HC Deb 15 August 1913 vol 56 cc3313-41

"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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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: 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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.