Commons Sitting of 23 May 1928

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Stoke-on-Trent Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Godalming Extension) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Chesterfield Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

BRIDLINGTON HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Fishery Harbours Act, 1915, relating to Bridlington Harbour," presented by Mr. Guinness; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 142.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  YEMEN (ZARANIQ TRIBE).
  Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now any information concerning the trouble that has occurred between the Zaraniq tribe and the authorities of the Yemen; and can he state the nature of this trouble?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I have been asked to take this question. Reports received from Aden indicate that the Zaraniq tribe have made further attacks on Imamic forces and that other tribes are associated with them. It appears that the object of these attacks is to expel the Imam from the Tihama. It
  1850
  has been made clear to the Zaraniq Sheikh that His Majesty's Government are not prepared to interfere in affairs in the Imam's territory.
  Mr. DAY: Can the sight hon. Gentleman say what casualties have taken place?
  Mr. AMERY: No, Sir.

  TANGIER.
  Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position in regard to the status of Tangier; whether the Powers chiefly concerned are in accord regarding future policy; and whether it is contemplated to refer the question to the League of Nations?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): The status of Tangier remains governed by the terms of the Tangier Convention of the 18th December, 1928. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, meetings are being held in Paris by representatives of Great Britain, France, Spain and Italy to discuss amendments to the Convention, and I am happy to state that satisfactory progress is being made. The answer to the third part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

  REPUBLIC OF HONDURAS (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  Sir R. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what diplomatic representation this country has in Honduras; whether he is satisfied that sufficient vigilance is exercised in safeguarding the lives and property or British subjects; and whether he can state how many British nationals have been killed during recent years owing to the disturbed conditions of the country?
  Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statistics as to British subjects murdered or wounded in the Republic of Honduras in post-War years; whether any action has been taken or representations made; and, if so, with what result?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government are represented in Honduras by a Consul at Tegucigalpa with the local rank of Chargé d'Affaires in the absence of the Minister, who resides in Guatemala. According to reports received from His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Tegucigalpa, six British subjects have been murdered and two wounded in the Republic of Honduras in post-War years. Summary justice was done in one of these cases. In the other I am satisfied that His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Tegucigalpa made all possible efforts to secure prompt action on the part of the local authorities, but owing to the unsettled conditions prevailing in Honduras it has, I understand, unfortunately hitherto proved impossible to secure the conviction and punishment of all the malefactors.

  PERSIA.

    NEGOTIATIONS (IRAQ).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, during the recent negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Persian Government, the Persian Government was invited to recognise the present Government of Iraq; and, if so, what agreement was reached?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The attention of the Persian Government has frequently been called to the desirability in their own interests of recognising the present Government of Iraq, and thereby placing their relations with that kingdom on a normal and friendly footing. But the Persian Government have not hitherto taken this step.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this any part of the agreement which has been happily reached between His Majesty's Government and the Persian Government?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No. It does not cover it.

    BRITISH WARSHIPS (VISITS).
    Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the standing arrangement, concluded four years ago with the Persian Government, concerning the visits of British warships to Persian ports, has
    1852
    been maintained under the conventions signed in Tehran on 9th and 10th May; whether that arrangement covered all ports and harbours in the Persian Gulf, including Bahrein and Koweit; and whether the terms of the arrangement will be published?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir: the agreements signed on the 10th of May did not deal with this question. The informal arrangement reached in 1923 was merely to the effect that the Persian Government would be acquainted from time to time with the names and brief description of British men-of-war stationed in the Gulf, and would inform their local authorities that the visits of such vessels to Persian ports were in order.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: I am not quite clear as to whether the last part of my question is covered by the answer.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think my reply covers the hon. Member's question.

    PALESTINE (HOLY PLACES).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there have been any negotiations with, or pledges given to, the Italian Government with reference to the protection of the Holy Places in Palestine by the Italian Government?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply to the question is in the negative.

  CHINA.

    BRITISH INTERESTS.
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any British subjects suffered in the bombardment of Tsinanfu and the burning of public buildings by the Japanese troops; and whether he has received any later information to show any antagonism against British interests in Northern China on the part of either of the two contending Chinese parties?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: So far as I am aware, British subjects did not suffer any damage during the recent hostilities at Tsinanfu; a telegram from His Majesty's 'Consul-General there reports that they are all safe. None of the reports which

    1853
    I have received relative to the present situation indicate the existence of any antagonism against British interests on the part of any of the contending parties in China.

    BRITISH POLICY.
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the importance of Chinese trade with Great Britain, the British Government will consider the desirability of informing both contending parties in China that its attitude of self-defence is unaltered and that it has no intention of associating itself with the military operations of other Powers, either in respect of China proper or of Manchuria?
    Mr. FORRESTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is ensuring that the policy of the British Government in no way supports the intervention of foreign Powers which may tend to prevent the consolidation of China as a whole on settled peaceful lines; and whether the Japanese Government, prior to intervening by force of arms, communicated its intentions in any way to the other Powers interested in China; and, if so, what was its statement of policy?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The policy of strict neutrality towards the various contending parties in China adopted by His Majesty's Government remains unaltered. We have no intention of being involved in any form of intervention. Our one desire is to see a peaceful and united China, and any military measures taken by us are, and have always been, solely for the protection of British lives and property. This policy has been frequently stated and is, I believe, now fully understood by all parties in China, and it does not appear necessary to give further assurances. In my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on the 14th of May I gave particulars of earlier Japanese statements of policy. On the 17th of May the Prime Minister of Japan informed His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires of the declaration about to be made to the North and to the South, tic text of which was quoted in the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull yesterday. The Japanese Prime Minister explained Japan's resolve to prevent Manchuria being involved in
    1854
    the civil war; he stated that the result of the fighting might be that disorderly Northern troops, and perhaps Southerners in pursuit, would attempt to cross into Manchuria, and this the Japanese Government would prevent. He also stated that the Japanese would cooperate with other Powers for the defence of foreign life and property at Peking and Tientsin, and that they would not interfere with the occupation of those cities by the Southern forces.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a likelihood of the status of Manchuria being altered, and has he any assurance from the Japanese Government as to British trading rights in that very important market?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I am not aware of the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member in the first part of his question.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that if the Japanese Government have a protectorate over Manchuria, it is necessary that we should have an assurance of the open door in regard to our important trade there?
    Mr. BARKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many Japanese troops there are in Manchuria?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I cannot.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    TREATIES (BRITISH OBLIGATIONS).
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in what treaties which fall within the framework of the covenant, other than the Treaty of Locarno, His Majesty's Government has undertaken to fulfil any recommendations made by the Council of the League of Nations for the protection of territory which is attacked?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Treaties in question are the Aaland Islands Convention of 1921 and the Straits Convention of 1923.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the French Government was involved in similar obligations and yet found them-

    1855
    selves able to propose to the United States a Treaty for the unconditional outlawry of war?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I will bear all relevant facts in mind. I do not participate in all the implications of the hon. and gallant Member's question.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether His Majesty's Government have undertaken to fulfil any recommendations made by the Council of the League, or have these recommendations to be unanimous?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: A decision by the Council of the League, except in certain specified and minor cases, has to be unanimous.

    TRIANON TREATY.
    Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been notified of any representations made by the Government of Hungary to the League of Nations asking for a revision of the Trianon Treaty?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: May I ask if the Foreign Secretary has taken any steps to make it clear that the foreign policy in regard to Hungary run by a newspaper is not the policy of the British Government?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I have not thought it necessary to make it clear that His Majesty's Government conduct their own policy.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (TREATIES).
  Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will specify the regions, referred to in paragraph 10 of his Note to the United States Government, in regard to which His Majesty's Government claims freedom of action irrespective of any peace pact?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply returned by His Majesty's Government in Great Britain to the United States proposals for the renunciation of war is at present under consideration by the United States Government. His Majesty's Government will at the proper time be pre-
  1856
  pared to offer any explanations which may be required to facilitate the negotiation of the proposed pact, but at present I do not think it desirable to add to the general statement of the position of His Majesty's Government contained in my Note of the 19th of May.
  Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of this country as well as the United States are vitally interested in this matter? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman be specific and tell us where these regions are, because of the interests of the people of this country?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that I should conduce to the progress, of the negotiations if I comment upon the Note which has been addressed to the American Government for their consideration. Obviously, if they want any explanation, His Majesty's Government will be prepared to give it.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has this Parliament no rights in the matter? Cannot we be informed what are the territories outside the Empire in regard to which we refuse to negotiate respecting the outlawry of war?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Member need not suspect me of discourtesy if I do not reply to that question.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are these reservations fixed and permanent, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, or will there be an opportunity later on of wiping out any reservation against the American ideal?
  Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Are not these questions far more likely to be detrimental to the cause of peace than otherwise?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is obviously so, and that is why I prefer not to answer.
  Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the differences of opinion which have arisen in the negotiations connected with the Anglo-American Arbitration Treaty?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No difference has at present arisen and I hope that none will arise, but the terms of the new

  1857
  treaty to replace the Anglo-American Arbitration Treaty of 1908 are still under consideration and His Majesty's Government in Great Britain are not yet in a position to take a decision upon them.

  POISON GAS EXPLOSION, HAMBURG.
  Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to an accident that recently took place at Hamburg, where a tank containing fluid for the manufacture of poison gas exploded; and whether, in view of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, it is proposed to make representations to the German Government on the subject?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received no information in regard to the explosion in question save that which has appeared in the newspapers, and am not therefore in a position to say whether there are any grounds for representations to the German Government on the basis of the Treaty of Versailles.
  Mr. RAMSDEN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman considers that the War Materials Act, 1927, is being carried out by the German Government, and will he invite the League of Nations to make an inquiry into this explosion?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My information at present is derived entirely from Press reports, and it would be premature for me to express an opinion as to the proper course His Majesty's Government should take. Whether they should make representations to the German Government or not; whether they should call the attention of the League of Nations to the matter or not, is a question to be decided when I am in possession of fuller information than I am at present.
  Mr. DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to inquire whether the Press reports are correct?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I am taking steps to get further information.
  Mr. RAMSDEN: If I put a question down later on, will the right hon. Gentleman reply to it?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That depends on when the hon. Member puts it down.
  Mr. HARDIE: Is it not the fact that this gas is one which is used in the ordinary manufacture of certain things?

  EGYPT (PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES BILL).
  Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he consulted any foreign Governments regarding the possible effect upon the position of their nationals in Egypt of the passing of the Public Assemblies Bill by the Egyptian Parliament, before addressing the warning to the Egyptian Government not to allow the Bill to be proceeded with; if so, which countries were consulted; and whether he is prepared to publish the replies of those foreign Governments, together with the replies from the Dominion Governments?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. No foreign Governments were consulted. His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions were kept fully informed of the position from time to time in accordance with the usual procedure. I do not propose to publish further Papers.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS "HAWKINS" AND "BEE" (LEAVE).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what leave it is proposed to give to the ships' companies of His Majesty's Ship "Hawkins" and His Majesty's Ship "Bee," at present serving in China, when they return shortly to England; whether it is proposed to grant any leave beyond the ordinary foreign service leave, in view of the fact that the ships' companies of these men-of-war have had very little general leave, that they have been very little to Hong-Kong, and that they have been engaged practically on active service and on duty of the most arduous and trying nature; and if he is aware that the ratings on general strike duty in 1926 received an extra fortnight's leave?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The ships' companies of His Majesty's Ships "Hawkins" and "Bee" will be granted foreign service leave on

    1859
    the approved scale of seven days for each completed period of six months' service; the ship's company of His Majesty's Ship "Hawkins" will not be granted any additional leave, but the ratings from His Majesty's Ship "Bee" will be allowed an additional seven days. As regards the last part of the question, ratings employed during the general strike in 1926 were granted an additional week's leave, a fortnight being allowed only to those few men, who were recalled from leave during the general strike, in order to compensate them for the disturbance and loss of time on travelling.
    Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the hon. and gallant Member think it is very hard on the ship's company of the "Hawkins," who have had practically no general leave during their three years in China, that they are now to get exactly the same leave as if they had been at home all the time?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think the usual practice of the service has been observed in this case.
    Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: The crew have been practically on active service and have had a most difficult time; cannot some concession be made?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am aware of the facts; and I adhere to my answer.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Very ungenerous!

    BOAT OARS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what proportion of the boats' oars supplied to the Royal Navy are manufactured in America; since when has this source of supply been drawn upon for the Fleet; whether the Canadian spruce used for oars manufactured at Devonport and Portsmouth dockyards is imported in the form of logs and, if so, why the American ash is not imported in logs also; and whether experiments have been made in manufacturing boats' oars from home-grown timber and, if so, with what result?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: About one-third of the boats' oars supplied to the Royal Navy are manufactured in America. The use of American ash oars extends back for at least 50 years and
    1860
    probably much longer. Canadian spruce used for oars by the Admiralty is not imported as logs, but in the form of deals, which are regularly delivered into this country in large quantities for many purposes. On the other hand, American ash, suitable for oars, is not regularly imported, and it is more economical for the Admiralty to import the finished oar. Experiments have been made in manufacturing boats' oars from home-grown timber and it was found that homegrown ash was unsuitable.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the attention of the hon. and gallant Member been drawn to the campaign, which is supported by members of the Government, to purchase British goods?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I ask where these experiments have been made; were they made in any of the dockyards?
    Mr. HANNON: May I ask whether it is really the fact that we cannot make oars in this country as good as those made in America?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: It has been explained that the ash in this country is neither sufficient in quantity nor equally suitable for the purpose as the ash from America. This has been found by a course of experiments during the last 50 years. Ash is imported not in bulk as timber, for the simple reason that there is not a great trade in ash in this country and it is more economical to bring the article in the form of oars from America.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Would the hon. and gallant Member like to hear from me what I think about it?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I have an answer to my question as to who made the experiments, and where they were made?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. DAY: Is the hon. and gallant Member really serious in saying that English ash is not as good as American ash?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: For the purpose in question that is the statement I have made, and I am told that it is perfectly true.
    Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Are not the oars used in the 'Varsity boat race made of English ash, and is not that good enough?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Admiralty does not run that.

    WORK, CHATHAM AND SHEERNESS (RATINGS).
    Mr. W. M. ADAMSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of naval ratings who have been put on work formerly done by civilians at Chatham and Sheerness; and if he can specify the nature of such work?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Naval ratings are required to carry out any work on board His Majesty's ships which is within their capacity, regardless of whether it has ever been performed by civilian labour or not. All work on His Majesty's ships which is beyond the capacity of the naval ratings available, is carried out by civilian dockyard labour. There has been no change in this long-standing practice.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Has any estimate been made of the amount of unemployment caused in the dockyards by this new practice?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No estimate has been made, because the suggestion has never been made, as far as I am aware.

    PRIZE FUND.
    Sir BASIL PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as regards the balance of £126,500 standing to the credit of the Naval Prize Fund which it is proposed to transfer to the Exchequer, he will state whether, in view of the fact that officers and men of the Merchant Navy were mainly responsible for the capture of German ships and cargoes, from which the Prize Fund was almost wholly drawn, that they suffered in the attacks made by German armed ships on British merchant ships and cargoes, and that only those have shared in the Prize Fund who held commissions in the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve in offensively armed vessels bearing the white ensign, it is possible to allot a proportion of this sum to charities identified with the officers and men of the Merchant Navy?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The sum of £126,500 referred to represents the amount proposed to be transferred from the Naval Prize Fund to the Exchequer to meet the estimated liability imposed on the Exchequer, and would not in any case be available for distribution. When any further distribution of the residue of the Prize Fund takes place under Section 1 (3) of the Naval Prize Act, 1918, the claims of organisations representing the Mercantile Marine to participate will again receive full consideration, as they did in 1924 when the last general distribution was made.

    INVALIDING CASES.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Board of Survey, in invaliding cases, interview and examine the officers and men in question, or confine their survey to medical history sheets?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Every patient brought forward for survey is interviewed by the members of the Board of Survey and, when necessary, examined by them. The survey is not confined to medical history sheets or documents, though these are always available for scrutiny by the surveying officers.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it permissible for the applicant to be represented at the examination?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am not absolutely certain, but I think so.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Has the applicant any right of appeal from the decision of the Board?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: He can, of course, appeal to the Board of Admiralty.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty in how many cases the Commander-in-Chief accepted the decision of the Board of Survey in invaliding cases in the last 12 months; and in how many cases he over-ruled the recommendations of the Board of Survey?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: So far as I am aware, the Commanders-in-Chief have accepted the decisions of the Boards of Survey in all cases of invaliding during the last 12 months.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty in how many cases in the last 12 months the Board of Admiralty have over-ruled the recommendations of the Board of Survey in invaliding cases; and in how many cases have they over-ruled the decision of the Commander-in-Chief?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am afraid that the time available has not been sufficient for the compilation of the figures asked for by the hon. Member, which entails the scrutiny of a considerable number of individual invaliding papers. Perhaps the hon. Member will therefore repeat the question after the Recess.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether this question of the appeal tribunal is still under consideration?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I can answer that question in the affirmative.

    GERMAN CRUISER "MOLTKE" (TOWAGE).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the tugs which recently towed the German battle cruiser "Moltke" to the Firth of Forth from Scapa Flow were owned by British or foreign firms?
    Lieut. Colonel HEADLAM: The arrangements and responsibility for towage from Scapa Flow to Rosyth were in the hands of the owners of the ship, Messrs. Cox and Danks. I understand, however, that foreign tugs were employed.
    Mr. RAMSDEN: Could not British tugs have been used for the purpose?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The "Moltke" was sold outright when she lay submerged, and the firm salving the vessel have been allowed to re-sell her.
    Mr. DAY: Is it also the fact that British tugs are not as good as foreign tugs, as the hon. and gallant Member has stated that British oars are not as good as American oars?
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Is it not a case of poetic justice, after this magnificent piece of salvage work, that the "Moltke" should be towed by German tugs to Rosyth?

    His MAJESTY'S SHIPS "NELSON" AND "RODNEY."
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been reached in regard to the additional claims for the construction of His Majesty's Ship "Nelson," and, if so, what is that decision; what was the original contract price for His Majesty's Ship "Nelson" and His Majesty's Ship "Rodney"; how much has actually been paid in each case; whether His Majesty's Ship "Rodney" was under construction throughout the same period as His Majesty's Ship "Nelson"; and whether any claims above the contract price have been received in respect of His Majesty's Ship "Rodney"?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The reply to the first part is in the negative. In accordance with the established practice the contract prices cannot be disclosed. The two vessels were built simultaneously. The answer to the last part is in the affirmative.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. and gallant. Gentleman inform the House as to the grounds on which the extra remuneration is claimed?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No, I am not in a position to give that information at the present moment.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can it be given if I put down a further question?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If the hon. and gallant Member will put a question on the Paper, I shall be in a better position to know whether I can give the information.

    CONTRACT (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. DENNISONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the North-West Rivet, Bolt, and Nut Factory, Limited, Airdrie, Lanarkshire, has decided to apply a revised piecework wages price list to employés engaged as nut-cutters without the consent of the latter or their trade unions; and, as the company, which is engaged on Admiralty contracts, is thus infringing the Fair Wages Clause, will he inquire into the matter with a view to removing this firm from the list of Admiralty contractors?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have no information as regards the first part of the question. If full details are furnished by the trades unions or the employés concerned of any specific breach of the Fair Wages Clause and of the particular contract involved, inquiry will be made.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWNasked the Minister of Labour how many insured persons in England and Wales, Scotland, Edinburgh, and Leith (Quality Street Exchange), respectively, failed to qualify for unemployment benefit under the provisions of the new Act during the month 19th April to 14th May, 1928?
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of claims rejected by the insurance officers at the various Glasgow Employment Exchanges, respectively, and, in the case of each Exchange, the number of appeals to the Courts of Referees by the applicants since the coming into operation of the new Insurance Act;
    (2) the number of claims for unemployment benefit at Bridgeton and Parkhead Exchanges, respectively, since the coming into operation of the new Insurance Act; the number of claims which satisfied the 30-stamps condition; the number of those rejected on not-genuinely-seeking-work grounds; the number of claims on which the 30-stamps qualification was not satisfied; and the number of those rejected by the insurance officer on not-genuinely-seeking-work or other grounds?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I regret that these statistics will not be available for a few days. I will circulate a statement of the available information in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.
    Mr. BROWN: Will it be necessary to put down another question, or will the hon. Gentleman give us notice?
    Mr. BETTERTON: It will not be necessary to put another question. I shall circulate the information the moment I have it. I hope that will be on the first day after the Recess or very soon after that.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Labour what are the matters taken into consideration by the committee at the Walworth Road, Borough, Employment Exchange, which caused them to reject, during the 12 months ended 9th April, 1928, 1,313 applications for unemployment benefit on the grounds that the applicants were not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment; and can he state by what methods the committee arrived at their decision to refuse a further 297 applicants on the grounds that applicants at this Exchange were not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I would refer the hon. Member to Memorandum L.E.C. 82/15, of which I am sending him a copy, which sets out the considerations by which the Committee were guided in making their recommendations.
    Mr. DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this number of refusals is over 30 per cent. of refusals on the ground of "not genuinely seeking work," and is that not rather an absurd percentage?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am not prepared to say whether it is absurd or otherwise. I have no doubt that all relevant considerations were taken into account.
    Mr. DAY: May I ask, on that point—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has a little more than his share of the time during questions.
    Mr. BROADasked the Minister of Labour how many applicants for standard benefit have been refused it on the ground that they were apparently over the age of 65 years, from 2nd January to 30th April this year; how many have been restored to benefit subsequently on proof of their age; how many, who were unable to prove their age, have been denied either unemployment benefit or old age pension when they were legally entitled to one or the other; and will he take steps, in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, to see that none are excluded from unemployment benefit on account of age until they have been recognised for old age pension?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The only statistics I have are those for the number of persons, namely, about 33,100, who in

    1867
    the period up to 30th April ceased to have current claims to benefit, standard or extended, by reason of having attained the age of 65. If a claim to an old age pension is rejected on the ground that the claimant has not reached the age of 65, he is treated as under 65 for the purposes of unemployment benefit. I am considering whether it is possible to make an interim payment in cases where the claimant, according to his own statement is over 65, but the evidence of age is defective and needs examination. I would point out, however, that the most effective remedy lies in the hands of the claimants themselves who may and should apply for a pension in good time to allow for any necessary inquiries.
    Mr. BROAD: How is the hon. Gentleman going to deal with these cases in which applicants have been refused benefit on the ground that they are under 65 and how are these people going to live in the meantime?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As I stated in the answer, if a claim to a pension is rejected on the ground that the claimant has not reached the age of 65, he is treated as under 65 for the purposes of benefit.

    COURT OF REFEREES, CHATHAM AREA.
    Mr. W. M. ADAMSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he has consulted the employers' organisations and the trade unions in the Gillingham and Chatham area as to the appointment of the representatives on the Court of Referees?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) on 18th April. I am sending him a copy of the reply.

