That was the last Amendment; it is not before the Committee at the moment.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Quite right. I beg your pardon.
  Viscount WOLMER: I am dealing with the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), and I must say that I deprecate any efforts to make it easier for these mixed marriages to take place. If you want to revise the naturalisation laws, revise them, but to give people who are not British subjects benefits to which they are not entitled by the original Act appears to me to be trying to get round the present naturalisation laws. I am very glad therefore, that the Government have refused to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: If the hon. Member goes to a Division I shall be bound to support him, because, although some other Amendments may be necessary, that which the

  3319
  right hon. Gentleman has told us is indeed very poor comfort in thousands of cases in the East End of London where they will not understand the logic of the position. Innumerable cases of this kind exist in the East End of London and in other parts. A Jew comes into this country, and his family, of six if you like, are all born in this country and are all of them British subjects. The boys are in full benefit and the girls are also in full benefit unless one of them marries one of her co-religionists who does not happen at the time to be a British subject. You cannot convince that girl that you are not doing her a gross injustice.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That is the Clause.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: No, I think not. I am supporting the Amendment. If that girl becomes the mother of an illegitimate child, she will get a bigger maternity benefit than if she gets a child as the wife of a coreligionist who has lived in this country ten or fifteen years. I think that is absolutely indefensible, and therefore, I am bound to support the Amendment that a woman who marries an alien shall not lose her full maternity benefit in consequence of her marriage. I cannot, for the moment, suggest the machinery by which it can be done, but I think that the Government can well do it, and I am bound to support the Amendment.
  Mr. HALL: The hon. Member for Stepney has struck the keynote of the whole situation. I remember when the Bill was going through the House that there was a long discussion as to whether the mother of an illegitimate child should receive the full 30s. maternity benefit. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, who has a very good memory, will remember the circumstances. I agree with the Noble Lord on many of the points to which he referred in regard to this matter, but I do not think that the question of the alteration of the Alien Laws comes into this matter at this juncture because the woman with whom we are dealing is an English born woman. Surely, you are not going to say, because she happens to have married and in many cases very rightly married an alien, that she is to be deprived of part of her benefit.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We accept the Clause.
  Mr. HALL: The right hon. Gentleman says that there are certain difficulties but surely they can be overcome. If the Government are not going to accept the Amendment
  3320
  irrespective of difficulties, let them tell us so plainly, but do not let them try and hide under cover of these difficulties. We have had many difficulties to contend with much greater than this. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was able to overcome the difficulty on the Home Rule question in order to meet hon. Members on the Labour benches, and I do hope that the Government will re-consider this matter and will say that under the circumstances they are quite content that where an English woman contracts a marriage with an alien the State shall give its contribution of two-ninths.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid that I have not made myself quite clear. We propose to accept the Clause, which is that a woman who is a British subject, and who marries an alien shall not be prejudiced in regard to this Act because of that fact.
  Mr. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury as printed on the Paper? That is the whole question. We want to know whether the Government accepts it or not.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We accept the Clause.
  Mr. HALL: If the Government do not accept the Amendment, I hope that my hon. Friend will press it to a Division.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: This is a grievance which ought to be removed. It is one on which the people in the East End of London feel keenly. My hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Glyn-Jones) has represented with absolute fidelity what will be thought and felt with regard to this Debate in the East End of London. Surely, there is very little in the immature argument of my Noble Friend (Viscount Wolmer). I do not mean that in the least offensive. I only mean that the argument was immature, that it was not fully considered. I would point out to him that this Committee has already laid it down that the maternity benefit is the woman's benefit. If it is the mother's benefit, the money is not going to an alien; it is going to a British subject. Therefore, I do not think that the noble Lord has fully considered the matter, because this can be no question as between alien and British subject. It is a question of curtailing a right that the British subject ought to have. Under these circumstances and knowing that there is a rankling sense of injustice on this point in the East End of London with regard to the administration

  3321
  of the Act, I am bound to say that I cannot understand why the Government, especially considering that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is an East End representative, refuses this Amendment.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: It might save a little time if the Government would state somewhat more distinctly in what respect the proposal they desire to make differs from the proposal on the Paper. I have not been able to understand from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the difference between his proposal and the proposal on the Paper. Personally, I am strongly in favour of the new Clause as indicated and appearing on the Paper. We have, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), already decided that the maternity benefit is the property of the woman, and in this case the woman herself is a British subject. If she did not marry an alien but had an illegitimate child by an alien she would still retain the full benefit. Therefore, the Government's refusal to accept the Amendment in the exact words as they stand is to me absolutely inexplicable.
  Mr. LARDNER: May I urge upon the right hon Gentleman the propriety of considering some form of Amendment that would deal with this case because it governs a great many cases in Ireland. You have the case of the young Irishman who emigrates to America, becomes an American citizen and afterwards comes hack to Ireland; he cannot afford to pay the very expensive cost of again becoming a British subject, and unless you find some means of dealing with this case he would be an absolute alien when he comes back and his life would be prejudiced.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I should like to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject. I am of course bound by the agreement I made with the right hon. Gentleman. I got my third proposal and in consideration for that, I refrained from moving the others, and I shall vote with the Government, but I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, owing to the very widespread feeling in the Committee to do what he can to meet this claim which is a very obvious and just one. I am sure if the Government refuse to meet it, they will do so with great reluctance. I do not think they have yet made it clear to the Committee what the administrative difficulties are in this matter.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I should like to make this perfectly clear. We have said we quite agree that the British subject who marries an alien should not, because of that fact, be deprived of benefits. We agree with that, and that was the case put forward by the hon. Member for Stepney and others. The original Act says:
  "No part of the benefits to which such person may become entitled shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament,"
  and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) proposes—
  "That in the case of an insured alien who is married to a woman who was, before marriage, a British subject, the State shall pay two-ninths of the maternity benefit."
  After all, we have made the benefits the property of the mother, but it is from the father's fund and he is the insured alien.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: So he is in every other place.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: She is not insured, and it comes from his insurance, but the Act provides that you cannot add a Parliamentary Grant. We want this woman not to be prejudiced, and that is why we accepted the third part of the new Clause. Hon. Members must see there are administrative difficulties. I do not know whether they can suggest a form which would make it possible to work the proviso as well as the Clause, but I want to make it clear on the part of the Government, and there must he no misunderstanding about it, that we accept the suggestion made that the woman should not be prejudiced.
  Sir W. BYLES: Including the maternity benefit.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Including all the benefits, she is not to be prejudiced, but the Amendment as it stands, shows administrative difficulty.
  Mr. BOOTH: I want an assurance from the Government before I can see my way to vote with them, not merely with regard to the mother, but also with regard to the child. Maternity benefit is equally the benefit of the child, and if we can have an assurance that the child who will be a British subject, would have the benefit of the Act provided for it equally with any other child, I should feel satisfied, I think we should press the Government to provide the proper machinery. I understand the Government are with us on the main question.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: An appeal was made to me to say whether the Government cannot meet this point which has been raised. It is a real point disguised, if I may say so, to a large extent in the Amendment now proposed. We could not possibly accept this Amendment as presented. It does not even provide that the wife should get full maternity benefit, but merely says such an amount shall be paid to the society that contains the alien, and the two reasons why the Government find it difficult to accept it, are these: One is that it would involve half a page of consequential Amendments, and the second reason is that I am advised by those people who have a right to advise me, it would produce most hopeless complication in connection with societies that have aliens as members. As my right hon. Friend has said, we have no wish that this particular class of person, that is, the wife of an alien insured person, and who was before marriage a British subject, should be deprived of the full maternity benefit, and we realise that the two-ninths which the State may give is a very small amount of money, and we have no objection to meeting it so far as the money is concerned. I did not like the appeal made to me by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson) as an East End Member. I think I should be allowed to treat this question as if I were not an East End Member.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I withdraw that.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I should prefer to be allowed to deal with this matter on Report. If the hon. Member opposite will withdraw his Amendment, then I would be prepared to add the words, "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 the said increase shall be paid out of moneys provided by the State."
  Mr. FORSTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not doing here exactly what the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara) said he did not want to do? The maternity benefit to the alien insured person is not 30s. and the State will be giving two-sevenths of something that will bring it up to 30s. I think we had better come to an understanding. Of course we must leave the actual wording to the Government, but we must come to an understanding that the full maternity
  3324
  benefit of 30s. shall be given to the woman, and that the Government will take steps to carry that into effect.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I think it is very unfortunate that owing to a private bargain between the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott) and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, this important matter was put on one side. Now at the eleventh hour the Financial Secretary introduces an Amendment which he admits must entail half a page of consequential Amendments.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Not at all. My Amendment will stand as it is, and will only need some verbal alteration. I said the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite would entail half a page of consequential Amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN: The point is that a new Clause has been moved in the form of Sub-section (3) of the Clause on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. MacCallum Scott). Since then, the hon. Member for Salisbury has moved as an addition to it, Sub-section (1). That alone, is the matter before the Committee, but that would not be complete in itself, and it would be the duty of the Chairman to point out that a number of consequential Amendments are necessary. Now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has submitted certain words which merely entail verbal Amendments.
  Mr. GWYNNE: We want to see it before discussing it. This is a question where money is involved. I have contended all through this Committee that it is not a question whether the amount is small or large; whether the number of the people is small or large. It is the principle of the thing. If the Government can themselves come down and accept Amendment without telling us in the least what they are going to cost, and then refuse consideration for ours merely because they are going to cost more money, and threaten us that we must not introduce Amendments because they may cost money, then, I say, that is not a fair way to treat us. I really do not think that these arrangements ought to be made beforehand, because they place us in a very invidious position.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman can tell me that these persons are going to get full maternity benefit.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The new Amendment will enable these societies to give full maternity benefit.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The right hon. Gentleman has promised to concede the main principle that is contended for. I think to some extent he is under an impression which may affect the form in which he gives this Amendment. He has stated if this were carried it would necessitate a page of drafting Amendments. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I think he said if the Amendment which is before us—that of the hon. Member for Salisbury—were carried it would entail a page of consequential Amendments. I submit if he will consider the matter with his advisers he will see that he is mistaken in that view, and that the Amendment it is proposed to substitute will necessitate the consequential Amendments. The consequential Amendments that are required to follow the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salisbury are contained in the few lines which follow it on the Paper. In my view that is all that is required in the way of changing the machinery to give effect to it. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that point with his advisers.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Further Amendment proposed: At the end of the proposed Clause to add, as a new Sub-section, the words,
  "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 the said increase shall be paid out of moneys provided by State."
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Before that is put, I think I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that the Amendment would ensure 30s. Od. maternity benefit. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There is nothing to that effect here. Is it so or not? It is desirable to know.
  Mr MASTERMAN: I said it would enable the societies to give 30s. maternity benefit without loss. The rest must be left to regulations by the Insurance Commissioners.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I reluctantly agree with that, that the rest must
  3326
  be left to regulations by the Insurance Commissioners, because the right hon. Gentleman has not worked out his scheme. This is a serious point, and I would ask the Financial Secretary not to be too hasty. Will or will not this new Clause give 30s. maternity benefit? There is nothing in the wording of the Amendment to suggest it will do anything of the sort. All it suggests is that the State shall add two-sevenths. If the right hon. Gentleman says to the Committee that that will give 30s. maternity benefit there is an end of it. There is nothing in the Amendment to say that, and I very much doubt whether it will have that effect.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think if I may say so, I am being met a little unfairly in these criticisms. Because I listen to arguments in the Committee and try to frame my Amendment to meet the arguments of the Committee I am told that I am not able to make up my mind, and that I wish to force the Amendment through the Committee. That is really rather unfair. So far as the State contribution is concerned it will enable the societies that deal with these particular kind of persons to pay 30s. maternity benefit. That covers the State contribution, which is all that is necessary for us to cover in the Committee stage, because it cannot be brought up on Report. The rest must be left to the regulations of the Insurance Commissioners, which will see that the person does get 30s.
  Viscount WOLMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much this is going to cost?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: A very small sum.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I want to protest against the action of the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendment which he has just proposed is exceedingly badly drafted. It is at variance with the drafting of the original Act. I want to put this point to him. All the original Act says—
  Mr. ALDEN: You have put that point before.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The original Act says that two-sevenths of the maternity benefit shall be paid by the State. That is the form of words which ought to be adopted by this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there shall be added to the maternity benefit seven-ninths of the amount paid—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not talking to the point; his amounts are not quite right.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Well, two-sevenths. It is very difficult, without having the words before us, to remember the fractional parts, but I think hon. Gentlemen will appreciate the point which I am about to make. The Amendment says that two-sevenths shall be added to the maternity benefit. There is a real importance in the difference between the two draftings. Which is to be the maternity benefit? Is it to be the sum which as present paid, or is it to be the sum with the addition of the two-sevenths? What is to be the total sum? According to

  Division No. 16.]

  AYES.

  Addison, Dr.

  Esmonde, Mr.

  Millar, Mr. Duncan

  Alden, Mr.

  Forster, Mr.

  Newman, Mr.

  Astor, Mr.

  Goulding, Mr.

  Newton, Mr.

  Baker, Sir Randolf

  Harcourt, Mr. Robert

  Nield, Mr.

  Bathurst, Mr. Charles

  Harvey, Mr. Edmund

  O'Grady, Mr.

  Beck, Mr.

  Hinds, Mr.

  Ormsby-Gore, Mr.

  Booth, Mr.

  Jones, Mr. Glyn-

  Pearce, Mr. William

  Boyle, Mr. Daniel

  Lardner, Mr.

  Remnant, Mr.

  Bowerman, Mr.

  Lawson, Mr. Harry

  Rendall, Mr.

  Byles, Sir William

  Locker-Lampson, Mr. Godfrey

  Roberts, Mr. Charles

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lynch, Mr.

  Roberts, Mr. George

  Dawes, Mr.

  Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Devlin, Mr.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Scott, Mr. MacCallum

  Dickinson, Mr.

  Masterman, Mr.

  NOES.

  Gwynne, Mr. Rupert

  Wolmer Viscount

  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: May I now have leave of the Committee to make a statement as to our future business. The Committee has now been sitting seven days on this Bill. It was passed in the first four days, and since then we have been considering a variety of new Clauses of which some 100 have been put on the Paper, and I think some scores if not hundreds, still remain on the Paper. The question arises what course the Committee should now take in view of the pressure of time. When the Committee was originally set up the Prime Minister had a Motion down on the Paper to suspend the four o'clock rule in order that the Committee might sit, as was done in the case of the Unemployed Insurance Committee, beyond 4 o'clock, and thus get some extra hours to facilitate its work. That Motion was withdrawn after an appeal from the Leader of the Opposition, and it was withdrawn on the suggestion which I thought I was at liberty to make, that by the end of this week, after two weeks' continuous sittings, and some ten days, we might be able to get the Bill reported to the House without having to suspend the Four o'Clock Rule. I do not want to complain in the least degree of the
  the Amendment which is before us it will not be a total sum. The real maternity benefit is to be a smaller sum two-sevenths will be added to the maternity benefit. I submit that the drafting of this Amendment differs from the drafting of the original Act, and to the extent to which it differs it is unsound and will lead to confusion.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 2.
  large variety of new Clauses which have been added to the Bill—some of which have been useful and some had been accepted already by the Government, and they have been proposed from all quarters of the House. I have no wish to deprive any party of any credit for such proposals, but it must be evident that this method of heaping new Clauses on to the Paper would prevent any Bill passing under any circumstances at any time, and the time available is very strictly limited in regard to this matter. (An HON. MEMBER "Why?") I will tell the Committee why. I cannot promise that the Bill will not be jeopardised if it is not reported to the House by something like this week end. I cannot honestly say that we should throw over the whole Bill even if it was necessary to have a Bank Holiday sitting, but I do not think any hon Gentleman particularly desires that possibility. Generally the Bill has to pass through the House of Commons next week, and it has to go to the House of Lords. There must be some days between the Committee and the Report stage, because we have to consider promises we have made to deal with certain points on Report, and put right some Clauses which may have been passed in wrong form. Therefore I come back to the statement that I must ask the Committee if they can possibly do it, to

  3329
  make some arrangement to pass the Bill this week, and that is my appeal.
  As the way in which this can be done we can sit to-morrow and suspend the four o'clock rule, and we can go on sitting to a considerable time to-morrow evening and we can also sit on Friday. That would mean that we might go on ploughing through a series of Clauses, many of which I am sure the Government cannot accept, and most of which I am sure the Committee would support the Government in refusing to accept. All this would result in so much academic debate. I will give an example. On the Paper there are a series of Amendments put down by the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir P. Magnus) which reopen the whole question of the settlement with the doctors which was come to last January, and, in terms, every point that was moved before in connection with the original Bill is to be moved in connection with this Bill. I say frankly that it would be quite impossible for the Government to accept any of those Amendments, and we should only be spending hours, and perhaps days, in a purely academic discussion. On the other hand, there are some Clauses which I should like to save from this general collection of new Clauses. I am very much in the hands of the Committee in the matter, but it is my duty, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, to inform the Committee that the Bill will certainly be jeopardised if we do not pass it by the end of this week. Some of the new Clauses' are, I believe, entirely non-controversial, and we might add them to the Bill if we could get rid of this mass of controversial Clauses. I shall be glad to hear of any suggestions which meet with the general approval of the Committee on this point. So far I have accepted no new Clauses which have been controversial except one Clause which was carried finally in a form against the advice of the four leaders of the four parties in the Committee. I think it would be well if we could go down to the House of Commons and show on the Report stage that in bulk—I cannot help such accidents as the one I have referred to—the Committee have passed the Bill, and the Clauses added to the Bill, unanimously. If we could finish by this week and also make some such arrangement as that, I think the whole Committee might congratulate themselves upon the result of their ten days' work. As my suggestion would involve a Motion to ask the House to sit after four o'clock to-morrow, in order to put my statements in order, I beg formally to move:
  3330
  "That the Committee do continue to sit to-morrow, notwithstanding the sitting of the House."
  Mr. FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman has truly said that the Government are in the hands of the Committee, and I think there can be no question about that. Nobody who has any experience of Parliamentary life can doubt for a single moment that if this Committee were to give any kind of consideration, however short, to all the new Clauses that still remain on the Paper for discussion, it would be impossible for this Bill to be reported to the House in time to be passed into law before the end of the Session. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman says quite truly that the Government is to that extent in the hands of the Committee. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as we who sit in this part of the Committee are concerned, we have no intention whatever of departing from the attitude we have adopted from the first in regard to this Bill. I think our discussions, and even our very silence on many important points involved, show that we have been anxious not to waste the time of the Committee, but to use what time is given to us to the best advantage of the insured people who are going to be affected. We have no intention or wish to jeopardise the fate of the Bill. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not going to risk the failure of the efforts we have made by a blank refusal to allow the Bill to be reported in time to secure its passage into law this Session. While it is true that the Government are in the hands of the Committee, it is also true that the Committee are in the hands of the Government, because the Government are the masters of the time of the House.
  That being so, we had better look the situation fully in the face, knowing, as we do, that the Session is to be brought to an end, if possible, in a fortnight's time. The Committee is in the hands of the Government in this instance. It rests with the Government to say how long they can give the Committee for the further consideration of this measure, and I must make it quite clear that in doing anything that he may to enable this Bill to be reported to the House, we must look to the Government, and the Government alone, to take the responsibility as to the advice they give regarding the time at the disposal of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is essential that the Bill should be got by the end of this week. He said that we might move for leave to sit after four o'clock

  3331
  to-morrow, and to sit on Friday. If we are going to sit on Friday as well as to-morrow, we may as well be content with the ordinary Thursday Session. ["Hear, hear"]. That would give us roughly some four hours on Thursday, and a further four hours on Friday. But personally, I think there is a point to which he alluded that ought to be very carefully considered by the Committee, and that is, the extraordinary growth of the Bill during its passage through Committee stage, and the necessity that has arisen for a considerable margin of time between the beginning of the Committee stage and the Report stage. I venture to say that there is not a single Member of the Committee who could now say what the Bill contains, or what it does not contain, and as we have had an opportunity of seeing the immense extensions and alterations made in the Bill, we should be ill-prepared to undertake the duties of the Report stage in the House straight away. That brings me to this question: Shall we be doing better work from the point of view of the Bill to sit for a considerable time to-morrow, so as to finish the Committee stage to-morrow, and not to sit on Friday? That would have this advantage, that it would enable us to see the Bill in print, I suppose, the first thing on Monday, though I suppose it could be circulated on Saturday, which would be better, and then we should be able to master its contents during the week-end. If we do not get the Bill through here to-morrow night, we shall not have it circulated before Monday. If we could so arrange, it would he better that we should bring our labours to an end to-morrow.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the Committee stage be finished to-morrow, the Bill, as amended, might be circulated by Friday evening.
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes, that is so. The point I wish to make to the Committee is that it would be better from every point of view that we should have a long sitting to-morrow and finish to-morrow, rather than sit on Thursday and Friday; and if there were anything like unanimity in the Committee on that point, I think we should not oppose any Motion the Government would have to make for leave to sit after four. I said the Government must take the responsibility of fixing the time which remains to us. They must take another responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the number of new Clauses that yet await discussion, and said that the Government were prepared to
  3332
  accept some of them. I think it would be only fair to the Committee that he should put his name to-morrow or to-night to the Clauses which the Government propose to accept. By doing that—by making them Government Clauses—they would secure priority on the Paper, and we should have; at any rate, all day to-morrow to consider the Clauses which the Government intend to incorporate in the Bill. I think they owe that to the Committee, for this reason, that if they leave the task of framing further proposals to the Committee, unfettered by party pressure, they must give full and adequate time for their discussion, and if they find themselves compelled to limit the-time remaining to us, then I think they must resume the responsibility which they vested temporarily in the Committee itself. I do not want to elaborate these points. We feel strongly that enormous pressure has been brought to bear upon us both in the discussion of the Bill and in bringing the proceedings on the Bill to a head, and I do not doubt that we shall take the first suitable opportunity of making a strong protest in connection with that. All I wish to do now is to show to the Committee and to the right hon. Gentleman that, in the interests of the assured people, we will acquiesce in the pressure of time, and not do anything to jeopardise the passage into law of this Bill. [Hear, hear.]
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I should just like to say a few words upon the matter which is before the Committee. When this, Bill was published, my colleagues and I came to the conclusion that it was quite useless trying to cover every point that we might wish to have covered by the Bill. We therefore confined our Amendments to a very few points that were specially pressing. points which had been established by the short experience that we have already had. The Order Paper which is before us shows quite plainly that that intention has been departed from by us, and we are now face to face with the somewhat inconvenient and also deplorable conclusion that we cannot discuss the Order Paper right through to the end in the way we have been doing hitherto. We do not blame this system of starred Clauses. I do not like being put in the position of the Government coming down and saying, "We accept this or that," because, as we saw in one case to-day, it is important that the Committee should continue to express its opinion and use its pressure. We may have had our discussions with each other, and we have come to agreement, sometimes fixed and sometimes provisional,

  3333
  and it is a great pity that that plan should be departed from now. There are one or two important Clauses still on the Paper which would be very promptly dealt with, if we could maintain the method of doing business that we have been carrying on. However, if that is impossible, we must simply cut our coat according to the cloth. I should like very much if we could finish tomorrow, because we do not want to see this Bill sacrificed. What the hon. Gentleman opposite said is practically true. I have been attending as closely as I can to the Clauses before us, but I am bound to confess that I should not like to be subjected to an examination as to what the Committee has done; therefore, if we could get the Bill circulated in its altered form on Friday evening or, at the very latest, on Saturday morning, it would be of very great convenience. I think that is the safest plan to adopt. I am perfectly willing, on behalf of my colleagues, to agree to any arrangement by which we can finish our work to-morrow. I regret it, I am bound to say, but I quite see the fix we are in. The suggestion has been made that one way out of the difficulty would be to have some conference called between now and to-morrow to see whether we could not agree upon eliminating certain Clauses, and in moving them. In that way, by a process of elimination, we might retain the freedom to discuss a little more fully, and a little more thoroughly, what Clauses might be agreed upon as being the more important. But in any event, I am perfectly willing to agree, on behalf of my colleagues, to any arrangement—I would, of course, like the most satisfactory one possible—which would enable us to finish our work to-morrow.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary has pointedly referred to me in the statement to which we have just listened. From that statement it might be inferred that the Amendments which stand in my name had been put down with a view to obstructing the passage of the Bill through Committee.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: May I explain that I never had the slightest suggestion of that in my mind, and that, if I had, I withdraw it.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman withdraws it. At the same time I should like to point out that, without hearing any of the arguments or anything at all in favour of the Amendments which stand in my name, he has categorically stated that the Government would not be
  3334
  prepared to accept any one of them. Now, I venture to say that the points to which I have referred in these Amendments are very few indeed, and I have endeavoured to take only a small part in the discussion of other Amendments in which I am less interested, but I should like to point out that those Amendments which I have put down have arisen out of the working of the Act during the last six months, and longer, and the object of those Amendments was to render the medical service more efficient than it has been in the past. I cannot help thinking, as I have stated on more than one occasion in the House, that the character of the medical service is of the utmost importance in an Act of this kind, and it seems very inadvisable indeed that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury should at once have stated that he is not prepared even to listen to any of the arguments that might be adduced in favour of those Amendments. Those Amendments that are on the Paper are not, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, the same as the Amendments that have already been discussed when the Bill was before the House. They have been carefully framed so as to be differentiated from those Amendments, and to indicate points of difficulty in the working of the medical service which it is thought desirable should be removed in any amending Act. It is, therefore, I must say, a matter of very great regret to me that the right hon. Gentleman made the statement that he did. I can only say, for my own part, that I shall feel at perfect liberty to put down these Amendments upon the Report stage of the Bill, even if a certain amount of time should thereby be occupied in the House. I would, however, have very much preferred that these Amendments should if possible have been discussed in Committee. I am as anxious as anyone in this Committee to see this Bill pass through Committee in time to be passed through the Report stage and Third Reading during the present Session, and I very much regret that, on this occasion, as upon a former occasion, the right hon. Gentleman should apparently have paid so little attention to the necessary requirements of the medical profession in order that this measure may work efficiently.
  Mr. HARCOURT:I wish just to remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is a very clear precedent for doing what was suggested by the hon. Member for the Sevenoaks Division (Mr. Forster), whose friendly attitude we All gratefully recognise

