NEW CLAUSE.—(Maternity Benefit.) (Hansard, 15 August 1913)

§ 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 If the Amendment is withdrawn, then we go back to the statement that "maternity benefit shall in every case be the mother's benefit," and any Amendment which may 3138 be suggested may be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 If it be not withdrawn, the following words stand part of the Clause, "and Paragraph (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the principal Act shall be altered accordingly by the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.

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.

§ 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

§ 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.

§ 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

§ 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,

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

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.

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

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.