    INDUSTRIAL TRANSFERENCE BOARD.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Minister of Labour whether the Transference Board has presented its Report; and whether he can arrange for a supply of copies to Members before the Whitsuntide Adjournment?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister
    1868
    yesterday, it is hoped that the Report will be in the hands of the Government in about three weeks' time.
    Mr. BATEY: Does that mean that immediately the Report is in the hands of the Government it will be circulated to Members?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No. That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend when the Government receive the Report.

    TEXTILE TRADE.
    Captain WATERHOUSEasked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the fact that an employé who works only three and a-half days a week would not be shown as under-employed, figures more adequately representing the under-employment position in the textile trade could be published in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette"?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Statistics of under-employment in a particular industry other than those derived from the working of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme, can only be obtained by means of special returns voluntarily rendered by the industry. Summaries of such returns for certain industries, including cotton and wool textiles, are published monthly in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette."
    Mr. PALING: Do we understand that in all cases where 3½ days a week has been worked these returns are not showing them as under-employed?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No. It is quite true that these returns do not in every case show all the short time worked, but the hon. Member knows that it depends entirely on how the time worked is spread out—whether it is three days or over in the six—whether they are returned for short time or not.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: In view of the importance of accurate figures in the case of applications for safeguarding, will my hon. Friend see whether he cannot get clearer figures published in the Labour Gazette, especially as these figures are vitiated owing to the sharing out of work, which is of real advantage to this industry?
    Mr. BETTERTON: If my hon. and gallant Friend thinks that there is a real

    1869
    demand for further figures to be obtained from the manufacturers, I will endeavour to get them.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: Is my hon. Friend not aware that it is now too late for this particular industry?

    REDDITCH AND DISTRICT.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the figures of unemployment in Redditch and district from the latest returns as compared with a year ago; and whether it is expected that the closing down now of a large factory in that town will materially increase the numbers out of work, or whether steps are being taken in an endeavour to absorb those thrown out of work in other employment?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The number of persons on the register of the Redditch Employment Exchange at 14th May, 1928, was 1,366 as compared with 892 at 16th May, 1927. I am informed that a local factory is discharging its workpeople and may close down altogether. I hope these discharges will not lead to a permanent addition to the number of persons unemployed in the town. Every effort will be made by the Employment Exchanges to find other employment for those thrown out of work.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Ts the hon. Gentleman aware that the closing down of this factory is almost certain to throw about 1,500 people out of work and is it possible for the Government to take any steps to induce other manufacturers to take advantage of the splendid facilities afforded in this town?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As I have said in my answer, we shall make every effort.

    HOSIERY INDUSTRY.
    Mr. RYEasked the Minister of Labour if any separate figures are available showing the number of unemployed among operatives engaged in the manufacture of cotton hose and underwear and those in the other branches of the hosiery industry?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I regret that separate statistics of unemployment in the various sections of the hosiery industry are not available. As regards the figures for the industry as a whole I would refer
    1870
    my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Melton Division of Leicester (Mr. Everard).
    Mr. RYE: In view of the importance of these figures to the industry concerned, would it not be possible in future to differentiate?
    Mr. BETTERTON: That question is very often asked in regard to other industries and the answer is that we have already 100 separate classifications. We consider from time to time whether my more classifications can be applied.
    Mr. RYE: Does the hon. Member appreciate the fact that, in any application for safeguarding, differentiation is vitally necessary?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I take it from the hon. Member that it is so, and I will certainly consider if any further differentiation can be made.

    JUVENILES, SOUTH WALES.
    Mr. JOHNasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he will provide statistics with regard to the Treorchy, Tonypandy, Ferndale, and Porth Exchanges, respectively, as to the number of youths under 18 years of age who have since 19th April, 1928, been deprived of their unemployment benefit as the result of the operation of the new Unemployment Act; whether any of these youths were members of the juvenile training centres; and, if so, whether they have been withdrawn from the training centres;
    (2) whether he will provide statistics with regard to the Treorchy, Tony-pandy, Ferndale, and Porth Exchanges, respectively, as to the number of youths under 18 years of age who have since January, 1927, been deprived of their unemployment benefit; whether these youths are admitted to the training centres; and, if not, whether he will take the necessary steps so that the training centres will be available for youths who are not in receipt of unemployment benefit?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    Disallowance of Applications for Unemployment Benefit of Boys 16 and under 18 years of age.

    —

    Applications for extended benefit* recommended for disallowance by Local Employment committees in the period 11th January, 1927, to 18th April, 1928.

    Claims to benefit disallowed in the period 19th April,1928, to 14th May, 1928.

    Treorchy

    87

    4

    Tonypandy

    12

    Nil.

    Ferndale

    60†

    Nil

    porth

    *Statistics of disallowances o standard benfit are not available.

    †Includes figures for ponyclun and Taff's Will.

    I have no information as to whether the four boys at Treorchy mentioned in the second column were in fact attending a Juvenile Unemployment Centre, but the Centres are open to all unemployed boys, whether or not they are in receipt of unemployment benefit.

  TRADE BOARDS ACT (BRUSHMAKING).
  Mr. T. HENDERSONasked the Minister of Labour whether application has been made to his Department by the brush manufacturers to have the brush-making industry removed from the scope of the Trade Boards Act?
  Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE (IMMIGRANTS).
  Mr. HASLAMasked the Minister of Labour whether he has recently signed an agreement with the Minister of Labour of the French Government regulating the admission of nationals of the other country for the purpose of entering into employment in France or Great Britain, m the case may be; and, if so, whether he will cause the text of the agreement to be laid upon the Table of the House?
  Mr. BETTERTON: I am arranging for this document to be published as a White Paper.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    RATING RELIEF.
    Mr. HASLAMasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to make a statement on the subject of the memorial he has recently received requesting that assistance should be given to the British coal industry pending the operation of the rating relief proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on Monday last in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall).

    CONTROL PERIOD (OUTSTANDING AMOUNTS).
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Secretary for Mines what is the total sum due from colliery undertakings arising from the coal-control period, and the number of firms concerned?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 30th April. The figures are only compiled quarterly, and to obtain the information necessary to bring those at 31st March up to date would involve an expenditure of time and labour incommensurate with the result. As regards the second part of the question, the number of firms concerned at 31st March was 37.

    OIL EXTRACTION.
    Mr. WHITELEYasked the Secretary for Mines the oil content of British cannel, a non-bituminous coal; and what is the estimated quantities of such coal still unworked?
    Commodore KING: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him yesterday. The figure of 50 gallons of oil per ton which I then gave refers only to the true cannels and not to the so-called "Hoo" or "Bastard" cannels from which less oil is obtainable. I am unable to supply an estimate of the quantities of such coal still unworked. Some information on the subject will be found in Volume VII of the "Special Reports on the Mineral Resources of Great Britain" prepared by the Geological

    1873
    Survey and published by H.M. Stationery Office in 1920.
    Mr. WHITELEYasked the Secretary for mines whether he can state the difference in cost of refining imported oil and oil taken from British coal?
    Commodore KING: No, Sir. In both cases the cost of refining depends on the nature of the oil and the process to which it is subjected.
    Mr. WHITELEYasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can state the price per gallon of crude oil extracted from British coal?
    Commodore KING: No, Sir.

  FOOD COUNCIL (TRADERS' EVIDENCE).
  Mr. HARDIEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Food Council have no power to make complete investigations as to prices, he proposes to give them such powers?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 21st May in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander), of which I am sending him a copy.
  Mr. HARDIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think there is a waste of time on the part of the men engaged on this Council, because when they get the information and have not full powers to complete their work then that work is being lost?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I indicated in the reply which I gave to the Leader of the Opposition, we are giving the Food Council such powers as they desire at the moment.
  Mr. HARDIE: When was the last report issued?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    ACCIDENT, SOUTH FARNBOROUGH.
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Air when the aeroplane No. S 1,260, which crashed in South
    1874
    Farnborough on 12th May, was last examined and overhauled; and whether any defects in the mechanism of the engine were reported?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The aeroplane and engine were examined on the morning of the 12th May and reported to be in order. No occasion for overhaul had arisen, both aeroplane and engine being new and no mechanical defect in either having been reported.

    DISPLAY, HENDON.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is yet in a position to give particulars of the forthcoming air display at Hendon?
    Sir S. HOARE: The display, as in previous years, will illustrate various aspects of the training of the Royal Air Force, such as formation flying, aerobatics, artillery co-operation and air fighting. New and experimental types of aircraft will be represented. Further details will appear in the Press and in posters in due course.
    Mr. LUNN: What is the date of this display?
    Sir S. HOARE: Either 30th June or 1st July.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there to be the bombing of a village on this occasion?
    Mr. SMITH: Is the Minister going to have a display of the bombing of a native village, as was the case last year?
    Sir S. HOARE: There will be a set piece, as usual, this year. The bombing will not be on a native village.
    Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Will it be a civilised village this year?
    Sir S. HOARE: The hon. and gallant Member had better await the programme.
    Mr. COMPTON: Why not a replica of the House of Commons?
    Mr. THURTLE: Will the Minister not consider bombing a replica of the House of Commons?
    Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: With dummy Ministers.

  AIR SERVICES (LONDON-INDIA).
  Mr. MALONEasked the Secretary of State for Air when he hopes to be able to lay the White Paper on the subject of the air route between London and India?
  Sir S. HOARE: I am not as yet in a position to give a definite date, but should hope to lay this Paper within two or three weeks of the House reassembling after the Whitsun Recess.

  JUSTICES' APPOINTMENTS; PETERBOROUGH.
  Mr. PALINGasked the Attorney-General whether, with regard to the appointments recently made as justices of the peace for the liberty of Peterborough, he will say whether such appointments were made on the recommendation of the advisory committee for that district; whether he is aware that one of the justices is only 23 years of age, and what were the special qualifications that led to his appointment?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The persons recently appointed to be Justices of the Peace for the Liberty of Peterborough were recommended to the Lord Chancellor by the Advisory Committee for that district. My Noble Friend understands that the second part of the question refers to Lord Burghley. The Lord Chancellor understands that Lord Burghley takes an active interest in the public life of the Liberty; he is satisfied that Lord Burghley is personally well fitted to hold the office of Justice of the Peace, and he thinks it desirable that a young man of standing in the district should be given the opportunity early in life of gaining experience in public affairs.
  Mr. PALING: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in the district because of the appointment of this young man who, it is said, has never done anything in public life while older men and
  1876
  women have been passed over in his favour?
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it the case that in the same district there are men of 10 and 20 years and even longer experience in public life, with honourable records, who have been rejected when their names have been sent in; and why should men with splendid records of public work be turned down when this young man with no record is appointed?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am not prepared to enter into a discussion of the comparative merits of many people who would be eminently fitted for the same post.
  Mr. PALING: Is it the case that a relation of this young man is lord-lieutenant and the chairman of the advisory committee?
  Mr. RYE: Is it not a fact that Mr. Pitt was Prime Minister of this country at the age of about 23?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In answer to the question put by the hon. Member opposite, I am not aware of the relationship referred to.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the lord-lieutenant for the district in which this Liberty is situated is Lord Exeter, who is the father of Lord Burghley; and does he think that that gentleman would recommend anybody else of 23 years of age for this honour?

  HOUSING.

    SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION).
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Health whether he intends to introduce legislation to amend Section 46 of the Housing Act, 1925, which awards compensation for slum property on site value only, and thus bears hardly upon owners of property not itself insanitary but which is included in an insanitary area to be demolished?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member for Blackpool (Sir W. de Frece) on 17th instant.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    BARLEY MILLING (REGULATIONS)
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the fact that James Proctor and Sons, Limited, Liverpool, have had to close down their barley mill as the result of the new Regluations governing the bleaching and preserving of pearl barley; that a Manchester firm, the only other barley millers in the district, closed down their mill in April, due to the same cause; and will he be prepared to revise the Regulations in their application to the use of sulphur dioxide in the milling of barley, with a view to avoiding the effect of these Regulations on the barley milling industry?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am aware that the two firms in question have recently closed their mills. Seeing, however, that the Regulations apply equally to home-milled and imported barley and that the increase in the imports of pearl barley preceded the operation of the Regulations, my right hon. Friend is unable to accept the view that the closure of the mills is attributable to the Regulations, and he is not prepared to amend them in the sense suggested.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both America and Germany have attempted to apply similar regulations, and have been compelled to withdraw them because of their impracticability?

    BIRTH RATE.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Health the average number of births per day for the first quarter of 1928; and whether this average figure represents an increase or a decrease on the corresponding figure for the first quarter of the preceding year?
    Sir K. WOOD: On the provisional figures at present available there were on average 1,847 births registered per day during the first three months of 1928. This figure represents a decrease on average of eight births per day on the corresponding figure for the first three months of 1927.
    Mr. THURTLE: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the recent statement in the Press as to an increase in the birth rate was erroneous?
    Sir K. WOOD: It is certainly true that the rate of decline has very considerably slackened.

    GOVERNMENT LYMPH.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Minister of Health how many calves have been used during the past 12 months in connection with the Government Lymph Factory at Hendon for the production of lymph?
    Sir K. WOOD: 421 calves were used at the Government Lymph Establishment for the production of lymph during the year ended the 31st March last.
    Mr. SMITH: Do I understand that the whole of these calves were afterwards sent to be slaughtered?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter entirely. The question simply asked for figures, but the hon. Member will find that matter discussed in a Debate which took place three or four weeks ago in this House. I will send him a copy of the Report.

    VENEREAL DISEASE (FOREIGN SAILORS).
    Sir WILFRID SUGDENasked the Minister of Health if he is prepared to remove the provisions dealing with the treatment of foreign sailors for venereal diseases by British shipowners, in view of the fact that these latter contribute for this purpose by national health insurance and by national taxation?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): I have been asked to reply. The provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts, whereby shipowners are liable for the cost of medical treatment of seamen, are of long standing and have never discriminated against foreign seamen. I see no reason for introducing such discrimination now.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are encouraging immorality among foreign labour by reason of the application of the Merchant Shipping Acts (Amendment) Act of 1923?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I fail to see how that arises out of the question.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: If I give the hon. Member statistics, and proof that the

    1879
    result is to increase immorality, even among our own people, will he look into the matter?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Certainly.

  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Health the actuarial estimate of the cost to the State of the recent Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act and the actual cost of the first full year of its operation?
  Sir K. WOOD: As the payment of old age pensions at ages between 65 and 70 did not begin until January, 1928, the first full year of the operation of the Contributory Pensions Act is that ending 31st March, 1929. The actuarial estimate of the net Exchequer charge for the year 1928–9 under the conditions
  The following Table shows the Total Imports of Abrasive Grinding Wheels (other than Grindstones) into Great Britain and Northern Ireland which were registered as consigned from Germany and the United States of America, respectively, during each of the years 1926 and 1927:—

  —

  1926.

  1927.

  Number.

  Declared Value.

  Number.

  Declared Value.

  consigned from —

  £

  £

  Germany

  …

  …

  …

  23,300

  4,300

  65,500

  8,000

  U.S.A.

  …

  …

  …

  406,700

  101,600

  495,900

  127,600

  I am unable to say what proportion of these imports are for use for hand grinding.

  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

    SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.
    Mr. RYEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to amend Section IV of the Command Paper 2327, relating to safeguarding of industries, so as to transfer to the Board of Trade the power to determine the procedure to be followed by the committees to be set up to inquire into any application for safeguarding?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: No, Sir. I do not think that such an amendment is required.
    Mr. RYE: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that there should be uniformity of procedure; and is he aware that the
    existing when the Bill was introduced was £5 million, made up as shown in Table VII in the Government Actuary's Report on the financial provisions of the the Bill (Cmd. 2406). It is not yet possible to forecast the actual cost for the year in question.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    ABRASIVE WHEELS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade the number and value of abrasive wheels (used for hand grinding) that were imported into this country from Germany and America respectively, for the years 1926 and 1927?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The answer takes the form of a table of figures, and if the hon. Member will allow me, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    evidence on these applications is more in the nature of casual conversation than anything else?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I understand that as a rule both sides are represented by counsel, and I am certain that the way they conduct their work would meet with my hon. Friend's approval.
    Mr. HANNON: Would it not be better to have a single tribunal, instead of individual tribunals, so that continuity of policy might be established?
    Mr. DIXEY: Will the hon. Gentleman consider a change in the procedure?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: It has already been stated in the House that it is not the

    1881
    intention of His Majesty's Government to make any change in the White Paper during the lifetime of the present Parliament.
    Mr. RYEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of altering the constitution of the committees to be set up to deal with applications for safeguarding, so as to ensure that future applications are dealt with by a member of the Bar or some other person of standing having judicial experience?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: My right hon. Friend does not consider that he should bind himself as to the selection of members of the committees in the manner suggested.
    Mr. RYE: Is my hon. Friend aware that these inquiries are intended to be of a semi-judicial nature, and that they frequently are not?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: It is because of their semi-judicial character that I gave the answer which I gave to the previous question, namely, that the Board of Trade will not interfere with the procedure.
    Mr. RYE: Is not the reason that the persons appointed on the committee have had no judicial training and are, therefore, unable to weigh the value of evidence?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members are giving their own opinions.

    ADVERTISEMENTS (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider setting up a Committee to investigate the limits within which advertisers should be allowed to make appeals to the public regarding the quality and nature of the goods which they seek to sell, and to consider the advisability of setting up some national system of standard for goods purchased by Government Departments, the research in which might also be made available for the general public?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: My right hon. Friend, as at present advised, does not see his way to appoint a Committee for the purpose indicated in the first part
    1882
    of the question. As regards the second part, the standardisation, so far as practicable, of goods purchased by Government Departments has been proceeding steadily for a considerable time, but I doubt if the specifications would as a rule be of interest to the general public.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Has my hon. Friend's attention been called to advertisements which appeared in the Press on Monday—full-page illustrated advertisements—of blocks of flats which in actual practice have not yet been erected, followed to-day by a prospectus asking for money for that purpose; and does he not think that that sort of thing, which is very nearly false pretences, is a matter which should be investigated by the Government?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Are those advertisements more misleading than advertisements for beer, which promise health and happiness?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Is the Under-Secretary prepared to recommend truth in advertising to his own Government?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, but if we recommended truth in advertising, it would have to apply to all political parties.

    SOVIET GOVERNMENT ORDERS.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has any information as to large orders for textile machinery and electrical power station plant and equipment having been recently placed with British firms by the Soviet Government; and what are the terms of the contract for payment?
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have noticed in the daily Press a report that large contracts of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend have recently been placed with British firms by the Soviet Government, but I have no other information on the subject.

  REPARATION SHIPS.
  Mr. SHINWELLasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total sum due from shipowning firms on account of reparation vessels, and the number of firms concerned?
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The total sum due from shipowning firms on account of reparation vessels is £565,000, excluding interest. The number of firms concerned is two.
  Mr. SHINWELL: Are the two firms the Cunard Line and the White Star Line, both of which have been making handsome profits?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not know which firms they are, and if I did I should not be prepared to inform the hon. Member.

  BREAD PRICES.
  Viscount SANDONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the price of bread is now in accordance with the scale laid down by the Food Council, having regard to the price of flour; if not, what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: At the moment the price of bread in London is ½d. per 4-lb. loaf above what it should be under the Food Council's scale of maximum prices. Earlier in the month, however, the price was below the maximum price allowable under the Council's scale. I understand that the Food Council are in communication with the bakers' association as to the date of the next reduction.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Does the hon. Gentleman say that that is the general price for all the traders in London? Are not the co-operative societies charging less?

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    STABILISATION.
    Colonel CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Pensions whether he has considered the advisability of any further measure of stabilisation of the existing rates of war pension?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The effect of the arrangements made by the present Government in 1925 is to safeguard the existing rates of War Pension at any rate until 1931. At the same time I may inform my hon. and gallant Friend that the Government are already considering the conditions under which stabilisation of the present rates of
    1884
    all pensions and allowances under the Great War Warrants could suitably be effected, and I hope to be in a position to make a full statement before the end of the Session.
    Colonel BROWN: Who is responsible for the initiation of this very satisfactory proposal?
    Major TRYON: The initiative is that of the Ministry of Pensions and of the Government.

    TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. F. ROBERTSasked the Minister of Pensions whether any instructions have been issued by the Ministry to local medical officers to curtail the payment of treatment allowances as much as possible; and, if so, the terms of these instructions and the circumstances that have rendered their issue necessary?
    Major TRYON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. ROBERTS: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any number of complaints reaching him as to the cause of this question?
    Major TRYON: I have no idea why the right hon. Gentleman put down the question, which is obviously framed under a misapprehension.
    Mr. ROBERTS: If I supply my right hon. Friend with the basis of the information, will he look into the matter?
    Major TRYON: Most gladly.

  SCOTLAND.

    PIERS (MESSRS. D. MACBRAYNE, LIMITED).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the piers in the service of Messrs. David MacBrayne are leased or are they the property of the firm?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): Two piers, I understand, are leased by the company on a yearly rental, and they own a portion of another pier.
    Mr. HARDIE: In view of the Committee that is to be appointed, is the

    1885
    question in relation to the piers owned and the piers rented to be taken up and discussed?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: It must be for the Select Committee which the House of Commons has set up to decide what they will inquire into.
    Mr. HARDIE: Does the Secretary of State for Scotland think now that the remit includes that point for discussion?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: It is not for me to say. The House passed a certain Amendment which becomes the remit to the Select Committee.

    BOARD OF HEALTH.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of clerical officers in the Scottish Board of Health promoted from the female writing assistants and typist grades; how many ex-service P-class officers have been promoted; the number of existing vacancies in the clerical class; and whether the remaining posts will be assigned to ex-service P-class officers?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Of the clerical officers at present on the staff of the Scottish Board of Health, 22 are promoted female writing assistants and four are promoted shorthand typists. No P-class officers have been promoted in the Department. As regards the second part of the question, there are at present six vacancies in the clerical grade, but in view of an anticipated reduction in the volume of work in the Department, it is not proposed to fill any of these vacancies meantime.
    Mr. BROWNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of staff in the Scottish Board of Health engaged in overtime duties; and whether the work being performed can be assigned to ex-service temporary clerks discharged or under notice of dismissal?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The number of staff in the Scottish Board of Health engaged on overtime duties at the 22nd instant was 44 including two higher clerical officers. The work being performed by the staff in question is not such as can be undertaken by the employment of additional temporary ex-service clerks, but while the work in the Department con-
    1886
    tinues in its present volume it is not proposed to reduce the existing number of temporary staff.

  TRANSPORT.

    LIVERPOOL-SALFORD ROAD.
    Captain CAZALETasked the Minister of Transport the estimated capital cost per mile of the new Liverpool-Salford road scheme which has recently been approved by his Department?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): This project, which received Approval in principle four years ago, is estimated to cost about £115,000 per mile, including the cost of numerous bridges.
    Captain CAZALET: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how this figure compares with the cost of other arterial roads recently constructed?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot, without notice.