  3335
  on this stage of the Bill. I may remind the right hon. Gentleman, with respect to this matter, that last year the Chancellor of Exchequer, when faced with exactly the same situation in regard to the Finance Bill, did announce in advance those Amendments which he would be prepared to accept, and I think that was very generally accepted by the House of Commons. There are two classes of Amendments here. I myself have had the good fortune to move two purely technical machinery Clauses which were at once accepted. There are many more, especially in the names of Scottish Members, of a non-controversial character which might be accepted. We should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would indicate in advance those which he can approve, and also, if he is going to have a conference, that he will not forget the Liberal party.
  The CHAIRMAN: With reference to what the right hon. Gentleman has stated, does he propose to put his name down in front of the names now appearing?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Oh, yes.
  Mr. LYNCH: I only wish to say one word in a friendly spirit to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He has decided, no doubt wisely, that he is unable to accept the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman who represents the London University. Those Amendments are nearly all favourable to the medical profession, who have very few friends in this House, and whose position, I should say, has been greatly deteriorated by the Insurance Bill. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that upon the same page (page 47) there are Amendments in the name of the hon. member for Salisbury, introducing new questions which are unfavourable to the medical profession. I think he ought to exercise the same judgment in regard to them and find them unacceptable. Otherwise it might impede the passage of the Bill through Committee, and will undoubtedly make a very grave disturbance in the country amongst the medical profession which will tend to jeopardise the usefulness of the Insurance Bill.
  Mr. BATHURST: I should like to endorse the appeal which has been put forward from every quarter of the House, that we should make a serious endeavour to conclude our labours on Friday next, and in no way to jeopardise this Bill. I do not know whether it will be possible to conclude to-morrow, but certainly, in order to
  3336
  do so, some process of excision is necessary. I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Committee that there are at present 118 names standing upon the Order Paper to various Amendments. I need hardly say that there are not 118 Amendments, but names. Forty names only are those of Unionist Members, so I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that we, at any rate during the last few days, have not overloaded the Order Paper with new Amendments. The hon. Member for Leicester has suggested a conference. I cannot conceive that a conference is going to carry us any nearer to a solution of our difficulties, because, after all, as has already become evident in our proceedings, parental pride stands so much in the way of a sense of proportion. I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that it is very difficult for those of us who perhaps alone realise the value of our Amendments to part with our treasure child. There are three classes of Amendments on the new Clause. There is, first of all, that particular class which the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept without alteration; secondly, there is the class to which he is prepared to listen to a discussion upon with a sympathetic mind, and possibly to accept either in their present form or in some amended form; finally, there is that class of Amendment to which he is entirely opposed, and which we may assume beforehand is not likely to be passed. Surely it would lighten our labours if the right hon. Gentleman would indicate, first, what Amendments he is prepared to accept; secondly, what Amendments he is prepared to listen to a discussion upon with some degree of sympathy; and, finally, which are those that he desires to see massacred altogether. If we approach the consideration to-morrow of our Order Paper with this amount of help to guide us, I think we might get through our business in half the time that we should otherwise expend upon it.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. Member has referred to some of my Clauses. I would be prepared to take off the Paper a good proportion of my Clauses which may be looked upon as controversial, if we could get an opportunity of discussing one or two entirely non-controversial ones.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the Committee will allow me to adopt the suggestion, I can arrange that the name of Mr. Masterman shall appear in front of certain Clauses which are going to be accepted by the Government on the Order Paper to-morrow morning.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I quite agree with the hon. Member opposite that we are in a deplorable condition. There is a very large number of Clauses on the Paper which may be controversial and which yet may be good Clauses, and are well worth discussing, if not for immediate acceptance, then for the purpose of paving the way for future acceptance, and gaining a certain amount of knowledge in respect to them. The Government have taken the opportunity of putting this Bill down at the very end of the Session, and they must have known when they did it that they were only going to give us a fortnight at the outside in Committee to discuss the Bill. They also must have known that the little Bill which they brought in with only a few Clauses was bound to be added to in the course of discussion in Committee. They themselves have added to it by accepting a large number of Amendments, and some of these showed so much ingenuity that one may doubt whether the name attached to them is the name of the actual author. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not propose to enlarge upon that subject at the present moment, but there is no question that with regard to some of them that is certainly true. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] I will give names presently. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) suggested that we should have some conference for the purpose of eliminating certain Clauses. I really do not believe that is practically possible. I have got several new Clauses down which I do not believe I am prepared to exchange for any other new Clauses which are on the Paper. I think there are only two ways of doing it. One is to discuss all the Clauses right out. That will take all next week, and in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said that must jeopardise the Bill. We must either have half a loaf or no bread. I am prepared to take the half-loaf. At the same time I would like the Government to tell us something about their intentions with respect to the various proposals which are on the Paper. If the Government are going to ask us to take some ten or twelve new Clauses, they must take the responsibility of these new Clauses. We shall not have an opportunity of discussing them, at any rate in detail. We shall not have an opportunity of conferring with those friendly society officials who are accustomed to give us their views, and the Government itself must take the responsibility of putting its name down upon those Amendments and getting precedents from them and getting them through to-morrow. If that is done the Members of the Committee
  3338
  can discuss the Clauses if they choose, and in that case perhaps one or two, at the best half a dozen of the Clauses will be added to the Bill. On the other hand, they leave the responsibility with the Government that all those Clauses which the Government practically will select will be added to the Bill on the responsibility of the Government. I, myself, propose to take that course.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I am as ready as anyone else to see this Bill passed into law and to expedite its passage through Committee, but I am not prepared to withdraw any of those proposals which, acting with the hon. Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus), has my sympathy. I am acting with him unless I have an assurance that the proposals which are made in the contrary direction, and which would make the position of the medical profession even worse than at present, should also be withdrawn. I am not prepared to withdraw any of these. I wish the right hon. Gentleman in making his answer would put that distinctly.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think the Committee want many words from me. I should like to thank them for the way in which from all parts they have met my suggestion. I have no intention of suggesting for a moment any blame to any Member of the Committee. It is not really a problem which is only before this Committee. It is a new problem which is before Parliament, and I have not the slightest doubt that it will be dealt with by the Committee on Procedure in some way or other. It is a new problem which has developed within the last few years—the adding to a small Amending Bill hundreds and hundreds of Amendments dealing with the subject which are outside the scope of the Bill, but dealing; with the original Act. Of course the same difficulty has been found in the Finance and Revenue Bills downstairs. Until some method can be adopted whereby an Amending Bill may be limited to the subject matter of the Bill itself, we will have to face that problem. I think the Committee is facing the problem, if I may say so with respect, in the right way. It is throwing a great responsibility upon me, but I will try to see that the responsibility is not abused. The suggestion is that we should try to finish the Bill to-morrow by suspending the Four o'clock Rule and going on until six in the evening. All the organised parties, if I may call them so, I understand, are willing to make that effort, but I must appeal to the individual Members of the Committee, if I can, to join with them and to make a sacrifice of some considerable

  3339
  time to-morrow. I am sorry that the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir Phillip Magnus) should have objected to my reference to his Amendment. I did not mean to attack him. I used his Amendments as an illustration of how difficult it might be to get through the Order Paper as it stands.
  I shall propose therefore to-night, after conferring with Members who are willing to confer with me on the matter, and who have Clauses on the Paper, to select a certain number of, I hope, non-controversial Clauses dealing with machinery which I think would command in any case the general support of the Committee and to put my name down to them so that they may be first considered. I am also able to respond to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. Bathurst), if I can, to find an opportunity for some Amendments which are partly non-controversial and which might at any rate receive the sympathy of the Government or would not be rejected by the Government. I shall try to give opportunities for this kind of Amendment, so that they may be discussed. They must be confined, however, to very limited dimensions. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir Henry Craik), I think it is a fair offer. I think that if no Amendments are suggested which will improve the condition of the doctors, no Amendments should be approved which may worsen the normal conditions of the doctors under the general system. There may be some which deal with the medical profession. One I think is in the name of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). I think if the Amendments of the hon. Member for the University of London are not starred, the Amendments like those of the hon. Member for Salisbury ought not to be starred either. In that case, that particular subject of controversy would be removed. All these are Amendments which may have precedence, and I think they may pass sub silentio because they are non-controversial and technical. After dealing with them, we shall still have some time unexpended tomorrow, and in that we may be able to deal with other Amendments which are on the Order Paper. Subject to this statement, I hope I have met the general wish of the Committee.
  Sir W. BYLES: I do not want to occupy the precious time of the Committee more than a minute or two. My right hon. Friend just now said something about conciliating
  3340
  individual opinion, and I thought that per haps he was making some reference to myself. He has suggested that we might sit late to-morrow night. I do not wish to argue that now, because it would be most improper, but I should like to point out that to-morrow the Colonial Office Vote is to come under discussion in the House of Commons, and I am especially interested in it. It will, therefore, be absolutely necessary for me to absent myself from the sittings of this Committee. Everybody, of course, will be delighted, but I would point out that it is a duty imposed upon me to attend the Committee, and I have also another duty to attend in the House at the same hour. I must, therefore, be absent from the Committee during a considerable portion of its sitting. I have not had the advantage of hearing the whole Debate this afternoon, because I had to go into the House to put some questions, but I wish to point out that this is a most unsatisfactory state of things, which will have to be taken account of by the Procedure Committee. The whole reason why we have got into this mess is not that members have put down Amendments too freely, but it is that the Government have been striving to make the House of Commons do too much. It has brought in important Bills of this nature too late in the Session, and what I want my right hon. Friend to do is to convey to his superiors in the Cabinet, or whoever it may be who arranges the business of the House, the necessity of tackling huge Bills of this description involving so many interests at an earlier period of the Session. There has been no obstruction at all in our Debates here, so far as I have observed. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman has been satisfied with the way in which members have met him, and I am equally sure that members on all sides have been satisfied with the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman himself. We all acknowledge his courtesy and urbanity, and I can assure hint that, in any observations I have made, I have not had the slightest desire to delay the progress of this measure, but rather to bring the discussion to a successful termination as soon as possible.
  Mr. NEWTON: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to invite members of the Committee to approach him with a view of submitting new Clauses and persuading him to adopt them?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That would not be any change of procedure, because Members of the Committee are invariably so ap-

  3341
  proaching me. I am at the service of any member of the Committee who may wish to see me.
  Question, "That the Committee do continue to sit, notwithstanding the sitting of the House, and apply for leave to sit after four o'clock," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. BATHURST: On a point of Order. I assume that no new Clauses will be put down after this time?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I will guarantee not to bring in any new Government Clauses, except those which I have indicated.
  The CHAIRMAN: There have been certain new Clauses handed in to-day, which necessarily will be printed on the Order Paper, and they will be put at the end. Those which the Government have undertaken to discuss will be starred, and will appear in front of them.
  Mr. BATHURST: Cannot we agree that no more Clauses shall be put down?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: With this reservation; I am told that there is a machinery Government Clause consequential on something we have already done. With that safeguard, I am content to agree that there shall be no more new Clauses brought in.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Administration of Maternity Benefit.)
  "At the end of the first paragraph of Sub-section (1) of Section eighteen of the principal Act the following words shall be inserted:—
  Provided always that for the purpose of this Section the husband of an insured woman shall not be considered an insured person unless he is entitled to maternity benefit on the confinement of his wife."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  It deals with the administration of the maternity benefit. It deals with the case of a married woman who is herself insured. If her husband is not insured, then she is entitled to both sickness and maternity benefit. But if her husband is insured, it is possible, under conceivable circumstances, she may be deprived of the maternity benefit. In ordinary circumstances, if the husband is insured, the benefit is treated as the husband's benefit, and administered by the
  3342
  society under Section 18. If, therefore, the husband is in arrears, or if he has not paid his twenty-six contributions, or if, by some means, the husband, although an insured person, is not entitled to maternity benefit, then a married woman, who is separately insured and has paid all her contributions, is deprived of the maternity benefit, which she would have enjoyed if the husband had been insured. The object of my Amendment is simply to secure that where the husband is an insured person he shall not be considered, for the purposes of this Section, an insured person, unless he is actually entitled to maternity benefit.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This new Clause arises out of the Debate in the House of Commons in which the hon. Gentleman who raised the point was able to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the House, that some injustice was being done in a very few cases—perhaps in only one case in the year. But still, having a Scottish mind, he is determined there shall be no injustice, however small. I accept the substance of the Clause, and I only suggest to the hon. Member that he shall accept the Amendments which stand in the name of the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman), who has a similar Clause on the Paper, Amendments which merely put in accurate drafting form the substance of what he desires.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendments made: Leave out the words "the first paragraph of."
  Leave out the words, "Provided always that for the purpose of this Section the husband of an insured woman shall not be considered an insured person unless he is entitled to maternity benefit on the confinement of his wife," and insert instead thereof the words, "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

  3343
  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."

  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  NEW CLAUSE—(Proceedings in Scotland.)
  "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."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR:I beg to move, That the Clause be read a second time."
  I think this and the following new Clause which stand in my name may be treated entirely as non-controversial. They relate solely to Scotland, and have been made necessary by a judgment of the Lord Justiciary. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept both Clauses. One relates to criminal, and the other to civil proceedings.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: These Clauses are intended to meet a point which had been raised in the course of prosecution in Scotland. They deal with the Scottish Judiciary Law, and the Lord Advocate of Scotland, representing the Scottish Judiciary, and the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, have agreed on them. Therefore, I think we must accept them. They really put the Scottish Commissioners in connection with prosecutions in the same position as the English Commissioners occupy at the present time.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: What is the genesis of these Clauses? Have they been asked for by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners? Have they been found in practice to be required? Have they been drafted by the Commissioners, and given to the hon. Member to move? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can say whether they have
  3344
  been proved in practice to be required, and if the Scottish Insurance Commissioners have made any representations to him with a view of putting these Clauses down.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: These Clauses have been rendered necessary owing to a judgment of the High Court of Judiciary in Scotland under which it has been held that the Scottish Commissioners have no title to raise a prosecution under Section 69 of the Act. It is only possible for them to enforce civil proceedings for the repayment of contributions upon an employer if as a condition precedent they have succeeded in a prosecution under Section 69. Therefore these Clauses are necessary to meet a judgment which has been issued in the course of this month, the Lord President of the Court of Judiciary dissenting from the judgment. They have the approval of the authorities in Scotland.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. I do not know whether he can.
  Dr. ADDISON: Can we properly discuss in the Committee the question as to, who drafted a Clause?
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: This is a serious point. I hope we shall not be asked by whom particular Clauses were drafted. The Scottish Commissioners were entitled to consult whom they desired, and I think the inquiry is most improper.
  The CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that the hon. Member has fairly answered the question.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not know whether you rule that upon the point of Order or upon the merits. I desire to address the Committee upon it. We are asked to accept two Clauses virtually without discussion. I want to know who, in fact, is responsible for them. I do not pretend to know whether they actually meet the case. If the hon. Gentleman tells us that the Scottish Insurance Commissioners with their legal advisers have considered the decision which has been given, and ask him to put down these Clauses, I am prepared to accept them at once. It would facilitate proceedings if we knew whether or not these were, so to speak, official Clauses.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I can answer that question. The hon. Member approached me, as dozens of other Members have approached me, stating what they wanted in the Bill, and asked me to give what

  3345
  advice I could, so that the drafting should be right. I referred the question to the Lord Advocate, who, I thought, ought to have a word in the matter, and to the Scottish Commissioners, and I understand that both the Scottish Commissioners and the Lord Advocate agreed finally to this form of drafting.
  Mr. BOOTH: I hope that the hon. Member for Colchester, if ever he moves anything, will tell us whether it is the Conservative Committee or some other body that is responsible.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE—(Recovery of Contributions in Scotland by Separate Civil Proceedings.)
  "Where an employer in Scotland has failed or neglected to pay any contributions which, under Part I. of the principal Act, be 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 nowise in restriction of the powers conferred upon them or upon members of approved societies by the principal Act."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This Clause is rendered necessary for the same reason, as was the Clause last agreed to.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: In regard to the Clause standing in the tame of the hon.
  Member for standing (Sir Stuart Samuel)—(Reserve Values for Aliens)—I understand that the hon. Member does not move the first part, and the second seems to me out of order because it depends upon the Reserve Values, which are not dealt with owing to the deletion of the first part.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I take it that nothing that has happened this afternoon will prevent my putting that part down as a new Clause, and letting it take its chance to-morrow?
  The CHAIRMAN: I cannot give an opinion on new Clauses until they appear upon the Paper.
  Mr. FORSTER: I understand that my hon. friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson) desires to move the whole Clause relating to the benefits of aliens. I submit that that is in order.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: This Clause deals with an East-End question.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Have you not ruled this Clause out of order? I only refrained from moving the adjournment of the Committee because I understood that this Clause was out of order. I therefore move, "That the Committee do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  The Committee adjourned at 3.58 p.m. till 11.30 a.m. to-morrow (Thursday).

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  [Mr. J. W. WILSON in the Chair.]

EIGHTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.
Bill further considered.
The CHAIRMAN: Before we begin, I should like to consult the Committee. We are adding a variety of new Clauses, and it seems to me that in the drafting of the Bill for the House the clerks would naturally put all the Clauses of one sort together. Such a course would be much better for the Bill, and for the House for consideration, without, of course, altering the words in any of the Clauses. For instance, when we have two or three Clauses relating to maternity benefit, it seems convenient to group them together. Do hon. Members see any objection to that course?
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There can be no doubt about the convenience of that course, provided that none of the words are altered. That is the danger when grouping is done. A certain thing ought to come in as a proviso perhaps, and there is a temptation to insert it in a different place. For symmetry it may be put in one place but it is essential that it should be in its proper place.
Mr. CASSEL: Very often these Clauses when put together have some words applying to them all when they should apply only to one. For instance, words may be used such as "This Section shall come into force at some particular time; or words in this Section shall have some particular meaning." Therefore, if you put two or three Clauses together, the meaning intended to apply to one would not be intended to apply to the others. That is the danger.
The CHAIRMAN: The alteration of any material wording would certainly not have my authority.
Mr. CASSEL: It would be wrong to lump together three Clauses if in one of those Clauses there is a reference intended to apply only to that one Clause. The
3348
combining of the three might have the result of giving a different effect entirely to the others.
The CHAIRMAN: I give an undertaking, if the Committee agree to this suggestion, that that shall not be done.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Before we go on to the new Clause on the Paper I want to call attention to what was arranged, as I thought, yesterday, and what has in the meantime actually been done. We were told yesterday that in order that the Government might get some new Clauses which they wanted, they were going to put their names on those Clauses, for the purpose of bringing them forward for discussion, so that they might be dealt with, and the Secretary to the Treasury said that he intended to select a number of, as he hoped, non-controversial Clauses dealing with machinery which he thought would command the general support of the Committee, and he put his name down to them so that they might be further considered. Later on he said that all those Amendments which had precedence might pass because they were non-controversial.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Perhaps the hon. Member will read the rest of the sentence.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There are thirty Clauses and Amendments to which the right hon. Gentleman has attached his name, twenty-five of them in the shape of new Clauses and five in the shape of Amendments to the Schedule. It is an absolute farce for this Committee to attempt to consider twenty-five new Clauses and five important Amendments to the Schedule in one sitting. The Bill had thirteen Clauses when it was introduced, and here we are asked to consider thirty new Clauses. The right hon. Gentleman also promised—in fact he said, "I will guarantee not to bring in any new Government Clauses except those which I have indicated"; and he added that, "With this reservation, I am told there is a machinery Government Clause consequential on something we have already done. With that safeguard, I am content to agree that there should be no more new Clauses brought in." There is one at any rate—I do not know how many more, because I have not been able to read the Clauses through—but there is one on page 56, which stands in the name of the Secretary to the Treasury and my Friend the hon. Member for Salisbury, called "Calculation of

3349
Arrears." That is a new Clause, and different in substance from a Clause which was down on the Paper, and is still on the Paper on page 60, in the name of the hon. Member for Leicester and others. I will not attempt to argue the differences now, but I presume it has been done by an oversight. If the right hon. Gentleman says it has been done by an oversight there is an end of it. He is certainly, at the last moment, springing upon the Committee a most controversial subject, and without its having ever appeared on the Paper until this morning. There is a great desire, and I share it, to enable these six-monthly cards to be employed, and to enable arrears to be dealt with, but I say it is impossible to consider that in the course of a quarter of an hour at the end of a long day.
The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member has given that as an example of what he has said before. Perhaps it would be better for him to raise that point when we come to it.
Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member has not quite represented what I have said. He has not read the whole sentence. The hon. Member for Wilton made an appeal to me yesterday not only to star Clauses which the Government thought desirable, but to star Clauses which the Government would look upon with a sympathetic eye, and which might be carried if they were of a non-controversial character. I do not mind if the Committee say "We will not discuss anything more." As far as the Government is concerned, we have got the definite Government Clauses, but I am desiring to safeguard a large number of Members who desire to get into the Bill a number of non-controversial Clauses which they think of importance. As to those which I have suggested should have discussion, an overwhelming number are non-controversial. A large number are designed to meet promises which we have already made. We have had discussion, and I have said that if the hon. Member would bring it up on a new Clause, we would consider it. There are others, like the double Maternity Benefit Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, which the Committee accepted on a former Clause, and I should consider it playing false with the Committee if I did not star a new Clause like that. I went through some hundreds of Clauses yesterday, I suppose, and out of those I have selected
3350
those which the Government would have no objection to see placed on the Paper. They are something like twenty-four. I do not think it can be said that I have been partial as between the various parties in the Committee. I find that of those Clauses nine are standing, or did stand, in the names of hon. Gentlemen opposite, eleven in the name of my hon. Friend, three in the name of the Irish party and three in the name of the Labour party. I think that that seems a fair distribution. I did not, when I was dealing with the new Clauses, take any heed as to the names in which they stood. I suggested that as the Debate continued, hon. Members would see that these are non-controversial, or designed to meet promises. As to the suggestion of the Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Salisbury, I think you, Sir, have ruled that we had better deal with that when it comes up. I should have starred the Arrears Clause standing in the names of a number of Members of the Committee had I not had information that that Clause would be exceedingly controversial. On the other hand, I have promised the approved societies to endeavour to get a six-months' card, and the House of Commons have promised that too. If I had starred the Arrears Clause, the hon. Member might have moved his Clause as an Amendment to the Arrears Clause. As I understand, the Arrears Clause would mean prolonged controversy, I do not see why the hon. Member should not bring on his own Clause.
Mr. FORSTER: As I said yesterday, the Government must take full responsibility for the Clauses which they have adopted, and I do not know that we can do very much beyond giving them some examination. It is quite true, as my hon. Friend beside me said, it is impossible that we should have any detailed discussions on the various Clauses to-day Therefore, we must throw upon the Government the responsibility as to the Clauses they take. They, and not we, must take full responsibility. With reference to what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the Arrears Clause, it appears to me that it is in essence as well as in form a new Clause. It appears upon the Paper to-day for the first time, and to that extent it is a departure from what the right hon. Gentleman laid down yesterday. I do not think we want to have any bickerings about this matter, but the right hon. Gentleman will see that if

3351
he does put down a Clause which is new in essence as well as in form, it would be a departure from what he laid clown yesterday. In these circumstances I suggest that he should bring up the Clause on Report, when he will have a perfectly free hand, and the House will be able to consider it. I do not see why it should take any undue length of time. We had better adhere as closely as we can to the understanding arrived at in Committee yesterday. I hope we shall be able to get through our work to-day in a reasonable time.
Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: As the right hon. Gentleman referred to the request I made to him before we parted yesterday, I should like to point out that what I proposed was that he should not only place his name against the particular Clauses which he intended definitely to support and urge the Committee to accept, but that he should indicate in some way the other Clauses with which he was in general sympathy, but about which he was not prepared to give a definite opinion on behalf of the Government until he had heard some discussion in Committee. What he has actually done—I do not complain of it—is to place his name against all Clauses that would come within either of those categories. The only difficulty about it is that it means a much wider field of material with which we must deal than we had anticipated. I am not sure I altogether agree with my hon. Friend, and, for my own part, I hope we shall strenuously tackle our task to-day and endeavour to get through as much of it as we can. I hope that questions of substance that are raised on various Clauses, including some that have not the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman's name against them, will receive some consideration, and that the discussion will not necessarily be confined to Clauses that deal only with procedure. I may indicate one. There is an Amendment standing in my name which was put down at the right hon. Gentleman's request, made during the Second Reading of the Bill, with regard to the question whether Sunday should or should not be treated as one of the three waiting days for the purposes of sickness benefit. I have put down an Amendment simply to raise that question and in order to secure uniformity, though not with a desire to press the Amendment in that particular form. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that it was
3352
a question which ought to be raised in Committee, and that the Government would sympathetically consider the matter in the event of it being raised.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I have starred an Amendment on that point, and the hon. Member can raise his point when we come to that.
Mr. BATHURST: Then I will not press the point now.
Mr. BOOTH: I should not like the Members of the Committee to complain of the Financial Secretary for having starred a fairly good number of Clauses. One sometimes feels on a Grand Committee that to get up and make suggestions is useless, because you get a Minister who is adamant and you feel that all your work, and, perhaps, your special knowledge, are thrown away. That has not been so in this Committee. We have had a sympathetic Minister with a desire to get Amendments from the Committee and to incorporate them in the Bill. Subject to the reservation made by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster), that is all I have to say.

EIGHTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemptions.)
  "After paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the principal Act, which relates to exemptions, the following paragraph shall be added:—
  (c) Ordinarily and mainly dependent for his livelihood on the earnings derived by him from an occupation which is not employment within the meaning of this Act."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move. "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This is a Clause dealing with a Subsection which has already been very largely discussed during the course of the Debate, and I think it meets with the approval of all parties.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, after the word "dependent" ["ordinarily mainly dependent"] to insert the words "on some other person or."
  I move this Amendment to the new Clause because, although I quite agree

  3353
  that the new Clause is an admirable reform of the present system, I do not think it goes far enough. If you look at the First Schedule, Part II., paragraph (h) of the Act, you will see that persons are exempted whose employment is of a casual nature
  "otherwise than for the purposes of the the employer's trade or business."
  If it were not for those words, my Amendment would not be necessary. I submit that those words being inserted in the principal Act render an Amendment of this sort very desirable. There are a great many instances I could give, but I will take one of a young woman who lives at home for fifty weeks in the year, and for two weeks at Christmas time is employed in a shop—as many thousands are throughout the country—in the Christmas Card trade. She has to pay because she is employed for the purposes of her employer's trade or business. What happens to that young woman? She cannot join an approved society because the model rules of nearly every approved society ask a person desirous of becoming a member whether he or she is insurable within the meaning of the principal Act. I have here the model rules of the Prudential Society, and question No. 7 is:
  "Are you qualified to be an insured person;"
  If you turn to Section 79 of the principal Act, paragraph (5)—it is the Interpretation Section—you find that an insured person is
  "a person whose normal occupation is employment within the meaning of this part of the Act,"
  and if you turn to Section 1 of the principal Act, it begins by saying,
  "Subject to the provisions of this Act, all persons of the age of sixteen or upwards who are employed within the meaning of this part of the Act,"
  that is to say a person whose employment is not normal within the meaning of the Act is not an insured person. Therefore this young woman would not be able to answer question No. 7 of the Prudential Society in the affirmative, and she would become a Post Office contributor. If she becomes a Post Office contributor, she would not—
  The CHAIRMAN: I have been looking at Section 2 of the principal Act, and it seems to me that the words proposed by the hon. Member are quite redundant.
  3354
  They repeat the words that are in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of that Section, and put them into a new paragraph (c). There can be no possible uncertainty about it, that the principle is already in paragraph (b).
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Under the present system, such a person as I have mentioned is raked within the four corners of the Insurance Act, becomes a deposit contributor, pays contributions for a limited number of weeks and gets absolutely Do benefit. By including these words in the proposed Clause, all cases of that sort would be safeguarded.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It would not really make the slightest difference. The case of excepted persons is outside the scope of this Clause altogether. We are dealing here with exempted persons. The persons to whom the hon. Member refers can get exemption under the Act as it stands, and no alteration is therefore required. We are adding to the list of exempted persons largely, but not entirely to meet the request of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bathurst) that persons such as farmers, whose normal occupation is not employment within the meaning of the Act, should not come within insurance, but should be able to get exemption.
  The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member press the Amendment?
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  Mr. CASSEL: Although I quite agree that the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) is unnecessary, as it is covered by the words in the principal Act, there is a difficulty arising in practice if these persons are not excepted, but only exempted persons. I have had the difficulty occur in practice. It is that of a person who is entitled to exemption, who gets employment lasting perhaps only a short time. I have had correspondence for three months with the Commissioners on the subject as to whether particular persons were exempted. The Commissioners gave reasons why they were not exempt. They gave very careful attention to the matter, and inquired into it fully. At the end of three months' correspondence I was able to convince them that the persons ought