    BRYNMAWR-BLAENAVON ROAD.
    Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the dangerous state of a portion of the main highway betwen Brynmawr and Blaenavon; that the Nantyglo and Blaina Urban District Council are unable, through financial straits, to repair this road; that persons using vehicular traffic over this road are continually complaining of its dangerous condition; and will he have this matter investigated at the earliest moment and see that the road is made safe for public use?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware that the length of road in question is in a bad state, and I am at present considering what steps can be taken to ensure that the necessary repairs are carried out by the responsible highway authorities. I am fully acquainted with the financial circumstances of many of the local authorities in South Wales.

    ROAD CONSTRUCTION (GRANTS).
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Minister of Transport whether his Department has, within the past year, from the Road Fund defrayed or promised to defray 100 per cent, and 75 per cent., respectively, of the cost of any road con-

    1887
    struction or reconstruction, except in the case of those thoroughfares known as new arterial or by-pass roads; and, if so, whether he can give the names of such undertakings?
    Colonel ASHLEY: A few grants at the rate of 100 per cent. have been made exceptionally to certain highway authorities during the past financial year in respect of outstanding schemes under the Trunk Road Reconstruction Programme, initiated in 1924–25 as a means of mitigating unemployment. Special grants at the rate of 75 per cent. have been made to other schemes under the same programme and also for the following purposes:

    (a) to highway authorities in rural areas in England and Wales in connection with the "maining" of classified roads previously maintained by rural district councils;

    (b) to certain authorities, mainly in Scotland, in respect of the maintenance and improvement of Class I and Class II roads.

    Further particulars of these special grants will be given, as usual, in the Annual Report upon the Administration of the Road Fund, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that comprehensive lists of the local authorities concerned cannot conveniently be embodied in a reply to a Parliamentary question.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  Mr. A. M. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of cases of foot-and-mouth disease which occurred during March, April, and the first three weeks of May; and whether any further information has been gained as to the sources of infection?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Nine outbreaks occurred during March, four during April and 11 during the first three weeks of May. Of these 24 outbreaks, 20 were attributable to local infection from other outbreaks. In the remaining four cases the source of infection remains obscure.

  DARTMOOR AND PARKHURST PRISONS (EDUCATION).
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an education adviser has been appointed to His Majesty's Convict Prison, Dartmoor; and, if not, whether he proposes to make such an appointment in the near future?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): An education adviser has not been appointed at this prison. Dartmoor is the prison for "recidivist" convicts who have had repeated sentences of penal servitude or imprisonment for grave offences, and until further experience has been acquired of educational work amongst the "Star" convicts at Maidstone and the convicts of the "Intermediate" class at Parkhurst, it would be premature to attempt the introduction at Dartmoor of any elaborate educational scheme.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Was it not the original plan of the right hon. Gentleman to appoint someone at Dartmoor?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No; I really want to see how the scheme can be put on foot. In the reply to the next question, I can give the Noble Lady some information.
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Home Secretary how many lectures and classes have been held for convicts at His Majesty's convict prison, Dartmoor, and the average attendance, during the past 12 months?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Nineteen general lectures and concerts have been held at Dartmoor Prison during the last 12 months. It has not been possible in the short time since the question was put down to ascertain the average attendance on these occasions, but I will send the information to the Noble Lady as soon as I receive it. In addition, 95 classes have been held for young convicts only, in such subjects as geography, history, travel, making a career, 'etc., at which the average attendance was 11.
  Captain FAIRFAX: Are the lectures and classes compulsory?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No.
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Home Secretary how many classes are being held weekly at His Majesty's prison, Parkhurst; what subjects are taught and by whom the instruction is given; what, is the average attendance; what percentage of the total number of convicts have not attended any class during the past 12 months; how many of these convicts are under 25 years of age and how many between the ages of 25 to 30 and 30 to 40, respectively; and what is the test by which the ability of a convict to profit by a class is determined.
  Sir. W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the answer is long, I will, with the Noble Lady's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The number of classes held weekly varies with the number of lecturers available, but at present six are being held each week.
  The subjects covered recently include music, singing, reading, writing, arithmetic, imperial and general history, studies of other countries, the history of flying, the care of the horse. The lecturers are drawn from all classes, and have included officers of the Church Army, working men, Army officers and prison officers.
  The average attendance at each class is 17.
  The approximate percentage of convicts who have not attended any classes during the last 12 months is 85 per cent.; of these 28 were under 25 years of age, 62 between 25 and 30, and 128 between 30 and 40.
  Convicts are selected for classes by the Governor in co-operation with the Educational Adviser. At a prison like Park-hurst the field of selection is necessarily limited; a large proportion of the convicts fall into classes which are clearly ruled out, such as aged convicts, hospital cases, weak-minded convicts, sexual perverts, violent and ill-conducted convicts. Of the remainder it is necessary to consider whether they are teachable, and whether their general conduct justifies selection, and of those who are favourably considered it is not all who wish to attend classes.

  WHIST DRIVES.
  Mr. HASLAMasked the Home Secretary whether he is now prepared to make a statement as to what action he is prepared to take on the question of the legality of whist drives and fun-fair games and sports?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The effect of the recent decision regarding whist drives is still under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement. All I should like to say at the moment is that my Department has taken no action in this matter, the police having acted in the discharge of their ordinary duties to enforce the law. As regards all the matters referred to in the question I hope to be able to make a statement after the Recess.

  POLICE INVESTIGATIONS (MRS. PACE).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that Mrs. Pace, Forest of Dean, and her two children were ordered by the police to proceed to Coleford Police Station to be interrogated by Scotland Yard officers, which lasted for 13 hours; that the children were in bed at the time, with the result that the family left the house without any breakfast; that the children were interrogated separately and apart from their mother; and if he will state whether it is his intention to include this case for investigation in the terms of reference to the proposed Court of Inquiry which he intends setting up to investigate the methods adopted by Scotland Yard?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The inquest in this case has ended in the committal of a person for trial and, for the time being, I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on the 26th March. The terms of reference for the general inquiry are not settled, but it is unlikely that they will be such as to exclude consideration of the matters referred to in the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. THORNE: Are the instructions for what is known as the third degree inquiry issued from the Home Office, or are they done by the Chief of the Metropolitan Police?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Neither one nor the other. There are no such instructions issued, and never have been; and whenever I have heard of any complaints, I have always said that nothing of the kind should occur. In this case, although the hon. Member has forced me to say it while the woman is under committal for trial, it is only fair to the police to state that, in the course of her examination at the inquest, she not only did not complain, but thanked the police for the consideration which they had shown her.
  Mr. THORNE: It is not a question of this or of any other woman. I want to know, when they are about to make these third degree inquiries, whether the Chief of the Police is absolutely responsible for giving the instructions to his officers to carry on this wicked system?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I entirely deny that there is anything in the nature of third degree in this country at all. On the contrary, it is quite untrue, and the hon. Member really ought not to make such statements.
  Miss WILKINSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it reasonable to keep two children at the police station for 13 hours, and cannot he instruct the police to use ordinary courtesy in these matters, and to see that the children are at least properly fed?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I did make certain inquiries in this case, and, as I told the hon. Member, the woman in question really thanked the police for the consideration which they had shown her. The question of the children is a new one to me, and I will, if the hon. Member wishes, make inquiries into that point.
  Miss WILKINSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the statement of the woman thanking the police, after having undergone that 13 hours, can really be taken as an expression of thanks for courtesy, because the poor woman would be in such a condition that she would be only too thankful to get away?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hop. Member read the report of the inquest, she would find a statement by this woman in regard to the very question that has been raised here.
  Mr. COMPTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, if no third degree methods were used, whether either first, second, fourth, fifth or sixth degree methods were used?

  LITHUANIA AND POLAND.
  Commander KENWORTHY(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the reasons for the visit of M. Valdemaras to this country, and what matters are under discussion?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: After the December meeting of the Council of the League, M. Valdemaras paid visits to Berlin and Paris. At that time, he informed me that he hoped to visit London in the spring, and I assured him that I should be very glad to welcome him here. The only matter of business discussed between us has been the negotiations now taking place between Lithuania and Poland, in pursuance of the recommendation made by the Council. I pressed upon M. Valdemaras the importance attached by His Majesty's Government to the success of these negotiations and to the establishment, as desired by the Council, of good neighbourly relations between the two Powers.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister, in the event of the Government getting the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule to-night, how far the Government propose to go?
The PRIME MINISTER: Only the first Order.
Mr. MacDONALD: Can any announcement be made to-day regarding the business after the Adjournment?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that I must ask for that question to be put down to-morrow. On the first day, as I announced, the Second Reading of the Finance Bill will be taken.
Mr. MacDONALD: Is it proposed that the Finance Bill should be given a Second Reading on the first day?
The PRIME MINISTER: That has been the practice in recent years.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I see that there is a notice on the Order Paper of the presentation of the Bill on Rating and Valuation. May I ask the Prime Minister whether that Bill will be immediately printed, and in the hands of Members, so that they can have it in time before the discussion on the Finance Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House one day when I announced that it would be printed in time for the Whitson holidays, so that Members may study it during the Recess.
Resolved,
"That this House do meet To-morrow, at Eleven of the Clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the Clock; and that at Five of the Clock Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put"— [The Prime Minister.]
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 133.

Division No. 149.]

AYES.

[3.49 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Lamb, J. Q.

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Curzon, Captain viscount

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Dalkeith, Earl of

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Loder, J. de V.

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Dixey, A. C.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Drewe, C.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Astor, Viscountess

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Atholl, Duchess of

Elliot, Major Walter E.

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

England, Colonel A.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Balniel, Lord

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Macintyre, Ian

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

McLean, Major A.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Fermoy, Lord

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Fielden, E. B.

Macquisten, F. A.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Fraser, Captain Ian

Malone, Major P. B.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Frece, Sir Walter de

Margesson, Capt. D.

Berry, Sir George

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Betterton, Henry B.

Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Ganzoni, Sir John

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Gates, Percy

Meyer, Sir Frank

Blundell, F. N.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W

Goff, Sir Park

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Grant, Sir J. A.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Briggs, J. Harold

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Briscoe, Richard George

Grotrian, H. Brent

Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)

Brockiebank, C. E. R.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)

Hacking, Douglas H.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Buchan, John

Hamilton, Sir George

Murchison, Sir Kenneth

Bullock, Captain M.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Harrison, G. J. C.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hartington, Marquess of

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D, L. (Exeter)

Cautley, Sir Henry 5.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Newton, sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

Haslam, Henry C.

Nuttall, Ellis

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Penny, Frederick George

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Chapman, Sir S.

Hilton, Cecil

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Clarry, Reginald George

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Price, Major C. W. M.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Radford, E. A.

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Raine, Sir Walter

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Hume, Sir G. H.

Ramsden, E.

Cooper, A. Duff

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Remnant, Sir James

Cope, Major William

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Rentoul, G. S.

Couper, J. B.

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Rice, Sir Frederick

Courtauld, Major J. S.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Ropner, Major L.

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Rye, F. G.

Salmon, Major I.

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Sandon, Lord

Templeton, W. P.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Savery, S. S.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Wolmer, Viscount

Shepperson, E. W.

Tinne, J. A.

Womersley, W. J.

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Skelton, A. N.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Waddington, R.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Wragg, Herbert

Smithers, Waldron

Warrender, Sir Victor

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Major Sir George Hennessy and

Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Mr. F. C. Thomson.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Wells, S. R.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Hirst, G. H.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Ammon, Charles George

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Shinwell, E.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Baker, Walter

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Sitch, Charles H.

Barnes, A.

Johnston. Thomas (Dundee)

Smillie, Robert

Batey, Joseph

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Briant, Frank

Kelly, W. T.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Broad, F. A.

Kennedy, T.

Snell, Harry

Bromfield, William

Kirkwood, D.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Bromley, J.

Lansbury, George

Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Lawrence, Susan

Stamford, T. W.

Buchanan, G.

Lawson, John James

Stephen, Campbell

Cape, Thomas

Lowth, T.

Strauss, E. A.

Charleton, H. C.

Lunn, William

Sullivan, J.

Cluse, W. S.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

Sutton, J. E.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

Compton, Joseph

Mackinder, W.

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Connolly, M.

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Cove, W. G.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Thurtle, Ernest

Dalton, Hugh

March, S.

Tinker, John Joseph

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Maxton, James

Tomlinson, R. P.

Day, Harry

Montague, Frederick

Viant, S. P.

Dennison, R.

Morris, R. H.

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Dunnico, H.

Morrison, R. c. (Tottenham, N.)

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Edge, Sir William

Murnin, H.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Fenby, T. D.

Naylor, T. E.

Wellock, Wilfred

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Owen, Major G.

Westwood, J.

Gillett, George M.

Palin, John Henry

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Paling, W.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Potts, John S.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Griffith, F. Kingsley

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Groves, T.

Riley, Ben

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Grundy, T. W.

Ritson, J.

Windsor, Walter

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

Wright, W.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rose, Frank H.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Hardie, George D.

Saklatvala, Shapurji

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Harney, E. A.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Scrymgeour, E.

Whiteley.

Hayes, John Henry

Scurr, John

Question put, and agreed to.

TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD) AND TRACKLESS TROLLEY UNDERTAKINGS.
Return ordered,
"of Street and Road Tramways and Light Railways authorised by Act or Order, showing the amount of capital authorised, paid up, and expended; the length of line authorised and the length open for traffic, and number of cars owned at the 31st day of De-
1896
cember, 1927, in respect of companies, and the end of the financial year 1927–28 in respect of local authorities; the gross receipts, working expenditure, net receipts and appropriations, the transactions in reserve funds, and traffic and operating statistics for the year ended on the foregoing dates, respectively (in continuation of Return to an Order of the House, date the 17th day of May, 1927); also similar particulars relating to Trackless Trolley Undertakings." —[Colonel Ashley.]

SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL.
Order [18th May] that the Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committee be printed, read, and discharged.
BILLS REPORTED.

  BERMONDSEY BOROUGH COUNCIL (ST. OLAVE'S GARDEN) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the Third time.

  MID-KENT WATER BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the Third time.

  WAR WICK CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
RATING AND VALUATION (APPORTIONMENT) BILL,
"to make provision, with a view to the grant of relief from rates in respect of certain classes of hereditaments, for the distinction in valuation lists of the classes of hereditaments to be affected, and the apportionment in valuation lists of the net annual values of such hereditaments according to the extent of the user thereof for various purposes," presented by Mr. Chamberlain; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 143.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Teachers (Superannuation) Bill,
Post Office (Sites) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer powers upon the Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Company with reference to the supply of electricity in parts of the East, North, and West Ridings of York, and in the City of York, and part of the County of Durham, and further powers with reference to such supply in their existing area of supply; and for other pur-
1898
poses." [Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the limits of supply and increase the capital of the Wessex Electricity Company; and for other purposes." [Wessex Electricity Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the closing and stopping up of certain public roads in the Borough of Dover; to sanction and confirm the construction of a railway; and for other purposes." [Dover Harbour Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer powers on the Manchester Ship Canal Company; and for other purposes." [Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Staffordshire Potteries Water Board; to empower the Board to construct a further waterwork and to acquire lands; to revive the powers for the construction of certain waterworks by the Board; to make provision for the preservation and protection of the Board's sources of water supply; to amend the Acts of the Board; and for other purposes." [Staffordshire Potteries Water Board Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the transfer to the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Southampton of the undertaking of the Company of Proprietors of the Northam Bridge and Roads; to authorise the said Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses to purchase the undertaking of the Southampton and Itchen Floating, Bridge and Roads Company and to construct a tramway; and for other purposes." [Southampton. Corporation Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the transfer of the undertaking of the Waltham and Cheshunt Gas Company to the Tottenham District Light, Heat, and Power Company, and to confer on such company further powers in regard to the supply of gas; and for other purposes." [Tottenham and District Gas Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the limits for the supply of gas of the Bournemouth Gas and Water Company; to increase the capital and borrowing powers of the company; to authorise and confirm the construction of certain works; and for other purposes." [Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill [Lords].
Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Wessex Electricity Bill [Lords],
Dover Harbour Bill [Lords],
Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords],
Staffordshire Potteries Water Board Bill [Lords],
Southampton Corporation Bill [Lords],
Tottenham and District Gas Bill [Lords],
Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT, 1921.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I beg to move,
  "That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the action of the police in connection with their interrogation of Miss Savidge on the 15th day of May, 1928."
  I desire to explain to the House how it came about that a different Motion was put upon the Paper from the one which now appears there and which I am moving. The House will remember that on Thursday last there were discussions in this House in regard to the matter, and as anyone who will read the speech which I made then will realise, my mind was very full of the original charges which were, made in certain quarters in regard to the action of two police constables concerned in the original prosecution of the gentleman whose name was frequently mentioned in the Debate. The House will also remember that I arranged that I would consult with the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) in regard to the terms of the Resolution. While the Debate was going on I drafted a Motion myself, sitting on this bench, containing a provision for a double inquiry so as to allow the Commissioners to advise me upon the guilt or otherwise of the original constables and the misbehaviour or otherwise of the police officers engaged in the particular action in regard to Miss Savidge. I took that Motion into the Speaker's room behind the Speaker's Chair. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) and my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General were good enough to confer with me there, and we all approved the terms of the Motion as they were subsequently put down at the Table of this House. I think it fair to say, however, as regards not merely the right hon. Gentlemen opposite who were concerned with me in the drafting Of that Motion but also myself, that when putting down a Motion for an inqui0 into the perjury or otherwise of
  1922
  the two constables it did not occur to any of us that by so doing we should be insisting upon a retrial of the summons taken out against Sir Leo Money.
  4.0 p.m.
  He is, of course, quite entitled to his acquittal. He has been tried and acquitted, and when the matter was pointed out very kindly to me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, on my return from an official visit to the north of Ireland, I felt at once that the House would not desire, and that it would not be right, to put Sir Leo Money on trial again, and that it would be much better that the matters to be put before this tribunal should be confined to one question on which the House expressed—I am not prepared to assent to their expression—very strong views with regard to the alleged action of the police. Therefore, yesterday I put down the Motion which appears on the Order Paper to-day, that is to say, that it is desirable that a Commission should be appointed in order to inquire directly into the action of the police which was commented upon by the hon. Member who raised the matter last week. That, of course, is a clear-cut issue. I do not propose—it would be improper for me, and, with great respect, I should say it would be improper for anyone in this House, when we have decided to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry—to make any remarks on one side or the other. I, therefore, do not propose to say a word in defence or exculpation of the police. I told the House the other day that, of course, there are two sides to the case. Those two sides will have to be put before the Commissioners, and, I am quite sure, they will be put quite honestly before them.
  Before I conclude, may I say one word with regard to the action of the police generally? This accusation which has been made against them has been, of course, very detrimental to the force as a whole. If these officers are found guilty, it will be exceedingly detrimental to the force. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I will riot say more than this. I do want hon. Members on both sides—people inside as well as outside this House, to withhold and suspend their judgment. I am quite sure that the Commissioners, whose names I am going to mention to the House, will hold this inquiry without any bias of any kind whatever. I have been at very great trouble indeed to

  1923
  find Commissioners who would meet with the approval of the House. I have been in consultation with the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We want to find Commissioners in whom the House will have absolute confidence. I am very glad to say that His Majesty's Government have been able to secure as Chairman the right hon. Sir John Eldon Bankes, a Judge of the High Court, who was subsequently promoted to be a Judge of the Court of Appeal. He is retired; he has the time and energy and he is willing to hand himself over to the House of Commons to devote his time, his energy, his very great ability and his very well-known fairness to help the House of Commons in this particular matter.
  With regard to the other two Commissioners, I promised, of course, that I would consult the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We felt it would be reasonable, and that the House would probably desire, that there should be some Members of this House upon this Commission of Inquiry. I am very glad to be able to announce the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers), who is well known here for his fairness in debate, who is a well known solicitor, and a man of very great experience of affairs. I do not think we could find on either side of the House a more suitable member. We have also been favoured by the nomination, from the other side, of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). He is a man, I think, in whom the whole House has confidence. He has been a Member of this House for some time. He has not taken any active part in this particular kind of matter, but he is a man, all will agree, of openness of mind, honesty of character. I think that, taking these three Commissioners as a whole, we could not have found a fairer and better Commission, and one more likely to go right down into the depths of all the accusations made, and present to the House a full and fair result.
  In these circumstances, I do not desire to detain the House any further. The right hon. Member opposite has asked me a question across the Floor of the House, repeating one that was asked in the Debate last week, that is to say, whether some arrangement could not be made for
  1924
  the expenses of the lady who has brought this accusation, and I entirely agree. I am quite prepared to say that reasonable and proper expenses incurred by her in connection with this inquiry shall be paid out of public funds. I think it is only right and proper that I should make this announcement at once. I am quite sure it will be felt that the right course has been taken.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the police be represented by counsel?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no doubt both sides will be represented by counsel. I think the House will feel that it will be for the benefit of the inquiry itself that the matter should be conducted by counsel with a knowledge of procedure, evidence and so forth, and I sincerely hope and trust that this matter, which has been one of very great anxiety to myself personally, and, I am sure, to the House as a whole, may now be left to this tribunal, and that good may come out of the trouble.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: All I need say can be compressed into one sentence. We are very desirous of associating ourselves with the action which the right hon. Gentleman has taken. The little mistake about the wording was one of those little things which leave blame on no shoulders, and the right hon. Gentleman, in bringing the Motion forward to-day in this new form, shows his very proper desire to express in the Motion what, I hope, will be the unanimous finding of the House of Commons. I only say these words to express how completely we associate ourselves with what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
  Mr. HAYES: I only want to ask one question of the right hon. Gentleman. I have nothing to quarrel with what he has said this afternoon. I cordially endorse it. I want to ask whether, in the interests of the two constables concerned, they will not be denied subsequently the fullest possible opportunity of a thorough inquiry into the charge that hangs over their heads both by implication and by what is happening?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps the hon. Member will let that matter stand over without prejudice, as we say, on either side. I am concerned at the