  3355
  to be exempt. In the meantime, however, a person has or may have to pay the full contributions. In the case with which I was concerned, I absolutely refused to pay because the contributions which are paid while the question whether the person should be exempted or not is being discussed are lost. By the time the case is disposed of it is not worth while their getting exemption. When they again become employed the question again arises.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the hon. Member will see that that point can be met by acceleration in dealing with the exemptions. I remember the case quoted by the hon. Member, which he raised in the House of Commons. In the majority of cases now the exemptions are given with considerable rapidity.
  Mr. NEWMAN: As the Clause stands, does it include a woman as well as a man?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Where the word "man" is mentioned, the woman always comes in.
  Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension, of Section 46 of the Principal Act to Warrant Officers of Marines, etc.)
  "For the purposes of Section 46 of the principal Act 'Marine' includes every warrant officer of Marines, except. Royal Marine gunners, and 'soldier' does not include a soldier who has not been finally accepted for service."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The new Clause smooths out two small administrative matters in regard to Section 46 of the principal Act, which is the soldiers' and sailors' Section. It was put upon the Paper some time ago by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), and I am quite sure he will agree with my proposal. Our intention is that the Marine warrant officer like the Army warrant officer shall come under Section 46. It was our view down to a little time ago that he was in, but a difficulty arose. The Royal Marine gunner
  3356
  has the rank of a Naval warrant officer, and is therefore not in. We do not want any soldier in Section 46 who is at a station, because he might be refused on medical grounds. We do not want him in until he is finally accepted for service.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have not the slightest objection to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. I took my name off the Clause because I was not going to take the responsibility for it, as I had not had time to consider it. The Government themselves have taken the responsibility for it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to Take Evidence on Oath.)
  "Where under any provision of the principal Act or any regulations made thereunder the Insurance Commissioners are required or authorised to hold, or to appoint any Committee or person to hold an inquiry, the witnesses shall, if the Commissioners think fit, be examined on oath, and if the Commissioners so direct the committee or person appointed to hold an inquiry shall have power to administer oaths for the purpose."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: On a point of Order. I should like to ask about the new Clauses. Will it be in order for the Member himself to move them, or shall I move them formally?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think if you move them formally, I will undertake to call upon the real father of the Clause as soon as he rises.
  Mr. FORSTER: I really must protest against that.
  The CHAIRMAN: I meant if it is the desire of the Committee, as I understood was the case.
  Mr. FORSTER: I should like to make it clear that so far as I am concerned it is not agreeable to me. It really is impossible that we can conclude to-day if the Government do not accept responsibility for what they are doing, and if they call upon somebody else to move the Clauses.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I propose to move the new Clauses and in moving them I accept responsibility for them, but I am not

  3357
  going to make a statement concerning the new Clauses. That must be done by the hon. Gentlemen in whose names they stand. What, I guaranteed was to give them an opportunity of putting their case, and to start Clauses which would be accepted by the Government.
  Mr. FORSTER: Under those circumstances I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have considered it desirable to make a statement giving the reasons which induced the Government to take over the Clause.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I may make a statement later. I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Dr. ADDISON: As my name is on this Clause, I desire to say a few words upon it. As far as medical men are concerned, it is an important Clause. It is important, too, in many other respects, because the inquiries which are held by the Insurance Committees, and are reported to the Insurance Commissioners may, for example, result in a medical practitioner being deprived of the whole of his practice under the Insurance Act. It is possible to strike a man off the panel, and he may perhaps have a large practice under the Insurance Act. I think it is only fair to a man whose whole living may be taken away as the result of an inquiry of this kind that the witnesses who are called upon to give evidence should be required before the final tribunal to do so on oath. There is no provision of that kind at present in the measure, and I think it is only fair that that defect should be removed.
  Mr. BATHURST: I do not object to a Clause dealing with a particular difficulty of this kind, but the hon. Gentleman's explanation of the Clause did not of itself explain the particular subject matter about which he was apprehensive. These inquiries, of course, are not only concerned with disputes with medical men.
  Dr. ADDISON: I only gave that as an illustration.
  Mr. BATHURST: These inquiries do not only relate to disputes as between doctors and other persons. They may relate to disputes as between a society and one of its members, and other matters to which I need not make reference. That being so, I want to ask whether there is any particular virtue in the words "if the Commissioners think fit"? I, for my part, knowing what is the more common procedure of
  3358
  the Courts, should prefer either the omission of these words, or, if the words remain, some such words as these added, "or if the parties so demand." I think many cases will arise where the Commissioners will not be sufficiently seized of the subject matter which is going to be dealt with to be the best judges as to whether or not the person should or should not be put upon oath, and a considerable injustice might, in that event, be done to one of the parties to a dispute who is anxious that the other party to it should be put upon his oath, and is unable, if he has the Commissioners against him, to secure that being done. I should like to, move the addition of those words.
  Mr. FORSTER: I entirely agree with what has fallen from my hon. Friend. We do not want to give any person who is charged before an inquiry the right or the power to put some witnesses upon oath and to allow others to give evidence without being sworn. I think it is very much better, when you are having anything in. the nature of a judicial inquiry, that the witnesses should be examined upon oath, and that the same rule should apply to all witnesses, and that there should be no power to pick and choose as to Which witnesses should be placed on oath and which witnesses should not.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Mr. BATHURST: I should like to move, after the words "think fit," to insert the words "or if the parties so demand."
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Any one of the parties?
  Mr. BATHURST: Yes, I am willing to accept the words "any one of the parties" if you like, and I move it in that form.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am suite prepared to accept that addition.
  Question, "That the words 'or if any of the parties so demand' be inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There will be a. consequential Amendment. You will have to leave out the words "and if the Commissioners so direct." Obviously, you cannot have those words in, because the presiding officer, whoever he may be, must have the power to administer the oath. Why should the Commissioners have anything to do with the direction of whether a judge or the chairman or whoever is conducting the inquiry should

  3359
  administer the oath. The chairman ought to have the power and not be at the direction of the Commissioners.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I agree that that is consequential.
  Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "and if the Commissioners so direct."
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Special Provisions as to Scotland.)
  "(1) For the purpose of providing institutions 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, 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."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is no one going to explain this Clause?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: This is really a very small point, and I think everyone will agree to take it as non-controversial. Some doubt has been expressed as to whether a county council in Scotland has power to borrow for the purpose of establishing sanatoria. Personally, I believe that they have power. I think it is contained in the original Act by implication, but doubts have been expressed on the matter, and this first Subsection is inserted merely for the purpose of settling those doubts. I think it will be generally agreed that for the purposes of establishing the sanatoria, the county council should have power to borrow. The next Section deals with the question of rating for tuberculosis purposes. At pre-
  3360
  sent there are limits to the amount of the rate which district committees are able to levy, and those limits do not exist in the case of other authorities in Scotland. The object here is to make it clear that this limit shall not specially apply to the district committees, but that they shall be in the same position as the other authorities.
  Sir H. CRAIK: There is a Clause in my name on page 53 which essentially belongs to the same subject. The right hon. Gentleman has accepted it, and I think it would come in here as part of the Clause now moved.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think it is one of the cases of which I spoke at the beginning of our proceedings—I mean those cases which the Committee empowered the clerks at the Table to group together in one Clause.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I thought it would be convenient to move it now as part of the Clause.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman may move it when we have read this Clause a second time.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: I should like to confirm what has fallen from my hon. Friend as to the necessity of a Clause of this kind for Scotland. In order to show the Committee that we are only asking for what is fair, I may say that we only desire the same terms for the county councils as those which are already enjoyed by the borough councils of Scotland. I hope, therefore, my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill will accept it.
  Mr. BATHURST: Does this Clause in fact carry out what the promoters of it desire I We start with the expression "For the purposes of providing institutions." It is not pointed out what those institutions are intended to be. They might be any kind of institution. They might, for instance, be a Salvation Army Shelter. Surely you must ticket the institution, or insert that it is some institution referred to in some Section of the principal Act. I only want the matter to be made clear. I do not, for my part, understand what Sub-section (2) means. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow fully understands the meaning of that Section, and I, who am not conversant with the legal phraseology of Scotland or with the institutions in Scotland, am certainly in considerable doubt as to what is meant. Can

  3361
  the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Treasury, give us some further interpretation of the meaning of Subsection (2)?
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: There is a very important principle involved in this new Clause, the effect of which I am afraid my hon. Friend does not quite apprehend. If the Amendment of the Member for Glasgow University is carried, I think that ought to be quite ample; for this reason, that there are no district committees which are not part of the county committees. District committees are really sub-committees appointed by the county insurance committees.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No. All these Scottish Clauses which we have accepted have been submitted to the Lord Advocate. I have starred no Scotch Clause at all, except those which the Lord Advocate has seen and considered desirable, and also which carry out legally the desires of the promoters. Sub-section (1) of this merely gives to the Scottish county councils the same power which the English county councils possess. It. is a technicality of Scotch law with which I am not familiar, but that, I understand, is the intention of the promoters. I believe it is generally agreed by Scottish Members of all parties that this should be done. The Section has nothing to do with the Insurance District Committees, but with the district committees of the county council, which correspond to the English or rural committees, and this merely removes a limit which exists in Scotland but does not exist in England.
  Mr. FORSTER: I think the Committee will gather from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that we are now asked to make an alteration in the general law by means of a Clause, which is not a Government Clause, in connection with an Insurance Amending Bill. I really do not think it is a form of procedure the Committee should agree to. In the first place, I submit it is out of Order, and in the second place I think the Government really must limit the Clauses that they now ask the Committee to accept to Amendments in the Insurance Act, and not let them spread to Amendments in the general law of the land. Therefore I should suggest, and I think I shall get the support of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that we should at any rate limit the power of providing institutions to institutions which
  3362
  are required for the carrying out of the Insurance Act.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the words of the principal Act did not occur in both Subsections, I should certainly rule them out of order.
  Dr. ADDISON: In the absence of any Scottish Member to intervene, it seems to me there is some misapprehension as to what this really means. In Scotland there are district committees which carry on sanitary work under the County Council which have a limit to their powers of assessment. The County Council is given certain duties under the National Insurance Act, Section 64, in respect of the treatment of tuberculosis some of which must be carried out by the district committees. This simply provides that the work so carried out by the district committees in respect of their assessment for other purposes or for public health duties will not count. It simply puts the machinery in operation which Section 64 of the Act explains.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As I understood the Financial Secretary, he said these district committees have nothing to do with the committees under the Insurance Act. They are not insurance committees, and they are not district committees in the technical sense in which "district" is used in the Insurance Act, but it is an outside body altogether. What the second Sub-section appears to be doing is to give some local government authority power to increase its borrowing powers. Surely that is outside the scope of this Act. The only way in which it can be dragged into the Act at all is to say that some authority under this Act wishes to make an agreement with the District Committee and that the District Committee has to pay part of the expense and that that expense ought not to come in its ordinary assessment.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is difficult to deal with two points of Order at once, but with regard to the objection that is taken to Sub-section (1) an Amendment has been handed in to insert after the word "institutions" the words "for the treatment of tuberculosis." With regard to Sub-section (2) it simply refers to the powers given by the local authorities in this respect under Section 16, paragraph (o), of the principal Act, and it is limited, as I understand, to that scope.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It may be intended to have a limit, but I submit that there is no limit whatever in the Clause.
  The CHAIRMAN: Then I am prepared to take Amendments, if necessary, when we come to add the Clause to the Bill, but that is not the reading as I am informed, and as I interpret the Subsection, "In pursuance of agreements under principal Act," and that agreement the Committee will find in paragraph (a) of Section 16 of the principal Act.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "institutions" ["for the purpose of providing institutions"], to insert the words "for the treatment of tuberculosis."
  Mr. CASSEL: Why should you not follow the wording of the principal Act in Section 8, Sub-section (1) (b): "Treatment in sanatoria or other institutions or otherwise when suffering from tuberculosis or such other diseases as the Local Government Board, with the approval of the Treasury, may appoint." Speaking generally may I say there has recently been a case in Scotland when the Scotch judges expressed themselves very strongly indeed about the way in which the Scotch Clauses of the original Act were drafted and said they could hardly imagine how they had come to be drafted in the way they were, and now that we are dealing with this in the absence of the Lord Advocate, or of anyone representing the Scotch Law Officers, I am rather afraid we are likely to get into a bungle.
  Mr. BATHURST: I was about to raise the same question, but it is perfectly clear that Section 16 refers not merely to tuberculosis but to other diseases as well, and I was going to propose, as an Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, to leave out the word "tuberculosis," and insert "for the purposes of Section 16 of the principal Act." It is Section 16 of the principal Act which is apparently referred to here and which authorises the insurance committees to provide these institutions both for tuberculosis and other diseases.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is largely a matter of drafting. Perhaps it would be simplest to take the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cassel) and repeat the words of the original Act.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, after the word "institutions" ["for the purpose of providing institutions"], to insert the words "for the treatment of tuberculosis or any such other diseases as the Local Government Board for Scotland, with the approval of the Treasury, may appoint."
  Mr. AINSWORTH: I believe I have the approval of all hon. Members for Scotland in saying that if these words can be settled with the approval of the Lord Advocate we shall be perfectly satisfied. I only say that because I think it will save my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill and the Committee a great deal of trouble.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2) of the proposed Clause, after the word "committee" ["expenses of a district committee"], to insert the words "incurred for the purpose of administering sanatorium benefit." I understand it is desired to exclude from the limit of assessment any expenditure which may be made for the purpose of administering sanatorium benefit.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: Does the hon. Member appreciate this? If the position in Scotland is as it is in England, these authorities are to have power to treat tuberculosis in respect of the whole population, and it is on that ground that they are entitled to have the grant. If these, words are put in they seem to me to limit the power to the administration of sanatorium benefit, which would only deal with insured persons. If the position in Scotland as it is in England, surely you do not want these words in.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I will ask the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment. We are merely repeating the same words for the district committees as apply to the town councils in Section 80, Sub-section (13) of the principal Act—
  "Expenses incurred by a town council under this part of this Act shall be defrayed out of the public health general assessment but shall not be reckoned in any calculation as to the statutory limit of that assessment and references to the borough fund or borough rate shall be construed accordingly."
  We are now simply applying that same provision almost in terms to the expenses of

  3365
  the district committee, and I understand that all parties and all members for Scotland desire such change.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am quite willing to accept that Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman will move it. As it is, we are given an unknown authority, which ought to be defined, and if the right hon. Gentleman says that is the proper way to define it I am quite willing to accept it.
  Mr. CASSEL: I do not know what are district committees in Scotland. I am not familiar with Scotch procedure, and I do not know that there is such a thing as a district committee in Scotland. There is such a thing as a district insurance committee—that is under Section 59—but I am not aware that the expression "district committee" occurs anywhere in the whole of the original Act.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We are exploring in a rather unknown land, but I am assured that "district committee" in Scotland has a statutory definition, and is a county public authority parallel to the rural district council in England.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My object in moving this Amendment was to limit the power to a definite object. The right hon. Gentleman, I understood, said he did not like the form of words, but would propose some others.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am repeating exactly the words of the principal Act applying to boroughs, that is in pursuance of an agreement under the principal Act or this Act, and that limits the powers entirely to agreements made under this Section.
  Mr. NEWTON: I have listened to the Debate, and I feel that I am still supremely ignorant of what it is that is going to be done. The one sentence of the right hon. Gentleman that I really understood and appreciated was when he said we were travelling in an unknown land. It then occurred to me that it would be more business like on his part if he arranged to provide us with a pilot for these unknown districts in which we are invited to travel.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will insist on my Amendment because these words to which the Financial Secretary calls attention do not limit the objects of
  3366
  the payment. They simply say "these payments are to be made in pursuance of an agreement," but they may be payments for any purpose whatever, without any limit so far as I can see.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I think some of the Members on this side have found a mare's nest. It is difficult to explain the whole of local government in Scotland, but "district committee" is surely well known to all Scotch Members as a statutory authority, and the district committee is the public health authority. As a matter of practice, in the treatment of tuberculosis it is found much more expedient and a much better arrangement that the work should be carried out by the county council and dealt with, not in the small area of a district committee, but over the whole country. To adjust the expenditure between these different bodies this is essential. It is for that purpose that these Clauses are introduced, and they are introduced with the agreement of the Insurance Commissioners for Scotland, the Local Government Board for Scotland and the Association of County Councils for Scotland. I do think, therefore, that hon. Members, however meritorious their interest in Scottish affairs may be, should be perfectly agreeable to leave this matter to us.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: After the very interesting explanation which we have had from my hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik) I think Members of Committee for the first time will be able to understand what is proposed to be done by this Clause. This Clause was put on the Paper by the Government, and it was moved without one word of explanation from them. After many contradictory explanations from various amateurs on the other side, a real professional has come and explained what it is. I think, in the circumstances, I need not trouble the Committee further.
  Mr. W. BOYLE: I want to congratulate the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Craik) on the speech which he has just delivered, and I think I ought to resent the attack which was made on Scottish Home Rule by the hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. BATHURST: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the words "infections disease" [tuberculosis as an infectious disease"], to insert the words "or other disease as aforesaid." I move this Amend-

  3367
  ment in order that diseases other than tuberculosis may be dealt with. I think these words are necessary.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, they are necessary.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to consider the Amendment on the Report stage.
  Mr. BATHURST: I will agree to that if, on the Report stage, the right hon. Gentleman will make the Amendment if he considers it necessary.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly, if it is necessary, I shall have it inserted.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2) to add the words, "A county council in Scotland that has been authorised by the Board to provide an institution in terms of Section sixty-four, Sub-section (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."
  It would be found more convenient in the treatment of tuberculosis to deal with the disease, not in small local areas, but in the wider areas of county councils. This Amendment is to make certain that county councils have the power to act. The district committees are quite ready to leave them to carry this out. There is some little doubt, as Members of the Committee know, whether tuberculosis is an infectious disease or not. We wish to make it quite clear that there is no doubt about that, in order that it may be dealt with by county councils as proposed.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-
  EVANS: Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's lucid explanation of the Amendment, it leaves me in a little doubt as to the relative positions of Scotland and England. Are you thus giving greater power to Scotland than England has got, or is this only a leveling-up of the power of Scotland to that of England? My recollection is that the English local authorities have not got power to treat tuberculosis in the same way as small-pox, scarlet fever, and other notifiable diseases. If the Amendment is only to level Scotland up to England, I
  3368
  have no objection to it, but if it is to put Scotland ahead of England, I wish England to have the same power.
  Dr. ADDISON: The local authorities in England have certain powers under the Public Health Act. Under the principal Act the county councils are required to do certain things, but hitherto in England they have not been the public health authorities. I agree that it is desirable to bring the county councils in England up to the same level as those in Scotland in respect of administration in matters of health. There is an Amendment on the paper later on with that in view.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Women on Sub-committees of Insurance Committees.)
  "At least one woman shall be on every Sub-committee formed by an Insurance Committee, and Section 59 of the principal Act shall be varied accordingly."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time." This is a Clause which the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) asked me to propose. I am not myself prepared to take the responsibility of the Clause as it stands, but I think that with amendment it may be made into a useful Clause.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This new Clause can be explained in a few words. Clause 59, Sub-section (2), paragraph (ii), of the principal Act, provides that
  "Of the members appointed by the council of the county borough two at least shall be women, and of the members appointed by the Insurance Commissioners one at least shall be a duly qualified medical practitioner and two at least shall be women."
  Then Sub-section (4) provides that,
  "The Insurance Commissioners may snake regulations as to the appointment, quorum, term of office, and rotation of members and proceedings generally (including the appointment of subcommittees consisting wholly or partly

  3369
  of members of the committee) of the committee, and the employment of officers and the provision of offices by the committee …"
  I want to provide that on every subcommittee there shall be a female element—one woman. I expect that the right hon. Gentleman has a difficulty in his mind in this matter, and he will probably say that there are not a sufficient number of women members on the Insurance Committees to serve on the sub-committees also, and that there will be more sub-committees than women members on the Insurance Committee. I would point out that those sub-committees are not restricted to members of the Insurance Committee. The Insurance Commissioners may appoint these sub-committees, consisting wholly or partly of members of the committee. The Act provides also for the appointment of persons outside the Insurance Committees altogether. That being so, I think there will be ample opportunity on every subcommittee to have a woman member appointed.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: They are doing it.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I dare say they do in many cases, but I wish to provide that on every sub-committee, certainly the committees dealing with benefits, there should be a woman member. As to finance committees I do not want to lay down strictly that there should be a woman member, but I want on every committee dealing with benefits a woman member, and if the right hon. Gentleman can meet me half-way and introduce an Amendment to that effect, I will accept it.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Government are in complete sympathy with this proposal, but the hon. Gentleman has himself anticipated a practical difficulty. It might not be possible to secure this desirable improvement in every case, and he has suggested a modification which will meet the difficulty. There are strong reasons for women being put on the committees, but I think the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that it should be mandatory that on sub-committees dealing with benefits there should be women. Their services on these committees would be invaluable. I would suggest that words should be introduced to provide that there should be a woman member on every sub-committee for dealing with the administration of any benefits. I suggest as an Amendment, after the words "Insurance Committee," to insert the words "for dealing with the administration of any benefit"
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am prepared to accept that Amendment.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: Does that include medical benefit?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
  Mr. BATHURST: I am bound to say as a member of an Insurance Committee that I feel some difficulty about this new Clause. Personally, I should prefer a measure of self-government left to the Insurance Committees. I think that they are far better equipped, and that they would be the best judges whether it is desirable to have women on their sub-committees or not. It is all very well to talk of the sub-committees dealing with benefits. On these committees there may be no great objection to have women, but I would point out that we may have a committee of eighty members and only four women all told available for sub-committees, and you may have thirty sub-committees. It may be said that outsiders can be appointed, but as a matter of fact we all know that outside persons are not being employed on these sub-committees. I do not sec any prospect in the ordinary course of outside persons being appointed to the sub-committees. I wish to carry this matter a step further. There are certain matters which have to be dealt with by these sub-committees and which it would not be desirable that women should consider. We have a case in the county of Gloucester to-day which has arisen through a dispute between a man suffering from an unpleasant disease and one of the doctors on the panel. I would deprecate very much that there should be women on a sub-committee which has to deal with a case like that. I am sure that she would not herself care to deal with it, because it is one wholly unsuited for her consideration.
  Mr. BOOTH: Nonsense!
  Mr. BATHURST: I would say to the hon. Member for Pontefract who so courteously interrupts me, that his observation emphasises the necessity of leaving this to Insurance Committees themselves. They can best judge whether such a case is or is not a proper matter to be considered by a woman member.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: No doubt there are difficulties, but the committees are getting women to serve on the sub-committees. I think it would be better to leave the new Clause as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. RENDALL: I hope the Clause will be accepted. It is not our business to lag behind public opinion, but rather to be in advance of it. I think the proposal of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) should be supported.
  Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN: Assuming that this Amendment is inserted in the Bill, and that what the hon. Member for the Wilton Division has put to the Committee, i.e., that there are at present not enough women on Insurance Committees to fill these offices, will it not be a necessary consequence and result of this Amendment that more women must be brought into the work of these Committees, and is not that desirable? It appears to me that if you do not make this suggested Amendment, the Insurance Committees may be deterred from appointing women for reasons such as the hon. Member for the Wilton Division has put forward—reasons which appear to my mind to be pretty much what the hon. Member for Pontefract has described. I hope sincerely that this Clause will be put into the Bill.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I wish to move, after the word "every" ["every sub-committeee"], to insert the word "standing." I want to rule out the case of subcommittees appointed ad hoc, possibly to consider, in camera, matters of the kind to which I have referred.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: They would not be sub-committees within the meaning of this Clause.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: These are special sub-committees appointed under the regulations of the Insurance Commissioners under Section 59 of the principal Act. I quite see the hon. Member's point. You may have sub-committees for some special purpose on which it is not really necessary that women should sit. They would be special sub-committees formed under the terms of this Act. Would it meet the case to say that they should be formed by the Insurance Committee "for the purpose of dealing with any benefit under Section 59 of the principal Act, and that the terms of that Act be varied accordingly?" That would mean that it would only deal with special committees appointed under the regulations.
  Mr. BATHURST: I quite agree, and, to my mind, it would meet the case, but I should like to hear the view of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: In the regulations there is a special sub-committee referred to as the medical service sub-committee, which deals with all complaints as between doctors and insured persons. It is provided that insured persons shall have three representatives on that committee, and that there shall also be three doctors. It may be quite inconvenient, out of the whole committee of eighty, to say that one of the three representatives of the insured persons must be a woman.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps I can make a suggestion. It is to insert that at least one woman shall, "except as otherwise prescribed," be appointed on all these subcommittees. I think there may be a real case in the one advanced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stepney, and there may be a case in connection with what has been put forward by the hon. Member for the Wilton, Division. That is provided for in the regulations at present, and you merely give us power, "except as otherwise prescribed," to meet this particular kind of case.
  Mr. NEWTON: I should prefer the right hon. Gentleman to have promised to study the case, consider the difficulties, and take the necessary steps on Report. What we are doing now is to put on the Commissioners the whole responsibility for dealing with the situatiton. Either we do or we do not want to bring women on to these bodies. If we accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman we shall be doing absolutely nothing. I therefore very much prefer the right hon. Gentleman should undertake to look into the matter, and bring forward something which we can approve on Report.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am quite willing to do that. If we pass the Clause as amended, I will look into the question.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I understand that the committees can appoint women on all these sub-committees if they think fit, and I venture to suggest we had very much better leave the matter as it is with this option, than, at this stage, proceed to pass a mandatory resolution. Therefore I shall oppose this addition to the Clause.
  Mr. BATHURST: I think the fault lies in the fact that under the original Act the

  3373
  number of women is limited to four. For my part, I should imagine that the best Amendment the right hon. Gentleman could propose would be to extend that limit and make the number something like eight, so as to have a larger choice, and thereby secure the possibility of a larger representation of women on these committees. That is where the weakness lies. I think it is desirable to have some such Amendment, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, whatever he puts down on Report, will take into consideration the advisability of adopting that step also. I am prepared to withdraw any Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, after the words "Insurance Committee," to insert the words "for dealing with the administration of any benefit." I understand that the hon. Member is willing to accept my suggestion.
  Mr. CASSEL: Does not that include every single sub-committee?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Every sub-committee dealing with the administration of benefits.
  Mr. CASSEL: Every sub-committee will be dealing with the administration of benefits, for that is the only thing for which Insurance Committees exist. They will be dealing with the administration of benefits, whether finance or anything else.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I followed the hon. Member with great care and sympathy. He specially said "I do, not want to include them on Finance Committees. But I want them wherever I can on committees dealing with benefits, where the value of their services will be very great." If this Clause were accepted—I quite understand that the hon. Member for the University of London takes an entirely different view, which he should have an opportunity of expressing—any administrative difficulty that may arise can be carefully considered before the Report stage, and we can see whether it is necessary to add the words "subject to the regulations under Section 59." If we understand exactly the purport of what is aimed at, there need be no difficulty in making it quite clear before we add the final piece of machinery to the Bill.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think it would be possible for this Amendment to work. There are not enough women to go round. I do not know what committees there are except those that deal with the administration of benefits in one form or another.
  Mr. BATHURST: There is the sanatorium Committee.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Women will not be put on the Finance Committee, but, at any rate, we shall have to have more women on the Insurance Commission before the Amendment can be made operative.
  Mr. DAWES: My experience is totally different from that of the hon. Member for Colchester. The London Committee is pretty typical, and we have no trouble whatever in getting women to serve. We have them on all sub-committees, including the Finance Committee, and one of the ladies on that committee is about the most useful member of the committee. I certainly think that this is a very desirable Amendment.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think my hon. Friend realises that under the Act the Insurance Commissioners have already made regulations for the appointment of these sub-committees. They are not restricted to the members of the Insurance Committee, and they may go out into the highways and byways to choose whom they like to serve. It is, therefore, perfectly easy, in appointing a sub-committee, to go outside and choose a woman member. I think this is a most important Amendment.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(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