  1925
  moment in dealing with this particular case, and I think the hon. Member may safely leave the future of the constables in my hands to do what is right in the matter.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: I associate myself with what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition. This is a case where, very plainly, second thoughts or, rather, second drafts are best. It is probably a case, also, of "least said soonest mended." I reproach myself, because I did not look more closely at the introductory words suggested by the Home Secretary, but the fact is I did not, and nothing was said at the conference behind the Speaker's Chair as to a double inquiry. It never entered my head that we were going to inquire into anything but the one matter which the House wished inquired into, and we are now going to inquire under a better form of words.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I am sure the House will agree that the appointment is satisfactory in every way from the point of view of fairness and justice, but I must say that, as this case concerns women, and particularly the treatment of a woman, we do feel that if the recommendations of the women's organisations which have been fighting so long in the country to see that women were in Scotland Yard, had been carried out, this would never have happened. We do feel that it would have been far better if the Government had seen their way to appoint a woman on the tribunal. I must, therefore, make my protest. There are women barristers—
  HON. MEMBERS: Agreed!
  Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order. Cannot we have silence?
  Viscountess ASTOR: I do feel that, from the point of view of women and of the many women's societies who are deeply interested in this question, we would have been far happier if the Government had seen their way to appoint a woman to the Commission. We could find women who would recommend themselves just as much to the House as the very honourable and splendid men who have been appointed, and if the Home Secretary could see his way to appoint a woman, many women throughout the country would be deeply gratified.
  Mr. BROMLEY: I want to say how pleased I am that this inquiry will be held, and may I express the hope that it will have its reverberations even outside the Metropolitan Police, for whom the right hon. Gentleman is somewhat responsible, because within the last few days there has been an almost similar case where a person has been tried. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, in this case, a railway accident occurred at a public level crossing at a place called Blackwood, near Tredegar, in Monmouthshire. Unfortunately, the driver of a motor van passing over the crossing was so injured by collision with a railway engine that he subsequently died in Tredegar Hospital. Immediately following the accident in this small village, the Monmouthshire police took the driver from his engine, and even took the guard, leaving the train with only the fireman in charge. They were lugged by the police through the public streets to the police station to take a statement from them, and then they were compelled to sign a blank form, and were told that their statement would be typed over their signature afterwards. To show the injustice, I need only mention that at the coroner's inquest subsequently, the coroner complimented the engine-driver on the whole of his actions in connection with the occurrence, and although, of course, we cannot extend the scope of this inquiry, the fact that there is an inquiry into the action of the police in this way, may have its effect in other parts of the country. I thank the House for its indulgence in hearing me, because I am sure that Members on both sides will not agree with dragging people away, especially leaving a railway train, without warrant or justification.
  Mr. MORRIS: I want to say a few words on behalf of those who are associated with me, and I want to thank the Home Secretary for the readiness with which he has limited the inquiry to one incident alone,
  "the action of the police in connection with their interrogation of Miss Savidge on the 15th clay of May, 1928."
  I wish to call attention to those three words "in connection with." It has been suggested, and some Government spokesmen have intimated, that those words may bring in the Hyde Park case in an indirect way. I cannot imagine that the learned Chairman would allow that, or that the Home Secretary intends to

  1927
  extend the inquiry beyond the interrogation of Miss Savidge on 15th May this year; but I wish to say that I am very glad the Government have acceded with such readiness to my representation.
  Mr. HANNON: I do not propose to move the Amendment which stands in my name—In line 1, after the word "established," to insert the words,
  "which tribunal shall comprise at least one member having practical knowledge of police administration"—
  and I only put it down to emphasise what I am sure is the desire of the House, that the police force of this country should have perfectly fair play in any inquiry that takes place.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I beg to move, in line 1, after the word "tribunal," to insert the words "including at least one woman member."
  The House ought not to leave this question without hearing this case argued, because I think there is a very strong reason for the inclusion of a woman. I think my Amendment should be carried because there are two women concerned, not only Miss Savidge, but also the woman police officer. I believe the inquiry will have to probe into the question of the treatment of women witnesses, and it seems to me very important that when women witnesses and their treatment by the police force are to be discussed there should be a woman there in order to be on the bench to judge these questions. I think this Amendment ought to be carried because of the method of the use of women police. I will not argue the case one way or the other, but it is obvious from the statements made by those who have pushed for many years in the country and in the House for the appointment of women police officers, that we ought to have a woman to judge the Scotland Yard methods of using the woman police officer in this particular case. The statement has been made that the woman police officer in this case was used as a cover to get Miss Savidge conveyed to Scotland Yard. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] There is another side, I agree, but if the statement made last week is accurate the woman police officer was withdrawn when she might have been a protection not merely to the woman, but also to the police officers.
  1928
  There is one other reason. This is not a matter of man's liberty or woman's liberty but a question of the people's civil liberty, and I think that when a tribunal of this kind is set up there should be a woman upon it. If the Home Secretary says that there is no suitable woman for this inquiry I say that there are plenty of them. There is a very distinguished magistrate, an ex-Member of this House, Mrs. Wintringham, who is as capable of.sitting on this inquiry as any Member in this House. If it is considered by those responsible that a woman with legal knowledge should be appointed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] I have only two sentences more, and I do not propose to sit down until I have got them out. If it is considered by those responsible that a woman with a knowledge of the law is required there are plenty of women barristers, such as Mrs. Lloyd Lane, who are capable lawyers, and who are quite capable of looking after women's rights.
  Miss WILKINSON: I beg to second the Amendment. I feel a little bit upset at the way the House has received the suggestion that a woman should be appointed on this tribunal. I thought it was very extraordinary when a woman rose in this House to raise this matter, which is felt very keenly by a large number of women connected with all parties judging by the letters we have received on this subject, that the suggestion should have been received with shouts of derision. It seems to me that Members of this House will have to realise that where a woman's honour and good name are at stake, and when she has been dragged through the filth of publicity as this unfortunate woman has been, many of us feel that there should be a woman on the tribunal. We make no suggestion that the three gentlemen on the tribunal may not be extraordinarily good, but there are plenty of women of proved public ability, and I would like to ask the Home Secretary if he would give the reasons why he did not put a woman on this tribunal?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: All I can say is that I considered very carefully the composition of this tribunal. I discussed it with the leaders of the Front. Bench opposite, and with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), and, without betraying any secret, I may also say that I also

  1929
  consulted the Lord Chancellor, and we came to the conclusion that the three names I have suggested would form an admirable tribunal as representative of all parties in the House. Unless this Commission is one which has the confidence of all parties in the House, it would be very much better not to appoint it. I hope the Motion I have made will be carried unanimously and that the whole House will show full confidence in the tribunal which has been set up at its own request. I hope the hon. Member who has moved and the hon. Member who has seconded the Amendment will not press it.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: At this consultation with the Opposition Front Bench was there any consideration of the question of the appointment of a woman representative at all?
  Mr. E. BROWN: In view of the obvious feeling of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I would like an answer to my question.
  Mr. SPEAKER: We must have one thing at a time. The hon. Member can ask his question later.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Was the question of the appointment of a woman really considered?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Many names were considered, but I do not think it would be right to mention the private discussions which took place.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Your are evading the point.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would like to ask a question about the meaning of the word "police" in this Motion. Is it quite clear that this inquiry and the terms of reference are wide enough to include an inquiry into the instructions which may have been given to the police by the Director of Public Prosecutions or by the Chief Commissioner and to apportion the blame accordingly; because, if that be not the case, it looks as if the conduct of these two individual police officers is alone in question, whereas it may transpire that they were only acting under superior orders.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think that the first question that would be put to these officers would be, "Where did you get your instructions and what were they?" I am quite satisfied that the question raised by the hon. Member will be rightly interpreted.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will it be possible for this tribunal to censure or exonerate the Chief Commissioner of Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is quite impossible for me to say what the tribunal will do, but Lord Justice Eldon Bankes is a very experienced Judge. I should say that the Chief of Police is responsible for all the actions of his subordinates.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes), I am not questioning the action that has been taken, or the Motion that has been put down, but long before my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) raised this matter last Thursday the Home Secretary promised to look into the question of the two police officers out of which this case has arisen. In fairness to those two men who have a charge of perjury hanging over their heads, and without connecting it with the tribunal which we have decided to set up, I think the Home Secretary should be a little more explicit. He told the hon. Member for Edge Hill that that matter could be safely left to him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] We must be fair to these two men, who must be under great anxiety as to the kind of action that is being taken either to clear them or to punish them, and it cannot be left like that. They cannot go through life branded as possible perjurers because we do not want to run the risk of retrying Sir Leo Money and Miss Savidge. The Home Secretary should tell us what is going to be done in reference to these two police officers.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must really ask the hon. Member not to press me. It is the wish of the House that this tribunal should be limited in the way it has been limited, and, if I were to say anything with regard to the two officers

  1931
  either on one side or the other, it might have an effect which I do not want it to have.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman himself has made a statement about the police, and he has told us his reasons for altering the terms of reference. I submit that he himself is being unfair to these officers, and he should tell us what kind of inquiry is being held, and what is being done in order to give them a fair trial.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I fully realise what the hon. and gallant Member has in mind, and I say again that the two police officers may safely leave themselves in my hands. I cannot make any further statement at this moment. I have very carefully refrained from making any statement since last week, and I do not propose to make any further statement on the matter until we get a report from this tribunal.
  Resolved,
  "That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the action of the police in connection with their interrogation of Miss Savidge on the 15th day of May, 1928."

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
  As amended ( in the Standing Committee), considered.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 94 of principal Act as to Special Orders.)
    At the end of Section ninety-four of the principal Act (which contains rules as to the making of special orders) the following Sub-sections shall be inserted:
    "(7) As soon as the Minister has published notice of the proposal to make a special order he may, if he certifies that it is expedient that the special order should come into operation forthwith, make the special order to come into operation forthwith as a provisional special order, but such provisional special order shall only continue in force until the special order made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Section has come into force.
    (8) Any provisional special order made in pursuance of the foregoing Sub-section shall be laid before both Houses of Par-
    1932
    liament as soon as may be after it is made, and if within the subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such provisional special order is laid before it either of those Houses presents an address to His Majesty against the order or any part thereof the order shall be annulled, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    In order to appreciate the purpose of this Clause, it is necessary to refer to Clause 19 of the Bill. Clause 19 brings within the purview of the National Health Insurance scheme certain new classes of persons, but it is provided under the Clause that, by a special Order, particular persons may be excluded from the general rules, those persons not being persons whom it is intended or whom it is possible to insure, If the ordinary procedure were followed in regard to special Orders, it is very possible that the special Order excluding any such persons could not be brought into force until some time after they had actually been brought within the Act, and the object of my proposed new Clause is to make the special Order operative forthwith, in order to avoid bringing people into insurance and making them pay contributions for a short time, when they are going to be excluded from insurance before, probably, they would have been able to get any benefit. That is the purpose of the Clause, and it will be seen that, in the second part of it, ample provision is made for Parliament to consider any special Order such as is contemplated. I think, therefore, that the powers of Parliament are strictly preserved by that second part.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how it comes about that this proposed new Clause is put down at this stage without any reference to previous proceedings? Until I hear more about the Clause, I am not going to say that I am opposed to it, but I will put two or three points for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration. In the first place, the Clause has never been mentioned in

    1933
    any previous Debate. We sat for a long time in Committee upstairs, and dealt at length with the new classes of persons whom it is proposed should be brought into the insurance scheme, and I should have thought that, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman would have found out the flaw to which he now refers when he was dealing with those classes in Committee upstairs. This proposed new Clause will, in fact, unless I am very much mistaken, alter our whole Parliamentary practice with regard to the issue of Orders. Section 94 of the original Act provides for what I think is the ordinary practice in relation to Orders; that is to say, the Minister of the Crown lays on the Table of the House of Commons certain Orders, and the House of Commons is entitled to petition against the Orders becoming operative. If I have any quarrel at all with the wording of the proposed new Clause, it is in relation to the last line, where it says that, if an Order or any part thereof be annulled, it shall be
    "without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."
    Let us consider what happens at the present time. A draft Order is issued by the Minister and placed on the Table of the House of Commons, and, within a period of 21 days, or such other period as may be laid down, any Member of the House of Commons may move an Address praying for the annulment of the Order. If, however, this proposed new Clause be inserted in the Bill, we are told, in the words I have quoted, that the Order will be put into operation at once, that it will lie on the Table of the House of Commons, and, if the House of Commons petitions against it, and the Order is thrown out, then nothing that has been done under the Order in the meantime is to be cancelled. Surely, there must be something wrong there; and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to explain a little further what actually is the reason for this.
    He said something else with reference to the proposed new Clause. I thought that we were going to have regulations and orders to bring certain people in for the first time—slaughtermen, share fishermen, tree fellers and the like. Now we are told by the right hon. Gentleman that the Order to which he refers, and
    1934
    which may be put into operation for a few days until it is cancelled by Parliament, is an Order to exclude certain people, whereas, as I have said, I thought that we were going to bring certain people into the scheme. There are, therefore, three points that I would put to the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, what are the reasons that have induced him to make this new proposal, when in fact we discussed the whole of this problem for a long time upstairs; secondly, how does it come about that we are going to have an Order which, if it be thrown out by Parliament, may be operative only for a few weeks or a few days; and, finally, how does it come about that Orders may be issued under this Clause which will exclude certain people, when in fact we were told that any Orders that would be issued would be Orders to include certain people and not to exclude them?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I quite understand the hon. Gentleman putting this point, because, naturally, anyone who is interested in the work of National Health Insurance would desire that consideration should be given by this House to a proposal of this kind. The matter has arisen at this stage owing to the various Clauses which have been incorporated in the Measure, particularly, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, those very difficult matters which we discussed in connection with share fishermen. Not only will this proposed new Clause enable us to exclude certain people, but, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, to meet the request of many Members of the Committee, while we shall be including in our Order a very large number of share fishermen, it will also be necessary to exclude a limited number of people who are simply owners on their own account, and I do not think that anyone has ever defended the inclusion of people of that class under the National Health Insurance Act—that is to say, men who are working on their own account and are simply employers. That would be the class of person that would have to be excluded. Moreover, it is intended to revoke the existing Order, made under the principal Act, which at the present time excludes certain Cornish fishermen, in order to bring

    1935
    them within the new scheme which was laid down in Committee. Those are the two objects of this proposed new Clause.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked why it is necessary to put the special Order into operation immediately. The answer to that is that, both under the original Bill and under a proposal with which we shall deal in a later Amendment, this new Measure has to come into force on a particular date, and, in order to make the inclusion and exclusion of these people come at the exact moment of the bringing into operation of this new Measure, it is necessary that we should have power to make this special Order. Otherwise, we might have this new Measure coming into operation, say, on the 1st January, and, under the old procedure, a good many days would have to go by before we could adopt the method, either of bringing in these new people immediately if they ought to be in, or excluding any who ought to be out, and, in that case, people might have to pay compulsory contributions when it was not intended that they should come into the scheme at all. It is also necessary that we should give the benefit of the Act immediately to those Cornish fishermen to whom I referred just now, who are at present excluded. Therefore, to enable us to bring all this machinery into operation at the one date, we are bound to have a Clause of this kind, so that, when the new Act comes into operation, say on the 1st January, we shall have an Order which will have been carefully considered beforehand—and we should, of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows, consult the Consultative Council—so that, on the day on which the Act comes into operation, our Order also will come into operation, either excluding the people who ought to be out or including those who ought to be in.
    Mr. DAVIES: Do I understand that this proposed new Clause will be operative only in respect of the new classes that are being brought within the scheme under this Bill, and that that is the only purpose for which it is intended to utilise it?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is our main object, but the hon. Gentleman knows, probably better than anyone else in this House, the very complicated nature of this Bill,
    1936
    and, to be perfectly honest, I should hesitate to say with any great certainty that we have been able to provide for every possible contingency that may arise in connection with the coming into operation of this very complicated machinery, or that it might not be necessary to use this special Order in some other similar circumstances. As the hon. Gentleman, I think, very well knows, at no time in the administration of this Act have we ever sought to do anything behind the back either of the House of Commons or of the Consultative Council. Ibis is purely to enable us to put the machinery of this very complicated Measure into operation, so that no one may lose benefits on the one hand, or, on the other hand, he made to pay compulsory contributions when it is not intended that he should have any insurance benefit. It is really to ease the wheels of the machinery, and I do not think that anyone need have any apprehensions as to what will be the effect of the Clause.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: With regard to the inclusion of share fishermen among the new classes who are to come under this Measure, I have no fault at all to find with the Clause, but the point about which I am a little concerned is as to whether the Clause is really going to be limited to this particular object. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember the many discussions that we had in Committee on the question of the power of the Minister to set up clinics, and I think he realised that there was a considerable amount of opposition, even from Members of his own party, to the idea of giving the Minister absolute power to set up institutions of that kind. If this proposed new Clause is going to give power to the Minister to set up such institutions, it is, in my opinion, going dead against the general views of the Members of the Committee, and I should be very glad if we could have an assurance on that point.
    Sir K. WOOD: Let me say at once that there is no such intention, nor could there be, because our operations in relation to the setting up of clinics would be under another Clause of the Bill, with which we have already dealt. This is only to deal with exceptional machinery. I would point out that it is very largely owing to our anxiety to help the hon.

    1937
    Member, and the people whom he desires to serve, that this Clause has been put down, and, therefore, I feel just a little pained that he should rise to question it. At any moment it is true the worst that eau happen will be that any evil or wicked order will be in operation for only 21 days or some short period. Anyone who gives a moment's reflection to the very complicated nature of the Act will know that in relation to a matter of this kind you really must give some power to the National Insurance Department to be able to set the complicated machinery in motion.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: I think I understand what the Minister is asking for. It is for a blank cheque to do what he likes in the case of any unforeseen circumstances arising. If that it so it is a very great thing to ask the House of Commons.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There seems to be suspicion in the minds of some hon. Members about this very harmless Clause. It does.not give a blank cheque to the Minister at all. It is merely a power in certain instances to make the special orders, which the Minister already has the power to make, operative at once instead of having to wait a very long period before they become operative. Under the existing law, the periods are 21 days and afterwards 30 sitting days of either House. In the case of National Health Insurance schemes certain people are always passing in and out and that is a very long delayed process and it may be desirable, and certainly is desirable in the cases we contemplate in Clause 19, to make the machinery work smoothly. Even under the procedure contemplated here whereby the period would be reduced from 51 to 21 days Parliament has power, if it thinks the Minister is attempting to use the procedure improperly, to stop it and make the proposed special order inoperative.
    Mr. HARNEY: In reading this Clause it seems to me too clear almost for argument. This does not give any power at all to make a special order. It only says where there is power to make orders they shall operate forthwith instead of being operative after a certain number of days.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 80 of principal Act as to pooling of surpluses within a society with branches.)
    "At the end of Section eighty of the principal Act the following Sub-section shall be added:
    (4) A society with branches, by resolution passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the votes cast at a general meeting of the society in accordance with the rules thereof, may adopt a scheme providing for the creation within the society of a central fund by the allocation thereto of a proportionate part, not exceeding one-third, of the distributable surpluses of branches of that society, for the purpose of providing for the whole of the members of the society a specified minimum of all or any additional benefits. Such scheme shall not be valid until approved by the Minister, and shall be prepared in such form and submitted in such manner as shall be prescribed. Upon receiving the approval of the Minister the scheme shall form part of the rules of the society, but shall not be amended other than by resolution passed as aforesaid and subject to the approval of the Minister."—[Mr. Rhys Davies.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    We come now to what I am sure the House will agree is the most important Amendment to be moved to the Bill. The principle embodied in it is that of the partial pooling of surpluses. We are not going to deal to-day with the partial pooling of the surpluses of all societies; the purpose of the Clause is to make it permissive for a society with separate branches to partially pool its surpluses, on the principle of mutual aid. There are not many approved societies with separate branches valued separately for the purposes we are dealing with; but societies which have a majority of branches separately valued favour this Clause. I may have to take the Parliamentary Secretary to task later on. It is very much more appropriate that I should do so than a member of his own party. The Manchester Unity of Odd-fellows, the Independent Order of Rechabites, to which some hon. Members may belong, the Catholic Benefit Society, the Nottingham Imperial Order of Oddfellows, and the Catholic Friendly Societies' Association, representing over 1,500,000 insured members, favour this proposal. The total insured population

    1939
    included in societies with branches separately valued is about 3,000,000, consequently we have societies with half the insured population, for the purpose of this proposal, supporting the scheme. The right hon. Gentleman has been already taken to task by one society for a statement he has made. In the fifth day's proceedings in Committee, he made this statement, in reply to my Motion to include this Clause in the Bill:
    "Again, so far as the Royal Commission, which has given very excellent advice in these matters to the Minister and the Committee, is concerned, there is no recommendation made in its favour by the Commission."
    Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows better than that, the most important recommendation of the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance was that in favour of the partial pooling of the surpluses of all societies. [Interruption.] That interruption is a typical Conservative way out of all difficulties. The principle was established in the recommendation of the Royal Commission that it was advisable to pool part of the surpluses of all approved societies in order to help those that were in deficiency; and surely if the principle was laid down to cover all the insured population, it should apply in the same way to the smaller unit of one society covering three thousand branches separately valued. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away from that. He made another statement for which I am very pleased to see he got into trouble. Nothing pleases me more than to see him in difficulties:
    "I may tell the Committee that while the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment refers to the Order of Rechabites, even that society is divided on that point, because we have received several resolutions from branches of the Rechabite Society protesting against the course that has been taken in this Amendment."
    The point at issue is, what does the society as a whole say? [Interruption.] Are we in this House, when the Government of the day brings forward a proposal, going to say the Government is not speaking the mind of the Tory party because there are one or two hon. Members on the other side who do not support the Government? Take, for instance, the new Clause we have just carried. There was one formidable Member of the Conservative party against
    1940
    it. Are we to take the opinion of the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) as being the Conservative opinion, or that of the right hon. Gentleman? The Independent Order of Rechabites as a society is in favour of the partial pooling of the surpluses of their own branches.
    I said the Royal Commission had definitely recommended that course. If evidence is required I will read the recommendation later. Approved societies are becoming less and less societies of a national character annually. The National Health Insurance scheme ought not to be called a national scheme any more. It is a scheme covering separate units, all with their own additional benefits and separate schemes; and, in fact, the longer they remain separate units the more vested interest will weld itself around the whole of the business. I want this Clause to be carried in order to lay down first of all the principle of the partial pooling of surpluses within a single society. Let us see what the Commission itself says:
    "That while the possibility of the existence of differences in the benefits provided by different societies may justifiably be continued as a feature of the scheme of National Health Insurance, the disparities which have emerged are greater than are expedient in the interests of the insured community regarded as a whole; and that therefore some mitigation of these inequalities is desirable."
    That applies to single societies with separate branches. In fact, it applies very much more strongly to the single society with separate branches than to the whole insured population. In order to enforce my argument I will quote something else for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman. The Commission says, on page 120, in arguing the case and arguing it very forcibly:
    "What we are concerned with in this connection is the degree of divergence from the average that is shown by particular societies. There remains in our opinion matter for serious consideration in the large gulf which now divides the most prosperous from the least prosperous societies, as respects the standard of benefits which they are in a position to provide for their members."
    I say, therefore, that all the arguments that were brought before the Royal Commission showing disparity between one society and another apply very much more so in the case of a single society with separate branches. The society with the largest number of branches separately