  3375
  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 three 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 shall be recognised as the local medical committee for that area."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Sir P. MAGNUS: This strikes me as being a highly contentious Clause.
  The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman desire to move an Amendment?
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN: Then I had better call on another Member first, as there may be an Amendment prior to the one which the hon. Member intends to move.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I only wanted to say that, as it is a highly contentious Clause, it had better be withdrawn altogether.
  Dr. ADDISON: I am afraid that the hen. Member for the University of London is under a misapprehension. I should not consider it a highly contentious Clause. I do not want to go into controversial matters, and I will not do so unless the course of the discussion renders it necessary.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Tell us what it means.
  Dr. ADDISON: If the hon. Member for Colchester will exercise a little patience I will do my best. Under Regulation 42 it, is provided that in respect of the practitioners' accounts, which are to be rendered quarterly, and before the payment of the balance, the committee shall submit the account to a committee appointed by practitioners on the panel, which committee shall have the power to reduce or disallow any item in the accounts submitted to it. For instance, in Manchester they have a very important committee to which all accounts go—the drug accounts, the accounts for attendance, and so on. During this year I believe they have
  3376
  among other things disallowed a large number of charges for various reasons. This committee serves many other useful purposes, and I think we should recognise it and put it in proper form. It is a committee which Insurance Committees in the future will have to rely upon more and more. There are other questions as well as drugs and accounts with which they have to deal. There are questions relating to mileage and agreements; there are also matters of complaint affecting practitioners on the panel. A committee of this kind can be made very useful, and I believe that throughout the country the arrangements set up in the regulations and under the Act are working quite smoothly. Of course, there are some districts where it is not so, and one of them is London. It is a great drawback to the smooth working of the Act if the Commissioners are not able to rely on the advice and assistance of some such committee on account of the phraseology of the original Act. I am now referring to the last four lines of the proposed new Clause which says,
  "in any area in which within three months of the time of the passing of this Act no local medical man has been recognised under the provisions of Section 62 of the principal Act, a committee elected in the manner hereinbefore provided, shall be recognised as the local medical committee for that area."
  Section 62 of the principal Act sets out the local medical committee is to be representative of the duly qualified medical practitioners resident in the county or county borough. In the case of London, we have a large number—some thousands—of medical men who are not really in practice, and who are in no way concerned with National Insurance, and never will be. Many of them are University men, men retired from the service, and a large number are consultants and various kinds of specialists. If you are to be tied down to a committee which is to be representative of men resident in the area, great difficulty will necessarily arise. There are over 5,000' men such as I have described in London, and there are about 1,500 practitioners on the panel. It means you may get a committee which does not lend itself to the smooth working of the Act, and, even as in London, may endeavour to frustrate that smooth working. I do not want to open out on the position in London if I can avoid it, but. I have some material which, personally, I should prefer not to give to the com-

  3377
  mittee, but which makes good my contention. At the present time in London there is no local medical committee, and the reason there is none recognised in London is because there has been a great deal of friction fostered, I am afraid, by a number of men who have no special interest in the Act at all. To give an example of the kind of thing which has occurred in London, I will mention one circumstance.
  Some time ago, in consequence of the efforts of a good many people who wanted to set up on amicable terms a local medical committee in London, a meeting was arranged, presided over by a gentleman who is generally trusted. This was the proposal which the men who were outside the panel system in London, led by a number of men whom I am afraid nothing will placate, rejected. It was proposed that twenty-nine men on the London Local Medical Committee should be appointed by men on the panel and twenty-nine by the men off the panel, and that fifteen others should be appointed by the men connected with the various hospitals. They actually rejected that as an unreasonable proposal. For my part I rejoice that they did. I think it would be very improper to limit the representation of the men who are doing the hard work and having all the responsibility in London to such a number on a committee of that kind. It meant that those men could not be satisfied with any reasonable proposals. I am quite sure that in the course of time the difficulties will be smoothed away, and that we shall get an amicable adjustment of things. It is necessary that the Insurance Commissioners should have some committee which they can recognise in London for example, and for that reason I suggest that they should be given the power to recognise the practitioners' committee on the local medical committee in such an area if necessary. It is only to enable the Commissioners and the committee to deal with all the intricate medical questions which must arise with a properly constituted committee in every area. I hope that it will not be necessary to recognise such a committee in London—it entirely depends upon the spirit which prevails—and that it will not be necessary under the provisions of this Clause, but if it is required the committee ought to be able to fall back on a committee so set up.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I have no desire to inflict a long speech on the Committee. I only want to point out that this Clause
  3378
  makes a very considerable alteration in Clause 62 of the principal Act. That Clause requires that any local medical committee shall be representative of the duly qualified medical practitioners resident in the county or county borough, and this Amendment proposes absolutely the reverse—to allow a medical committee to consist only of those members who are at the time on the panel. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is so. I admit that there may be cases where it may be necessary? I think it is very doubtful. I should like to see some arrangement made by which such committee can act provisionally until a more fitting committee is appointed. I would suggest as an Amendment to substitute six months for three months, so as to give more time for the possibility of arranging such a committee.
  Dr. ADDISON: I will be glad to accept that.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Then I shall be prepared not to oppose the Clause if six months be substituted for three.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I entertain a much stronger objection to this Clause than does my hon. Friend the Member for London University, and if that objection is not removed I must consider that the bargain made by the right hon. Gentleman has been broken. By the principal Act the local medical committee is to be representative of the whole medical profession. There has in London been a wide difference of opinion in the medical profession. There are many points of discussion between those who have gone on the panel and those who have conscientiously, and following what they believe to be the right course, refused to come on the panel, and because these differences have not been settled you are to make a local medical committee, which under the principal Act was to be representative of the whole medical profession in the area, constituted from those who have taken one side in the struggle that has occurred in the medical profession. If this is the case it is certainly going very strongly indeed against a very important provision of the principal Act guaranteeing the security of the medical profession. I say, distinctly, that I look upon this as a breach of the understanding that we were not to introduce anything injurious to the medical profession, and unless this will be changed by something the right hon. Gentleman can say I must stand upon

  3379
  my rights and insist upon discussing all the Clauses that we have down on the point.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I would appeal to the hon. Member that this Amendment cannot be injurious to the medical profession. It is to meet a difficulty which was never foreseen when the Act was passing. It is very much to the advantage of the medical profession that there should be some sort of statutory committee, such as the local insurance committee, to consult with them on medical matters. In fact, I think that it was one of the things which those who represented the doctors were most anxious should be put into the original Bill. Now my hon. Friend says that there are certain districts—very few—where there is no local medical committee existing under the conditions laid down in the Statute. He says, "recognise, therefore, a medical committee of those who are actually working the Act." What can be fairer than that? They have the experience and the knowledge connected with the Act. For my part I believe that the intention of Parliament when it passed this Clause was that those who were working the Act should be those who would be electing the local medical committee. My hon. Friend has satisfied the objection of the hon. Member of the University of London by agreeing to accept six months instead of three. I should also like to appeal to him to make another alteration, which I think will go further and perhaps make it entirely non-controversial; that is, that at the end of the Clause to substitute the word "may" for "shall," so that the that portion of the Clause shall read "may be recognised as the local medical committee for that area." If these two alterations be made they will give six months in which, by negotiation, it may be possible to obtain a medical committee of all the doctors, panel and non-panel. But if that is unobtainable we must have a medical committee to negotiate with these insurance committees made out of the panel. Otherwise we will get no committee and the insured persons will suffer.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that he should look at this matter from the point of view of the insurance committees for the moment and not as a dispute between doctors. The Insurance Committees are required by regulations to make terms and conditions of contract and submit accounts to the doctors who have entered into the
  3380
  agreements to carry out these services. They are bound to do that, and the regulations as they now stand provide that they shall do so with a committee of the doctors who are on the panel. This Clause does not interfere with the local medical committee at all. It is the representatives of the whole profession that must be consulted by the committee on general matters. But when it comes to particular matters which affect the committees nobody but those who are dealing with the committee have any interest at all in it, and therefore it is necessary, even if there is a local medical committee, that we should have a committee representing the doctors who are on the panel to deal with matters which affect them and them only. The point at the end of this Clause simply says that if there is no local medical committee this local panel committee may be so regarded. What I want to point out to the hon. Member who is speaking for the profession—
  Dr. ADDISON: He does not speak for the profession.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: This Clause will enable a local medical committee to be set up in these areas where at present the medical profession in London are without any local medical committee. Though they have not got one, this Clause will give them six months in order to form one, and if in six months they do not form one, then it gives the committee the power to recognise these panel doctors as the committee. It cannot possibly worsen the position of the doctors, and it is certainly absolutely necessary for the purpose of working the Act.
  Sir H. CRAIK: The first part of the Clause is not what I object to—the appointment of a committee. What I object to is that this committee would in certain circumstances be recognised as the local medical committee dealing with interests that may appertain to the whole of the profession. I am very sorry to appear to be forcing obstruction, but I am in a very difficult position. If the words "six months" be substituted for "three months," and "may" substituted for "shall." If those in whose interests I am acting are satisfied with that I am ready to withdraw my opposition; but I must reserve the right, if I find that that is not satisfactory, of raising the question again on the Report stage. In these circumstances I will withdraw my opposition.
  Mr. HAMILTON: I have received letters from the medical profession in Manchester, where they seem very much upset about this Amendment, which they oppose very keenly.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It does not apply to Manchester.
  Mr. HAMILTON: It is in my Division. It is not Manchester, but Cheshire, and sonic of the men there also practise in Manchester. There is a very strong feeling in the district that it is a breach of faith with the profession on the part of the Government.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: There is a local medical committee recognised in Cheshire and Manchester, and, indeed, in nine out of ten of the districts concerned.
  Clause read a second time.
  Amendments made:
  Leave out the word "three" ["three months"], and insert instead thereof the word "six."
  Leave out the word "shall" ["shall be recognised"], and insert instead thereof the word "may."
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Administration of Maternity Benefit.)
  "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 Sub-section (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."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  3382
  The object of this Clause is to give the double maternity benefit to the woman who is herself an insured person, and also to remove a difficulty which the Committee generally recognise with regard to the certificate of a midwife being accepted, inasmuch as by this Clause you will now sweep away the four weeks' sick pay that is given during confinement, and you also remove the anomaly that confinement has not been accepted hitherto as an evidence of sickness.
  Mr. CASSEL: Would it not affect further sickness benefit after four weeks?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It does not touch that; it is strictly confined to the four weeks of maternity.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure of the statement he last made. In the third line we have the words,
  "she shall in lieu of any sickness or disablement benefit to which she may be entitled … be entitled to receive maternity benefit."
  Would the maternity benefit swamp her right to sickness benefit for two or three months?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: That certainly is not the intention here.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I know it is not the intention, but it is worth looking at.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: My hon. Friend had an Amendment down in this respect in different words, but we asked him to move it in this form, and I understand this point is completely safeguarded.
  Question put, and agreed to. Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Expenses of Medical and Pharmaceutical Committees.)
  "The Insurance Committee, if requested so to do by any committee elected by the medical practitioners who have entered into agreement with the Insurance Committee for the attendance and treatment of insured persons whose benefit is administered by the Insurance Committee, and if requested by the local committee, elected in manner provided I by the last foregoing Section, may be authorised by the Insurance Commissioners out of moneys available for the provision of

  3383
  medical benefit within the area to allot to and for the administrative expenses of each of the said committees, respectively, such a sum not exceeding one penny in all in respect of each insured person entitled to obtain medical attendance and treatment from the practitioners who have entered into agreement with the Insurance Committee as may be determined by the Insurance Committee with the consent of the Commissioners."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the words "foregoing Section" refer to a new Clause which the Committee passed yesterday, and that this Clause will be printed following that one.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  As I have already stated the doctors on the panel have certain duties to perform. They have accounts to check. It is required by the regulations before payments are made a balance-sheet shall be submitted of accounts to a committee appointed by the practitioners on the panel, which shall have the power to reduce or disallow any items in the accounts presented. Regulation 44 provides that the chemists' accounts are to be submitted quarterly to a pharmaceutical committee, and that committee is to have the power to reduce or disallow any item. What this means is that about 9s. is provided for medical benefit, and that 9s. is divided in certain ways. A sum of 1s. 6d. is definitely allotted for drugs, and there is 6d. which under the regulations is called a "drug suspense account." It might be that some of that money would go to pay doctors for treatment, and some for drugs ordered. At any rate, it does not belong to the insurance committee, but is to be dealt with by those other two committees in some way. It is obvious that with all the prescriptions and accounts, it is no good simply setting up those committees and throwing those accounts at them and millions of prescriptions and saying "here you are, check them." This proposal is purely permissive, and enables those two committees to go to the Insurance Committees and say: "Allot one penny out of the drug suspense account," for that is what it really comes to. The two committees jointly request that this penny, which is their money between them, shall be used for the purposes of those committees, and in the main, of course, to
  3384
  carry on the work of checking those accounts, in which really no one else has any material interest. It is quite obvious that this cannot be forced upon anybody, and this only means that if these people ask that the committee may do so subject to the consent of the Commissioners.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Mr. BATHURST: This is a somewhat ambiguous Clause which refers to another Clause passed yesterday. I want to suggest, as already the local pharmaceutical committee has been so ticketed in the former Clause that we describe it as such in this Clause in order to avoid the ambiguous phraseology of this.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The "pharmaceutical" was struck out.
  The CHAIRMAN: The "ticketting," as the hon. Member calls it, is not done by the committee, It is clone by the draughtsman afterwards, and the draughtsman has the instructions mentioned yesterday that the name was going to be altered.
  Mr. BATHURST: May I ask for my own information whether it is the pharmaceutical committee to which reference was made in the expression "if requested by the local committee elected in manner provided by the last foregoing Section."
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: The previous Clause was carried with the word "pharmaceutical" left out, as objection was taken.
  The CHAIRMAN: It will be headed under one comprehensive name.
  Mr. BATHURST: And make one Clause.
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Special Provisions as to Wales.)
  "(1) Where the area of an Insurance Committee making an arrangement under Subsection (1) of Section 16 of the principal Act is situate in Wales, the Welsh Insurance Commissioners shall be substituted for the Local Government Board as the authority whose approval is required under that Sub-section for the purpose of enabling that committee to enter into such an arrangement.
  (2) The council of a county or county borough in Wales may agree with King Edward the Seventh Welsh National

  3385
  Memorial Association to make such annual or other payments, subject to such conditions and for such periods as may be approved by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, and any expenses incurred under this Sub-section shall, in the case of a county council, be defrayed in like manner as expenses under Sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the principal Act, and, in the case of a county borough council, as part of their general expenses incurred in the execution of the Public Health Acts."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. J. HINDS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This Clause is designed to put right a difficulty which has occurred in Wales, in connection with the administration of sanatorium benefit. The Insurance Act entrusted the Welsh Commissioners with the distribution of a capital grant in aid of the institutions for the treatment of tuberculosis, and the Treasury entrusted them with a fund to be made available for the upkeep of those institutions. The Welsh Commissioners, however, possess all the substantial powers both of approval of schemes, and the general administration of sanatorium benefit, which in the case of England are left to the Local Government Board. By what was obviously an oversight, the decision of the House was not referred to in Clause 16 of the Act, and the consequence is that the Welsh Insurance Committee are unable to enter into agreements for the use of institutions erected and maintained in accordance with the schemes approved by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners. Although it is hardly conceivable that one Government Department would not approve of the use of an institution built under the authority of a scheme approved by another department, that dual control that results from having to obtain the approval of the Local Government Board is an extremely undesirable one in practice, and has been found to lead to confusion and delay. Apart from the delay which must necessarily arise when two departments have to be consulted, the county councils and other local authorities feel there is no finality in the present arrangement, and they find themselves unable to enter into agreements. The Clause is purely an administrative one, and I am sure it is required in Wales.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The first part of this new Clause comes forward, as the hon.
  3386
  Gentleman has just said, with the authority of the Welsh Commissioners, and is designed to carry out what evidently was intended by Sub-section (3) of Section 82 of the principal Act which vested the powers if distribution and control of all the funds used for sanatorium benefit purposes in the Welsh Commissioners and not in the Local Government Board. The Welsh Commissioners were expressly given Local Government powers in that respect, but in respect of the approval of buildings they still have to apply to the Local Government Board. In Wales we have very special conditions which do not apply to England or to Scotland or to Ireland which I think are sufficient grounds for asking for this rather high-handed privilege, as it may appear on the face of it. That is to say we have the Welsh National Memorial Association which, before the National Insurance Act attempted to deal nationally with the problem of the cure of phthisis, and therefore we have a special relation to enter into, namely, a relation between the Welsh Insurance Commissioners and this large and important body, the King Edward VII. Welsh National Memorial Association. I think that the relations between those two bodies would be facilitated if the Local Government Board was kept out of this matter. It is essentially a question of relations between this large body incorporated by Charter which controls sums of money given by the people of Wales for this purpose and the Local Welsh Commission which understands the matter thoroughly. I have an Amendment to add at the end of this Clause, "but the exercise of these powers by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners shall be subject to the control of the Treasury." I agree that those words may be unnecessary because the Welsh Insurance Commission in their letters of appointment are told that they are subject to the control of the Treasury. In the original Section 16 there is no mention of Treasury control. If you wipe out the control of the Local Government Board, I do not think you ought to have a Section of an Act of Parliament which puts the Welsh Commissioners in a completely uncontrolled position, and I think it would be well, for obvious reasons, and in order to maintain Parliamentary control and administrative control generally, that you should insert some words to that effect if you take away the necessary approval of the Local Government Board. The conduct of the Welsh Commis-

  3387
  sioners might at any time be challenged by the Treasury who, in the long run, are responsible for anything they do.
  I come to the second Sub-section of this proposed Clause. I do not know what the origin of this Sub-section is. I have never heard that it has been promoted by the Welsh Commissioners, and I do not know at all what its origin is. It does occur to me, though I may be wrong, that there is something that may be rather dangerous in it. What it virtually does, I gather, is to give to the Welsh county councils and the county borough councils power to raise an unlimited rate to supplement the Treasury grant to the National Memorial Association and the funds at the disposal of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners for the purpose of sanatorium benefit, and I am not at all sure that that is a desirable proposition. I say so for this reason that it might be quite likely to dry up the voluntary subscriptions that are made to the Memorial Association and the voluntary effort to combat phthisis and consumption throughout Wales. For instance, supposing the National Memorial Association wished to indulge in a great educational campaign, who is likely to subscribe to them in Wales if they know that they are liable to have a rate put upon them spread over the whole country for this purpose. What I would suggest is that the power to impose a rate upon the various districts in Wales should be limited to some maximum amount. I think this Sub-section requires some greater explanation than has hitherto been given. We ought to know the origin of this Sub-section and exactly what effect it will have on the voluntary sources of the National Memorial Association.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman has made a very fair speech, and I always understood that in this matter Wales was completely united.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE:
  Yes.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: And that they only wish to carry out their own work in this great treatment of tuberculosis in their own way as far as possible without outside interference. I would ask the hon. Gentleman not to put the words in the Amendment, because I think that would mean a detailed control by the Treasury, which I do not think would be appropriate work for the Treasury. I can assure him there will be complete control of any expenditure of public money by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners. The Insurance
  3388
  Commissioners are responsible to myself, and I am responsible to Parliament. It is rather a technical point, but in that fashion there will be control; and if at any time, as some people desire, and as I think the hon. Gentleman opposite does, that the insurance should be separated from the Treasury, it would be an Insurance Minister who ought to have control in this matter, and not the Treasury. As to the second point, I understand that also is very much desired by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners. It is entirely permissive. It is due to the existence of this Memorial Association as a separate entity in Wales, and which is doing, I believe, very great work in Wales, and it is to allow the county councils to contribute. I do not think there is any real fear of the county councils contributing in excess of the rates. I thought it was unopposed. If the hon. Gentleman says he has any objection, and would wish for a maximum standard to be imposed, perhaps he will allow me to consult with him and his friends afterwards and see if we can meet him. Under those circumstances perhaps he will let the Clause go as it stands now.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the word "general" ["part of their general expenses"].—[Dr. Macnamara.]
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  At 1.33 p.m. the Committee adjourned until 2.15, when the proceedings were resumed.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Alternative Arrangements for the Panel System.)
  "If the Insurance Commissioners are satisfied that the insured persons or any considerable proportion of them within an area, or part of an area, are not receiving satisfactory medical treatment under the panel system the Commissioners may authorise the insurance committee to make, or may themselves make, such other arrangements as will secure to insured persons within the area, or part, such better medical service as is practicable having regard to the funds available for the purpose, or arrangements whereunder insured persons within the area, or part of the area, may be required to make their own arrangements for receiving medical attendance and treatment, including medicines and appliances, and whereunder the Insurance Committee or the Insurance Commis-

  3389
  sioners undertake to pay the cost of such medical attendance and treatment, or such part thereof, as may be practicable having regard to the funds at their disposal for the purpose."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This Clause is meant to give b the insurance Committees, when they have received the sanction of the Commissioners, power to deal with those very few cases where, owing to certain local difficulties, the panel system has broken down. There are unfortunately one or two of those cases, and the dislocation which is caused is a very serious one. It is not fair to the insured person, and we have from our trade unions and friendly societies, from sections of friendly societies at any rate, complaints, sometimes proposing one method and sometimes proposing another method, and we think on the whole this is the fairest method. If the Commissioners had this power, I believe it would put them in a far better position to bargain for the carrying out of the Act as it is now being carried out. Certainly there is a very strong feeling growing up on the part of the members of Insurance Committees that some such power ought to be given, not exactly for the purpose of using it but for the purpose of being able to protect the insured person whose interests are sometimes grossly neglected and are often not well looked after under the present system. Therefore I have nut this Clause on the Paper.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: This Clause seems to me to tinker with a very big question. The hon. Member knows as well as I do, when he speaks of a few exceptional cases in which the panel system has broken down, that there are many such cases, and one of the most prominent is that of London.
  Mr. ALDEN: No, it is not.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: In the East End the panel system has to a large extent broken down. The hon. Member contradicts flatly. He is a great authority in the matter, but I do not think he will deny that in the East End of London there has been the greatest dissatisfaction with the working of the panel system. The population of the East End are not very vocal or
  3390
  voluble; they have not the advantage of having the hon. Member as an advocate to bring forward their case in the House of Commons, but there is not the least doubt that there has been a great paucity of panel doctors, and the hardship has been considerable. I am not going into the question of the firms registered in six boroughs, and the distances the insured person has to go from one borough too another, nor into the other difficulties of working the system. I take the statement of Dr. Roberts, of Stepney, who is very far removed in sympathy from those for whom I act, and he confesses that in his own case it has broken down. He says, "all we can do is to give medicine to those who do not want it. Of real diagnosis there is hardly any." He said that in an interview in the public Press, and he is a very prominent practitioner in the East End. It is a fact that the system has broken down, and what has saved it ties been the great London Hospital, which serves the whole district. But for the action of that hospital, there would have been a complete collapse. Its services have been available to everybody; it did not refuse anyone. The doors have not been shut against a single insured person, and, therefore, the work has been saved.
  Let not the Secretary to the Treasury wrap himself up in the belief that in the East of London—I do not know about the South—the Act has been working well with respect to the panel system. It has not worked at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that in time a remedy would be provided because medical men would be attracted to settle in those districts where the panel system was imperfectly worked, and that they would obtain a livelihood there. Whatever the future may bring, that has not been done to a large extent yet. There still remains a great grievance among the bulk of the people, and how it is going to be remedied by this Clause, I do not know. It allows the Insurance Committees to make other arrangements. Does that include, I suppose it would include, the provision of a special service of doctors to whom some premium would be given to settle there, supposing they wish to do so. It is wide enough to cover that. It is a very wide departure, and it merits more explanation than has been given by the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). When you have a great working class district like that, it means that there are hundreds and thousands of insured persons. Is it meant to deal

  3391
  effectively with those classes? I ask the Secretary to the Treasury to tell us what it is intended to cover. Are we going to have a satisfactory service of panel doctors provided in the East End, or is this merely flying a kite in the hope that something will come of it? If it is intended to suggest to the Insurance Committees of London or in the East End, that they are to take steps to provide a medical service themselves, that is a very big thing and we ought to know something more about. This Clause gives a wide discretion; it makes a great change in the bargain between the Government and the doctors in regard to the panel system, and I think we are entitled to know from the Secretary to the Treasury authoritatively what is intended by it, and what it is likely to bring forth.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This Clause does not make such a great change as the hon. Member who has just spoken suggests. In Clause 15, that much discussed Clause, the Commissioners are given an alternative to the panel system. If the panel system breaks down they must be given an alternative.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I did not say they should not.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We have been told hundreds of time that the insured persons have got to get medical treatment somehow or another.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I only asked for it for them.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am glad to join with the hon. Member in congratulating the great London Hospital on what they have done, and in expressing my gratitude to them and the gratitude of those who are concerned with the working of the Insurance Act. I promised yesterday that I would accept no Amendment which would worsen the position of the doctors on the panel system so long as the panel system works satisfactorily. But supposing there is no panel system, in any district, that no doctors will work on the panel system; supposing again, the doctors who work on the panel system are only that kind of doctor against whom the insured persons feel that they have a grievance, and that they are not being properly treated, the position of the Government is this: They have not entered into a legal contract, but they are under, what I should regard as a binding obligation to supply the insured persons with medical
  3392
  treatment and attendance. In those circumstances I cannot see how the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Lawson) can oppose the Amendment.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I did not oppose it; I asked for information.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope to carry the hon. Member with me.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Probably you will.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope he will agree that it is a perfectly reasonable suggestion to put this power in the hands of the Commissioners and the Committees. The position then will be that as long as the doctors work under the panel system, arid it is satisfactory, the panel system will continue, as the Government contemplate that it should continue. But if in any district the panel system does not supply the insured persons with the medical treatment for which they have a right to ask, then you must have an alternative. There is an alternative in a sense in Section 15, but it is rather cumbrous and roundabout in operation, and I suggest to the Committee that, being placed in the position of having to provide an alternative, they will be well advised to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Leicester.
  Mr. FORSTER: I am sorry I cannot come into line with the right hon. Gentleman on this Amendment. I think it belongs to the category of Clauses which it is desirable we should not press upon the Committee, because I can assure him that there is not that general measure of agreement which would make such a Clause desirable. If he takes the view that a Clause like this should be put into the Bill, I would ask him to do it on the Report stage, which it will be quite possible for him to do, and not to press it to-day. Personally, I think that the powers which are given by the principal Act are sufficient. These enable the Commissioners to give every insured person the opportunity of receiving the medical attention that was promised to them. I am not in the least convinced by anything that I have heard so far that this new Clause is necessary. Perhaps on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will say that it would hardly be fair under the circumstances to press this on the Committee. If he thinks it necessary let him put it forward on Report.
  Mr. GWYNNE: It seems to me that this Clause opens the door to something quite new. It is importing something quite

  3393
  fresh into the whole spirit of the Act, and that is this: the medical benefit is in future, if this Clause is passed, as I read it, to be limited to what is practicable, having regard to the funds available for the purpose. There is nothing in the original Act which says that medical benefit has only to be given so far as funds are available. There is a definite undertaking there that medical benefit shall be given. If it cannot be given there is Section 15 of the Act which says that the Commissioners are to make regulations. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman just now talking about Section 15 as being—I think his words were: "cumbrous and unsatisfactory."
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Well, certainly "cumbrous."
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I said the methods which would have to be adopted under the Act, if the panel system broke down, were cumbrous and unsatisfactory.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Well, leave it at that. But has not the right hon. Gentleman told us time after time in the House when we were criticising the arrangements of the Commissioners in connection with Wisbech and other places that it was quite intended in the Act that they should make these arrangements, and that it was perfectly satisfactory? I never heard anything about "cumbrous" then. He apparently did not think it was not quite satisfactory. The suggestion was that these difficulties were being got over, stamps were being put on by the million, and there was no objection to it at all! Now you are bringing this in by this side way! This is an entirely new proposal and as such certainly requires more explanation than the right hon. Gentleman has given. I for one shall most strenuously oppose this Clause, if for no other reason that you are going to try and limit benefits which you already promised men that they should have. You have already compelled them to enter into insurance under certain conditions you are now withdrawing from that. If you refer to the principal Act there is in Section (8), Sub-section (A), paragraph (a), the following:—
  "Medical treatment and attendance, including the provision of proper and sufficient medicines, and such medicines and surgical appliances as may be prescribed by regulations to be made by the Insurance Commissioners (in this Act called medical benefit)."
  3394
  I know the Commissioners have made a great many regulations on this subject. Can the right hon. Gentleman point to one in which they have limited medical benefit to such funds as may be available, or that may be available for giving it? It is a definite promise and the right hon. Gentleman has no right now to get out of it by bringing in this proviso which limits it. After all, there is the power at present. If the Commissioners cannot give medical benefit, and if medical benefit cannot be given in a certain district, the proper way is to allow people to contract out and not try to make these "hole-and-corner" arrangements by which they can be given what really the Commissioners or Insurance Committees like—because that is really what it comes to. I hope that hon. Members of this side of the house will press a Division on this point.
  Mr. WING: I have great pleasure in supporting this Amendment because it seems to me to be an alternative. We have had two different sets of opinion. On the one hand we have had an hon. Member stating that the panel system has practically broken down, and then we have the hon. Member for Sevenoaks saying that everything is perfectly in order.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I said in East London.
  Mr. WING: Both sets of hon. Members cannot be right. I am supporting this resolution in order that the people of East London should have an opportunity of meeting the difficulty which has been described by the hon. Member. I should like to enlarge the scope of the Amendment by giving to approved societies, in addition to the Committees mentioned, power to provide their own medical dispensaries where people are unable to get proper treatment from the panel doctors in the districts. I should like that alternative to be given. Shall I move my Amendment now?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can move his Amendment when it is proposed to add this Clause to the Bill.
  Mr. BOOTH: I think possibly this addition will make the Clause very contentious indeed. I have an objection to put in the Bill what is likely now to involve the Committee in controversy when trying to get rid of a small difficulty. If it suggested that the approved societies shall organise something in competition to the panel system, speaking myself with a fair oppor-

  3395
  tunity of knowing, I say they do not want to have any such duty. I want to ask the Government if they consider the Amendment quite satisfactory? If the Government say the words will satisfy the point I will not put forward an Amendment which I have by me on the table, and which I purposed putting forward. It runs this way: "The Commissioners may authorise the Insurance Committees to make such other arrangements"—or may themselves make them. What I want to secure is this, that if the Commissioners authorise a Committee to make some arrangement they will have the final say. It seems to me that under this Amendment that we are discussing the Commissioners may authorise a certain county or a certain committee to make some alternative scheme, and that then the Commissioners are free from all responsibility. I do not know what the Government view of these words is. Is it only that the Insurance Committee may prepare a scheme for approval by the Commissioners, or that the Commissioners themselves may make it, or when they authorise a committee to make a scheme that they must submit that scheme to the Commissioners before it come into operation? Otherwise I think that there would be danger, if it simply means the Commissioners authorising a certain town or a county to make some alternative scheme, that we who administer the Act may find all over the country schemes springing up which are not really defended by the Commissioners at headquarters, therefore I should like to see, if the Commissioners authorise a committee to formulate a scheme that it should came back for the comments of the Commissioners before being adopted.
  Dr. ADDISON: Section 15, Sub-section (2), paragraph (e), refers to the point raised by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. It says:—
  "Provided that if the Insurance Commissioners are satisfied after inquiry that the practitioners included in any list are not such as to secure practical medical service in any area they may dispense with the necessity of the adoption of such system as aforesaid as respects that area …"
  That area, I take it, would be in general the area of the Committee in question. There is nothing in the proposed Clause of my hon. Friend which confers upon the Commissioners any powers at all in addition to these provided in the words I have read out. They are all additional powers
  3396
  provided, but it does limit them in one sense. Under the principal Act, for example, to take the case put forward by the hon. Gentleman for Mile End—and I am sorry that I contradicted him so brusquely, but it was because I was in such absolute disagreement with him upon a question of fact—assuming what he said is correct, and assuming that in Hackney the system is not satisfactory, it would still be possible to adopt other arrangements for Hackney and not to interfere with the arrangements in other parts of London where they are working satisfactorily; they would have to suspend the panel system as respects that particular area. That practically would be London, south of the Thames. But they would leave alone the area where it was found satisfactory and deal only with the places where it was not. In that case it is a matter of the Commissioners' power under Section 15 (2) of the Act.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask a plain question as to the difference between the principal Act and this Amending Clause I ask it having regard to the interest of the insured person under the proviso of paragraph (e) of the principal Act, which says that the Commissioners, if they think fit, may do away with the panel system and pay to each insured person a sum equal to the estimated cost of his medical benefit. In the Amending Clause they are to pay what they may, having regard to the funds available for the purpose. What would be the difference in the position of the insured person under this Clause if it be passed into law and his position under the principal Act?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: As I understand this Clause, if it pass, the whole amount of money available, say, in a district like Hoxton, supposing there was not a satisfactory medical service there or no panel service in the district—if the insurance Committee and the Insurance Commissioners were assured that the insured persons were not receiving satisfactory treatment in the district, you have available for this service the money which is at the present time provided by insured persons and the extra money voted by the Government—half-a-crown for insured persons. They would then be authorised to make a scheme, and to use that money to provide medical benefit for insured persons in that area. Of course, if they decided, for instance, to ask for authorisation to employ a whole-time medical officer, they could provide a much better service than the present. It would be cheaper, though not the same as the

  3397
  panel system. On the whole, I recognise the action of the hon. Gentleman opposite, but. I ask him to face this question—
  The CHAIRMAN: I must interrupt for a moment to put the Resolution, which was adopted yesterday—
  Question, "That the Committee do continue to sit, notwithstanding the sitting of the House, and apply for leave to sit after 4 o'clock," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I was saying that I have no objection to this matter being raised upon Report stage, if it be the general wish of the Committee, but I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to face the fact. This matter has been put to me again and again during the last six months. I ask, suppose you cannot give an efficient medical service under the system laid down in Section 15 (2), are you going to let the insured persons go away without any medical service at all?
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think there is the slightest desire on the part of anybody sitting on this side to let the insured persons go without medical service, and for my part it is because I fear that this new Clause will limit the right of the insured person to be provided with medical service that I object to it. Under the original Act, if the Commissioners or Committee cannot give medical benefit in the ordinary way, they are bound to return to the persons in respect of whom they cannot give medical benefit a sum equal to the estimated cost of medical benefit—that is the full sum of 7s. or 7s. 6d., or whatever the actual full sum is. The insured person is entitled to have that money and make provision as best he can for himself. But under the new Clause, as I understand it, the Insurance Commissioners may authorise the Insurance Committee to make such arrangement as they can in any area or part of an area, and they can only get for medical benefit such a sum as the funds available will allow. Within these areas the committee might have set up a quite expensive system which applies only to relatively few of the insured people, and the remaining insured people may not be able to get any benefit, and instead of the 7s. or 7s. 6d. they may only be returned 3s. or 4s. or 5s. That is as I understand the new Clause, and I have not heard anything which in any way removes my fears in that connection. I would ask the Financial Secretary, as he is supporting this Amendment, how this new Clause differs from the powers in the Act, and if it does not do an injustice in the way I have
  3398
  described? In the principal Act you have the power, if the medical benefits break down, to pay over to the insured persons the full cost. Under this new Clause you have power to pay over something different. In what other way does this new Clause extend the powers of the Act in giving medical benefits already in the Act? In the Act you have the panel system and the alternative to the panel system, full medical service by medical men, or payment in cash. All these ways are in the Act, and as far as I can see there is no new way in this Clause except that it might reduce the money.
  Mr. BATHURST: I feel bound to oppose this Clause. The Act says that when a person has paid 4d. and his employer 3d. he has a right not merely to medical attendance and treatment, but, as is stated in Section 15 (2),to adequate medical attendance. That Section goes further and says—and the Section is mandatory—that the regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners shall be such as to secure that the insured person shall receive adequate medical attendance and treatment from a medical practitioner. In this Clause you get altered phraseology and instead of adequate medical treatment you have it cut down to satisfactory medical treatment. Who is going to decide what is satisfactory medical treatment? The employed contributors are entitled to adequate medical treatment as defined by the Act. And the Clause goes on to say that the Commissioners may authorise the Insurance Committee to make arrangements for such better medical service as is practicable. What the Act says is that the Insurance Commissioners and the Insurance Committee must themselves provide this adequate medical attendance, and if it is not practical then they have to make it practical. It is their business to put forward a practical scheme, and if Section 15 means anything it means that. If the scheme is impracticable they have to find a way out of the difficulty. Instead of that this Clause would limit Section 8 and Section 15 and is ultra vires of the principal Act. But it does not stop there, for it goes on to say "having regard to the funds available for the purpose." These men have paid money and entered into a contract with the Government and if the funds are not available it is the business of the Insurance Commissioners to see that funds are forthcoming sufficient for the purpose. I shall oppose this Clause because I think it is a breach of contract with the employed contributors under the National Insurance Act.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am not in favour of any Clause which is going to worsen the position of the employed contributor under the principal Act. If there is any error in the wording of the Clause which I have moved, I think it could be amended in the ordinary way after the Clause has been read a second time. We know the conditions under which we are working today. It is all very well to say that the commissioners have got power now to deal adequately with insured persons. As a matter of fact that is not the case, judging by experience. As I stated when I moved this Clause, we are having complaints from all over the country, and we are told on very good authority—that is the authority of the Insurance Committees and others we have consulted—that the principal Act does require amending. This Clause has been drafted for the purpose of making that necessary amendment in the Insurance Act. We are determined, as far as we can secure it, that the insured person shall have his medical benefit adequately and properly supplied, and if there is any conspiracy on the part of anybody, either by the paralysis of the panel system or any other part of the machinery necessary for carrying out the principal Act, we are determined to put an end to it. That is why this Clause has been introduced. I am perfectly willing, in view of what has been said, to ask the Committee to allow me to withdraw this Amendment in order that we may reconsider some of the phrasing that has been used in this new Clause, and bring it up on the Report stage. Then we shall see exactly how things stand, and we shall see whether the parties who have spoken in favour of this principle are prepared to support it when we bring it up in the House of Commons. In the interests of insured persons I say that unless some such proposal as this is adopted those interests are going to be sacrificed. Under these circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
  Mr. GOULDING: Before this Clause is withdrawn, I think we ought to consider first whether there is likely to be any opportunity on Report of considering the matter. There is quite a chance that it will not be discussed at all on Report. This point, was raised by the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst), and I drew attention to the inadequate treatment given to a girl in one case. I think we had better read this Clause a second time and see if we can amend it, but I am perfectly certain in my own mind, seeing how things are being rushed through,
  3400
  unless we start here with the foundation for a discussion downstairs, this question may be ignored altogether.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member is discussing a totally different point. The point dealt with by this new Clause is what is to be provided when there is no panel system. The point which the hon. Member has been discussing is connected with the panel system. I must appeal to the Committee in connection with the arrangement we came to yesterday. The hon. Member for Glasgow asked me a question, and I gave him a very definite answer. He asked me if we would agree, supposing there were no Amendments moved to worsen the condition of the panel doctors, that, no Amendment should be moved to put the balance on the other side. I agreed with him, and I made an arrangement with the hon. Member for Salisbury that his Amendment should not, be moved. Therefore I think it must be on the Report stage that any question should be raised in connection with the medical arrangements of the panel system. The case we are contemplating is where the panel system breaks down. If my hon. Friend can withdraw his Clause and submit a more practical scheme on report whereby no insured person will be worsened, and under which we shall be able to give medical attendance and treatment as good as on the panel system, I will do my best to support such a proposal.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I am very unwilling to see things left exactly as they are now. There is, however, one thing which you must provide. We must see that every insured person and every employed contributor gets the full benefit he is entitled to under the principal Act.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am asking leave to withdraw my Amendment because I understand that there is a general agreement upon the Committee that the intention which we are trying to carry out shall be carried out on Report. The intention is that all insured persons shall have medical benefit on the scale and in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act. I confess what has influenced me is the arguments made against certain words that have been introduced into this new Clause and certain phrases which seem to indicate that if this new Clause was added to the Bill it would lower the standard of medical treatment to which insured persons are entitled. I am not willing to be a party to that. I am prepared to take the risk of

  3401
  the Report stage, because I am sure, if there is ay sort of general agreement as to our intention, the Government cannot possibly refuse us an opportunity of embodying this new Clause.
  Mr. CASSEL: The hon. Member says that there is general agreement, but I would like to know exactly what he means. I understand that the hon. Member wishes to secure adequate medical treatment for every insured person through the panel system.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Not necessarily.
  Mr. CASSEL: Through the panel system in the first instance, and if not by some other means. If what the hon. Member means is that he intends to secure adequate medical treatment for every insured person, I quite agree with him. The principal Act says that in so many words, and if anybody took the question to a legal tribunal I think that is the way in which it would be decided. Before we come to the conclusion that we are in agreement, I think we ought to understand that point clearly. I understand the hon. Member for Leicester's object is merely to secure adequate medical service for every insured person and I am willing to agree to any Clause which carries out that object.
  Proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to Make Payments in Lieu of Medical Treatment in Certain Cases.)
  "Where any person satisfies the Insurance Committee that on conscientious grounds he does not desire treatment by a duly-qualified medical practitioner, his right to medical benefit shall be suspended and the Insurance Committee shall pay to him in each year the sum equal to the sums payable to the Committee in respect of his medical benefit."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. ALDEN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This Clause is intended to meet the case of a few people who have conscientious scruples against medical practitioners. Personally, I think people ought to consult doctors as often as possible, but there are cases known to hon. Members here of people who, for some reason or other, whether rightly or wrongly, conscientiously object to treatment by doctors. I do not say that this Clause is satisfactory, and
  3402
  I do not say that there are not other safeguarding words wanted in the Clause, but I do say that some provision should be made to meet the case of a very few people who desire to stand out. Personally, I do not even know whether these people are members of approved societies, but, if they are, then I think perhaps the sanction of the approved societies should be obtained. Otherwise I can see no reason for refusing to allow them to stand out and take the money which they would be entitled to receive in respect of medical benefit. I am thinking of two special cases. One is the case of the man who has all his life been in the habit of going to a herbalist. I think that he is very stupid, but there it is. The other is the case of a man or woman who goes to a Christian Scientist for treatment. I think that in both those cases they are misguided, but there are such people, we have to take them into account, and I do not quite see why they should altogether lose the money which, under this Bill, is set aside for their medical treatment.
  Dr. ESMONDE: I am very much astonished that the right hon. Gentleman should have put his name to this Clause. I understand we had a sort of tacit arrangement that on neither side, whether for or against medical benefit, would we have any controversial Clause here to-day. This, however, is a Clause which, if adopted, will break up medical benefit altogether. The healthy man in a society who never wants a doctor, and who never thinks of having a doctor, will say "I am a conscientious objector," and the consequence will be that you will have the societies giving medical benefit to people who really require it, and those who do not require it and at present help to pay for those who are sick will not pay at all. I venture to say that if this Clause is carried we shall have considerable trouble not only with the friendly societies, but also with the medical profession, who have come to an arrangement with the Government which I think it would be a great mistake to break through.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Clause is not quite so ridiculous as the hon. Gentleman suggests, nor is there any fear of our coming into any dispute with the medical profession in the matter. They object to what some Insurance Committees have done—giving leave, as some of them have done, to persons to have authorised treat-

  3403
  ment of various kinds, and at the same time asserting that treatment is under the regulations equal in value to that given by the medical profession. This Clause meets a real case just as much as the anti-vaccination conscientious objector meets a real case, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen, if they are ignorant of the facts, that they would not be if they were in my position. There are a very considerable number of insured persons and employers, especially in the North of England, who say that they will not pay the money which is going towards ordinary medical treatment, unless the employés are not able to contribute towards that medical benefit. We are only giving a permissive power to the Insurance Committees, and that permissive power was promised in the original Act. If the Insurance Committee assures itself that one of these persons has a conscientious objection, then it will let him contract out. It is never any good the State entering into a fight with conscientious objection, Again and again, as in the vaccination laws, we have found that it does not work. Conscientious objectors are quite prepared to go to prison, and it is very foolish for us to enter into any such struggle.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman advised by his legal advisers that the Insurance Committees at present have not got power to do this?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: They have power to do it under the condition that it is assumed the herbalist's treatment is as good as the doctor's treatment, and it is to that the doctors object. I have talked to some of the best men in the medical profession, and whilst they object to that, they do not object to the conscientious objector going out altogether, because they quite rightly realise that directly you raise the question of conscientious objection to medical practice, you raise a very unpleasant controversy in various parts of the country, and a general onslaught on compulsory medical service may result. I have seen deputations of these people on the subject. They were promised in Parliament that they should be allowed to contract out, and I do therefore ask the Committee to support the Government on this Clause.
  Mr. BATHURST: I admire the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman's North country employer.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: There are a lot of them in the Midlands.
  Mr. BATHURST: The employer who has discovered a means of getting out of his payments by means of calling himself a conscientious herbalist or Christian Scientist! For my part, if this Clause is carried, I shall seek to get over the unfairness of the flat rate in the rural districts by advising all my rural labourers to be conscientious herbalists. Some of us know something about these herbalists. I do not know that I am disclosing any secret when I say that it has already become apparent to a certain committee which has been sitting lately to consider this and similar questions that herbalism is founded largely, if not entirely, upon the ignorance of the poorer and less instructed people among whom they practice.
  Mr. ALDEN: Have the poor no ignorance with regard to the doctors?
  Mr. BATHURST: I do not want to raise that difficult point, but I think that hon. Members will be prepared to admit that those who carry on the profession of a medical practitioner, and are recognised as such, have some education, and have to pass certain degrees in order to practice. Who are these people who go about professing to be herbalists? They are, almost without exception, cranks. They are people generally of no education or very little education, of curiously little scientific knowedge of botany, upon the basis of which they carry on their profession, and they are peculiarly well suited to impose upon the poorer and less instructed class of the community. There will be nothing whatever, if this Clause is passed, to prevent two-thirds of the population of the villages, under the influence of a so-called herbalist, coming forward as conscientious herbalists, and thereby getting a cash payment instead of receiving medical treatment under the Act.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not really press this Clause, because I am afraid if he does that he will open the door to a very wide question. For instance, in the county I have the honour to represent, there are something like 65,000 living in the non-county boroughs, and there are no less than two or three thousand workmen who conscientiously object to going to the panel doctors.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Conscientiously object?
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Yes, they conscientiously object. They will not go to the panel doctor on any consideration.
  Mr. ALDEN: Will they go to any doctor?
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Yes.
  Mr. ALDEN: Then they cannot be conscientious objectors.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: They have a conscientious objection to going to the panel doctor. If you are going to give this right to persons who have a religious objection to consulting doctors or to herbalists, then you certainly must carry out the intention of Section 15, Sub-section (3), and give it to those in my Constituency who have made representations to the Commissioners over and over again that they want a medical man of their own choice. They certainly have a conscientious objection. I know that from my own personal experience, because they have made appeals to me. They will not go, and you cannot make them go. If the right hon. Gentleman presses this Clause upon the Committee, I am quite certain that he will give great dissatisfaction.
  Mr. HAMILTON: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered what the effect will be on the approved societies if we have these Christian Scientists attended by a considerable amount of prayer, because they are likely to receive medical benefit for some considerable length of time!
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: There is a real difficulty, but obviously this Clause does not meet it. The right hon. Gentleman constantly used the words "they ought to be allowed to contract out," but that is not what this Clause does. I quite agree that you have no right to enforce an insured person who believes in herbalism or some other form of medicine to take his medical treatment in a way in which he conscientiously disbelieves, but that is no reason for throwing 9s. at him. Surely, what the Committee have got to do is to see that he does not get the money which the approved societies are paying to the Insurance Committees for medical treatment of some kind or other without he gets it! I should have thought that the best way would have been to have provided that where an insured person requires treatment under a system of medicine not practised by any medical practitioner who has entered into arrangements with the committee, the Insurance
  3406
  Committee may, subject to regulations, subscribe to the cost of the treatment he desires to receive. When a person goes to the Insurance Committee, and wants to contract out with a qualified medical man, we say, "No, we cannot give the Government Grant unless you comply with the conditions of treatment," and yet, under this Clause, a man has only to say, "I do not want any of your doctors," and we then say, "Very well; there is the money, do what you like." It is perfectly obvious that this Clause does not meet the difficulty, but it is no use running away from the difficulty. The hon. Gentleman opposite may say herbalists are foolish, and we may have our own view about Christian Scientists, but, however foolish they may be, we cannot compel them to take treatment in any other way. Therefore, I would suggest that either now or on Report we should make the Clause read: "The Insurance Committee shall pay towards the cost of treatment by people who are not registered practitioners where they are satisfied that there is conscientious objection to receiving treatment from a qualified practitioner." Speaking for an Insurance Committee, I know the work that will involve, but I am perfectly certain that we would infinitely prefer that extra work to giving 9s. to everybody who chooses to accept the opportunity of coming to us for it.
  Mr. LYNCH: I rise to oppose this Clause, and I cannot but express my astonishment that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should have allowed his name to be associated with it. It shakes not merely my faith in this Amending Bill, but also my faith in the right hon. Gentleman. Whilst I am astonished that he should put his name to it, I am still more astonished at the argument which he adduced in support of it. That shattered the last vestige of faith I had in him. I suggest that as certain influences have been brought to bear upon him to put his name to the Clause, he should use his influence with those hon. Gentlemen to induce them to withdraw the Clause. He brings forward in support of his position the case of the conscientious anti-vaccinator, but there is no parallel at all between those two cases. Vaccination is something applied to a healthy person. It is quite possible that a person may on medical or other grounds object to having a child vaccinated, but when that child is free from the obligation of being vaccinated—

  3407
  [Interruption]. The right hon. Gentleman has been open to some arguments, and I hope he will be open to this one.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have really not heard what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, but I infer that it is not to the point of the Amendment, otherwise I should have heard him.
  Mr. LYNCH: The argument about anti-vaccination has no force in this regard, because vaccination is something which may be applied to a healthy person, but people may have medical grounds for objecting to that procedure. In this instance, when the State proposes to compel persons to do something, it does not pay them 9s. Another point I must take is that allowing his name to be applied to this Clause is a great violation of the agreement by which he induced Gentlemen opposite—the hon. Member for Salisbury for one, and the hon. Member for the London University for another—to withdraw various Amendments much more important than this and having much more weight and authority behind them. Then, again, I am astonished to find what has been said about the medical profession. The medical profession is very badly used, and by means of this Amending Bill it has now been brought to a state of degradation, so much so that we actually have to defend it, as the hon. Gentleman has done, by placing it higher than herbalists and Christian Scientists. On this very point, I should like to ask you in what regard I have been out of order? I have been traversing arguments to which you yourself have listened.
  The CHAIRMAN: I called the hon. Member to order because it seemed to me that he was wasting time. Half of his remarks appeared to be addressed to hon. Gentlemen around him, and I thought he had really finished.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Will the hon. Member allow me to say here that I do not want to move any controversial Clause, and the Committee apparently has made up its mind that it does not want this Clause? I was under a pledge to press it, but I will not press the Committee to a Division upon it. I do not believe there is any reason why this Clause should have excited such an hysterical expression as the hon. Member for West Clare has given.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is that in order?
  The CHAIRMAN: I have not heard half of what the hon. Member for West Clare
  3408
  was saying. His remarks appeared to be addressed to those beside him rather than to the Committee.
  Mr. LYNCH: The point of Order to which I rose, Mr. Chairman, was that the right hon. Gentleman in reply, and in default of arguments, addressed what was intended to be an offensive expression. I ask you to take notice of that.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not mean anything—
  Mr. LYNCH: On a point of Order. I am glad to have that expression from you, but I should like to have it from the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am sorry that when I attempt in any degree to chaff the hon. Member he takes it in a very serious way. I am quite content to withdraw anything that has offended him, and, in view of the expressed wish of the Committee, also to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I should like to ask the tight hon. Gentleman a question. He has just told the Committee that he has made a promise that this Clause should be passed.
  The CHAIRMAN: No.
  Mr. GWYNNE: He told us that he had met a deputation and made a promise on the subject. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman should break this promise; and if he has made the promise, why does he withdraw the Clause because sonic hon. Members press him to do so? It is very undesirable to make promises beforehand, but, if a promise was made, why did not the right hon. Gentleman put the Clause down in the original Bill; or, if he did not do that, why did he not put the Clause down in his own name, instead of waiting for another hon. Gentleman to do it? I certainly disagree with this Clause, which requires some explanation.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am quite able to look after my own promises. I have made no more promise than to attempt to get this result. As to the general question, I promised not to try and run controversial Clauses.
  Question, "That the proposed Clause be withdrawn," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.
  The CHAIRMAN: I would appeal to hon. Members, as we are having a long

  3409
  sitting, and it is a hot afternoon, to address the Chair as much as they can, and that those who are not speaking should refrain from using expressions. I only appeal on behalf of those conducting the Bill. Moreover, it is very hard for me to follow everything that is being said, and this difficulty caused me, perhaps in an abrupt manner, to call the hon. Member to order. This is a personal appeal.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Employer in Case of Outworkers.)
  "The Insurance Commissioners may by a Special Order provide that as respects any outworkers or any class of outworkers specified in the Order the person specified in the Order shall for the purposes of Part I. of the principal Act be deemed to be the employer."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  I hope the Committee will accept this new Clause. It raises a very important matter as affecting a large number of people who are outworkers throughout this country, and perhaps I might point out that this is specially applicable to those engaged in the Nottingham lace trade. There we have a number of people who take work out from the warehouses in the capacity of middle-women or middle-men, and they employ a few persons in the home-work. The result of the hardships imposed upon them by the Act will be very keenly felt. The middle-woman's profits are tantamount to a small commission, and that is reduced very considerably by the Act as it stands. I might remind the Committee that there is nothing dangerous in this because there is a precedent in. the Workmen's Compensation Act, under which Act you do not allow the original employer to get out of his liability. All we are asking for is that the working of the Workmen's Compensation Act should apply in the case of the outworkers. I assure the Committee that the case of the outworkers is a grave hardship, and it seems to me that the middle-woman, who is a poor woman, and whose profit is only a small commission, should be relieved of the obligation, and that it should be cast upon the warehouseman.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: We have had an interesting speech from the hon. Gentleman, but he has only carried this a very little distance. He has not shown how the Clause is going to work out in practice.
  3410
  Let me say that the outworkers are suffering under great hardship. They are being made to pay, and they are not likely to get the benefits for their payments. On the contrary, this may add to their difficulties rather than remove them. If the hon. Member would take the case—which is a common case, especially in the clothing trade—of a factory sending out a cartload of work, and apply this Order to such a case as that, what would happen? As it is now, some ten or twenty women come and take work and from the moment they get that work their employer cannot know who is going to do the work. They may themselves be middle-women within the meaning of this Clause; they may sometimes do the work themselves, and at other times other women, acquaintances of theirs, may do the work. It seems impossible in that class of outwork to say that the original employer is the employer of the delegates of the middle-women, or the people to whom the middle women may send the work. The employer does not know who they are, has not a card in respect of them, and in the case of the unit system the employer stamps on the 13s. unit in that trade. He cannot possibly say whether the whole of the work was done by the person whose card he stamps. It may have been shared by that person among two or three others, and if you were to make the first employer, the factory owner, the employer of everybody among whom the work is shared, you would cause great difficulty in giving outwork at all, but would very likely kill outwork. Because otherwise the employer would be taking the risk of employing people without paying their contributions, and for one little job of 10s. or 15s. of work he might be liable in respect of four or five persons among whom the work was distributed. I think it is very dangerous that further powers should be given for forcing people to contribute until you have found some means of giving them benefit, I do not so much mind when you have found means of giving them benefit, improving the machinery for getting in the contributor, but you ought to be sure that you are going to give benefit before you attempt to do what you are now proposing to do—to make Special Orders, placing a greater liability upon some of the employers of these people.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps I may explain why the Government intend to accept this Amendment. It may apply to any class of outworkers. As the procedure is by Special Order by which all persons have to be heard—in case of dispute an impartial person appointed to consider each case—