    1941
    valued has itself asked that this Clause shall be brought forward. I understood some time ago that the Ministry of Health had an open mind on the subject. In Committee upstairs the Minister of Health was absent. I believe if he had been there I could have carried him with me. When both right hon. Gentlemen are together, somehow or other we make no headway at all. I do not know which has most influence on the other.
    5.0 p.m.
    Let me come back to the society concerned. It is a very large organisation indeed—the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows—with 886,947 members. They say that on grounds of justice this Clause ought to be inserted. It will not compel any society to pool its surpluses on the lines I am suggesting. All it will do is to give them power to do so. There is nothing compulsory about it. The society has 3,377 lodges, separately valued. It had a disposable surplus at the last valuation of over £2,000,000. There were 54 lodges in deficiency and 81 with no disposable surplus; and the argument is a good one therefore that the lodges that are in a good way financially with very large surpluses may say to the branches of the same society who are in deficiency: "We want to come to your aid, and you can have some of the money that we have in surplus in our own funds." Surely that is a good policy. I do not know that it is Conservative policy; but it is Labour policy that the strong should help the weak. That, at any rate, is the policy of the party to which I have the honour to belong.
    Let us see what is the other argument against this proposal. I have heard hon. Gentlemen in Committee upstairs say: "Oh, but you are taking away the money of the rural workers, of the lodges covering the rural districts, in order to help the miners, who are always unemployed and in respect of whom there are no contributions at all during certain periods." As a matter of fact, that argument is not a sound one. The rural workers' lodges in some societies are not necessarily the branches with the largest surpluses. I am assured that the membership of one society in the London area is very much better off, financially, than the membership of the same society in some of the rural areas. Consequently, it is not correct to say that the miners and the industrial workers are taking
    1942
    away some of the surpluses made by the poor farm labourers. It is surprising how the Tory party profess to come to the aid of the poor farm labourer on every occasion. You might imagine that they are always the guardians of the poor farm labourer! [HON. MEMBERS: "We are!"] Well, we shall see at the next General Election.
    Let me give some of the arguments that are used by the society itself, and I hope the House will permit me to state this case in detail, because it is a very important one to this society. They have scores of branches in deficiency which have not a penny-piece available to pay additional benefit of any kind. They have no dental benefit, no optical benefit, and no additional cash benefit for maternity purposes. Those particular branches of that society, I think, are entitled to ask for powers to enable them to ask the lodges with surpluses to help them out of their difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health generally puts the argument that it is going to cost the State something more. On this score there is to be no cost to the State at all. All this financial arrangement would be within the ambit of the friendly society itself, within the 3,000 odd lodges of the same organisation. As I have already indicated, it is not a compulsory Clause at all. It is merely permissive, and it will depend upon the members of the society itself. That is to say, that a branch in surplus will have the power to say, through the votes of the members, whether they are desirous of giving part of their surplus to a branch in deficiency.
    I have been given to understand that some hon. Members on the opposite side of the House have already committed themselves in favour of this new Clause, though, I suppose, it was before they received the Whips of the Tory party. I hope that to-day they will be loyal to the promise they made to this friendly society. I should like to make it clear that the arguments that I am putting forward to-day are, as I have already indicated, against vested interests in the separate lodges and in the separate societies. I can speak feelingly on the subject because I happen to be the secretary of a society which is very well managed, as some hon. Members well know. It is one of the best managed

    1943
    societies in the country with a very large surplus. If this principle were adopted some of the surplus in my own society would go to societies in deficiency. It is argued that if you adopt the principle which I am now enunciating it would result in maladministration; and it is argued further that societies which have a surplus are the societies which are the best and most efficiently managed. That, as a consequence, the societies in deficiency must be societies that have been maladministered. I want to controvert that argument because it is not true.
    I hope, at any rate, that when the right hon. Gentleman replies to what I have been saying he will agree with the one statement that I have made, that it does not necessarily follow that if a society is in deficiency it is maladministered. If the right hon. Gentleman doubts that statement I will give him proof of what I am saying. If a society is a segregated society like my own, with its members receiving constant wages and with not much unemployment among them, the contribution income is assured each week. It is a segregated society of shop assistants, warehousemen and clerks. Another society might be made up exclusively of coal miners, with its members for an average of three months in the year unemployed. It does not matter how well managed the latter society may be: it will always be deficient because its contribution income is not regular. Consequently, deficiency and surplus depend very little upon either efficiency or mal-administration. In fact, you can have a society with any amount of money in surplus and still have its affairs mal-administered. The right hon. Gentleman will say: "If this friendly society, with 880,000 members covering all parts of the country, wants to have the benefit of equalisation in regard to additional benefits why do they not amalgamate all their lodges so that the whole society can become a centralised organisation and thus have its benefits made equal amongst all the members?" The answer to that is simple.
    The friendly society movement in this country differs fundamentally from the industrial organisations. I am not speaking disrespectfully of the Prudential, the
    1944
    National Amalgamated and other great industrial insurance concerns when I say this; but I want to make it perfectly clear that when the National Health Insurance Scheme was brought before this House in 1911 it was not intended that it should be administered by insurance companies at all. It was intended in the main to be a democratic organisation, where each insured person would have the right to say how the affairs of his society should be administered. There was a conflict of ideas amongst various sections of this House when the large industrial companies were given power to administer the business. I want to say that nearly one half of the insured population of this country have no say whatever in the detailed administration of their affairs. How can the Prudential, for instance, with three or four million insured persons, be democratically administered? They never call a delegate meeting and they never have a meeting in any district to discuss the affairs of the society. The friendly society differs fundamentally from that form of organisation, because the whole of the business depends upon personal initiative and personal interest; and I am sure that the Minister of Health does not desire to destroy that personal initiative. Consequently, I say that we ought to adopt this new Clause and give it a second reading this afternoon and then incorporate it in the Bill. We are getting, as I have already said, more and more away from the national idea of insurance, and fixing upon separate units all over the country, with great disparities growing as the valuation periods go by.
    Let us see what happens in connection with valuation. There is no man in this country better qualified to support my contention than the Government Actuary. I have here a copy of his last report on the valuation of the approved societies, and he has given a table showing separately what are the additional benefits payable by approved societies with branches and by approved societies without branches. If the House will pardon me for a moment I think it will be well if I state how this disparity—which I am getting very much alarmed about by the way—is growing from year to year. Take, first of all, the disparity between one type of society and another. The available surplus per member on the last valuation in friendly societies with

    1945
    branches was £4.19, and in friendly societies without branches £4.07, and when we come to the industrial insurance and collecting societies it was £3.45. The House will see that the friendly societies with branches and those without branches were in a better financial position on the second valuation than the collecting societies, the trade unions or the insurance companies. Surely the argument that we are putting, that because these friendly societies with branches separately valued have a higher proportion of surplus per member they ought to be entitled to equalise that surplus between all the lodges and all the members of the society itself. I am afraid I am detaining the House for rather a long time in putting this case; but I not only speak on my own behalf but on behalf of the whole of the Labour movement when I say that we shall not be satisfied until this scheme becomes a national one. I want to be quite frank this afternoon. I am proposing this new Clause not merely in response to this friendly society, but in response to the declared policy of the whole of the Labour movement. Some clay these disparities will grow to such an extent that Parliament will, I feel sure, take the matter in hand and do exactly for the whole of the country what I am now trying to do for a single friendly society.
    Mr. WHITELEY: I beg to second the Motion.
    I want to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary, who dealt with this matter in Committee, to a statement which he made at the latter end of his speech in Committee. He said that we should be very unwise indeed in seeking to make a fundamental alteration of this kind in our National Health Insurance system. On looking at the matter, I find that the real fundamental principle of National Health Insurance is that the constitution of an approved society must provide for its affairs being subject to the absolute control of its members. The Clause that we are putting forward to-day will not upset that principle in any way. As a matter of fact, it will bring it more into operation than has been the case in the past. We have been reminded many times of the fact that the Royal Commission went much further in their recommendation than is proposed in the Clause which
    1946
    we are putting forward to-day. They recommended the partial pooling of one half of the surpluses. This new Clause recommends or suggests that there shall be a third of the surpluses pooled within a particular society which desires to put the provisions of the Clause into operation.
    The principle contained in this Clause is one against which, I think, there can be no argument. It is a democratic principle. I am not here to-day to argue in favour of any particular society. I am here to advocate that a democratic principle of this kind is one that should be included in the National Health Insurance Acts. It is based upon the constitutional principle of democratic control by members who are insured under the National Health Insurance Acts. This Clause is walled round by all kinds of protection, even of the members themselves. First of all, there is the society with a large number of branches that are valued separately. Say, you have 100 branches with a disposable surplus of valuation. You may have another section of branches with funds that enable them to pay the actual statutory benefits, without a disposable surplus, and you may have another section of branches that may have a deficiency, and in some cases the deficiency may be such that they have to resort to the calling of an additional levy. With all these circumstances within the society, we believe that it is essential to get rid of such an anomaly under National Health Insurance and get back to the fundamental principle on which National Health Insurance is based. This Clause suggests that in circumstances of this kind the society, in general meeting assembled, may discuss the question whether those branches which have a disposable surplus are willing to give some of that disposable surplus to assist those branches which have no surplus or those branches which happen to be in deficiency. There ought to be no attempt on the part of anybody to take that right away from any approved society.
    When it is suggested that this Clause cannot be added to the Bill, it means that you are depriving a society of the right to discuss its own affairs within itself, and preventing it from having the right, provided it so decides by a two-thirds majority, to frame a scheme for

    1947
    helping those branches which are in deficiency or those which have no disposable surplus. Then, the scheme has to be forwarded to the Minister in order to secure his approval. No one can say that we have not weighed this question very fully. Irrespective of any society in the country, I think that what we propose is a sound principle. People who argue against a principle of this kind are really advocates for going back to the old idea that every individual must be separately valued and that he can have no more than he pays in, although he may be a man who has the misfortune to be ill on a number of occasions. The principle of insurance is that those who have the good fortune to be healthy should have the privilege of assisting by their contributions those who have the misfortune to be unhealthy and often in receipt of benefit. We say that that general principle applied on the lines which we suggest ought to he accepted, in order to give a society with branches separately valued an opportunity of discussing the matter among themselves and, if they so desire, exercise the privilege of assisting their fellow members in those branches of the society who happen to be in a more unfortunate position than themselves. It is a case of mutual help amongst the members of the society.
    We are anxious that this principle should he operated by a society if and when by a two-thirds majority the members have decided in favour of such a course. On these grounds I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter very fully and favourably. If the Clause is to be rejected, it will be lowering the standard of the principle and the basis on which national health insurance was founded and limiting the opportunity of doing some real good by those societies which have branches which are separately valued.
    Sir K. WOOD: The question which has been brought before the House by my two hon. Friends, who have given every possible reason that could be given in favour of the proposal, has been a subject of controversy and discussion for some considerable time amongst those who are administering the national health insurance scheme. The actual proposal now before the House deals with the pooling of surpluses in branches. It must
    1948
    be distinguished from the recommendation of the Royal Commission in connection with what we call partial pooling, a much wider and more extensive proposition altogether. It is true that in connection with partial pooling, not the proposition which we are now discussing, the Royal Commission made very definite recommendations in order to secure what insured people in this country very badly need, and which would be a great improvement to the insurance system, namely, specialist medical services. My right hon. Friend and I gave very serious consideration to that proposal and were naturally sympathetic to it, as we are desirous of seeing an improvement of the present system, but those who are familiar with the work of approved societies and what they are saying and what they are thinking, know that proposal met with the most strenuous opposition. Whilst there is, undoubtedly, a great deal to be said for that proposition, and whilst it is possible that the matter will have to come before the consideration of Parliament, my right hon. Friend, having regard to the attitude of the approved societies and the necessity for getting through a Bill containing so many important and vital things, could not at this stage ask the House to consider a proposition raising so much controversy.
    Then there comes the proposition put forward by my hon. Friends this afternoon. It was put forward very forcibly in Committee. They suggest that we should allow a certain proportion of the surpluses of the branches to be pooled. On that question there is equal division of opinion and there is strenuous opposition. I will not say that it is contested with so much intensity as the other proposition, but there is very grave division of opinion on the matter amongst the societies. I have been reproached and brought to task for certain statements that I made in Committee in this connection. I stand by the statements that I made in Committee. I told the Committee and I now tell the House, (1) that this proposal was put forward by the Manchester Unity, the Independent Order of Rechabites, the Catholic Benefit Society and two of the smaller affiliated orders. The membership of these societies is about 1,500,000 out of a total membership of 3,100,000 in the group of friendly societies with branches. There-

    1949
    fore, I was correct in stating that there was a majority in the branches against-the proposal. (2) I told the Committee, as I now tell the House, that so far as the Royal Commission is concerned although this matter was definitely put before them, apart altogether from the question of partial pooling, they made no recommendation. To that statement I adhere. (3) I said that the Consultative Committee, upon which every type and class of society is represented, a very fully informed body, did not ask my right hon. Friend to adopt this proposal.
    The House finds itself confronted with a highly controversial proposal, with no recommendation from the Royal Commission, with no recommendation from the Consultative Committee which has been formed specially to guide my right hon. Friend and this House on all matters of controversy of this kind, with a great division of opinion amongst the societies themselves, and with a majority of members of the societies which have branches against the proposal. Therefore, I was right when I said, and I am right in repeating it to the House, that it would need a very strong case for the House to accept this proposal, in view of the considerable difference of opinion and the absence of expert advice in favour of it. I realise that neither a Consultative Committee nor a Royal Commission should determine, finally, what this House ought to do, and that if the House thought it, was right they should certainly accept this proposal irrespective of any advice of that kind, but I do say that on a technical matter of this kind we had better be careful, and certainly it requires a very overwhelming case to justify this particular Clause.
    We have been told by my hon. Friends opposite that the proposal is only permissive, that it is only a question of "may" and not "shall," but they know perfectly well the great pressure that would undoubtedly be exercised if this Clause, although only permissive, was placed upon the Statute Book. They know what strong pressure would he brought by a good many branches in connection with many societies to bring it into operation. It is only fair to point out that we are making, as I said in Committee, a very fundamental alteration in the position. The objectors to
    1950
    this proposal can rightly say that they rest upon the Statute and all that has been given to them in connection with it. If hon. Members will refer to Section 75 (1) (b) of the original Act they will note the following provision:
    "If on the valuation of a branch of an approved society, a surplus is shown in respect of the branch, the branch may, with the approval of the society, submit to the Minister a scheme for distributing out of the surplus any one or more additional benefits among insured persons who are members of the branch for the purposes of the Act," etc.
    Those who object to the proposal in the new Clause can point to this Section, which provides for a branch putting forward a scheme. They say that the proposal we are now discussing makes a direct and fundamental change in Section 75 (1) (b) of the principal Act, upon which they rely. They can say that this matter has already been under consideration in Parliament and it is provided for in the principal Act. Now I come to the proposal in the new Clause. It avoids all difficulties of the situation, and says:
    "A society with branches, by resolution passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the votes cast at a general meeting."
    In other words, two-thirds of the people who turn up at the general meeting are to decide the fate of all the branches up and down the country. The new Clause goes on to say:
    "may adopt a scheme providing for the creation within the society of a central fund by the allocation thereto of a proportionate part, not exceeding one-third, of the distributable surpluses of branches of that society, for the purpose of providing for the whole of the members of the society a specified minimum of all or any additional benefits."
    I ask the hon. Member who moved this new Clause who is going to administer the additional benefits? Is it the central body—
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The central office.
    Sir K. WOOD: I am glad to have that admission from the hon. Member. The branches up and clown the country will know that under the proposition in this new Clause the administration of additional benefits will no longer rest with the branches but with the central office.
    Mr. DAVIES: The right hon. Gentleman will pardon me. He is misrepresent-

    1951
    ing all I am saying. I am not dealing with additional benefits, but with partial pooling, the pooling of one-third of their surplus, and I take it that the general meeting in this case is the general meeting of delegates from the lodges. In any case the administration of the additional benefits I am talking about from the central office will be the administration of the additional benefits which are made possible from the partial pooling of the surpluses.
    Sir K. WOOD: We get to this position, that the central committee, whatever the amount may be, whether it is one-third or one-half, or whatever it may be, will be administering a particular benefit. That is part of the scheme and I invite hon. Members who are interested in these societies, and also the branches themselves, to note this, that under the present proposal the administration of this particular part of their funds is going from the branches themselves to the central committee.
    Mr. DAVIES: The right hon. Member will pardon me again. I want to make this matter clear. Surely it will be possible for the central office to collect the one-third of the surpluses and hand a proper proportion to those lodges which are in a deficiency in order to equalise the benefits over the whole of the society. I am not asking that the central office should provide spectacles, but that they should administer the money collected from the lodges.
    Sir K. WOOD: I do not want to weary the House but this is a matter of importance for the societies. The hon. Member first of all said the central committee of the societies is to administer these benefits themselves from the head office. If the hon. Member does that he immediately destroys the rights of the societies with branches up and down the country, a right which is jealously regarded by them, and he would he in this further difficulty, that whilst the branches would be administering one class of benefit the central committee would he administering another. Then the hon. Member on reflection rather wavered and came to the conclusion that the central body of the society should portion out the surpluses to the respective
    1952
    branches. I suppose it would give them a certain sum of money up to a minimum standard, and by that means he suggests that the additional benefits will be administered. Where does that lead him? Anyone who is familiar with the working of national health insurance knows that in one particular branch of a society the claims in respect of certain classes of additional benefit might be much higher than others and that in a few months or years you would be again in the old position, because some branches would have exhausted the additional benefits given by this pooling arrangement while others would be in a much more prosperous condition. The hon. Member will have to reconsider the whole of this new Clause; and he has to make up his mind what the machinery is going to be. But it is not only a question of machinery, a very vital matter of principle is involved. Apart from the division of opinion on this matter, the hon. Member has left out any protective provision which should be in a Clause of this kind, and clearly we could not entrust these powers to the approved societies without some safeguards. I say therefore that on both these grounds the new Clause ought to be rejected. It wants far more consideration than has been given to it. We must remember, too, that there is in the principal Act a section on which the branches rely and look to this House to maintain.
    This is perhaps the most vital Clause we have to consider this afternoon. The hon. Member has attacked the present system as not being national. Never in the history of national insurance was it so national as it is to-day; never were so many millions of pounds of benefit divided amongst the members of societies up and down the country. It is true there may be inequalities, but from the point of view of a national scheme it was never more national than it is at present. The hon. Member was supplied to-day with an answer to a question which showed the amount of additional benefits which have been distributed during the last three or four years and I hope at some stage in our proceedings that he will read that state-

    1953
    ment. One would believe that there is less money being provided for insurance at the present time but hon. Members will see from that statement that there is a very considerable increase, and that never in the history of the country was so much money being distributed under national health insurance.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The right hon. Gentleman is now going a good deal beyond the new Clause. Perhaps I ought to have stopped the hon. Member who moved it.
    Sir K. WOOD: I am quite content to leave my reply at the suitable point at which you have stopped me. I hope the House is convinced that this would be a dangerous procedure to adopt to-day. There is no support behind it, and it certainly wants a great deal more thought and consideration than has been given to it. For all these reasons I ask the House to reject it.
    Mr. HARNEY: I am afraid, much as I appreciate the experience and knowledge of the National Health Insurance Act of the Mover and Seconder of this new Clause, that I must support the Government. If you look at the actual terms of the proposal you are confronted with this difficulty. By a vote of two-thirds of the members of one of these societies they can resolve that one-third shall be taken from the branches with surpluses and that this third shall form part of a pool, which is to be redistributed amongst the branches. I presume the re-distribution would be either so much to each society, or so much to each society in proportion to the number of its members. A definite sum would meet the deficiency in some branches and not enable them to pay any additional benefits. In the case of some branches it would mean that they would be able to pay additional benefits. It would be very hard to work, and would not have the effect of enabling all branches to pay additional benefits. That is purely on the structure of the Amendment.
    Really my objection to it is this. It is true that it is a suggestion of the pooling of societies that have branches with a separate valuation, not a pooling of different societies. At the same time it is a pooling, and it has been justified
    1954
    on the basis that all pooling is a good thing and that we ought to change the basis upon which the National Insurance Scheme rests. No one knows better than the Mover and Seconder of this new Clause that it has been very acutely argued from 1911 onwards whether there should be a sort of pooling or not. On the one hand the friendly societies, which did a good deal of this sort of work before the scheme was introduced, acted on a voluntary basis and they all feared that if the compulsory element was introduced they would lose their initiative. The Government in putting forward the scheme felt that it was impossible to work it without the co-operation of the friendly societies and, accordingly, an assurance was given them that if they would come in their voluntary character would still remain untouched, although there would be a State contribution. In proportion as they did well they would have a surplus, and in, proportion as they did not do well they would have a deficiency. That promise was given, and it was stated again very emphatically in 1918 when the question was reconsidered. The suggestion was then made to form a central fund, a very small fraction of the pool, but there was great opposition to it, and again an assurance was emphatically given that if they would agree to the proposal the Government would never go further, would never ask for any further pooling whatever.
    Now we are being asked to go much further and, whatever may be the merits of the proposal, it is a, breach of faith. It is saying to the friendly societies, "We will be untrue to the declarations we made when you originally came in." Everyone will agree that this is a big controversial question. It goes to the structure of the whole scheme. A Royal Commission did recommend a certain sort of fractional pooling, but not this kind of pooling. The Minister said he would consider it, and I know that representations were made, but I understand that it was clearly stated to the approved societies that in the proposed Measure no new principle of pooling would form part. It would be an improper thing on Report stage to introduce a principle which, if it is brought in at all, should have formed part of the original Bill and have been discussed on the Second Reading. I hope the House at this stage

    1955
    will not give any support to the proposal which has not gone through the ordinary processes of debate and is of such importance that it ought to have been brought forward as an independent Measure so that we might have been able to bring forward the whole of the arguments.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: May I intervene for one or two moments? The Parliamentary Secretary has pretty well demolished the case set up for the proposed new Clause and the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) has completed the execution, because he has pointed out that as this is a very controversial subject this is hardly the moment to bring it forward. When the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking, he gave figures showing that something like 1,500,000 people supported this proposal, and that something like 3,100,000 were against it.
    Sir K. WOOD: Out of 3,100,000.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Out of 3,100,000. Even of those 1,500,000 by no means all are in favour of this proposal, even if their societies' headquarters may be. I have been at some pains to make inquiries in my own constituency and to find out what is the feeling of the Independent Order of Rechabites in the local branch. There is no society whose motives I appreciate more than theirs, or one of which I am more an admirer, though, of course, I am not a member myself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because I understand that it is a society of total abstainers, and I am not one. But that is not the matter under discussion now. In the circular memorandum which was sent to me, and, I suppose, to other Members, by the headquarters of that society, it is stated that at the last annual conference a proposal made on the lines of this new Clause was adopted unanimously. I understand from my own constituents that that is far from being the case. The vote taken was not a card vote and the figures are not available. Certainly there was considerable dissension.
    Whatever was the proposal under discussion at the conference, it is not the proposal which is now before the House, for instead of the 33⅓ per cent. which appears in this proposal, the suggestion at the conference was for a maximum of
    1956
    25 per cent. There is a difference between a quarter and a third. That, however, is by the way. In previous years, time and time again, the conference has rejected the proposal. I do not wish to weary the House, but I would like to quote a few words from a speech which was made at the annual conference of 1925. I am sorry that the hon. Member who moved this new Clause is not present, because in what I am about to say I do not want to offend his susceptibilities. The treasurer of this organisation, an Edinburgh man, was speaking against the proposal, which was, in fact, defeated. This was at the annual conference in Dundee in 1925. He said:
    "This meant pooling. Pooling meant putting in as little and taking out as much as possible. It was no use saving money for someone else to spend it. Welsh weakness in administration would be covered up by the proposal submitted. The defects of certain areas would be covered up by the whole. Pooling had been described as theft—pure unadulterated theft.' Wales had improved, but Wales could do much better. He hoped the conference would reject the measure."
    Which it did. That quotation illustrates the point that by no means is there unanimity to-day within that great Order. The branch of the Order of which I am speaking, the branch to which many of my constituents belong, is a branch of a very mixed character. It is not an agricultural branch pure and simple. It has a few agriculturists, but its membership consists largely of miners and engineers and quarrymen. It has been particularly unfortunate in recent years, but yet that branch shows a very handsome surplus and it feels that any proposal of this kind is out of place today.
    Mr. MARCH: I wish to support the new Clause as an old friendly society member of nearly 50 years' standing in a society which has branches all over the country, and as a member of a trade union which has branches nearly all over the country. We consider that a National Health Insurance scheme should give benefits equally to all its members, and that wherever there is a possibility of one branch, which happens to be in a better position because of the health of its members, giving help to a more unfortunate branch, it should do so. Why do we join friendly societies? Why did I join the movement? Not for what I

    1957
    could get out of it, but because I believed that collectively we could help one another better than we could individually. That is the principle which ought to guide us in regard to this new Clause. I know members of branches of friendly societies who do not get the same benefit as members of other branches which are in a better position in relation to the health of their members. I know that these members meet from time to time and talk over their difficulties and benefits. One will say, "I am getting only so-and-so per week," and another will answer, "I am getting 2s. or 3s. a week more than that." Then they begin to wonder why it is so. They do not understand that it is the national health side that is responsible.
    We in the friendly society movement contribute from our branches to the general fund for various purposes simply because we realise that otherwise the branches would not be able to meet all the benefits desired. When there is an alteration in the rules regarding benefits, it is reported to the branches and they have the opportunity of considering what recommendations they will make, and they instruct the delegates who attend the general meeting as to how they are to vote. If the majority at that general meeting, coming from all quarters of the globe, decide upon a certain line of action and that certain benefits shall be paid, it is always expected that the minority will fall in with what the majority has decided. Where can there be anything wrong in that? This House is constituted in practically the same way; a majority of the Members here have managed to get a majority of votes among those contesting seats—not a majority of those voting, for in that case many Members who now sit opposite would not be here. We are told that this is a National Health Insurance scheme. It is nothing of the kind. The societies are not given the fullest liberty in administration. They are told what they may administer. The Government come along and take control; they make Acts of Parliament and then the Minister makes regulations for the societies to carry out. The Government also send their auditors to audit all the accounts. It is not like the business of a friendly society.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now following the example of the Parliamentary Secretary in going beyond the subject under discussion.
    Mr. MARCH: I thought that as the Parliamentary Secretary had been allowed to travel all over the ground, I might follow him. I do not desire to transgress in the way that he did.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Parliamentary Secretary was not allowed to transgress.
    Mr. MARCH: I understand that you pulled him lip, and now you have done the same to me. I do not desire to transgress, but. I do desire to emphasise the fact that in the friendly society movement the branch that is successful should do its best to help the branches that are unsuccessful because of the inferior health of their members. Whatever surpluses are in the pool should go towards helping the societies which are not able otherwise to pay the same benefits as the more prosperous are able to pay. I know that that is the desire of the trade union to which I belong. We have in our trade union men who work in a very dangerous occupation in the area which I represent. I suppose there is no place where accidents are more frequent or illnesses arising from work are more common than at the docks. We have branches in Poplar, Stepney and Wandsworth, for instance. If our branch in Poplar is not able to make a surplus but the Wandsworth branch is able to do so, why should Wandsworth be prevented from pooling its surplus to help Poplar? That is what we call brotherly feeling or brotherhood. When we go to our branch meetings we address each other as "Brothers." We want brotherly feeling to exist in connection with National Health Insurance as it does in the friendly society movement.
    Captain MACMILLAN: The last speaker has made a very interesting contribution to the Debate and has scarcely added a logical basis on which this new Clause can be defended. His point is that insurance consists in making the rich help the poor or the stronger help the weaker. He described the principle of this Clause as brotherly love, but omitted to notice that the brotherly love which he recommended so strongly was limited to 33⅓ per cent. by the terms of

    1959
    the Clause. If his principle be sound, there can be no reason whatever for this one-third limitation. As a matter of fact, there is nothing to prevent the amalgamation of branches if they wish to amalgamate. There is nothing in principle between reconsidering the whole basis of national health insurance and making a unified system—it might well be argued that that would be better—and maintaining the present system substantially as it is. It seems to me that there has been no case put forward for this new Clause. I have heard a great deal about it in my contact with the friendly society movement in my own constituency. From what I have heard I am satisfied that the feeling against this Clause is very great when the Clause is understood, for when friendly societies realise that once the principle of this Clause is admitted there will be nothing to prevent a number of their old societies being abolished and absorbed in a completely unified scheme, I think they will be, on the whole, against acceptance of the Clause.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I cannot claim to have been a friendly society member for 50 years, but I have been one for 45 years. We cannot, however, discuss this matter merely as friendly society members, because the practice of the various organisations differs widely. It is not only a matter of brotherly love and of the strong branch helping the weak branch. This is a matter which raises the whole issue, as between the power of the central secretary in the district and the power of the branch secretary. In my organisation there are districts which have agreed to consolidate and are consolidated under the present law. Other districts have not agreed to consolidate, because, although the members of the various branches would say nothing against the efficiency of the district secretary, yet they believe that the movement is best served by the efficient working of autonomous branches, and they have refused consistently at district annual meetings to pass rules for consolidation.
    The Government in this case are right, in my judgment, and the new Clause is wrong. We want to preserve as far as we can the incentive to good manage-
    1960
    ment. If this new Clause were passed, whatever it might do in reference to brotherly love, it would weaken the incentive to good management. The members of my branch were told in 1911 that if things were well-managed, at the end of each quinquennial valuation they would get the surplus accruing, and that it would be applied for additional benefits to their members. There are many branches of my order in the country which object to the idea of increasing any further the power of the central officials, whether the officials in the head office of the national movement, or the officials in the district. For those and other reasons, I oppose the new Clause.
    Mr. TINKER: I cannot agree with the last speaker that the new Clause would weaken the incentive to economic working. All the new Clause asks is that certain branches, if they make a surplus, should be allowed to have some regard for their poorer brethren, and if they agree to it by a majority of two-thirds of their members that one-third of the surplus should be given to help the weaker branches.
    Mr. BROWN: With all respect to the hon. Member, the proposed new Clause does not read in that way at all. It does not say that a branch is to have that right. It refers to a society with branches.
    Mr. TINKER: The new Clause provides for a two-thirds majority of the members at the meeting.
    Mr. BROWN: Not the branch meeting, the district meeting.
    Mr. TINKER: I concede that point to the hon. Member, but those members would represent the branches also. That does not affect the argument which I am putting up that the new Clause would not weaken the incentive to good management. It is only a matter of giving one-third of the surplus for the assistance of the poorer brethren, and we have to look at the matter in this way. Some of the branches, however well they may be worked, owing to peculiar circumstances fall into debt, whereas others by certain circumstances, make some profit, but all the branches belong to the one organisation. Can anyone argue against a two-thirds majority of the members of the

    1961
    organisation desiring to help the poorer branches? That is the way in which I regard this question. If they want to do so, we ought not to stand in their way. Having listened very closely to the arguments against the new Clause, it seems to me that the chief argument is that it might upset something which is fundamental in the Bill. I cannot see how it would do so. I cannot see how it would affect any society which does not want to put it into operation. I have had a large number of petitions expressing the view that the proposal of the new Clause ought to be carried out, and I think the arguments in favour of it are quite sound. I appeal to the Minister and to Members on the other side to give some consideration to our point of view. I do not think the proposal would alter the Bill in any fundamental way, and it would have the effect of helping a number of poor people.
    Mr. BLUNDELL: I am very glad that my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has resisted this proposed new Clause. I do not think there is any force in the argument put forward by the hon. Member who has just sat down. If a society with branches wishes to have the same benefits for all the branches, if it wishes the rich branches and the poor branches, the strong branches and the weak branches, the well-managed branches and the badly-managed brandies all to have the same benefits, there is nothing to prevent that society centralising its funds as many societies have done. No one can accuse my right hon. Friend of interfering with democratic management or preventing societies from exercising to the full the principle of brotherly love. All that can be said of him is that he is not in favour of exercising it to the extent of 33⅓ per cent., which, as the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport (Captain Macmillan) has pointed out, is the proposal of the new Clause. There is a further argument against it. It is the thin end of the wedge in regard to the pooling of surpluses generally. That is what the Mover and Seconder of the new Clause have in mind. They want to get the principle admitted that if it is justifiable to pool portions of the surpluses within a society with branches, then by so much more is it justifiable to pool portions of the surpluses of the societies generally. Hav-
    1962
    ing got as far as that, there is nothing to stop them from proposing to pool all surpluses, and that is the object at which they are aiming.
    The pooling of surpluses is in direct contravention of the pledges given to the rural community when the original Measure was introduced. Over and over again, answers were given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and by the late Mr. Masterman, who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to the effect that if the rural population formed societies of their own they would not be interfered with, and that if their superior health enabled them to build up larger surpluses they would have the benefit of those surpluses. Anything which infringes that principle is an infringement of a pledge given by the Government of the day and endorsed by this House. Therefore, I am glad that my right hon. Friend is not allowing the thin end of the wedge to be inserted, and I hope the excellent arguments put forward against this form of pooling by the Parliamentary Secretary will not be forgotten by him if any further question of pooling arises in the future.
    Mr. KELLY: A great deal of play has been made by hon. Members opposite with the idea that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. March) was referring to a percentage of brotherly love or fraternal spirit. I think the speech of my hon. Friend deserved better treatment than has been accorded to it by the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport (Captain Macmillan) or the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell). The hon. Member for Poplar pointed out that in his experience there was no question of the richer districts refusing to help the weaker districts. Knowing the difficulty that exists in persuading hon. Members opposite to do other than follow the lead of their Front Bench, he pointed out that all they were asked to do on this occasion was to enable some of the societies to give a portion of their surplus in order that other members of the same society might enjoy additional benefits of which they would otherwise be deprived. The new Clause does not ask for the compulsory holding up of a portion of the surplus. It asks that societies with branches should have this opportunity, and I would remind the hon.

    1963
    Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) that the society is not something other than the branches. When the new Clause speaks of a vote being taken, it is a vote of the society, and the society is composed of the branches.
    Sir BASIL PETO: At this meeting will the branches which are going to benefit from the pooling arrangements have an equal vote with those which are not going to benefit?
    Mr. KELLY: I should hope so, and I hope that no society with which I am concerned would dream of acting in any other way, but that where there is a surplus they should use it on behalf of those who require it, in any district and at any time. The Parliamentary Secretary made much of the permissive nature of the new Clause, and of the 49 per cent. in favour of the proposal as against the 51 per cent. of the people concerned who did not express themselves in favour of it. It is good to hear the right hon. Gentleman referring to the permissive nature of the proposal in this way. When we were discussing the miners' Eight Hours Act we were told it was a permissive Measure, but the right hon. Gentleman did not then consider whether it was a case of 1,500,000 out of 3,000,000. All we ask is that where a society with branches finds that some branches have a surplus, and others have not a surplus, then those with the surpluses may decide by a majority of two-thirds of the whole society to help the others by a payment into a pool of 33⅓ per cent. That can only be done after a meeting of the society has decided in the manner specified in the new Clause. That would enable poorer branches to find additional benefits. [Interruption.] The poorer branches might be in a majority, but if that were so, it would only show the greater necessity for the other branches being able to contribute to their assistance. Those who oppose the new Clause refer to the pledge that there was to be no general pooling, but the new Clause does not ask for anything in the nature of general pooling or even partial pooling. There is only the request that an opportunity should be given to assist—in the matter of additional benefit only—those branches which are not able to provide additional
    1964
    benefits at this time. I cannot see the great obstacles that seem to face hon. Members opposite. I think it is only a fear of what some societies will do, and I trust that this Clause will be carried.
    Sir B. PETO: I should not have risen but for the speeches of the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. March) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). All the recommendations for this Clause that have been put from the benches opposite are based on something which is not in the Clause at all. They all say Why should these branches of societies which have surpluses not have the opportunity of exercising brotherly love and giving a part of those surpluses to their poorer friends? That is not in this Clause at all. The Clause merely says that a society, which includes the branches with surpluses and those without, may by a majority decide in fact that the poorer branches may have the opportunity of spending other and thriftier people's money. Of course, that is a principle which is dear to the hearts of all hon. Members on the Socialist benches. They are always willing to give away other people's money and always claiming to equalise everything for everybody, whether they save or spend.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is rather a wide issue.
    Sir B. PETO: I wish to point out that the real issue is not the one that has been put from the Socialist benches on this Clause. If I thought it was merely giving an opportunity for philanthropy, it would be very difficult to vote against it, but I see in the Clause as worded an opportunity to try to produce an artificial equality where there should be no equality whatever. We have had pledges given when the original Health Insurance Bill was going through this House, that there should be no pooling. It was pointed out that agricultural friendly societies, in districts where health is good, would perhaps produce surpluses and should not have their surpluses taken away from them by any pooling principle. I object to the pooling principle altogether, and, therefore, I object strongly to this Clause, which introduces it and allows a majority in a society to vote away money which has been saved by the careful husbanding and manage-

    1965
    ment of these branches which happen to have a surplus, and which surplus ought to be devoted to the benefit of their own members.
    Mr. MORRIS: I have listened with some interest to the arguments that have been advanced in support of this Clause, and the main one seems to be the ideal one of brotherly love, but when one turns to the Clause itself to find out how far brotherly love will be secured by it, one is in a difficulty. The Clause, as I read it, means that a society with branches may decide, by a majority of two-thirds at a general meeting, to collect a central fund, and may then, by resolution, start to distribute that fund. It has first to find out what branches are in deficiency, and it must bring up the level of that deficiency to the standard benefit before it distributes the surplus. Supposing branch "A" has a deficiency of £1,000, branch "B" a deficiency of £2,000, and branch "C" a deficiency of £4,000. I can see that in those cases, far from brotherly love prevailing, branch "A" will question what right branch "C" has to a share of the central fund. If this Clause were passed in order to assist brotherly love prevailing, I think you would defeat your object and create instead a feeling of envy and irritation between the branches of a society. There is also the point that has already been made about the undertaking given to the rural societies. There is no reason why rural branches, which are often well managed, should be penalised because another branch suffers from a deficiency, perhaps through ill or bad management.
    Mr. MARCH: We do not ask that at all.
    Miss WILKINSON: I have to apologise for not having heard a considerable part of the Debate on this Clause, but I have been asked by a number of people in my constituency to raise certain points in this connection. There is a good deal of dissatisfaction among many people who are members of societies with branches, with separate branch management, that they are not in fact getting what they pay for. You have people paying for benefits, and you have certain additional benefits provided for certain branches in a society because those branches have got a surplus. Some of the members of the
    1966
    society get the ordinary standard benefit only, and other members of the same society, though in other branches, are receiving additional benefits as well. They may not be branches at a great distance away; they may be quite near, where the people concerned meet each other and know of the additional 'benefits that are being paid. In fact, quite recently, the last time I was in my constituency, I had some people who came to see me on this point. They were not getting the same amount of benefits as were some of their friends, who, they knew, were paying only the same amount of money as they were to the same society.
    Sir K. WOOD: They should join another society.
    Miss WILKINSON: One of the largest societies has raised this very point, and the people in that society prefer to be with their own people and do not want to join another society. They want to be in a particular society, and there is no reason why they should not be in it, but they find people who are getting these different benefits. It is said sometimes that they ought to look after their own local societies and that if they cannot control the finances of their branches, those finances should be controlled for them; but there is another argument, and that is that it is very often difficult for people in these circumstances really to control their local deficiencies. If you had a central fund, as proposed in this Clause, and you had a position such as that raised by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris), of one branch with £1,000 indebtedness and another branch with £1,000 surplus, or something like that, there would be some sort of central control, and it will be seen that if there bad to be a two-thirds majority obtained at a general meeting, any deficiency would have to be inquired into very carefully. Therefore, it seems to me that by passing this Clause you would, in fact, make for the better government of these societies which have this particular kind of autonomous branch government.
    If this scheme were put on a proper national basis, and we had a national health insurance scheme in fact as well as in name, these difficulties would not arise, but as they have arisen and you have all kinds of vested interests created, it seems to me that when you have got

    1967
    such a very democratic safeguard as a two-thirds majority provided, which is very difficult to get in a big society, it is a very adequate safeguard. If it were a bare majority, it might not be adequate, but with a two-thirds majority it is; and I am all in favour of giving large majorities in societies and unions of all kinds the right to manage their own affairs. I know that that is not popular with the party opposite, because they are always preaching freedom on the platform but always wanting to meddle with other people's business where money is concerned. They want to spend the money of other people at all times. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) actually said that Socialists want to spend other people's money, when his own Government is a classic instance of that kind of thing and has produced an Act of Parliament for interfering with workmen's money when they have collected it together for certain other purposes.
    Sir K. WOOD: When was that?
    Miss WILKINSON: I do not need to recall to the Parliamentary Secretary's memory the many instances of the kind which have arisen. That air of innocence sits very charmingly on his face, but we know very well that it covers a deep and Machiavellian personality. In this particular case we want to urge that where you have these large numbers of working men who want the right, by a two-thirds majority, to decide on the disposal of their own funds, it is wholly unfair, and an unwarrantable interference by this House, to withhold that right.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I desire to support this Clause, which is thoroughly in accordance with the principle on which friendly societies have been built. A friendly society has always been in the position that there have been so many people paying into it who have never got any benefit out of it, while so many other people who have paid in have got all the benefits. But the people who get all the benefits are in a more unfortunate position than those who do not, because the friendly society principle is that the strong should help the weak; and all along the people who have not had to take advantage of the benefits have thanked God that they were not in the position of suffering in health and having some disability which would have required
    1968
    them to go to their societies for assistance. This Clause carries out this principle, and I think that meets the point made by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris), when he spoke about the feeling of irritation on the part of one branch of a society which had achieved a bigger surplus or a smaller deficiency than another branch of the same society. The whole principle upon which insurance rests is that there are those who are in the more fortunate position, who see these surpluses which would have accrued to themselves going to others, because those others through sickness are in a worse position than themselves. Therefore, this Clause is in full accord with the principle upon which the whole insurance scheme is built.
    There is also this point that has to be taken into account, that all these branches of a society have the benefit of being branches of that society and of having the assistance that comes to them as branches because they are connected with that organisation. When the National Health Insurance scheme was introduced, there was given the opportunity for various people to come together in approved societies. The old friendly societies were taken over under the scheme, and those people came together for various reasons and for various things that they had in common, and they felt that this association with one another was a matter of so much importance that they wished to continue it; so that the advantage of belonging to that organisation is something that involves likewise a responsibility upon the branch, not only to its own members within the branch, but to the whole organisation of which it is a branch. This Clause takes account of that fact, and there is a great deal to be said for the organisation having the power, if there be an overwhelming majority in favour of this sustentation or central fund, to be allowed to carry it through. It is eminently a matter for the society and its branches.
    The one thing that could be said against the Clause was that it might be possible, by a snap vote of the majority of branches, to impose on the society a rule which would be repugnant to the members, but it cannot be said that there are not adequate safeguards provided in the Clause. In the first place,

    1969
    it requires this big majority, and, in the second place, the approval of the Minister has to be obtained for the scheme. This safeguards the rights of each individual, and I cannot see why there should be any real opposition to the Clause. I have had communications from various societies stressing the importance of this Clause, and the fact that there is a strong desire among approved societies to have this power. That is something to which due consideration should be given by the House. I have tried to find what there is against the Clause, and all I can find is the idea that the local people are against it. If there be anything in the argument that there is so much feeling locally against the Clause, there is no possibility of the Clause ever being effective, but if, on the other hand, the idea that there is so much local opinion against it is a mistaken idea, and that the Clause will be to the advantage of a society, the societies ought to have the powers that are asked for in this Clause.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: I want to express my surprise at the attitude which the Government have taken up on this proposed new Clause. I am particularly surprised at the attitude of Members below the Gangway, and of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney). He expressed his surprise at a proposal to create a pool for mutual assistance. The principle of the pool, however, is not against the essence of the Bill, or of the original Act, because in the original Act, which it is proposed to be extended by this Bill, there is already a pool of something like £200,000, not for the equalisation of benefits, but for the keeping of members in benefits. In Clause 20 of this Bill, it is proposed to extend the pool that comes from unclaimed contributions. At present, the law is that nine-tenths of unclaimed contributions goes towards paying arrears, but the Bill proposes that the whole of
    the arrears of members who are unemployed can be paid from the pool, which it is now proposed to be extended. Yet we have had Members, particularly below the Gangway, stating that the idea of the pool for mutual help is a new principle, and that it would be conducive to the bad working of branches.
    Mr. HARNEY: My point is that it would be against the main undertaking.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: When was that undertaking given?
    Mr. HARNEY: On the original Bill.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is that to bind us for ever?
    Mr. HARNEY: No, I do not say that, but, owing to that undertaking, it has become a big controversial question, and ought only to be altered on a Second Reading Debate.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: I am surprised at the attitude of the Liberal Members and the Minister. We thought it was a very modest proposal to take the surpluses of branches, and apply them to those branches which are not so fortunate. This is the whole essence of friendly society rules and of trade unionism. There are certain branches in the engineering union, in my own union, that for 50 or 60 years have never shown a balance. Some branches of my society are thousands, and tens of thousands of pounds in debt, but we do not cut them off for that. For the sake of equality and brotherhood, we pool our resources, and this is the very essence both of friendly society working and trade unionism. I am greatly surprised at the attitude which the Government have taken up on this matter.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 230.

    Division No. 150.]

    AYES.

    [6.40 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife. West)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Connolly, M.

    Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Broad, F. A.

    Cove, W. G.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Bromfield, William

    Dalton, Hugh

    Ammon, Charles George

    Bromley, J.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Buchanan, G.

    Day, Harry

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Cape, Thomas

    Dennison, R.

    Baker, Walter

    Charleton, H. C.

    Dunnico. H.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Barnes, A.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Gillett, George M

    Batey, Joseph

    Compton, Joseph

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Smillie, Robert

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Groves, T.

    March, S.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Maxton, James

    Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Montague, Frederick

    Snell, Harry

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Hardie, George D.