  3411
  there is very little risk that the particular difficulties suggested by the hon. Member for Colchester would arise. But there are certain cases where this would meet an undoubted grievance, and here I appeal to the Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I wish you would not.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: There has been difficulty through giving the employed person the task of finding who is his or her employer. There has been considerable discussion as to whether the middle-woman or the actual employer is the employer—I mean the middle-woman or middle-man and the owner of the factory who gives out work. There has been some confusion. Factory owners tried to make some arrangement with the middle-men, but the arrangement broke down. Everyone realises that middle-women ought not to bear this burden. The employers themselves realise that to a large extent, but the arrangement that has been in existence has not worked satisfactorily. I think this would be a very useful hit of machinery and would tend to the smooth working of the Act.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I desire to express the hope that the Committee will not accept this Amendment. The great objection I have to it is that it enlarges the powers of the Insurance Commissioners. These Commissioners have not so far exercised their powers in such a way as to justify further confidence being placed in them, or to obtain for themselves more confidence from the people generally. That is my view. I venture to think that it is the duty of the House, and of this Committee advising the House, to avoid enlarging the powers of the Insurance Commissioners upon a matter of this kind. It may be that in the case of the particular trade to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred there may be some complications with which the Commissioners by a Special Order could deal. But in other trades where work is sub-let difficulties would arise, and the very difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to would be accentuated. I have in my mind a trade where tailor women receive in a country district work from the towns that is deputed from hand to hand—sometimes once and sometimes twice—and if you are to make these intermediate women responsible as employers, you would simply raise such a state of complication and so many difficulties, both with the first em-
  3412
  ployers and with the intermediate employers, that the original employers would destroy the trade altogether. That is the difficulty which would arise in some trades and in some districts, but, perhaps, it does not apply to others. Therefore, in view of these difficulties, I venture to think that the remedy is worse than the disease, and I sincerely hope that the Committee will not accept this Clause.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: We have heard a very amusing speech from the hon. Member who has preceded me, opening first of all with a censure upon the Commissions, which is in very strong variance with the expressions of gratitude to the Commissioners that have been made on his own side. But the other part of his speech really makes him, or ought to make him, if he understood the new Clause, a very strong supporter of it. It is these poor unfortunate middle-women who get the work through their hands, and about whom he expresses great sympathy, who are the employers under the principal Act. If he will be good enough to look at Schedule 1 he will find that the middle-woman is the employer, and if he will look at our new Clause he will find its intention is to make the middle-woman not the employer. Therefore, he must vote for us. His argument strengthens the position of the Government.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who assumes such an air of superiority and greater knowledge, but I would point out that if this Clause be accepted it would enable the Commissioners to argue both ways. They could give not only the relief to which the hon. Member refers, but they could also put an additional burden upon the middle-women which they do not at present bear.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The third part of the hon. Member's speech is one which is unintelligible.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: Perhaps to you.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: But taking the second part of his speech—and that is all I have to go upon, and the Clause as it is down upon the Paper—I assume that he might support the Clause although he said he was going to oppose it. The new Clause has been drafted specifically to meet the Nottingham case. It is found at the present moment that the conditions of the Nottingham outworking industry are in a state of chaos as far as the insurance Act is concerned. The employers in some instances have promised 2½ per cent towards the

  3413
  cost of the contributions, but it is impossible to get others to do that. The result is that the middle-women really do not know where they are, nor do the outworkers. The proposal we make here is that the Insurance Commissioners, by Special Order, if they think fit, should provide as regards any class of outworkers specified in the Order that the principal giver of work shall be regarded as the employer. We do not want to force that upon the employers, and that is the reason why the suggestion is made about a Special Order. As soon as the Special Order is issued there must be a conference, and that really after all is what we want. We want to put an end to the present state of chaos, as does everybody interested in the Nottingham trade. This really is an Amendment which has come to us from the locality. Everyone interested in the trade in Nottingham wishes to get something done which will compel a conference. If the conference be unsuccessful, a Special Order cannot be put into operation. It is no use going on in such a complicated trade as this in this way. We have been told by the Trade Board representatives and others that if the Special Order was issued a conference would be held and that the result of the conference would be that something practicable would be arrived at. I therefore hope the Committee will let this Clause go through in its present form with the full knowledge that what it really means is to give the Commissioners power to take the preliminary steps to get a conference between the employers and the employed and the insurance authorities, so that some law and order may emerge from the present chaos.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Gentleman speaks as if this were limited to Nottingham, but, of course, it is not. I forget exactly how many outworkers there are, but I think there are something like 100,000 throughout the Kingdom. I do not know how many there are in Nottingham, probably not more than a tenth of the whole. I myself do not know the conditions of Nottingham. While this Clause may be good for Nottingham it does not at all follow that it would be good for the other nine-tenths of the outworkers. I do not propose to divide the Committee on the Second Reading. I really spoke in order to warn the Committee, if I may do so, and the Government, that under this we may have a continuance of the present hardships. Payments are being made and benefits are not being given, and I do not believe that payments ought to be exacted, whether from
  3414
  the employer or from the middle-man or woman or from the worker herself, unless benefits are given in exchange.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Travelling Expenses.)
  "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.'"
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: This Clause simply enables the Insurance Committees to pay the travelling expenses within the area of county boroughs, such as Manchester and Glasgow. This will give them the same power as is possessed by the counties.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE—(Extension of Time for Taking Advantage of Act.)
  "(1) If a person not having been previously insured becomes an employed contributor before the 13th day of October, 1913, the rate of sickness benefit to which he is entitled shall not be reduced by reason only that he did not become an employed contributor within one year after the commencement of the principal Act, notwithstanding that at the time of becoming an employed contributor he is of the age of seventeen or upwards, and accordingly Sub-section (4) of Section 9, and Sub-section (5) of Section 55 of the principal Act shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have had effect, as if sixty-five weeks' were therein substituted for one year.
  (2) The period within which a person may enter into insurance as a voluntary contributor at the rate referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the principal Act shall be extended to the 12th day of October, 1913, and accordingly proviso (a) to Subsection (1) of Section 5 and Sub-section (3) of Section 55 of the principal Act shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have had effect, as if 'sixty-five weeks' were therein substituted for 'six-months.'"
  Clause brought up, and read a first time.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. LARDNER: This Clause is merely to extend the time for coming into insurance, and it has been moved by me in the interests of Irish workers, although of course it is of universal application. I think, having regard to the very few persons who will be affected by it that the Committee may very well accept the Clause.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Are we not to have a statement from the Government as to what this is going to cost? The Secretary to the Treasury is, of course, in a double capacity as representing the Insurance interest and also as representing the interests of the Exchequer. Can he not tell us what this is to cost this year or next year, or what it means? I do not know if it was moved as the same as Sub-section (2), because that extends the time for voluntary contributors, and makes a very great difference to those contributors. I am not opposing. I am very glad that these contributors should have a further time; but I do think some statement ought to be made as to what it is going to cost. There are something like 2,000,000 people who are entitled to become voluntary contributors, and about 1 per cent. of these have at this moment become voluntary contributors. This might mean that a very large extra number would join during the next few months, and that might mean a very large increase in the annual cost of National Insurance. I think the right hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the previous failure of the estimates as to the number of voluntary contributors, ought to give the Committee some estimate of the numbers who are likely to join under this and of the annual cost to the State.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If hon. Gentlemen opposite consider this controversial I shall not press it upon the Committee. There can be no cost additional to the State beyond that originally estimated for. The original estimate was that a certain number of voluntary contributors who are not in the Act owing to various reasons during the first six months shall be allowed to come in. Very few of them came in. I think this is specially pressed from Ireland, where there is an opportunity for farmers, and so on, to become voluntary contributors. But in England also there are a great many voluntary contributors who say, "We did not understand what the Act was, and what great benefits it conferred. If we had understood we should have come in during the first six months. Now you have closed the door to us so far as giving reserve values up to the age of forty-five is con-
  3416
  cerned." They say, now that they understand the Bill, and realise its increasing popularity in all parts of the country, "Give us now the chance we would have taken a year ago." I cannot give the actual number, because I cannot tell how many would avail themselves of this opportunity. All I can say is that the amount of money provided by Parliament cannot be greater than was originally estimated when the Act was passed.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Would it not be well to get from the Irish Commissioners themselves the estimate of the number likely to come in in Ireland? I do not object to giving more money to Ireland. We are always prepared to do it when Ireland shows a good case, but I think this Clause ought to be looked upon in its broader aspect. I think the Secretary to the Treasury ought to be prepared with some estimate at least from the Irish Commission as to the extent to which this will be availed of.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We are not conferring anything on Ireland which we are not conferring on the rest of the United Kingdom, and which we did not contemplate conferring upon Ireland when the Act was passed. This is only giving an opportunity for them to do now what it was assumed they would do in the first six months.
  Mr. FREDERICK HALL: I was rather surprised at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He said that the great benefits which the Insurance Act held forth had apparently not been appreciated by those people heretofore. He did not take into consideration the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), which I think he might have tried to refute. I cannot help thinking that the two statements do not agree in any way. If his anticipations had been realised as regards the popularity of the Act and of the Insurance scheme I think he must be in blissful ignorance of all the facts which point the other way.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Employment within Meaning of Principal Act.)
  "There shall be added to Part I. of the First Schedule to the principal Act, which specifies the classes of employment which is employment within Part I. of the Principal Act, the following paragraph:—

  3417
  (e) Employment under any local or other public authority except such as may be excluded by a Special Order."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. LARDNER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The necessity for this Clause arises out of a recent decision of the Irish Courts. The question which was submitted to them briefly was whether the employés of local boards were insurable persons and the Master of the Rolls decided in the case, which concerned the South Dublin Union, that there was no contract of service, basing his decision upon the fact that the local authorities did not employ these persons solely, as their appointment was subject to the approval of the Local Government Board and they could not dismiss them without that approval. It was therefore held that they were not employed persons within the meaning of the Act. The words at the end of the Amendment with reference to "Special Orders" are intended to protect the interests of other persons in the employment of boards of guardians and local authorities. I take it the Commissioners will by Special Order exclude those persons who, under ordinary circumstances, would not be insurable or would be excluded under the Public Bodies Order. As to those who will be admitted there are a great number of tradesmen in Ireland who occasionally come into the employment of the boards of guardians and local authorities, such as gardeners and carpenters, and there are also farm labourers. They may be in that employment for one, two or three years. They are not insured during that time and they are under the disadvantage when they come out of their employment that in order to get into insurance they must pay up all arrears. It is mainly in the interests of those people that we are asking the Committee to accept this Clause.
  Mr. CASSEL: I think that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury ought to give us the views of the Government. What is the meaning of the words "except such as may be excluded by Special Order"? It seems to me to give the Insurance Commissioners an absolute power to exclude by Special Order any employés of a local or public authority. I may say, personally, that whilst I join in the tributes paid to the administration of the Insurance Commissioners, I am strongly opposed to their having these extended legislative and judicial powers. Administration is their proper sphere and not these legislative and judicial
  3418
  powers. As I understand the Clause, it will give them an absolute general power to exclude by Special Order the employés of any public or local authority. I think wider powers of that kind ought not to be given to the Insurance Commissioners.
  Mr. BATHURST: What is the meaning of the words "or other public"? We have been told the justification for the use of the words "local authority." We all know what a local authority is. What sort of authority is contemplated by these words?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: There has been no judicial decision in England, but the judicial decision which was given in Ireland has upset the principle upon which the Act was debated in the House of Commons. What we are seeking to do is to put the Act back into the position where it was before the decision was given, and to allow these persons to come in as insurable persons. On the assumption that they were insurable persons they have been to a large extent insured. They believed they were insurable. It is simply owing to the fact that they were not set out in the Act as insurable that the difficulty has arisen. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. Bathurst), there are public authorities which are not local authorities, such as the Port of London Authority and Harbour Boards and various other authorities of that kind.
  Mr. GOULDING: Could the right hon. Gentleman gives us an instance of a particular class who might be excluded by Special Order?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: One class which occurs to me for the moment would be the dispensary doctors. As we understand, they would be in employment within the meaning of the Act, but it would be absurd to include them under compulsory insurance.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: By going on with this Amendment you will be in a rather curious difficulty. Part I. shows which employment are employments within the meaning of the Act, and to this is to be added "employment under ally local or any other authority except such as may be excluded by a Special Order." Part II. contains the exceptions, "employment under the Crown or any local or other public authority where the conditions of service and the terms of employment are such as give equal benefits." In the one we have the granting of special exemptions, and the Crown is specially mentioned. In the other

  3419
  case we have not. It seems to me it might read, "employment under the Crown or any other local public authority," and that, just as in Part II. the Insurance Commissioners have to certify in order to enable these people to come under the Act, we ought to alter the Amendment so that persons who are employed under public local authorities may be included by Special Order rather than be excluded. Otherwise it seems to me that people who are not at the moment insured will immediately have to become insured, because their occupation has suddenly without notice become an insurable occupation. Would it not be better not to make them insurable until after the Special Order. They would at least get notice before they were brought into insurance, whether they liked it or not.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: These are insured persons. It was understood they were insurable persons. The question arose whether there was a contract of service with the local authority. Some of these people have had cards and have been putting on stamps from the beginning.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: The next new Clause on the Paper (Exemption) appears by accident. It should not be there.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Paragraph (c) of s. 8 (1) of Principal Act.)
  "Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the principal Act shall have effect as if for the words commencing from the fourth day after being so rendered incapable of work' there were substituted the words 'commencing on the fourth day of such incapacity,' and for the purposes of that paragraph as so amended a day on which the incapacitated person was prevented by the incapacity from doing any effective work shall be, and Sunday shall not be, treated as a day of incapacity; provided that where any insured person usually works on Sunday and abstains from work on some other day of the week the society or committee administering the benefit of that person may substitute that other day for Sunday for the purposes of this Section as respects that insured person."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  It will be seen that this Clause attempts to kill two birds with one stone in connection
  3420
  with the waiting period. The first part down to the word "incapacity" makes it clear that the day upon which the person becomes incapacitated shall be counted as one of the four days of the waiting period.
  At 3.55 p.m. the Committee adjourned, and resumed the proceedings at 4.10 p.m.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I was saying, when our proceedings were interrupted, that, as to the first part of the Clause which settles, if it is carried, that the day upon which the sickness commences shall be one of the four days waiting period, I do not think there will be any disagreement. But I admit that the second thing which I am trying to do in the Clause is not quite so easy. There is a good deal of difference of opinion just now as to whether Sunday shall be counted as one of the four days of waiting period, and, since I have put the Clause down, I am bound to say I have come to the conclusion I do not think I have met the difficulty satisfactorily. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to move it in an altered form which I think would settle the difficulty as far as it is practicable to do so. In the first place, I propose to leave out the words
  "where any insured person usually works on Sunday and abstains from work on some other day of the week."
  Then I propose to substitute the word "some" for "that" in the sentence "substitute that other day fox Sunday," and at the end of the Clause I propose to add the words
  "either generally, or in respect of any particular incapacity where, in their view, the circumstances make it desirable."
  The CHAIR MAN: Perhaps I had better read the Clause as amended:—
  "Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section eight of the principal Act shall have effect as if for the words 'commencing from the fourth day after being so rendered incapable of work' there were substituted the words 'commencing on the fourth day of such incapacity,' and for the purposes of that paragraph as so amended a day on which the incapacitated person was prevented by the incapacity from doing any effective work shall be, and Sunday shall not be, treated as a day of incapacity; provided that the society or committee administering the benefit of that person may substitute some other day for Sunday for the purposes of this Section as respects that insured person,

  3421
  either generally or in respect of any particular incapacity, where in their view the circumstances make it desirable."
  I have a manuscript Amendment handed me by the hon. Member for Wolston (Mr. Goulding) to leave out all words after the word "amended" ["and for the purposes of the paragraph as so amended"], and to insert instead thereof the words "any calendar day on which the person was incapable of work, shall be treated as a day of incapacity."
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I suggest we must come to the consideration of the matter apart from whatever our views may be generally on Sunday labour. I do not think we can legislate on that matter here. We have to treat this as an Insurance matter, and to deal with the facts as they exist. The Clause, as now amended, provides this. The general rule in effect says Sunday shall not count as a waiting day. But that would obviously be too strong a thing to make universal, where you have all kinds of societies and unions with particular classes of men who, whether we like it or not, have to work on Sundays and, indeed, in some cases, on seven days of the week. We shall have to deal with these cases when they arise. The Clause which I have now to submit will enable each society, if it consists of men who work every other Sunday, or on every Sunday, to make a general rule for its own members, dealing with each claim on its own merits. This is a case obviously where Sunday is really a working day which ought to count as a day in the waiting period.
  Mr. BATHURST: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, on the Second Reading of the Bill I referred to this matter mainly with the object of securing uniformity, because, in some few cases, Sunday is treated as a working day and in most cases it is not so treated. As regards the latter cases what actually happens is this: If an employed contributor falls ill on a Thursday, Friday, or Saturday, he has to wait four days for his sickness benefit—he has to wait four full days before he gets that benefit. If he falls ill on other days, he has to wait three full days only. For my part, I would suggest that the only proper solution is to decide once for all whether Sunday is to be a waiting day or not. If you are going to distinguish it let us be perfectly just and equitable to those people who, rightly or wrongly, work on Sundays as well as on other days of the week. Theirs is a case which, to my mind, is not adequately met by the hon. Gentleman's
  3422
  Amendment. There are many cases of men who work in ships who are in fact working part of every day of the week. There are others who work in fitting shops and who do their work on Sundays because the works are at rest on that day. That applies particularly to collieries, where electricians and mechanics are working especially on Sundays, although they also, work in some instances on the other days of the week. I do not want to raise the rural problem. It is a rather difficult one. In any case I do not approve of the Amendment, because I think the words "and Sunday shall not be" ought to be eliminated. Why should Sunday not be treated as a day of incapacity as regards these men to whom I have referred? It is only just and fair it should be so treated. It is one of the days which, under ordinary circumstances, would be a normal day of their employment, and if they lose that employment through illness on that day, it is only right they should obtain the sick pay after waiting three days, and not have to wait four days for it. Therefore I take, first, the simpler part of the Amendment, and I propose to move that the words "and Sunday shall not be" be omitted. I think that every working day ought to be treated as a day of incapacity.
  When we come to the second half, which is rather more difficult, I would suggest that my hon. Friend has cut out a little bit too much. I may be mistaken, but I would suggest he does not want to cut out the. Words "where any insured person usually works on Sunday." I think he requires those words in order to give the full meaning to the second half of his Clause. If, on the other hand, he cuts out the words "and abstains from work on some other day of the week," I should have thought it would be sufficient for that purpose, provided he substitutes "some" for "other." I should further like to ask him what is the object of the words which he desires to tack on to the end of the Clause If the object is, as I believe it is, to give the society or committee full discretion in such a matter, I think it is wrong. In my opinion there ought to be a definite rule laid clown to the effect that a person shall, as a right, if he usually works on Sunday, be entitled to, count that day as one of the waiting days, and it should not be at the option or discretion of any society or any committee to deprive him of that benefit. It is difficult to make oneself clear on a technical subject, but I hope I have done so in this case, and I shall move the Amendments I have suggested in due course.
  Mr. GOULDING: I moved an Amendment two or three days ago dealing with this very question so that we might have something definite, and lay down a uniform practice throughout. So far as I understand this Clause, the hon. Gentleman only proposes to deal specifically with the case of those who work on Sundays. I maintain that if we are going to do this at all we shall have to go much further in the excision of words. I hold that the sickness benefit should date from the first day of illness, and that. It is essential to rule out at once Sunday should no longer count as a day of illness or as a day of qualification, and instead of having four days running, as we do, we should only have three, and Sunday should count as a day. It is no satisfaction to an invalid to be told if he is very ill that he is to go on another day before he gets his sick benefit. His illness is going on the whole time. Therefore I have handed in an Amendment the object is to secure both ends, namely, that Sundays shall count for incapacity as a working day and also that they shall count as an ordinary day in qualifying for sickness. I shall therefore propose to omit all words after "amended" ["and for the purposes of that paragraph as so amended"] and to add the words "any calendar day on which the person was incapable of work shall be treated as a day of incapacity."
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: It is quite obvious that in order to make this Clause of general benefit those words ought to be accepted, otherwise I do not understand how the Clause would work. Take the case of the printers in London. Their customary holiday would be a Saturday. I do not see how, under the last lines of the Clause, they would be benefited at all, because Saturday might not be the day which would be useful from their point of view. The only way out of the difficulty is to put all days upon an equality. We are not dealing now with the question of the regulation of Sunday labour. You must treat all days as being equal for the purposes of the Act.
  Mr. THOMAS: I do not think there is any difference in the Committee upon this matter. The first object of the Clause, which need not be debated, is that which seeks to remove the injustice under which the insured persons suffer now, namely, that instead of waiting only three days and then getting their sickness benefit, the Act is being interpreted as saying that they
  3424
  have to wait four days. The first part of the Clause clearly seeks to remove that injustice and to place it beyond doubt. The next point is with regard to Sunday labour. If the suggestion of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding) is carried—I agree entirely with its object—I would suggest to him that if you are going to make Sunday one of the ordinary days, how are you going to get over the difficulty of dividing the benefit by 6? If you do that you would be immediately landed in this difficulty, that if Sunday is treated as one of the ordinary days a man would not have a full week's benefit and would be penalised to the extent of a day if he came off on a Sunday. We certainly do not want to do that, but that is certainly what would happen if the words suggested were inserted. I know the hon. Member does not intend that. What we have to meet is that there are certain trades and industries where Sunday work is to all intents and purposes part of the ordinary week's work. It sometimes happens that they are penalised one day in the week because of that Sunday labour. For instance, the railway men are penalised if they work on Sundays. They are booked off one day in the week. It would be an injustice to deprive them of the benefit of Sunday if they thereby lose a day in the week. That is not what is wanted. The difficulty is got over at the present time in this way. The men who are affected by Sunday labour are in the main in certain special societies which cater for the particular trades. I think these words give those societies the opportunity of treating the special cases in the way we want them to. I think it is the only way we can deal with it, because a number of trades and trade unions at the present time ignore all the regulations, and treat Sunday as one of the three waiting days, while others do not. The Clause seeks uniformity in that respect. I think there is a fatal objection to the Amendment contemplated by the hon. Member for Worcester.
  Dr. ADDISON: It seems to me that there is no objection to the first part of this Clause, because under Section (8), Subsection (1), paragraph (c), of the original Act, the fourth day is so interpreted that the man does not come into benefit until the fifth day; whereas Parliament intended that the man should be eligible for benefit on the fourth day. I see an objection to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Worcester, because, as he knows, societies pay sickness benefit on the basis of one-sixth of the sickness benefit

  3425
  per working day. Under the suggestion of the hon. Member the man would only get one-seventh, and might suffer some deprivation. If he had only four days he would only receive four-sevenths if that were made general. I think this must be subject to some such variation as proposed. Whether this is the best form of words I do not know. What is aimed at by them is really just. If the Committee see their way to accept the Clause and it is finally decided that as proposed it is not absolutely water-tight, we could have it set Tight, if necessary—it does not seem on the face of it to be necessary—upon Report. I think that would be the wisest course to adopt. It is useful to have such a Clause as this to clear up these two difficult points.
  Mr. HALL: I rise to support the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Worcester. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas, has referred to the case of railway men. What he says applies exactly to the men employed on the London tramways. There are 11,000 men employed by the London County Council in connection with the tramways. They have their Sunday work to do. They take it in turn and have to work one Sunday in a fortnight. I quite appreciate the difficulty with regard to the one-sixth or the one-seventh. Surely the only question to be considered is that the largest amount of benefit should he derived from the Act for the greatest number of people. You must calculate Sundays. Supposing a man is ill for six days, and one of the days happens to be a Sunday. In the ordinary course he would only receive 5/6ths of 10s. Under the provisions of the Clause, if carried, he would get 6/7ths of 10s. You cannot have it both ways. I agree that in some cases you have to take into consideration which is the best benefit for the largest number. I sincerely hope that the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend will be carried. You have to take Sunday as an ordinary day right through the whole piece, and calculate it as an ordinary day. Having done that let us discuss whether we shall have to bring in an Amendment later as to the one-sixth or the one-seventh.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am very much in the hands of the Committee in this matter. I am also very anxious to maintain the principles of the Approved Societies, who really are concerned fundamentally in the matter. My hon. Friend, the Member for Hoxton (Dr. Addison), was quite right when he said that the first part of this
  3426
  Clause is designed to meet a difficulty which has arisen, which may seem to make a man wait longer than the Act intended, owing to the words "commencing from the fourth day after being so rendered incapable of work." We make it quite clear in this Clause that it is to commence on the fourth day after the incapacity. I believe that is desired by everyone of us. As to the Sunday question, we have to remember that it has been an invariable practice—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—of the friendly societies and the trade unions to pay one-sixth of a week for every working day lost, and Sunday does not count as a working day. I am quite sure that if the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hall) is considering the greatest good of the greatest number he will not vote against the friendly societies' practice in this matter, but will allow it to continue, with, perhaps, one possible exception, an exception which has already been pointed out by my two hon. Friends. Where men are working on Sunday then Sunday ought to count in some way as a working day. If a man is ill during a Sunday when he is working on the Sunday, he ought to receive sick pay for that Sunday.
  Mr. GOULDING: Would domestic servants conic into that, as working on the Sunday? Would Sunday be included in the working days?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I feel quite sure that domestic servants would be included as working the day on Sunday, and the society would make Sunday a day.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Which day would be their off day?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In that case I do not think they would have an off day.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: What about the agricultural labourers? [An HON. MEMBER: "What about miners?"]
  Mr. CASSEL: The second part of this Clause really places an insured person in a very much worse position than he is in under the principal Act. Under the principal Act he is entitled to benefit for Sunday and every day. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered that or not. Section 8, Subsection (1), paragraph (c), provides that an insured person is entitled to
  "Periodical payments whilst rendered incapable of work by some specific disease or by bodily or mental disablement, of which notice has been given,

  3427
  commencing from the fourth day after being so rendered incapable of work."
  We are now going to adjust the question of the fourth day. That is perfectly right. As from the fourth day a person is entitled to sick pay, and Sub-section (2) of Section 8 provides:
  "Subject to the provisions of this part of the Act, the rates of sickness benefit and disablement benefit to which insured persons are entitled shall be the rate specified in Part I. of the Fourth Schedule to this Act."
  If you turn to Part I. of the Fourth Schedule the rate is
  "Sickness benefit; for men, the sum of 10s. a week throughout the whole period of twenty-six weeks."
  How can you say that the whole period of 26 weeks does not include Sunday? If any society refuses to pay for the 7 days, all I can say is I do not know what justification they have for such refusal. If you once begin to cut into the question of what is the number of days a matt works, you find that some people only work three or four days a week. Why should they get pay for the days upon which they do not work? There are a great many people who only work 5 days a week, and it may be some only work 4½ days. The only sound principle to adopt is to make the interpretation which I am giving to the Schedule effective by securing the benefit for the whole period of 26 weeks. I do not know whether the Insurance Commissioners take the view that they are not entitled to it.
  At 20 minutes before 5 o'clock the Committee adjourned until 10 minutes after 5 o'clock, when the proceedings were resumed.
  Mr. CASSEL: Before the adjournment I was trying to make it clear that, as the Act was originally framed, Sunday was clearly included in the week, and I think that it is equally clear that it was included in the four days. It was included in the Act as it originally stood in calculating the four days. Under this Amendment, instead of leaving it to be included in all eases, you are giving an option to the societies to deprive the insured of that benefit. That is my ground for saying that you are making the position worse for the insured than it is at the present time. At present, if an insured person claims it, you are bound to reckon Sunday in calculating the four days. There is no reason why you
  3428
  should not count Sunday just as much as any other day, and, if you ate going to give that option, you are certainly making the position worse than it is. It seems to be doubtful whether this will have any effect after the fourth day in calculating the twenty-six weeks. It is just possible that in reading the paragraph as amended you might also apply it to the period of twenty-six weeks. I rather doubt whether it would apply to the twenty-six weeks, but, if it did, it would be against the insured person, because in any case you would exclude Sunday. You would have to reckon your seven days without counting Sunday at all. Therefore, if a man were ill for fourteen days, it would only count as twelve. Really the best thing to do would be to stop at the word "incapacity" ["commencing on the fourth day of such incapacity"]. That would establish one thing clearly, and, if you wanted to add anything else, I would suggest that you should add that in calculating the period up to the fourth day, Sunday should be included.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Always?
  Mr. CASSEL: That would make what the Act does now perfectly clear.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: There is a doubt about it.
  Mr. CASSEL: If there is a doubt, make it perfectly clear by saying "in every case Sunday shall count." With regard to the period of 26 weeks, the only point is when you come to a broken week. So long as you have a full week there is no doubt at all. I agree that in the ease of a broken week it is more advantageous to divide it into six than seven. I think that the Amendment as it stands is worse than the present position unless you stop at the word "incapacity." I think the best thing to do would be to stop at the word "incapacity." and to add, in order to make it quite clear, that "in every case Sunday shall count in calculating the four days."
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: The difficulty arises very largely from the fact that payment is not made as from the first day of sickness, but I think that the practice of friendly societies may be some guidance to us in the matter. Friendly societies in calculating sickness have always contemplated a six days week. The sickness benefit of course is designed to compensate for the loss of wages and in their estimation of the sickness benefit they have always divided the weekly benefit by six. The