    Murnin, H,

    Stamford, T. W.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Naylor, T. E

    Stephen, Campbell

    Hayday, Arthur

    Oliver, George Harold

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Hayes, John Henry

    Palin, John Henry

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pialstow)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Paling, W.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Hirst, G. H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Viant, S. P.

    Hirst, w. (Bradford, South)

    Potts, John s.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Hollins, A.

    Purcell, A. A.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleld)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Riley, Ben

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Ritson, J.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Westwood, J.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Kennedy, T.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Lansbury, George

    Scurr, John

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sexton, James

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Lawson, John James

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Wright, W.

    Lowth, T.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Lunn, William

    Shinwell, E.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J, R. (Aberavon)

    Short. Alfred (Wednesbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Mackinder, W.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Harney, E. A.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Cooper, A. Dull

    Harris, Percy A.

    Albery, Irving James

    Cope, Major William

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Couper, J. B.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Isllngtn. N.)

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Hilton, Cecil

    Atkinson. C.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Balniel, Lord

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Drewe, C.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Bennett, A. J.

    Edge, Sir William

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Berry, Sir George

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Betterton, Henry B.

    England, Colonel A.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S.-M.)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R. Skipton)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Forrest, W.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Briant, Frank

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Fremantie, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

    Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Brown. Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Maclntyre, Ian

    Buchan, John

    Gates, Percy

    McLean, Major A.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Maquisten, F. A.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Grattan-Doyle. Sir N.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Blrm.,W.)

    Grenfell Edward C. (City of London)

    Meller, R. J.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hail, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hamilton, Sir George

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M

    1972

    1973

    Morris, R. H.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cilve

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Sandon, Lord

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Waddington, R.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Savery, S. S.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Owen, Major G.

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)

    Wells, S. R.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Skelton, A. N.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Sianey, Major p. Kenyon

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Pilcher, G.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Withers, John James

    Ramsden, E.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Reld, D. O. (County Down)

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'sland)

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Strauss, E. A.

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wragg, Herbert

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Templeton, W. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Rye, F. G.

    Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Captain Bowyer and Captain

    Salmon, Major I.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Wallace.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    CLAUSE I.—(Amendments of Sections 3, 7 and 15 of principal Act as to continuous insurance, contributions by voluntary contributors and arrears.)
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 35, at the end, to insert the words:
    "and such Regulations may provide that in the case of an insured person employed in the sea service any period, not exceeding twenty-six weeks in any contribution year, in respect of which no contribution is compulsorily payable under this Act, not being a period of incapacity for work or a period during which the insured person is engaged in a remunerative occupation which is not employment within the meaning of this Act, shall be deemed to be a period during which he was available for but unable to obtain employment as aforesaid."
    This Amendment raises a subject which was discussed in Committee upstairs, and on the last day of the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman indicated that if we could find a satisfactory form of words to meet the difficulty we are endeavouring to overcome, he would at least give them sympathetic consideration. Whether or not I have succeeded in finding a form of words which will meet with his approval, we shall know in a few moments. May I explain briefly what is admitted to be a very complicated matter? By Clause 19 it is proposed to bring into insurance a class of workers who have not hitherto been within the ambit of these Acts. Share fishermen were excluded from previous Acts because of the great diffi-
    1974
    culty of squaring the conditions of their calling with the provisions which the law sought to enforce, but with the introduction of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act it has become urgently necessary to bring these fishermen within this legislation. If they are left out their widows and orphans will be debarred from the beneficent widows' and old age pensions' scheme. For that reason, if for no other, it is essential to bring these share fishermen within the national health and unemployment insurance legislation.
    As the Minister said upstairs, many difficulties were encountered in bringing these fishermen into the Bill at all, and even now that they are in the Bill certain difficulties remain. By the very nature of the share fisherman's calling there are periods when he is not engaged in fishing. He is occupied, perhaps, in drying his nets and cleaning his boats, and he is not then employed for wages. He is not then in remunerative employment, but he is still employed, and everyone knows he is employed. He is engaged upon an essential part of his occupation, but he is not in remunerative employment and cannot be regarded under the provisions of the law as being available for but unable to obtain employment. It could be held that he might obtain employment in other occupations. It might be said to him, "Why not go into a big city and look

    1975
    for work? You are not searching for employment as a wage earner." Still the man is engaged in an essential part of his employment, because he is preparing for another fishing voyage. While he is thus engaged he is piling up arrears against himself. The Minister has made provision whereby he will forgive the arrears, but it is the fisherman's society which will have to bear the burden of those arrears. The society would, however, very soon be in financial difficulties and, accordingly, by a subsequent Amendment which I am proposing, we seek to enable the Minister to make a grant out of the seamen's fund—a surplus fund raised from lascars and other seamen not domiciled in this country—to the approved societies with which these fishermen are insured.
    As far as I know, no other class of workmen is placed in similar difficulties. These men have no employer. They are their own employers, sharing and sharing alike according to the result of their catches, and the Minister has been compelled to arrange for one member of the crew of these share fishermen to be regarded as the employer for the purposes of this legislation; or, if some member of the crew is not selected, the Minister may appoint some other person on shore. That fact alone shows the exceptional difficulty of this case. Now we are asking the House and the Government to go one stage further, and make the necessary provision whereby neither these fishermen, who are engaged in one of the most esential callings in the country, that of the production of food, nor their approved societies shall suffer. In Committee upstairs neither the Minister nor anyone else regarded the claim of the men in a hostile or critical spirit, and in practically the last speech made in Committee the Minister expressed himself as sympathetic towards their difficulties. He advised me to try to devise a form of words and to put it down before the Report stage, saying he would consider the matter again; but, of course, he made it perfectly clear that I was not to interpret that as a pledge that he would necessarily accept my form of words. If he can find a more satisfactory form I am sure every Member who is interested in the case of these share fishermen will be delighted to accept
    1976
    it, but if he cannot I trust the form of words I have submitted will meet his approval, and that the House will take the necessary steps to prevent a very deserving, a very bard working and a very essential class of the community from suffering unmerited hardships which they and their families will suffer unless they can be fully brought within the ambit of this Bill.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I am grateful for the opportunity of seconding the Amendment, which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). There are at least two occasions in the year when the share fisherman experiences unemployment of this very exceptional character, unemployment which, on the one hand, has the common characteristic of unemployment in that the man is not earning wages, and, on the other hand, unemployment during which he is carrying out work which is vitally necessary to his calling. Those two occasions are at the end of the season when he has to dry and repair his nets and clean his boat, and at the beginning of the season, when he very often has to wait long periods for suitable weather and market conditions before he can set about his work.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. and gallant Member say what the season is?
    7.0 p.m.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: There are three seasons. The most important of all is the summer season which, while it varies very much, lasts roughly from about now until the end of August or the beginning of September. Then there is the autumn season, the Yarmouth season, which starts about the beginning of October and lasts for about six weeks. Then there is the winter season, starting about January or February and lasting till about March or April. That, again, is a fluctuating season, depending enormously on the weather conditions. There is now a proposal in respect to the summer season to have a close time, which will differ, again, between the West coast and the East coast, because the herrings on the West coast mature earlier than on the East coast. On the East coast the herrings are less

    1977
    mature, and therefore fishing is started later on the East coast. There is a proposal that there should be a close time on the East coast, and that it should not be permissible to start fishing on the East coast until 5th or 10th June. That proposal has not yet been approved, but the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is present, will be able to give the Minister more accurate information as to how that stands at the present time. I understand it is shelved in the meantime but is likely to be discussed between now and next year. As I was saying, there are these exceptional periods of unemployment. The Minister, on the last day of the Committee, when we were discussing the Schedule, said that he could only meet the views of those who were in favour of this Amendment to the extent of Sub-section (5) of Clause I. That Sub-section provides that:
    "an insured person shall not be subject to reduction or suspension of benefits by reason of arrears of contributions for any period in respect of which he proves that he was available for but unable to obtain employment within the meaning of this Act."
    If you leave it at that, the Employment Exchanges or committees will say that these men were available for employment. They are to the extent that they are not receiving wages in any other employment, but, if they went to any other employment, their own boats and nets would suffer, and, therefore, it is essential for them to remain at their employment, drawing no wages, looking after their boats and nets and preparing them for the work of the coming season. Although in a technical sense they are available for other employment, they are, in fact, compulsorily unemployed. You might also include the case of other seamen. There are some seamen, for example, who have two or three weeks leave at home while their ship is in port. In other trades for a holiday like that they would get their wages paid, but seamen do not and they would also be without benefit by this Clause, while our Amendment would put them on an equality with men in other trades. Then there is the risk of a reduction or suspension of benefit if this Clause stands as it is. As it stands, a man undergoing this peculiar form
    1978
    of unemployment and not drawing any wages will undoubtedly fall in arrears and run a risk of suspension or reduction of his benefit. His widow or orphans, if he dies, will find that, because he has fallen out of benefit and has fallen into arrears during those weeks, they are not qualified for the pension which it is the desire of the Minister—
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Member must be aware that, under the first Clause, a man has a very long period in which to pay his contributions. Therefore, he is not under any risk, and the point the hon. Member is raising does not really arise.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Because it will come out of the society—out of the pool?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It has nothing to do with that. If the hon. and gallant Member looks at Clause 1, he will see that an insured person who ceases to pay contributions will after that have a free period of insurance which will carry him on very much longer than any period in which ex hypothesi he will be out of work.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Then it does not apply to his pension, but it does to his reduction of benefit. I will confine myself to that. It is a risk to which men in other trades are not exposed. Therefore, it is justifiable that we should ask for a special provision for men exposed to these special risks. I have heard it suggested that we are putitng these fishermen in a special privileged position. That is not the case. The conditions of their employment put them in a specially unfortunate position, and, if we are to put them on an equality with men in other trades, we have to make some special provision such as is suggested in this Amendment. There is a second point. If this first Amendment is accepted by the Minister, the effect, of course, will be that the societies will have to carry the financial consequences of these men falling into arrears. I believe one or two societies have expressed some apprehensions on that score. But, if this Amendment is accepted, I am sure the Minister will accept the second Amendment, under which it is made clear that the societies will be able to reimburse themselves by drawing from the large funds available

    1979
    in what is known technically as the sea-men's special fund.
    What else does the Minister propose? I gathered, from his speech in Committee, that the solution he favoured was that suggested by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley). That hon. Member's argument was that these men, having been earning money during the fishing season, after the fishing season is over, ought to pay their contributions out of the net earnings of the past season. That, I understand, was the argument to which the Minister gave his assent. The conditions, however, make it really impossible for them to do that. Consider the conditions of their industry. In their industry they do not get any regular wages during the time they are employed. They are very often working for long periods without wages or profits at all. Let me give some official figures on that point. I will quote from the Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland for 1926, which is the latest Report available:
    "The result of the last year's fishing was that, although there were the usual variations of fortune as between individual vessels, the earnings of the fleet were wholly absorbed by working expenses and the majority of the vessels returned to Scotland more or less deeply in debt. The net result of the year's operations was to throw the herring fishing communities hack to the conditions in which they had been in 1923."
    It is hopeless to suppose that these men will have the funds accumulated during the fishing season out of which they will be able to maintain their contributions. The Report of the Chief Inspector of Sea Fisheries for Scotland says that a number of these fishermen
    "have, during the past few years, incurred liabilities which only a succession of profitable seasons will enable them to liquidate."
    Again, the Fishery Board's Report for 1926 says:
    "The fishermen most severely hit were the men serving on steam drifters"—
    the very men we are concerned with this afternoon—
    "who have gone in most whole-heatedly for herring fishery, and given their energy and capital most freely to its development."
    Let me press that point by giving the official calculations of the Fishery Board for Scotland as to the actual earnings of the men in 1926. Let me explain first how this sharing is done. All the ex-
    1980
    penses of the boat are discharged out of the crew's earnings. The cook and the man who works the engine are paid out of the gross earnings, and the net earnings are divided in three shares—the labour share, the net share and the boat share. Unfortunately, owing to a succession of very bad years, a diminishing number are able to take shares in the nets and in the boat; an increasing number are dependent solely on the labour share. A man, who had a labour share, earned for eight weeks of the winter fishing in 1926—these are the official figures of the Fishery Board for Scotland—only £5 10s. on the average for the whole of that season, or 14s. a week. At the summer fishing the average earnings were £25, or less than £2 a week. The autumn fishing was only £2 for the whole season, or less than 5s. a week. The total average earnings of a man with a labour share—and such men comprise the vast majority of the fishermen we are trying to benefit—were £32 or £33 for 28 weeks' work. There may be some additional earnings at the white fishing or seine net fishing. If you add £15 or £20 for that, which is a generous allowance, you get for the 52 weeks of the year something less than £1 a week. It is hopeless to suppose that these men would be able to keep up their contributions during the off-season when they are painting and repairing their boats out of these very low wages or profits, when in the winter season of that year the total earnings of the average man was only £5 10s. and in the summer season only £25. Therefore, I do appeal to the Minister very seriously to consider this proposal which we put forward. The effect of the first Amendment which we are proposing is to relieve the fisherman from the burden of the arrears. The effect of the second Amendment is to relieve the society from the financial burden by drawing from this large and accumulated seamen's special fund.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Anybody who represents a fishing constituency cannot approach this question without a good deal of anxiety, and I would like, at the beginning of the few remarks I have to offer, to say how deeply we all, no matter to what party we belong, appreciate the persistent efforts of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) on behalf of and in the interests of the fish-

    1981
    ing community of Scotland. Whenever a fishing question arises, his power of advocacy is always to be found on our side. I must say on this occasion that I do not think the hon. Member has succeeded in devising a solution which will be of any substantial benefit to the fishing community, and I am not sure that his Amendment is in any way practicable. The whole question of getting share fishermen into this scheme has presented almost insuperable difficulties. We must first get down to the fundamental position, which is that fishermen have to be put into the scheme, and as a result they must have benefits in some way or other. That is the clear intention of the House. We are trying to do these men a good turn, and get them into the scheme, and, in order to do that, the Minister is ready to consider any form of words which will give effect to that declared intention. This question bristles with difficulties, and, whatever form of words we decide upon when they are put into the Clauses of the Bill, I believe that they will have to be administered in a very wide and broad spirit; otherwise, I doubt whether they will be operative.
    The Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee seems to be even more unintelligible than usual for an Amendment of this kind. I have read it through very carefully, and I am not sure that I quite understand its meaning. I certainly do not understand the words of the Amendment which say:
    "In the case of an insured person employed in the sea service."
    It seems to me that a man employed as a motorman on a pleasure boat would not be really employed in the sea service. I do not see how you can include all classes of men employed on the sea. We have been told that the phrase "sea service" is defined in an Act of Parliament, but I do not think it applies to fishermen. This Clause, as drafted, is far too wide in its application. As far as I can make out, the intention of the Amendment is that any person so employed must have 26 weeks in every year, for an indefinite period, in which he is entitled to call himself unemployed under the scheme. If that provision is to be carried out, and all share fishermen are to be put into that position for 26 weeks in any contribution year, obviously the scheme will be bankrupt in a very short time.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: The Amendment says: "such regulations may provide."
    Mr. BOOTHBY: I do not think the hon. Baronet can ride off in that way. The effect of this Amendment would be as I have described it. The mover of the Amendment evidently contemplates something of the kind, and certainly the arrears that would be piled up would be tremendous. It has been suggested that the fishermen should be compensated for their losses out of the "Lascar" fund, but this fund does not specially apply to the fishermen of Scotland, and I do not think that was the intention. As a matter of fact, I would like to plunder any fund for the sole purpose of helping the fishermen in Scotland if I could do it, although I know a proposal of that kind would meet with opposition in some quarters of the House. For these reasons, I do not think the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dundee is practicable. But there is something about which we are all very anxious, and that is the question of the period of employment. I do not mean the period during which these fishermen are to be considered unemployed, but the period during which they are to be considered employed under the Act.
    The hon. Member for Dundee, arid the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) have pointed out that the work put in by the share fishermen before the voyage in preparing the drifter for sea and mending the nets, and the work put in mending the nets and other work done after the voyage while the ship is in harbour, is just as important as any of the work which is done at sea. I think it is important that the whole period from the first moment that a share fisherman approaches a drifter till he leaves it after the voyage is over, should be counted as full employment, during which contributions should be made. I would like to ask the Minister of Health to make a statement upon that particular matter. If the only period during which the share fishermen are allowed to pay contributions is the time they are at sea, I do not see how they can possibly qualify for benefits at all, and, if that be the scheme, I would rather see them outside it altogether.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I quite appreciate that point, but what is going to happen to the widows and orphans?
    Mr. BOOTHBY: The Widows and Orphans Pensions Act is not such a very old affair after all, and I have no doubt they would manage to exist. We do want to bring them within the scheme. But it is no use, under the guise of giving them benefit, making them pay more than any benefits which they can possibly receive. It would be better to keep them out without benefits than penalise them unfairly in this way. If this Measure could be operated in such a way as to count the whole time the share fishermen are engaged in employment, that difficulty would be swept away. I ask the Minister of Health whether it would not be possible under this Bill, as it is now drafted, that some arrangement' might be made between the share fishermen themselves whereby for the purposes of the particular fishing in which they were engaged they could be considered employed, and could be recognised as working in full insurable employment from the first moment they prepare their boat for sea to the end of the voyage. If that could be done and applied to the seasons which have been explained to the House by the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness, an arrangement might be made for the fishermen to contribute their 39 contributions in the year.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: That was not what I suggested. These men are not in a position to contribute during the whole time they are on the boat and preparing their boat for the voyage. My argument was that they cannot afford to do this out of the wages which they are receiving.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: If the men do what I have suggested they would qualify for the benefit. Now I come to the point raised as to whether the men earn enough wages to do what I have suggested. I do not think the fishermen themselves would wish anybody to come to this House, and plead that some special grant should be made in order to enable them to come under the scheme. Sonic hon. Members have been down to their constituencies explaining the whole position to the fishermen. I went down to my own constituency and explained the contributions which the men would have to make, and I asked them whether under the circumstances they wished to come under the scheme. At every single meeting of fishermen in my constituency, they
    1984
    were unanimous about desiring to pay the contributions, and they wanted to come in and enjoy the full benefit.
    I do not think the fishermen are quite so badly off as some hon. Members have described. I know these men have suffered desperately for four or five years, but I think things are now getting a little better, and they do not wish hon. Members to come to this House asking for subsidies. I feel certain that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee will not meet the case and for these reasons I think it should be rejected. If we make such Amendments in the Bill as that which we are now considering, I am afraid we shall find that we shall not be able to administer it at all. Everybody knows that friendly societies are not so very careful to find out who is responsible for arrears, and, with a sympathetic policy on the part of the Ministry of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, we can make this scheme work, and I think it will operate to the benefit of the fishermen. If we find that it does not achieve that object, then we shall have to bring in some form of amending legislation, but at any rate let us give this scheme a chance and do not let us tie everybody's hands so much as is proposed. Let us keep this Measure as benign and sympathetic as possible, and if it does not succeed, then I shall be ready to join with hon. Members opposite in drafting a new Bill in the next Parliament which will satisfy the just and legitimate demands of a very deserving class of people.
    Commander COCHRANE: In the speech made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) there was an allusion to the average wages earned by fishermen. I would suggest that there is no other industry in which the term "average wage" is more misleading. I know certain fishermen have done very badly but to quote the average wage of fishermen misrepresents the conditions in the case of the boats which have done very well.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Will the hon. and gallant Member explain why the term "average wage" is misleading?
    Commander COCHRANE: I will explain what I mean. In the drift net fishing, you may have 100 boats shooting their nets in a given area; some of them

    1985
    may have an excellent catch while others may experience a complete failure. That is why the average wage is misleading.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: That does not affect the average earnings of the men at the end of the season. Assuming that there are 26,000 men employed in the industry, if you divide the total earnings for the season by that number, you get the average net earnings, which is the figure I have mentioned.
    Commander COCHRANE: Surely, the hon. Baronet will agree that the earnings of the men are directly dependent on the result of the fishing, and the result of the fishing varies to such an extraordinary extent, as between boat and boat, that the average is quite meaningless. That is the point that I want to make. I would respectfully suggest to the hon. Members who have moved and seconded this Amendment that they have done so under a misconception as to the conditions which occur at sea, because they have taken it for granted that the time which a fisherman spends on shore preparing his nets and so on, before he actually goes to sea, and the time which he spends when he returns to harbour after the sea voyage, are periods which are not part of the voyage, but are periods which require some special treatment, I suggest that that is not so.
    No fisherman, and, indeed, no man connected with the sea, would for a moment agree that a voyage starts when you leave harbour and terminates when you return to harbour again. The voyage starts when the preparation begins. These small fishing boats are not like a motor car. You cannot bring them into harbour and go away and leave them, as you can with a motor car in a garage. In the case of our Scottish harbours, particularly, there are very few where a fishing boat does not have to be attended to at least twice in the 24 hours; there are very few where a fishing boat can be left for any long period of time, and, as I have already said, there can be no doubt that the voyage does start when the preparation for the voyage begins. To take the case, which has already been referred to, of the share fishermen in the Yarmouth fishing undertaking, supposing that the season at Yarmouth begins on, say, the 15th October, for the men concerned the voyage may begin on
    1986
    the 15th September. It may not begin on the same date for every man employed in the venture. Some may be employed in getting the boat ready, painting, cleaning out the holds, preparing the sails, and so on, whole others may be merely engaged in repairing their own nets. If that be so, surely it is quite possible for the people concerned in the venture to come to an agreement as to the date on which the voyage starts. If hon. Members persist in the view that a voyage starts on the day when the boat leaves harbour, I agree that there is considerable difficulty, but I think that that is an entire misconception of the circumstances. The voyage actually starts, for any individual man, on the day on which he begins his preparations.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: May I say that there is no misconception on our part? That is the provision of the Bill, namely, that the voyage will start when the boat starts, and will finish when the boat comes back. Our Amendment would make it possible for the Minister to make regulations which would amount to regarding the voyage as beginning when the men begin work and ending when they leave off work.
    Commander COCHRANE: The hon. Baronet will forgive me, but I must disagree with him when he says that the Bill states that the voyage starts when the boat leaves harbour, because Clause 19 definitely says, in reference to these fishermen:
    "employment as master or a member of the crew of any fishing vessel,"
    and so on. After all, however, an Act of Parliament, if I may say so with all respect to this House, cannot alter facts, and the fact is that a voyage starts when the work of preparation begins; the ship cannot go to sea without this preparation. The common venture of these share fishermen starts when they begin their preparations, whether these consist of getting the boat ready or preparing the nets, and I submit that it is, as I have said, an entire misconception to suppose that a voyage starts on the day when the boat actually goes to sea. In conclusion I would express the hope, which has already been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), that the Minister will clear up this point which