  3429
  society of which I am a member and of which I used to be an official calculate the sickness benefit of 12s. as 2s. per day for six days in the week. I recognise, of course, that the Insurance Act has altered circumstances because of the necessity of the man standing off for three days, and I quite agree that it is just where Sunday is ordinarily a working day that it should be estimated as one of the standing days, but I do not think that we should be wise in going further than that. After all, if we make the benefit dividable by seven, we are enormously complicating the administration of the Act. It is not an easily dividable figure. That is apparent to everybody. Furthermore, I apprehend a very great difficulty. It would act unjustly towards the man who is on less than a week, because, instead of getting his 1s. 8d. a day, he would get approximately 1s. 4½d. a day. It would be unjust in that case. There would always be an inducement on the part of a man who might otherwise come off at the expiration of four days in the week to remain on in order that he might get the larger sum, and this, of course, would impose a much larger liability on the respective friendly societies. In experience Sunday has never been a calling on day or a calling off day in any friendly society. If I am able to interpret the general desire of the Committee, we want to make a further concession to the insured person and to provide for two such cases as I am interested in. Men of my own trade engaged in newspaper offices work on the Sunday and have either Saturday or Monday off. In London it is mainly Saturday, and in the provinces it is very often Monday. The concession we propose to make is that where a man loses the Sunday as a working day it should be taken into estimation. Further than that I am sure we should be unwise to go, and I should certainly feel it necessary in the interests of approved societies, both administratively and in regard to the further liability imposed upon them, to oppose dividing the benefit into seven.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I have already made two attempts to deal with the second part of the Clause, and I have put in one Amendment. During the tea interval I have been satisfied that even my second Amendment is not likely to meet with universal approval, and I have been shown words by the right hon. Gentleman which I think would be more likely to meet with the general approval of the Committee. It seems a pity that we should go on dis-
  3430
  cussing an Amendment which I realise will not meet with the general approval of the Committee, and I should therefore be prepared to withdraw it.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have not seen the Amendment to which the hon. Member alludes, but I would suggest that we should read the Clause a second time down to the word "incapacity" ["commencing on the fourth day of such incapacity"], and then add any words the Committee think fit.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I wanted to make a suggestion. As far as I can gather, we are agreed on the Clause down to the word "incapacity" ["commencing on the fourth day of such incapacity"], and that it should be "on the fourth day" and not "from the fourth day" I think that we are all very nearly agreed on the next point. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding) and the bon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) says that you ought to count Sunday under all circumstances.
  Mr. CASSEL: It is so at present.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich has shown exactly what the effect of that would be both on the, men and on the practice of the friendly societies. Therefore, however, much my prejudice might be in the direction of counting Sunday whether it is a working day or not, I think it is quite impossible. Then I come to the next point on which I think we are all agreed, and that is that Sunday should count as if it were a day on which the men habitually work. When the proper time comes, I have a suggestion to make to carry out those two principles, no more and no less than that.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Paragraph (c) of s. 8 (1) of Principal Act.)
  "Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section eight of the principal Act shall have effect as if for the words 'commencing from the fourth day after being so rendered incapable of work' there were substituted the words' 'commencing on the fourth day of such incapacity.'"
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Mr. GOULDING:I have an Amendment, to come after the words "so as amended.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have nothing before me at present but "incapacity."
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause to add the words "and for the purposes of that paragraph as so amended a day on which the incapacitated person was prevented by the incapacity from doing any effective work shall be treated as a clay of incapacity; but a Sunday shall not be so treated unless the insured person, but for the incapacity, would have worked on that day."
  The Clause would then read—
  "Paragraph (c) of Sub-section 1 of Section 8 of the principal Act shall have effect as if for the words 'commencing from the fourth day after being so rendered incapable of work' there were substituted the words 'commencing on the fourth day of such incapacity,' and for the purposes of that paragraph as so amended a day on which the incapacitated person was prevented by the incapacity from doing any effective work shall be treated as a day of incapacity, but a Sunday shall not be so treated unless the insured person but for the incapacity would have worked on that day."
  That would establish the two principles on which I think the Committee is agreed.
  Mr. GOULDING: I wish to insert the words "any calendar day on which the person was incapable of work shall be treated as a day of incapacity." That would ensure that the Act would be interpreted as my Lon. Friend says it stands to-day, and that Sunday would always be included. The interpretation at present is not regular throughout the country, and we want to get uniformity.
  The CHAIRMAN: I understood that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty moved to add the words "and for the purposes of that paragraph as so amended the day on which the incapacitated person was prevented by the incapacity from doing any effective work shall be treated as a day of incapacity, but a Sunday shall not be so treated unless the insured person would, but for the incapacity, have worked on that day" If the hon. Member for Worcester wishes to move his Amendment, he should do so by moving an Amendment to the Amendment.
  Sir COURTENAY WARNER: The difficulty about dividing the week into seven
  3432
  is a mythical difficulty. I am inferring that Sunday should always be counted as the seventh day, although it is quite true that the week is divided into six.
  The CHAIRMAN: This does not touch benefit; it only touches the waiting time.
  Sir C. WARNER: My objection is that Sunday ought always to be affected. The reason given against that was the division of the week into seven, and that reason does not really apply. The only division that has to take place according to this is when it is a part of the week, and supposing you have 12s. a week and you have the 2s. a day system; supposing there were five days, or even six days, it could not come to more than 12s.
  The CHAIRMAN: I really must rule these questions as to benefit out of order. They are not in the words that are moved. If any Member wishes to move another Amendment that sick pay should be paid for Sundays, it must conic after the words which are to be added. The present words simply qualify the three days.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I suggest that we might have a clear vote between the hon. Member for Worcester and ourselves. I shall ask every Member of the Government to support the practice of the friendly societies in this matter and to vote for the only compromise, that is the Amendment as it is proposed to be amended by my right hon. Friend beside me.
  Mr. BATHURST: I, for my part, am not in favour of my Friend's Amendment. I do not see any necessity for these last words, and I should like these last words to be omitted. We could not get better words than those already proposed. I do not want to see the use of the word "Sunday" at all. It is the working day that is the test, and you do not want to drag in the question of Sunday or week day. You have said that if a certain day is a working day as regards a particular individual, that should be one of his waiting days so far as his sickness benefit is concerned. You do not want to bring in the word "Sunday" at all. As a fact we know that as regards nine-tenths of the population Sunday is not a working day, but you need not insert that in your Clause. The test is whether it is a working day, and I suggest that you have sufficient words to make that clear if you carry your Clause down to the second word "incapacity," leaving out the subsequent words altogether.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think if the hon. Gentleman would let us have the Clause as it is suggested, that it is the best way out of it. If we go on making further suggestions I doubt whether we shall get any further forward.
  Mr. CASSEL: I want to make my position clear in view of what the hon. Member for Norwich said. I appreciate what the hon. Member says as to the practice of the friendly societies, of which I have no knowledge, and I am not prepared to interfere with their practice. All I want to do is to make it clear that in adopting the practice of the friendly societies you are putting insured persons in a worse position than under the Act, but if it be their practice, and they think it is advisable in the administration of their affairs to retain that practice, as far as I am concerned, I would offer no opposition.
  Question, "That the words proposed be added to the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE—(Special Provision for Aliens.)
  "Sub-section (4) of Section forty-five of the principal Act shall have effect as if after the words 'approved society' where they first occur there were inserted the words or which amalgamates with or transfers its engagements to an approved society or which proves to the satisfaction of the insurance Commissioners that it has organised, either solely or jointly with other bodies, an approved society for the benefit of its members."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. CARR-GOMM: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The persons for whom this Sub-section was inserted are unable to take benefit from it because on 4th May, 1911, they were members of small societies which lost their identity and became merged in a larger society such as the National Union of Friendly Societies, and the object of this Amendment is to make it impossible that this should be so, and I trust the Amendment may be accepted.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This is a small technical point, and I think it may be agreed to.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Insured Persons.)
  "Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section one of the principal Act shall have
  3434
  effect, as if there were added thereto 'or' being of the age of sixty or upwards, show to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners that they have ceased to be insurable as employed contributors.'"
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: This deals with a very real grievance which applies especially to old men who have to cease their employment at a certain fixed age, such as railway servants who have to leave in some cases at the age of sixty or sixty-five in various departments. It is quite possible under the existing Act that such men should have been two years or a year and a half compulsory contributors (for half a year without receiving any benefits), and then on ceasing their employment they are no longer insurable persons within the meaning of Section 1 of the Act. They cease to-contribute, they lose all benefits, and during the first six months they get no benefit at all. This will allow such persons to continue as voluntary contributors and get full benefit, and, in case they do not desire this, it will also give them the reduced benefits of the arrears Clause.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I think that this will give an opportunity to a number of these people to become voluntary contributors; they may be thrown out of occupation at the age of sixty, and may not have been insured for a period of five years or upwards. It is a small addition to the present opportunities for becoming voluntary contributors.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: What is the actuarial estimate?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: They will continue as voluntary contributors.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions for Societies.)
  "An approved society may join and remain in an association for the purposes of Section thirty-nine of the principal Act notwithstanding that the number of its members for the purposes of Part thereof is less than fifty or more than five thousand, and, in calculating for the purposes of that Section the number of persons who are such members, no account shall be taken of members who by reason of marriage are

  3435
  suspended from receiving ordinary benefits or who are not insured persons."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. BATHURST: The object of this Clause is to ensure that all approved societies can be included in county or other associations. There has been a difficulty in some cases as regards societies which were themselves more in number than 5,000 and where such societies joined with weaker societies; but what I am more interested in are the societies with less than 50 members, the ordinary little old-fashioned village friendly societies, so that these societies, which have a very small number of members, may be able to combine with other smaller societies to make up an aggregate of 5,000 and thereby be financially sound upon the valuation. I do not think there is likely to be any opposition to this, which is intended to facilitate the formation of those County Associations.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE—(Variation in Rules of Approved Societies.)
  "Where the executive body of a society show to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that it is of importance to the society that the rules of the society should be amended or varied immediately, but that, owing to the requirements of the rules the amendments or variation cannot be made without delay or without the authority of a meeting of the society or some committee or delegate body, and that that meeting cannot be held without undue delay or expense, the Commissioners may, on the application to the executive body, authorise the variation or amendment to come into force immediately, and continue in force until the delay required has elapsed, or until the time at which the meeting would in ordinary course have been held."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  I understand that this Clause is desired in the interests of friendly societies and trade unions. It is meeting a case where there would be great expenses on them.
  3436
  It is to give them the right provisionally to modify their rules before they hold the general meeting until that general meeting accepts that provisional modification. It is carefully limited and safeguarded. It has to be shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that it is of importance that the rules of the society should be amended or varied immediately and that it should be done without delay and that the meeting could not be held without undue delay or expense. Its object is to enable them without holding a general meeting, which in some cases would cost hundreds of pounds, to change the rules. In this particular Bill there are provisions which will require new rules. In the case of maternity benefits, for instance, it prescribes that the woman shall not work during the four weeks' interval. I think the societies are very anxious for this Clause. I am guided by those who speak for the approved societies, and I understand they are anxious to make these provisional rules during the waiting period, instead of having to call a special meeting, which would cost many of the societies a good deal of money.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should like to point out that if this Clause goes through it will really render nugatory the lines on which the original Act proceeded in regard to the conditions of approval. Section 23, Sub-section (2), paragraph (2), says that the constitution of an approved society must provide to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners "for its affairs being subject to the absolute control of its members being insured." If you are going to enable the Commissioners to take certain action without the insured persons being consulted, you are taking the control of the society out of the hands of the members. At the same time this Clause is running directly contrary to the provisions in the Act that the constitution and affairs of the society shall be within the control of the members. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman has some explanation.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: No doubt there is substance in the point just made by my hon. Friend, but from my very long experience of the Hearts of Oak Society, I believe this Amendment ought to be passed. Under the conditions imposed by this Bill great difficulty and cost might be caused if there were not some power of this kind. We ought to see that it is made absolutely clear that it is only provisional. The approval of the Commis-

  3437
  sioners must be obtained. Looking at the difficulty and expense that the absence of such a provision would cause I hope it will be carried.
  Mr. BOOTH: I shall support this Clause if the Amendment of which I have given notice is incorporated with it, which I think only makes it more certain to serve its purpose.
  The CHAIRMAN: I had better read the Amendment. It is to add the words, "and where the rules require the sanction of a special general meeting the Commissioners may authorise the substitution of the sanction of an annual general meeting."
  Mr. BOOTH: The object of that is that where an annual general meeting is about to take place, all this being subject to the Commissioners, the Commissioners should "have power to recognise that meeting instead of holding a special general meeting as well.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: What notice should be given?
  Mr. BOOTH: That is under the control of the Commissioners. If proper notice had not been given they would not recognise such a method. I would prefer—although I suppose it is not legal, still it is what in ordinary business would have been done—that we should simply legalise any alteration in the rules consequent on the passing of this Bill. There are several of the Clauses which require that the approved societies shall make rules and the simplest way would have been to allow all such rules to be sanctioned. It is with a view to carrying that out that I think the Commissioners ought to be able to recognise an annual meeting, instead of holding a special meeting.
  Mr. FORSTER: We ought to be very careful about authorising anybody to alter the rules of the society without the sanction and support of the members. I am a good deal impressed with what has been said of the necessities for a large alteration of the rules of practically all the approved societies, in consequence of the passing of this Bill. We do not want to throw any pecuniary burden upon the funds of societies which we can avoid, and it may be that it is essential to give the Commissioners power to sanction certain alterations in the rules of the societies for the purpose of carrying out the alterations
  3438
  contained in this Bill, but I think we ought to limit it. We ought to limit it to the alterations which may be made in the rules which are necessitated by the passing of this Act. I want to instance the case where we ought not to authorise any change in the rules without the assent of the members. Recently the Commissioners issued a Circular No. 97, pointing out that some societies have not taken power in their rules to provide for the remuneration of executive officers, and they suggested that steps should be taken to regularise the payment of remuneration to executive officers at the earliest possible moment. I do not think we ought to allow any officers of these societies to change the rules and vote themselves remuneration without the sanction of the members of their society having been previously obtained. I do not know if what I have said has influenced the Committee in any way; I think we ought to limit the power to those cases which are necessitated by the passing of the Bill.
  Mr. THOMAS: I rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the addition suggested by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). I agree with hon. Members who want to prevent any interference with the power of the members themselves to determine their own situation, but I think it will be recognised that if this Bill is to become an operative Act some time in October many of these societies will hold their meetings before October, and consequently will not have another meeting until October, 1914. To spend four or five hundred pounds in calling a special delegate meeting simply to alter the rules to give effect to this Act would be absurd in the extreme. For that reason I hope the Clause will be accepted.
  Mr. BATHURST: I am bound to say I do not like this Clause at all. It is nothing but a bureaucracy, and is entirely contrary the democratic system upon which our whole friendly society government has been founded. The suggestion has been made that this Amendment has the approval of the friendly societies generally. I have reason to believe that it does meet with the approval of the industrial provident societies and some trades unions, but I was really surprised to hear the Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson) speak of the Hearts of Oak.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I did not say or mean that it had their approval; I only spoke of my own experience in the society.
  Mr. BATHURST: I have reason to believe that the Hearts of Oak Society do not approve of it at all. The Manchester Unity do not approve of it; none of the old friendly societies approve of it. I venture to suggest that there is not sufficient urgency and substance in the claim of the hon. Gentleman to render it necessary to pass this Clause. If it is passed do not let any money be applied under it. Let it be limited to matters connected with the bringing into operation of the Insurance Act.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Simply the Amending Act?
  Mr. BATHURST: Yes, but let no money pass, otherwise you are taking power out of the hands of the societies which have been created on a purely popular and democratic basis and giving officers much larger power than members ever intended them to have. I am quite sure that members do not desire to do that. Hon. Members should face the fact that the old friendly societies do not approve of this Clause.
  The CHAIRMAN: May I suggest that the Committee should take the Second Reading, and discuss the points dealing with the Amendments afterwards?
  Mr. HALL: If I can speak on the Amendments I shall be satisfied.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can speak on the Amendments or on the Motion that the Amended Clause form part of the Bill.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: As a statement made by me may have an influence as to whether or not the Clause is read a second time, perhaps I might make a suggestion. I suggest that this might be a purely temporary measure. The great difficulty is that if October is passed they would have to call a general meeting of members for an alteration of the rules at the cost of several hundreds of pounds or else leave the matter over for a year's time. Under no circumstances, however, need an executive body act like this. I do not see how the executives of the societies need object. They need not use it. I should have thought there would hardly be time to ascertain the views of all the
  3440
  members upon it. It is not a Government matter. I am only trying to do it for the convenience of the societies. I submit this Section should not continue in. force after the 31st day of December, 1914.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think it would be for the general convenience if we discuss these points of detail on the Section. The general feeling seems to be that the Clause should be read a second time.
  Mr. HALL: I am opposed to the reading of this Clause. If the right hon. Gentle man will bring it to the 31st December, 1914, it might meet me. It seems to me to be taking away the fundamental principle of industrial insurance altogether. There is a Clause in the Friendly Societies Act which reads, "no rule shall be amended, altered or rescinded unless with the consent of the majority of the members present at a meeting specially called for that purpose, due notice of such alteration having been given as to the date of such meeting, and no amendment of rule is valid unless registered." Surely, Sir, that is a most important point. The whole of these matters were considered when the Friendly Societies Act was passed, and we ought not this afternoon to be called upon to deal with the whole question in regard to them. I appreciate that there are difficulties, and I am one of the last to desire that there should be any needless waste of money in. calling the people together. If you amp going to limit it to the 31st December, 1913, I should agree to it. If, on the other hand, you are to take any later date I shall vote against it.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of voting when the Question is put, that it be added to the Bill.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I only want to make one point arising out of the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary. I make it now because I think he may not press it. He does not touch the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, which I think is the best solution, namely, to limit the alteration of the rules to anything that arises out of the Amending Act. Now, if you limited by time—that is to say up to next October—and if the Commissioners under this Clause authorised an executive to vary the rules, the rules would come into operation immediately. That does not meet what is wanted. The executive committee in that case could

  3441
  alter the rules of the society without the knowledge of the members of the approved society, and a great injustice might thereby be done. I think if the right hon. Gentleman will accept the principle which has been suggested by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, and which I think is a practical solution that would be acceptable.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have an Amendment on the Table to add words at the end of the Clause. I should have been glad if they had come earlier.
  Question proposed, "That, after the word 'Amendment,' the words 'rendered necessary by the passing of this Act.'"
  Mr. FORSTER: If that is agreed, I shall not say another word.
  Question, "That these words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, at the end of the proposed Clause to add the words "and where the rules require the sanction of a special general meeting, the Commissioners may authorise the substitution of the sanction of the annual general meeting."
  Mr. CASSEL: Before these words are added, I think we ought to have a little explanation.
  Mr. BOOTH: It is a very simple point giving power to the Commissioners, when an annual general meeting has recently taken place, to do this instead of calling a special general meeting, perhaps immediately after, at great cost.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE—(Power to Treat all Employés of an Employer as being Remunerated at Normal Rate.)
  "(1)Where it appears to the Insurance Commissioners that the persons employed by any employer or group of employers in any class or classes of work are in general in receipt of a rate of remuneration which, although liable to fluctuation, is normally within any of the limits hereinafter mentioned, the Commissioners may by a Special Order declare that all the persons employed by that employer or group of
  3442
  employers in that class or those classes of work shall, for the purposes of the principal Act but subject to any exceptions contained in the order, be treated as if they were constantly in receipt of the normal rate of remuneration, notwithstanding that those persons, or any of them may in any week in fact receive a higher or lower rate of remuneration.
  (2) The limits referred to in this Section are:—

  (a) A rate not exceeding 1s. 6d. a working day;

  (b) A rate exceeding 1s. 6d. but not exceeding 2s. a working day;

  (c) A rate exceeding 2s. but not exceeding 2s. 6d. a working day."

  Clause brought up, and read a first time.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: The chief object of the Clause is to prevent outworkers having to pay more than their just contributions. In some trades, the unit of work is 8s. 9d. In other cases it varies from 8s. 9d. to 12s., in which, case the worker pays a 1d., and in some' cases the unit of work is fixed at 12s. In the latter case the employer and the employed divide the contribution. This is not a flat rate. The quick worker is considered to be employed at a high rate, and contributes accordingly, while a slow worker is considered to be employed at a lower rate, and contributes accordingly As it works out, the employer very often has not the time, or he will not take the trouble, to see exactly at what rate his workers do contribute, and he is tempted to consider that his workers are quicker and better workers than they really are. He is tempted to move them up to a higher unit of work and to ask them to contribute an unjust share of the contribution. If this Clause is passed, this injustice will be prevented. The Commissioners will be able to satisfy themselves that all the workers are working at a uniform rate. This is bringing a simpler and a fairer system into operation, and I hope the. Committee will agree to it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: I am not able to follow all the implications of this Clause, and I should like it to be discussed.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I thought it was generally agreed that this was a desirable Clause. It is a method of averaging, instead of calculating the wages of each particular individual, especially in connection with units of work. It operates also in some of the textile trades. The present method is exceeding difficult, cumbrous, and expensive. All this Clause allows us to do is to strike an average, although the rate of remuneration of any individual is liable to fluctuate. I think this, on the whole, will meet the difficulties of the case put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilton earlier in our discussions, when we were dealing with deductions in respect of agricultural labourers. I think this will enable us to make an average rate by which we may adjust the 15s. on the one side or the other. We have already ruled out harvest money and such-like in connection with the variations in the wages of the individual labourer from week to week. I think this will make both for the advantage of the insured persons and for the greater simplification of the present arrangements. I put it down as a Clause to be discussed, but if hon. Gentlemen wish to oppose it I shall certainly not press it. I do not not want to press it if it is controversial, but I think it is a Clause which is desirable, and my expert on the Insurance Committee, who has been trying to solve this problem, and especially that of the agricultural labourer, thinks that it is a Clause that is necessary if the insured persons are to have the rights which are due to them.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I understood from the Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham, who explained this Clause, that an employer sometimes advanced the wages of a workman with a view to bringing the workman into a scale of higher contributions.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: There is no objection to that.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I think it is a very great advantage. I understood the Noble Lord to say that it was a disadvantage; therefore, I raise the point.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: What I stated was that some employers assumed that their workers were being paid at a higher rate than they really are being paid at.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: This only gives power to the Insurance Commissioners to issue a Special Order. I am not
  3444
  at all sure that this is the best way to do it. The method is to lay down an income standard, and then to say that all individuals working in those trades are to be assumed to come up to or to be below that standard. I think there is a good deal of room for grave individual injustices, but, as it is going to be operated by a Special Order, and as I know the very great difficulties that have arisen in connection with it, I think the Committee will be very well advised to take the risks and give this experiment a fair chance.
  Mr. BOOTH: I understand the Government would like to know if this is generally acceptable. I should like to say, speaking for myself now as an employer, and not as one connected with any approved society, that I heartily approve of this Clause. I think we would be obliged to the Commissioners if they would try to solve the problem. I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester. As the Insurance Commissioners are going to try and solve this problem, I hope the Committee will allow them the chance of doing so. My opinion is that the good employer will welcome this and the bad employer will not.
  Mr. BATHURST: The right hon. Gentleman suggested just now that this Clause would meet the case of the poorly paid labour and casual workers in the rural districts. I am afraid it will not. After all these persons in certain parts of the country are paid above this level, and in other parts of the country are paid below it. I do not think the words as they stand will cover that case. But they could be made to do so if the right hon. Gentleman would add the words "after work or in any district," because it is not the class of person but the district in which they are engaged that sets the fashion as to the standard of wage. I am not quite sure that even with the Amendment the Clause is going to cover the case of the agricultural labourer in casual employment, and if it does I am not quite sure that it will not operate to his detriment, because the remuneration is proposed to be treated as constant and normal. I think that it may operate against them as well as in their favour. I never like the word "normal."
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: In my opinion the Clause needs far more consideration than we can give to it, and this could be done in my opinion when it reaches the Report stage. If it carries out the apprehension I have, it is going to act harshly.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: It cannot act more harshly than it does at present. There are half units of work which meet the hon. Member's objection.
  Dr. ADDISON: The present method of averaging earnings is exceedingly unfair. Where they are charged the full deduction of 4d. or 3d., or whatever it is, on the unit, which may take two or three weeks to earn, it would he better to make an average of their earnings.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Calculation of Arrears.)
  "The regulations of the Insurance Commissioners under Sub-section (7) of Section 10 of the principal Act (as to the calculation of the average amount of arrears) may provide that the average shall be calculated periodically with reference to complete half-years of insurance corresponding with the periods for which contribution cards are issued and disregarding incomplete half-years, and may provide that the reduction, postponement, or suspension of benefits consequent upon the average arrears as ascertained for the period terminating with the end of any half-year shall not come into operation until the prescribed date in the half-year next ensuing, and, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (5) of the said Section, shall continue in force until the prescribed date in the next following half-year."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  It has been suggested that this Clause, not having been put down earlier on the Paper, is an infringement of the agreement to which we came. I would have put it 'down had I understood that exception was to be taken to it, and would have starred the Arrears Clause standing in the names of the hon. Members for Leicester and Pontefract, in which case this would have been moved as an Amendment. It turns on exactly the same subject, and I am quite sure, if I may say so, that it would have been accepted as an Amendment to the Clause which I should have starred. I say that the Clause is necessary if we are to get what every member of an approved society regards as absolutely essential for their administration—that they should have six-monthly cards, which I promised to endeavour to get from this Committee at the request of the hon. Gentleman opposite. If the hon. Member for Sevenoaks who leads the party opposite persists in his
  3446
  objection that this is a breach of faith, I have no alternative but to ask that the Question be withdrawn. But if that be done I think I may honestly say that there will be very great disappointment among members of approved societies in all parts of the country who have been looking forward to this very great lightening of efforts which would come from such a result.
  Mr. FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of a "breach of faith" but I would not go so far as that. When was approached on the matter, it was felt under the circumstances to be rather outside the category of the Clauses which we agreed should be brought on to-day, but I do not want, the Clause to be postponed or dropped on that account. What I plead for is further time to understand the Clause. I personally received my Parliamentary Papers this morning at 10.45, and one of the first things I naturally did was to turn to the Order Paper to see what Clauses the right hon. Gentleman had adopted. I saw a very large number of Clauses which bear the right hon. Gentleman's name. For the first time I read this Clause, and it took me all the time until I had to leave to come down to the Committee to make out the precise meaning of the new Clause which we had reached. Indeed, the time was not sufficient. I have read the Clause, re-read it, and if it had been possible I would have read it backwards, in the vain effort to find out what it means, and really how it will affect an insured person. I cannot help thinking that some insured persons are going to be less well off in the matter of arrears under this Clause. I can quite understand those who are responsible for the administration of approved societies want it. They want simplification—a six-months' card. We do not object to a six-months' card; on the contrary, we have always expressed ourselves in favour of a six-months' card. What we do suggest to the right hon. Gentleman is that he should not have brought the Clause up at this moment, but have brought it up on Report when we should have had further opportunity for studying it. I see nothing to prevent this Clause from being moved on the Report in the interests of enlightened discussion, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take my advice.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is no use my attempting to explain this Clause until we know what is to be done.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not make any charge of breach of faith; although I consider that this Clause is outside the category of the Clauses the right hon. Gentleman said the Government were going to take to-day. But I have not the slightest desire on that ground that it should not be proceeded with. I am prepared to meet it on its merits if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that to bring this on Report is not a practical suggestion. I should prefer that the Government should issue a memorandum showing how it works. I know there are some cases in which the insured person is going to suffer severely owing to this proposed method of dealing with arrears, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will be wise to postpone it to the Report stage, meanwhile issuing a memorandum on the subject.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think there is a possibility of its being ruled out on Report.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Why is it not possible to give approved societies the right to write up their card every six months, without bringing in the question of arrears in the Clause.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: During the past few weeks I have been pressed most urgently by various big friendly societies and orders to put something on the Paper to meet this difficulty. I am not responsible, I should like to say at once, for the drafting of this Clause. What happened was this was approached to see whether I could not put down a Clause on the Paper, and I personally asked the Government's draftsmen whether they would be kind enough to think out words to carry out the intention I had in view, which was the intention of the friendly societies, and they kindly supplied me with this drafted Clause which I have handed in. It is an extremely difficult Clause to understand, but I must honestly say that, as far as I can see, it does to a very large extent meet the wishes of the friendly societies. I have studied both Clauses very carefully. The hon. Member for Leicester went a great deal further than the Clause as proposed, because I think the Clause proposed by the hon. Member would have entailed an alteration of the Fifth Schedule; and I do not think, as far as I can see, that the Amendment which I have on the Paper would necessitate any alteration in the Schedule. The Clause I propose is much more a matter of machinery.
  I should like to point out to the Committee, if I may, what of course they know
  3448
  quite well, that this is a question which will not arise until after July 14th next, because the question of arrears does not arise until the first year after the passing of the Act and its coming into operation. I think I am right in that.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No; you are wrong.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The question of arrears so far as the calculation which has to be made by secretaries is concerned does not arise until a year after the passing of the Act. Is not that so?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We have already had a year since the passing of the Act.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I said so.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The year is up.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The difficulty is just beginning, and I believe it will become absolutely intolerable to the various officials of the friendly societies unless we can pass some such Amendment as this into law. I have here many documents and quotations. I have one from the "National Insurance Gazette" which tells us very tersely, but in much plainer words than I can, what the secretaries have to do under the existing system of calculating arrears. It says—
  "Anyone with practical knowledge must know that the calculation of arrears under the principal Act is certain to be difficult and extremely likely to produce chaos. We have an official document before us which shows that to arrive at the average arrears as under the principal Act the following procedure should be gone through: first, the number of days a person has been in insurance must he totted up; second, the sum must be divided by seven to find the number of weeks; third, the number of weeks' arrears as shown by the book, and the current card must he divided by the quotient as just ascertained; and, fourth, the result must be multiplied by fifty-two and one-fifth."
  I have also a quotation from a statement by the Grand Master of the Manchester Unity. He says:—
  "Every friendly society official is convinced that the present system of calculating arrears is terribly complicated and likely to cause difficulty to local secretaries."
  If any hon. Member on the Committee wishes to see it, I have here a sheet which I received from the Grand Master of the Manchester Unity showing the exact figures. They are most complicated, bat they have to be gone through under the present system. I should like to point out to the Committee that in Clause 10 of the principal Act, Sub-section (7), it is stated that
  "the average amount of arrears for the purposes of this Section shall be calcu-

  3449
  lated in such manner as the insurance Commissioners may prescribe."
  I am told that the legal advisers of the Insurance Commissioners have informed them that, under the Act, they are legally bound to collect arrears in this very complicated fashion. They cannot help themselves, and, unless some alteration is made, this very complicated calculation will have to be gone on with. One of the reasons why I think it is most advisable to make an alteration is that if you have these enormous complications of calculation it is quite possible the secretaries and officials of friendly societies will make mistakes, and in a great many cases it is possible also that insured persons will not get the benefits to which they are properly entitled. Unless we do something to diminish this great complexity of calculation some of these insured persons may possibly, get reduced benefits. That is one of the reasons why I am strongly in favour of this alteration. I do not know whether the Committee would like me to go into the very complicated provisions of this Clause, but in a very few words I can tell hon. Members what it proposes to do. It proposes that completed half-years should be taken into account in calculating the average arrears. The societies will thus calculate the arrears twice a year instead of four times annually, as they do at the present moment, and the advantage of this is that it will lead to the adoption of six-monthly contribution cards and that, I believe, all friendly society officials very much want indeed. If you have a six-monthly contribution card, instead of a quarterly contribution period as at the present moment, it will result in a reduction of administration expenses, because it will lead to a reduction of distribution and collection.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: And writing.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It will lead to a diminution of both trouble and expense. I have also been looking into the question whether this will really affect the benefits which insured persons are going to get. I do not believe that it will, I do not think it will in the least affect the benefits which are received by persons under the present system. The only difference it may possibly make is this, that in the period of six months during which the benefits are to be reduced on the basis of arrears during the previous six months it is possible that the man very much in arrear may get rather more and that the person not so much
  3450
  in arrear will get a very little less. As far as I can see under this proposal the only possible effect it can have on the benefits of insured persons is that the person who is most in want of benefit will get perhaps a little more at a particular period while the person who is not so much in need of it may possibly get very little less. I believe that practically, if you take the scheme throughout, it will make no difference whatsoever on the whole in the benefits received. I therefore very much hope that the Committee will accept this new Clause. It may be necessary, on Report, to make certain little alterations, but, as the whole of the friendly society world, I believe, desires this change, I hope hon. Members will see their way to accept it.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I also hope that the Committee will put this Clause into the Bill, so that at any rate we may have time to consider it between now and Report. I did not know that the Clause was to appear on the Paper this morning, and, consequently, I have not been able to consider how far it actually differs from the Clause which I myself have drafted. My Clause is based upon a twelve months' average, while the hon. Gentleman's is based on a six months' average, and that is not a very substantial difference, unless it involves something much more, and, at the moment, so far as I can see, the whole of the Clause which we are now considering does not obviate the point, which is a very bad point, that when a person gets into arrears for a considerable period in one year he drags on and on and on, out of the maximum benefit for an undesirably long time. That has been the point which has been met, and which I hope will have been dealt with by this Clause as it has been worded, though I am not quite sure that I am right as to that.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does it do it?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I think my Clause is better from that point of view than the hon. Member's. I should like to say with reference to the "National Insurance Gazette," that it goes on to make certain comments and certain suggestions which are rather on the lines of the Clause I have drafted than of the Clause of the hon. Member opposite, because it says:—
  "How on earth the average local representative is to do this calculating we do not know, He simply cannot do it. What is needed is something simple and lair to take the place of the confusion arising out of the principal Act."

  3451
  I think that is very definite. It means that something must be done, and it must he done now. I have great sympathy with the suggestion that something simple and fair is needed to take the place of the confusion arising out of the principal Act. The paper goes on to say—
  "It can be found easily enough. If on July 14th in any year a man is in arrear five weeks on the average (namely one week over the four weeks allowed free) let the sick pay to which he is entitled in the next year be reduced by sixpence (to 9s. 6d.) and so on sixpence for every additional week in arrear. (It would not be sixpence in every case; it would depend on his age of course.) That is the essence of simplicity. Anyone can do the necessary reckoning. Indeed the rate of sick pay due can he inserted in the books at the beginning of the year and at once read off when a claim arises."
  It is because that leading article in the "National Insurance Gazette" runs so closely upon the lines of my own Amendment, at the moment, I am inclined to prefer my wording to that of the hon. Member. But I am not going to oppose the insertion of the hon. Member's Amendment, because it will give us time to consider the matter before the Report stage in the middle of next week, and we may by then agree upon some form of words which will meet a difficulty, the existence of which all admit.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I am not against this Clause, but I think it is necessary to offer a warning which is this, that this relieving of the difficulties of the approved societies which we are bound to secure by means of having six-monthly cards, is going to increase the difficulty of keeping in touch with insured persons throughout the country. By having three-monthly cards you ensure communication every three months. But the Insurance Committees at this stage are working very largely on a register, the addresses upon which are about nine months' old, and if you have six-monthly cards it means that the insured person may not come into touch with the society more than twice a year. Seeing that one-third of the population moves every year, this step we are now taking means that the Government must find some way by which the insured persons may be kept in touch with the Insurance Committees or with the approved societies very much oftener than is now the case.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Personally, I think this Clause is just about as bad as it possibly can be. If we are going to alter the words at all, we ought to alter them boldly on the lines of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicester. It is no use tinkering at it. This has one
  3452
  effect only. It enables a half-yearly card to be brought in, but it creates a very considerable risk of injustice to insured people as it stands at the present moment. As I understand this Clause, the first half-year's card—the broken period of the first year—is not to count, nor is the current broken period to count for the purpose of arrears. If hon. Members will follow this for a moment, I shall show them how it would work out in the case of a man who had been very nearly eighteen months in insurance. As it stands, this niggling, half-way house Amendment has this effect—if a man has 25 weeks in insurance in the preliminary broken quarter, has paid up entirely in full, and has no arrears at all, in the second six months has bad luck and is in arrear, say, 8 or 10 weeks, in the third half-year again is fully employed and never misses a day, then for the fourth period of six months he is reduced in benefit, probably out of insurance altogether, though on the three cards he would be entitled to benefit, only slightly reduced. It seems to me that this is only to save trouble to the administrators of the various approved societies. That, to my mind, ought never to be allowed by this Committee. I am aware that the present system of calculation of arrears is going to lead to endless trouble on the part of the management of approved societies.
  You are now trying to take away the trouble at the price of a greater injustice to the insured people, and I do not think you have any right to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, with whom I seldom disagree, said that under this scheme what will happen will be that those who ought to do so would get more, and those who ought to be penalised would get less. He thought that was some recommendation for the scheme, but to my mind it is the reverse. We are not dealing with a charity scheme. If a man has paid he ought to get the benefits, and we have no right to be generous at his expense. But the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicester is a full Amendment dealing with the root of the whole matter. That I regard as preferable. I do not think, however, that we have enough information before us to say whether it ought to be accepted or not, and I deprecate dealing with it at the present moment. The Government ought to work out what will happen in typical cases before they ask the Committee to accept it. That, as you know, is no new problem.

  3453
  The Government have had a year since the passing of the original Act. They have had one year knowing that during July this Arrears Clause would come into operation, and all through that year they might have prepared a scheme for dealing with this, and have put these Clauses down. But just see what they have done. First, they prepare a Clause, and they ask the hon. Member for Leicester to put it down; then they put, in another Clause, and asked the hon. Member for Salisbury to move it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Neither of those statements is true.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Let us see how far they are true. Does the Financial Secretary say that this Clause put down in the name of the hon. Member for Leicester emanated from the brain of the hon. Member for Leicester?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member is always accusing me of this, and I think everyone except himself knows what happens. Hon. Gentlemen come to me and say, "I want to put this down," and I place at the command of those Gentlemen the services of the Government draftsman. That is what I did in this instance.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think there is any real difference. The Government has had a year in which to deal with this, and they have no right to come down at the last moment—almost the last few days—and put down Clauses of their own in the name of hon. Members of the Committee to deal with this point. I, for one, do not propose to vote at all on this Amendment. I am not going to take the responsibility of supporting this Clause, though I very much want the six-months' card, because I think that will facilitate the work of the approved societies. But I am quite sure that the Clause of the hon. Member for Salisbury is a bad one. It does not deal at all with the real problem. I much prefer that put, down by the hon. Member for Leicester. I would far rather see that supported and put into the Bill.
  Mr. THOMAS: I hope the hon. Member will move the Clause as an Amendment. It is understood that the Clause in the name of my hon. Friend meets the situation boldly and better than the present Clause, and seeing that there is a disposition in that direction, if my hon. Friend
  3454
  will not move it, I will move the Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leicester.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: If it is thought that my Amendment would give a better basis I would move it, but I do not want to prolong the discussion. I am quite willing, if the feeling is that in some respects my Amendment would be preferable, to deal with it accordingly.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have not the slightest wish to move my Clause if the Committee think that the Clause of the hon. Member for Leicester is a better one. I should have thought that it would have been a better plan that we should, incorporate this Clause now, and between now and the Report it may be that the hon. Member may be able to further improve his Clause. I should then support him in moving an Amendment to my own. Clause.
  Mr. BOOTH: I should be very glad if there could be any agreement on this matter. I do not see anything at all conflicting between the two Amendments before the Committee, and, so far, I think it would be advisable to take them together; but the reason why the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could not see his way to support a Clause which I and my Friends have put pressure upon him to pass for a very long time was that it would be too controversial. I am very pleased to find that that is not so. Unless the Financial Secretary himself asks us, not to press the Clause in our names, I would like to go on with it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: May I say what is the position? In every way the Clause of the hon. Member for Leicester is preferable to that of the hon. Member for Salisbury, and I understand that the hon. Member for Salisbury tried to save something in connection with the friendly societies. Gathering that the hon. Member for Leicester's Clause would not be starred, I put down this Clause. I do not know whether the hon. Member's Clause could be substituted for the Clause of the hon. Member for Salisbury on Report, because it gives a further mitigation to the persons who, are in arrear. In that condition it is preferable in the interest of the insured persons. If the Committee will be willing without prejudice to take my hon. Friend's

  3455
  Clause as an Amendment to the Clause of the hon. Member for Salisbury, I think that would be a change which would be beneficial.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not mind. The chief thing is that it should be a benefit to the approved societies, and if there is any risk that we should not be able to approve this Clause on Report, on account of its entailing a charge, I am perfectly prepared to accept the suggestion. I suppose the hon. Member for Leicester is quite certain that his Amendment provides for the six-monthly card?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Yes; I desire it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The six-monthly card is merely a matter of regulation. We can give that card by regulation.
  Mr. BOOTH: Will you do it?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is not in either Amendment, nor is it necessary that it should be.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask whether the valuable provisions of Section 10 of the principal Act are going to be continued if we pass this Clause? It seems to me that if we pass such a Clause, we are going to cancel at a stroke some of the most valuable provisions of the principal Act. What guarantee have we that, when we have passed this Clause, we shall obtain for the insured persons the equivalent of the provisions that now exist? I appeal to the Financial Secretary, reluctant as I am to extend this discussion, to give us his opinion on that point.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I said that I preferred the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicester to the other one. But I must say that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicester gives the Commissioners power to do as they like with the Clauses in the original Act which are now found to be hampering the work of friendly societies. We ought to know what is going to be done, and, therefore, I ask that the whole matter be postponed.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I do not think that what the hon. Member said is quite just. Section 10 of the original Act may be clumsy in working, but the justice of it is something we ought to think of, and I appeal to all parties in this Committee to seriously consider what they are doing before they cancel it.
  Mr. BOOTH: I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is no Clause which we could pass in this Bill which would be so beneficial to insured persons. There are huge difficulties in making these calculations, and some help ought to be given, and we should face that. I am sure that the insured persons will benefit if some better scheme can be provided to save calculations, to save reduction of benefits, and to regularise and make better the whole of these provisions. I hope, therefore, the Clause will be passed.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think I may promise to circulate a memorandum between now and the Report stage.
  The CHAIRMAN: There is no Amendment before the Committee at present. I have a series of Amendments which will complete the Amendment of the Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) and incorporate with it the Amendment of the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), but nobody has moved it.
  Mr. FORSTER: Would it not save time, if the Member for Salisbury withdrew?
  The CHAIRMAN: No. I have it here.
  Mr. BECK: Cannot we defeat it when the Question is put, "That the Clause be added to the Bill"?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to move the Amendments indicated by the Chairman.
  Question proposed, "That the words, 'The regulations of the Insurance Commissioners under Sub-section (7),' be left out of the proposed Amendment in order to insert instead thereof the words, 'Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (4).'"
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the following words be left out of the proposed Amendment: '(c) as to the calculation of the average amount of arrears, may provide that the average shall be calculated periodically with reference to complete half-years of insurance corresponding with the periods for which contribution cards are issued and disregarding incomplete half-years and may provide that the reduction postponement, or suspension of benefits consequent upon the average

  3457
  arrears as ascertained for the period terminating with the end of any half-year shall not come into operation until the prescribed date in the half-year next ensuing, and, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (5) of the said Section, shall continue in force until the prescribed date in the next following half-year,' in order to insert instead the words, '(c) insured persons who are in arrear shall be liable to such suspension or reduction of benefits as may be prescribed so, however, that any such reduction or suspensions of benefit shall be approximately equivalent to the value of the loss occasioned by the failure to pay the contributions in arrear, and the provisions of the principal Act regulating the suspension and reduction of benefits on account of arrears shall cease to have effect, and the regulations

  Division No. 17.]

  AYES.

  Money, Mr. Chiozza

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, Mr.

  Dawes, Mr.

  MacVeagh, Mr.

  Bathurst, Mr. Charles

  Esmonde, Dr.

  Masterman, Mr.

  Beck, Mr.

  Gwynn, Mr. Stephen

  O'Grady, Mr.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Harvey, Mr. Edmund

  Rendall, Mr.

  Booth, Mr.

  Jones, Mr. Haydn

  Roberts, Mr. Charles

  Boyle, Mr. Daniel

  Lawson, Mr. H.

  Roberts, Mr. George

  Bowerman, Mr.

  Locker-Lampson, Mr. Godfrey

  Thomas, Mr.

  Buxton, Mr. Noel

  Lynch, Mr.

  Wing, Mr.

  Carr-Gomm, Mr.

  Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Macnamara, Dr.

  Question put, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Metropolitan Asylums.)
  "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 persons suffering from tuberculosis or any such other disease as the Local Government Board, with the approval of the Treasury, may appoint under Section eight 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 Hart thereof, shall be borne otherwise than as provided by
  may prescribe the time within which, and the conditions under which arrears may be paid up.'"
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the, Clause.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I object.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Committee have already accepted the first line, and therefore it would read nonsense. The hon. Member can withdraw his opposition now and vote against the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: The Question was put rather quickly, and I did not fully understand it, or I should have objected. I must take the opportunity now.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 1; Noes, 28.
  Section eighty of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. DAWES: This Clause is in my name, but it is not the Clause which I put down in the names of the hon. Member for Hoxton (Dr. Addison), the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. W. H. Dickinson), and the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Astor). I do not know how the Clause got here in this form. The Clause I put down had the very important words "insured persons" in the fourth line of the Clause. I think the word "insured" came after the words "reception of."
  Mr. CASSEL: The Clause is also in my name.
  The CHAIRMAN: I was waiting for someone to move it. I understood it was going to be moved in that form.
  Mr. CASSEL: I agreed to the Clause with the hon. Member for North St. Pancras in the form in which it is on the Paper.
  Mr. DAWES: He had no authority to use my name.
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  In some way or other it appears on the Paper in its present form. So far as I am concerned, I am not responsible for the form in which it appears on the Paper except to this extent, that I told the hon. Member I had agreed to it. If there is any misunderstanding I am willing to insert words to meet the hon. Member's objection, subject to one consideration to which I should like to ask his attention. Regarding its particular form, to which the hon. Member objects, I do not think it really was my fault. I do not think the Committee will be sorry that this is the last Clause to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) has given his imprimatur. The object of the Clause is simply to enable the London County Council to make arrangements with the Metropolitan Asylums Board and to regularise and give legal sanction to what is in fact being done. The difficulty has arisen owing to the fact that sanatorium benefits can only be provided by authorities other than Poor Law authorities. Section 64 of the original Act dealt with that matter, and I think the position of the Metropolitan Asylums Board was overlooked at the time. That body is technically a Poor Law authority, but so far as the provision of hospitals is concerned it receives non-paupers. Out of 7,000 or 8,000 patients, 96 per cent. are non-paupers, and, in fact, the Metropolitan Asylums Board at the instance of the Local Government Board, and at the request of the Insurance Committee for London and the London County Council is actually doing this work. It has thrown itself into the breach and, according to everybody's statement, is doing the work well. All that we ask is that it should have regular legal sanction for doing it within the four corners of the law.
  I think some opposition to this Clause arose from misunderstanding. It was thought that the London County Council were not willing to become the general authority for the treatment of tuberculosis in London. May I assure hon. Members that that is not the case. The county
  3460
  council, as their minutes shows, are perfectly willing to become the general authority for London and wish to be able to avail themselves of the existing accommodation which the Metropolitan Asylums Board provides. This Clause does not allow the Insurance Committee to contract direct with the Board. It necessitates a circuitous method through the London County Council, and as a matter of compromise I gave way on that. As to whether the word "insured" is to be inserted, I suggest to the Member for Walworth that it should come after the words "reception of" I am willing to accept that form. I do not want to be under a suspicion of having brought forward a Clause in a form which was not fully agreed to. I should like to have the words "insured persons, or their dependents" for this reason: Supposing the London County Council decided to treat dependents as well as insured persons, the facilities of the Metropolitan Asylums Board would be open to them in that case, if they chose to avail of them. They might or they might not think it the best thing to do, but, at least, they might have the opportunity, and it might have an effect upon them, when they were deciding the question of treating dependents, if they knew that the existing accommodation would be available for both insured persons and dependents; whereas, if they had not the power, they might not be willing. I think we may safely trust a matter of that kind to the discretion of those who are responsible for the government of London. If the hon. Member insists upon it, I shall only press the words "insured persons," but I should like the word "dependents" as well.
  Mr. DAWES: I accept that.
  Mr. CASSEL: Then I will move it as it stands on the Paper, and leave my hon. Friend to amend it.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. DAWES: I beg to move to insert the word "insured" before the word "persons" ["reception of persons suffering from tuberculosis"] and in the same line to insert the words "or their dependents" after the word "persons."
  Mr. ASTOR: My name is down to this Amendment, but I only go as far as the inclusion of insured persons.
  The CHAIRMAN: I will put the words separately.
  Question, "That the word 'insured' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'and their dependents' be there inserted."
  Mr. DAWES: I should like, in view of what tile hon. Member who moved the Clause said with regard to the London County Council, to state that there is no supreme desire at present on the part of that council to act as the central authority for London. I happen to be on the Public Health Committee, and after deliberations extending over five months we have got to this—that the existing institutions be utilised.
  Mr. CASSEL: Is it in order to raise a debate on the whole policy of the London County Council? If so, I should have to make a reply.
  The CHAIRMAN: On the question of the desirability of such discussions I think we are all agreed. I did not hear anything which was out of order. If the question is a simple one, would it not be better if the Committee did not open out these other questions?
  Mr. DAWES: I am afraid I cannot. I happen to be a member of the committee, and I know more about the matter than my hon. Friend.
  Mr. ASTOR: I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I feel that we are going beyond insured persons when we are discussing dependents. We have to legalise the present position and to make it possible for the Metropolitan Asylums Board to treat insured persons. If you go further, and include dependents, you are not amending the Insurance Act, but really amending the Public Health Acts of London, and opening a very large question—the question as to whether we should have seperate authorities for the treatment of a variey of cases. The point is whether it is possible by additional capital expenditure to increase the development of the present hospitals belonging to the Metropolitan Asylums Board so as to make them into sanatoria. I do not wish the Committee to imagine that I am protesting against the administration of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. But what I would suggest to the Committee and to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill is
  3462
  that he should stick to amending the Insurance Act, and not to include persons who are not insured persons, or else we should stray into amending every Public Health Act connected with London.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope an agreement will be come to by all parties. I do not think that by including dependents in this fashion we are straying into matters of public health outside the Insurance Act, because, as hon. Gentlemen well know, dependents are includable—if I may use that term—in the National Insurance Act, and in many cases are being treated under that Act.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I cannot find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Plymouth, for I am always anxious to deal with things as they are and making the best of them. There is not the least doubt if you leave out dependents, you fetter the authority to which you wish to give this discretion and power to make the best of the Act. By Clause 17 dependents are brought within the scope of the National Insurance Act. Clearly there should be an understanding between the county council and the Metropolitan Asylums Board—something that would be a workable scheme, and it will be a great mistake to fetter the hands of the local authority when we are endeavouring to remove the stigma of pauperism. Let us do what we can to enlarge and confirm the powers of local authority.
  Mr. CASSEL: I do not wish to raise the question, but I must say that this is the only new Clause I have moved. What I said was that the London County Council were willing to become the central authority. I absolutely deny the allegation which the hon. Member has made against the county council, but I do not think that this is the proper place to enter into a discussion.
  Mr. ASTOR: My point in opposing dependents was that uninsured persons would be more likely to receive treatment if that term be not included. No money is being taken for dependents, and if you include dependents the third class of non-insured persons are less likely to receive payment in the near future than if you leave dependents out.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: As to further Amendments, I shall only call upon those Members who are present.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I understood that the general agreement was that the Clauses which were not starred by the Government should be withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN: As Chairman, I must pass them over as not moved.
  Mr. FORSTER: The suggestion was that, after the Government had come to the end of the Clauses for which they took the responsibility, we should then pass to the Schedules and complete the Bill. If we once begin to pick and choose Amendments we cannot deny the same opportunity to Gentlemen opposite, and we cannot ask them to abide by the arrangement reached yesterday. I wish to say nothing further at this moment. The whole position is one of extreme difficulty, and one which is very distasteful to a great many members of the Committee.
  The CHAIRMAN: I believe there are precedents for going through the Schedule, if that is the general wish of the Committee.
  Mr. BATHURST: It is difficult for those members of the Committee who feel that they are trustees for certain bodies of persons outside this Committee to calmly agree that the particular Amendment which we intended to bring forward in their interests should be sacrificed. But having said that, I would like to add that I am not going to take up the time of the Committee by an Amendment which will not be accepted. So that in the massacre which is now about to take place, one at least of my treasured bantlings is about to be sacrificed.
  Mr. HALL: My Clauses have not been deemed worthy of consideration, but, having entered my protest, I do not wish to sit down without saying that it is a great pity that important alterations such as we have on the Paper have not had a chance of being considered. If the Government had brought forward their Amending Bill earlier, many important Amendments might have been discussed for the general benefit.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I understood that the Clause in the name of my Friend the hon. Member for Leeds was to be starred—the Clause dealing with taking insurance books in pawn.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If that was understood I am afraid it was omitted by accident. I suppose the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of moving it on Report. If that is so, I express my regret to the hon. Gentleman for Leeds.

SCHEDULE.

  MATTERS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH REGULATIONS MAY BE MADE.
  (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 financial adjustments to be made on any such amalgamation.

  (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.
  Amendments made: In paragraph (a), at the end of (i), insert the words—
  "(ii) The transfer by an approved society of its engagements under Part I. of the principal Act, or of such of those

  3465
  engagements as relate to members resident in a particular part of the United Kingdom, to any others 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."
  In paragraph (a) (ii), after the word "amalgamation," insert the words" or transfer."—[Mr. Masterman.]
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, at the end of the Schedule, to add a new paragraph—
  "(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."
  This is an adaptation of a valuable Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), which I 'have modified in one or two small particulars. We may not wish to extend all the provisions of Sub-section (3), therefore we say "any of the provisions of Sub-section (3)."
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: After the words last added, insert a new paragraph,
  "(f) For enabling the sums to be paid or credited in any year to Insurance Committees under Sub-section (1) of Section sixty-one 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."
  After the words last added, insert a new paragraph,
  3466
  "(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. Masterman.]
  Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.
New Schedule brought up, and read the first time.
"1. Draft, or order, or receipt given by or to an approved society, or branch or Insurance Committee in respect of money payable in pursuance of Part I. of the principal Act, or of the rules of the society or branch.
2. Letter or power of attorney granted by any person as trustee for the transfer of any money of an approved society, or branch, or Insurance Committee invested in his name in the public funds.
3. Bond or other security given to, by or on account of an approved society or branch, or by the treasurer or other official thereof.
4. Appointment or revocation of appointment of agent, or other document required or authorised by or in pursuance of Part I. Of the principal Act, or by the rules of an approved society or branch.
5. Agreement entered into between an approved society or branch and an Insurance Committee in regard to medical benefit under Part I. of the principal Act."
Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, "That the new Schedule be added to the Bill."
Question put, and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House."
Mr. MASTERMAN: Upon that Motion, I have only two sentences to say. The first is to express my gratitude to members of all parties in the Committee

3467
for the extraordinary efforts they have made in regard to this Bill. I thought it was a good Bill at the beginning, I think it is a much better Bill now, and I am glad that every party has co-operated in improving it. The second is—and I am sure in this I speak for every Member of the Committee—to express our gratitude to you, Sir, for the ability, fairness, and unfailing courtesy with which you have presided over our proceedings.
The CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether I am permitted or expected to
3468
reply. I must say I have never presided over any Grand Committee which has given me greater satisfaction, both in regard to the manner and ability with which it has gone through its work. I think I made a joke just now about "incapacity," but the capacity of this Committee, the attendance of members upon it, and the businesslike method followed, have been a constant satisfaction to me.
Question put, and agreed to.
The proceedings of the Committee concluded at 7.30 p.m.