    1987
    is in dispute, because we all wish to have a workable scheme, and we all realise that. in this question of share fishermen there are difficulties which have to be overcome. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will be able to clear up the point of doubt which has arisen.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am sure that the House, or, at any rate, those Members who are not particularly interested in fishing constituencies, and who, therefore, probably do not know much about the many difficulties which fishermen have to face, will sympathise very much with the Minister over this matter. When my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Templeton) and I approached him some years ago, we were met, in answer to our request that the share fishermen should be included under the insurance scheme, with the reply that there were so many difficulties in connection with applying insurance to this class of workmen that it would not be possible to get it through Parliament at all. We had to try our best, on behalf of the men whom we represented, to devise some proper method of dealing with the matter, and I am here to say to the Minister and the Government that we, who represent the fishermen, thank them very much indeed for including share fishermen within the ambit of this Bill; and I hope that those who represent fishing constituencies will not try to make it too difficult to carry the matter through and give these men the opportunity of sharing in this scheme of insurance.
    Let us consider for a moment what the position would be if this Amendment were accepted. Would it not be open to every insured workman engaged in a casual or seasonal occupation to say, "If you are going to do this for the share fishermen, why cannot you do it for us?" I represent a large number of workers who have to follow the fisheries round the coast, and who work in the fisheries in my own port all the year round. Their occupation may be said to be a seasonal occupation, and certainly it is a casual occupation, and they would have an equal right to come to this House and say, "If you are going to allow the share fisherman 26 weeks in the year during which he can pay no contribution
    1988
    and still not lose benefit, why should not the casual labourer or seasonal shore worker have the same privileges? "That is a matter that we must take into consideration in dealing with this question.
    I see that a further Amendment, which has been mentioned as joining up with the one that we are now discussing, proposes that the money shall come from what is known as the old Lascar Fund, which is now the Seamen's Special Fund. There is, however, a great difficulty there, because that fund has been created by contributions paid on behalf of seamen, and very few fishermen indeed have contributed to it, because we have very few foreigners in our fishing boats. At the present time, when an application is made, on behalf of share fishermen, to those who are responsible for administering that fund, we are told that pensions can only be granted to a certain percentage of fishermen in any particular year, because the bulk of that money has been contributed by seamen and those who were sailing in deep-sea vessels; and I believe that those who administer the fund have laid it down that only a certain percentage shall go to fishermen. Are we to go to them and ask them to find the whole of the money to pay up the arrears of the fishermen, when practically the whole of that money has been provided by people who would not benefit under this Amendment? Although the expression "sea service" is used in the Amendment, I am very doubtful whether it would be possible to bring in those who follow the ordinary occupation of a seaman, because they are not engaged in any particular seasonal trade. That, therefore, is a difficulty.
    Then again, I want the House to realise that, although we have heard from the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) the facts as to the position of the herring fisheries of Scotland during the past season, we must not take it for granted that every season is going to be so bad. If it is, there will be no fishermen at all, because they cannot continue to follow the occupation if it is only going to bring in such small remuneration. We must look at the matter more broadly than by merely dealing with one season. It has happened, and I hope it will again before

    1989
    very long, that the men do earn sufficient from their season's fishing to keep them going for the rest of the year.
    With regard to the position of the men engaged in scraping, painting and preparing the ships, it is a fact that, when times are prosperous, many of them employ others, whose regular occupation it is, to do the chipping, scraping and so on for them, but, when times are not so prosperous, the men, and all credit to them for it, say that they will do that work themselves and save the money. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Fife (Commander Cochrane) has said that that work is regarded by the fishermen as part and parcel of their voyage, that it is their occupation during the period when they are preparing for the voyage. Moreover, as has been already stated, many of these fishermen are engaged in the white fishing when they are not engaged in the herring fishing, and, if we could have a bigger development of that branch of the industry, it would be better for the herring fishermen themselves, because it would provide an alternative means of earning money when the herrings are not there to be caught.
    Then you have another class of men who certainly would want to know what is going to happen to them if this Amendment were passed. Those are the men who go to sea in our trawlers, because, although we cannot describe theirs as quite so seasonal an occupation as that of the herring fishermen, still there are certain seasons for that type of fishing. There are certain seasons of the year when you can go to the White Sea and get profitable voyages. There are other seasons when you would not dream of going there, because you would not get profitable voyages, and then, probably, you go to the Faroes or to Iceland. There are times when even our trawler-men have to spend a week or two on shore out of work, and, if this privilege is going to be given to one class of men, you will be bound to give it to the others. Bearing in mind the difficulties with which the Minister is faced, and also the fact that we who represent the fishermen do not want to see this proposal to include them in the Bill jeopardised, I think it will be just as well if we leave the matter as it now is, and do not pass this Amendment. Let us see how it works in practice, and then, if an amend-
    1990
    ing Measure should be put forward, it may be possible, in the light of the experience that will have been gained, to put the matter absolutely right to the satisfaction of all concerned.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a rather technical matter, and I have, therefore, thought it desirable that some hon. Members who are familiar from personal knowledge with the various aspects of the case should put their views before the House, in order that the House may be fully in possession of the difficulties which this Amendment seeks to meet. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) has truly said that, when we were discussing this matter in Committee, my attitude was sympathetic towards the object which he had in mind. I told him then that I did not myself see any way of overcoming all possibility of the share fishermen being penalised for arrears if they fell into arrears, but that, if he was not satisfied with such assurances as I had been able to give him in Committee, I would suggest to him—and he acknowledged that he himself had found great difficulty in discovering a suitable form of words—that he should have another try, and I said that I would with an open mind consider what could be done. I suppose that the result of that invitation is the Amendment which is now before us.
    I must say at once that I could not possibly accept this Amendment, for two substantial reasons. I take it that the Amendment is tied) up with the later one to Clause 13, and we might, perhaps, consider the two together. In the first place, I cannot accept it because it lays down that one particular section of insured persons should have the special privilege of being allowed a free half-year during which they could pay no contributions and yet would not lose benefit because they had not paid contributions. In other words, it would be possible for a share fisherman, or anyone else employed in the sea service, for six months of the year to abstain from work, and not make any attempt to obtain employment, but to be kept in insurance, paying no contributions, and being relieved of any possible penalty in respect of that. That, as I have said, would be putting these people in a privileged position which is enjoyed by no other section of the insured community, and, as my hon.

    1991
    Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) has said, that would at once give rise to claims on the part of others that they should be treated in a like manner. That seems to me to be a fatal objection on the face of it.
    In addition to that, there is the difficulty that unless you provide some financial backing for the approved society the loss to the society would be more than it could meet. The hon. Member has attempted to meet that difficulty by a later Amendment to Clause 13. The hon. Member for Grimsby has pointed out that the source upon which the hon. Member seeks to draw for this purpose is not one that is contributed to by share fishermen. It is a fund which contains money contributed in respect of Lascars, who are not really concerned in the matter at all, and in particular, under Clause 13, after providing for the various purposes specified on page 15 of the Bill, under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), the residue goes to the seamen's special fund, out of which pensions are provided for seamen of all kinds; and the effect of putting a new burden upon the fund before this residue is taken into the special fund which is used for pensions might mean that there would be insufficient left for the pensions, and the pensions of seamen at large would suffer materially.
    For these reasons, I could not accept the Amendment, but I have been giving my sympathetic attention to the question, and I hope I shall be able to satisfy hon. Members who are interested in it that really there is no serious cause for apprehension. I think we have got it down now to a fairly narrow point. It is understood that there is no question here of losing the title, to the benefits of the Pensions Act. All that is in question is a possible reduction of benefits in consequence of arrears of contribution. One period in respect of which these arrears might be incurred was the period either of preparation for the voyage or clearing up after the voyage. The whole point we have to consider is whether or not the men who are employed in repairing their nets and boats and equipment generally, or who are engaged in preparing for the voyage, are employed within the meaning of the Clause. May I call attention to an Amendment to Clause 19 in my own name? It deals
    1992
    with the Special Order that is to be made, and its purpose is to give the Minister the power of modifying the conditions, and he will so draft the Special Order as to make it quite clear that it is possible for the share fishermen, if they so desire, to make this preliminary work, or clearing up, a part of their employment. There is no doubt that under the Amendment the time can be counted as part of the voyage.
    The only other point that arises is that raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), who represented that it really was no good to the fishermen, because they made a loss and not a profit on their voyage. In so far as that may be the case, it applies to the voyage itself just as much as to the time on shore. You cannot separate the two. Once you have made the employment on shore part of the voyage, the question whether the man can afford to pay contributions applies to the whole thing, and therefore it is not really relevant to the point with which we are dealing. I think I have dealt with the difficulty which has been in the minds of hon. Members and have shown that it will be possible under the Amendment to Clause 19 to make this period about which they found so much difficulty part of the voyage, and therefore to avoid the difficulty of share fishermen getting into arrears during the period and, consequently, suffering a reduction of benefit. In those circumstances, I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press the Amendment.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I think the Minister has met all the points except one. It is true that the total earnings will cover the whole period before and after and including the voyage, but the number of contributions will be more, and that, of course, is the real reason why, when the original Bill was brought in, the share fishermen preferred to remain outside. We do not want to make any difficulty about it. It is not a party question. The whole House is interested in those who go down to the sea in ships. It is only that the peculiarities of their occupation do not fit into the structure of the general Act. I hope this will be borne in mind, so that, if the Order does not meet the case, at some future time we shall be able to move Amendments to meet the difficulty we foresee.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I am satisfied that what the hon. Member said is correct, and, while the Minister has given us something, he has not, I am certain, met the full difficulties under which these fishermen labour. But we do not feel ourselves in a position to go to a Division, and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of Section 26 of principal Act as to subscriptions to charitable institutions.)
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to move, in page 7, line 30, after the word "institutions," to insert the words "or for the support of district nurses."
    This Amendment proposes simply to amplify, or emphasise, the fact of the permission to be given to approved societies which have a disposable surplus to contribute to the support of district nurses. The Clause is based on Section 26 of the 1924 Act and in that Section the words "or for the support of district nurses" were included. The words run:
    "An approved society or insurance committee may make such subscriptions or donations as it thinks fit to hospitals, dispensaries, and other charitable institutions, or for the support of district nurses."
    When we came to examine the Bill upstairs we found that Clause 4 left out "and district nurses." It is obvious that "other charitable institutions" would naturally include the support of district nurses, but in order to be quite sure that there is no misapprehension I think it would be advisable to have that phrase definitely inserted, inasmuch as approved societies have been accustomed to working the corresponding section of the Act with those words included. If the Amendment were left out they might think they were no longer allowed to contribute for that purpose. The matter was raised in Committee and the Minister definitely approved it in spirit but it was put in on the spur of the moment and could not be accepted. I hope it may be approved now by all sides of the House without any need for me to emphasise the value of district nurses and the advantage of being allowed to support them.
    Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I beg to second the Amendment. I do not think
    1994
    it needs any words of mine to commend it. These district associations do very great good and it is very desirable that societies should be able to contribute to their funds if they so desire.
    Sir K. WOOD: I am very pleased to accept the Amendment. This really brings Clause 4 into conformity with Clause 16 (1 b).
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Amendment of Section 54 of principal Act as to deposit contributors.)
    Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 11, line 35, to leave out from the word "repealed" to end of the Sub-section.
    This is a drafting Amendment which leaves out the latter part of Sub-section (1). We have had to alter the date of the operation of the Act to 1st January, 1929, and it is no longer necessary to keep in the words in the latter part of Sub-section (1).
    Amendment agreed to

    CLAUSE 13.—(Amendment of Sections 62 and 64 of principal Act as to mercantile marine.)
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    I do not do so, because I am opposed to the provisions of the Clause, but in Committee, for some unknown reason, we did not get the information which I think ought to have been available to Members of the Committee. Probably we did not press for it strongly enough or it would have been forthcoming. The Clause relates to two points. It deals with the method of collecting contributions from the mercantile marine. All who have spoken to me as representing the seafaring population are very glad indeed to get rid of the card for each voyage system, I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman, if the card for each voyage is to be abolished, what is to be substituted for it? Are we to have a schedule on each ship covering all the men on board the ship for a particular voyage? That, probably, is understood already, but the point I want to make is, that the problem in the past has been that the man who carried a single card for the single voyage was found on landing to have lost his card. I understand that about one-third of the

    1995
    value of the whole of the contributions was lost to the seamen's fund. When we come to the problem of the Schedule which is to be substituted for the card system, how is the approved society to claim credit for the contributions in respect of the men appearing on the Schedule? Perhaps I had better preface my remarks by first asking another question. How is the shipowner or the master of the ship to know to which particular society a seaman is attached? He must have the seaman's name, the name of the approved society and the number of the man in the ship's books. It is all very well to say that the man ought to know, but as a rule he does not know. I do not think that many of these men will be able to tell the purser on board ship what is the name of the approved society, where the central office is situated, or their membership number in the society.
    Having said that in relation to the Schedule, I pass to another aspect. This is a very intricate problem. Supposing a man does give his approved society's title, the address of the central office and his membership in the society's books, the schedule will be passed on, I take it, to the appropriate Department of the Ministry of Health, and the complete list will be there. What I want to know is, how is the society to claim credit in respect of contributions of its members who are in the mercantile marine? I will give the case of my own society. We have a few mercantile marine members. They were once employed in shops and offices. They transferred their labour to passenger ships running, may be. between Southampton and New York. I am very anxious to know what happens when the ordinary civilian card of such a member disappears. When the member goes on board ship, there is no indication at all, except that the information may come from that person after he has joined the ship. Generally speaking, these men do not give information at all until they want to claim benefits. That is the usual practice. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman how is the approved society to follow this member and his contributions under the schedule? That is the first point on this Clause.
    The second point is, that I am under the impression—perhaps I ought to say
    1996
    that I am not quite as familiar with the membership of approved societies covering the mercantile marine as I am with other types of members—that the whole method, not only of collecting the contributions, but that the destination of the contributions in some cases, is to be altered. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this Clause does not refer to what is called the Lascar Fund? I think I am right in saying that with respect to the contributions paid by employers in regard to persons called Lascars, such persons are not entitled to benefit because they can never claim benefit. The master or the shipowner is called upon to pay contributions in respect of his Lascar workmen, but the Lascar workmen do not get any benefits at all. The total contributions are paid over what is called the Lascar fund, which, I think, now amounts to about £1,000,000, and that fund is going to be handled by the Board of Trade. Perhaps I must not give away too many secrets about this fund, otherwise when the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes back he will take a part of it, or the whole of it, to help balance his Budget, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would be delighted to give him a hand. He wants to take money from the totalisator because he has failed to get money from the Betting Duty.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think I need do no more than rise.
    Mr. DAVIES: I was led astray by my most intimate friends. I was making use of these remarks merely by way of illustration. What I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is, that the Lascar fund up to now has been managed by six representatives of the seamen and three representatives of the Shipping Federation. I believe I am right in stating that in one of the Schedules to this Bill there is a reference to the composition of the board of management of that fund. The matter is referred to in Clause 13, Subsection (2), as follows:
    "For the purposes of this Act, there shall he constituted a special fund to be called 'the seaman's special fund.'"
    Is there really any reason for the proposed change? I am not speaking of the personnel of the board of management but of the numerical strength of the representation from the employers and the workpeople. I know there is very strong

    1997
    feeling on the matter, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give us very strong reasons indeed for changing the representation. I understand that it will be on a fifty-fifty basis. As I have said, I move the deletion of this Clause in order that the right hon. Gentleman may explain its provisions more fully than has been the case on any occasion when we have discussed this Measure.
    I want to ask a final question on a very small point. Am I right in assuming that this Lascar fund will be handed over entirely to the Board of Trade for administration? If it is to be handed over to the Board of Trade, I should like to know the reason. This money, after all, is collected under the provisions of the National Health Insurance Scheme, and I am very jealous indeed of any of the functions of the Ministry of Health being handed over to the Board of Trade in any circumstances whatever. I do not take this attitude because the Ministry of Health is well managed. That is not the reason at all, nor do I believe that the Board of Trade is well administered either. I am very anxious that the whole of this scheme shall be kept within the same sphere, and that every contribution paid in respect of any person under it shall be controlled ultimately by are appropriate Minister.
    Mr. KELLY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I wish to say at once that if the explanation we desire be not satisfactory, I shall certainly demand the deletion of this Clause, even with all that attaches to it. In Committee we did our utmost to obtain a satisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman as to why this alteration is to take place. We were unable to secure a satisfactory answer from him, because I do not think he was well acquainted with the whole position. However, I trust he will be able to satisfy us this afternoon, and if he does not we must press our Amendment to a division.
    Sir K. WOOD: I will endeavour to answer to the best of my ability the questions which have been put to me by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I may say that I have had many representations on the matter and conferences with the hon. Gentleman who sits behind him, and who, I am certain, is also very much interested in this matter. Although the question
    1998
    is rather technical, I hope Members of the House who are perhaps, not particularly interested in it will bear with me, because I know from the point of view of a very large number of men, hon. Members naturally desire to see that under this Clause adequate and proper arrangements are made on behalf of those men. I do not think there is much need for me to justify the necessity of a change. The hon. Gentleman indicated a fact which is, I think, very well known, namely, that the present system as far as seamen are concerned has not worked well. I will not apportion the blame. I will not say whether it is something in the national insurance system itself, or whether it is, perhaps, the freer habits of seamen, who seem to lose more cards than other people. When they lose cards with stamps on them, it is rather unfortunate from their point of view, arid very often they get into arrears when they ought not to do so. If their cards had only been surrendered they would have been in benefit. I have been endeavouring to devise, with the help of the shipowners and the representatives of the Seamen's Union, a more satisfactory scheme by which they may avoid the surrender of cards, and so keep, if possible, the seaman in a better and longer term of insurance.
    This Clause really provides for what may be called the schedule system in place of the stamped card system. The suggestion is, that the master of the ship should prepare a schedule summarising the number of foreign-going seamen and the number and rates of contributions payable for them, and in addition—and this is a point to which I beg the hon. Gentleman's attention, because I think it may solve a good many of the difficulties —a voyage card containing short particulars of each seaman, hut no stamps. The schedule is also to include a summary of the contributions payable for foreign-domiciled seamen which are at present subject to separate quarterly returns. The voyage card—and I think this will meet a great part of the difficulty—shows the seaman's name, together with the name and the official number of the ship, the dates of the voyage and the number of contributions paid. The point was put to me, how are these to be checked? The suggestion is that the schedule and voyage card with the

    1999
    corresponding money payment, which will be made by cheque., are to be handed to the superintendent of the mercantile marine office or the corresponding officer overseas by whom the crew are discharged at the end of the voyage. It is then proposed to link them up with the societies, and they are to be sent forward, after examination, to a clearing-house which will be under the auspices of my Department.
    The functions of the clearing-house will be to check the correctness of the schedules and the voyage cards, and then it will be the responsibility of the clearing-house under my Department to disperse all the cards to the various approved societies and branches in order that they may post their registers and provide the necessary material for crediting them with a proper amount of contributions. In order to enable the clearing-house to allocate the cards to the societies concerned, the societies will be asked to furnish an index card for each of their foreign-going seaman members, giving the seaman's name and continuous discharge number and his membership number in the society. New entrants into the foreign-going sea service are also to be notified in the same way, and cases where members become foreign-going seamen without the knowledge of their societies—and there are cases of that kind—are to be identified by the approved society's particulars given on the voyage card, and, if necessary, by a special inquiry from the seaman concerned. The administrative expenses of the clearing-house and of the Board of Trade under the new system, are to be provided as set out in the Bill, and the contributions paid for foreign-going seamen and foreign-domiciled seamen are to be pooled, and after the. necessary credits have been made to the approved societies and the deposit contributors the cost of the administration is to be a first charge on the pool. I think that will be very satisfactory to the societies. This new system is to come into force for all voyages on and after the 1st January, 1929.
    The hon. Member put another important point. He asked, why do we want to make this alteration so far as the management of the Lascar Fund is concerned, and why should it not be linked up with the national insur-
    2000
    ance system as it has been hitherto. A very important alteration has been made in relation to the fund and its extent. These pensions are at present restricted to members of approved societies and those seamen who are still insured as members of societies on reaching pensionable age. It was represented to the Royal Commission that many seamen ceased to go to sea in later years and pass out of insurance and unless they become insurably employed on shore they lose all the benefits for which they have paid. The suggestion was made that the fund should be extended so as to embrace as many of these men as possible, and the Royal Commission concurred in the suggestion. Under the Bill, this is the important part so far as the seamen are concerned, all seamen, as defined in the Merchant Shipping Acts, will be eligible for pension out of the Seamen's Pension Fund, in addition to any pensions to which they may be entitled under the Contributory Pensions Act. I think that is a fair settlement and that it will give a great deal of relief to a large number of men who have been in and out of insurance and have lost their benefits.
    This consequence naturally follows that if you get all the seamen, whether members of approved societies or insured persons or not, you very greatly widen the scope of your scheme and you can no longer say that the fund should be governed by representatives of approved societies. When von have all the seamen in under the scheme it is reasonable that the constitution of the governing body should be reconsidered, and that it should not necessarily continue to be linked up with the national health insurance bodies. The old constitution was framed on the basis of the national insurance system and the representation is divided into three parts the seamen, the employers and the representatives of the Seamen's National Insurance Society. That represents both employers and employed, and it really came to representation on the basis of fifty-fifty. In order to meet the position fairly the suggestion was made in Committee that in the management of the fund the representation should be equal. That gives an indication that this is a very considerable advance so far as it concerns the men who certainly deserve

    2001
    well of us. We have devised a scheme which I think will overcome many difficulties. It will save a very large number of men from going out of benefit, perhaps through losing their cards, as they have done in the past, and it will give adequate representation to both sides.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Who will appoint the chairman of the committee of management?
    Sir K. WOOD: I will inquire and let the hon. Member know. Speaking broadly, this new scheme, which has been the subject of constant consultation between all the people interested, the unions and the employers, and which has given us a great deal of anxiety, is an improvement. At any rate, we can try it. I think it may be a means of benefiting considerably a large number of these men. In these circumstances, I hope that the hon. Members who have moved the Amendment, and the House will be satisfied with the explanation I have given.
    Mr. MARCH: May I ask a question in regard to the Seamen's Fund? At what age will a seaman who has left the sea be entitled to a pension?
    Sir K. WOOD: At the age of 65.
    Mr. MARCH: How many years may he have left the sea before reaching that age to be entitled to a pension?
    Sir K. WOOD: I will inquire.
    Mr. BROAD: We are all grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for giving us, for the first time, a very clear and lucid account of the proposals under this Clause, but I do not think it meets all our objections. I refer particularly to seagoing engineers. The position of the seagoing engineer is very ambiguous. He may or may not be an insured person. If he is receiving less than £250 a year he is an insurable person, but if he is receiving over £250 a year and is not engaged by way of manual labour, he is not an insurable person. There is a great deal of doubt and difficulty in the minds of employers as to whether a man is receiving £250 a year or whether he is engaged by way of manual labour. As that difficulty solved one way would be to the advantage of the employer, he usually decides that the man is not an insurable person. The question as to the amount
    2002
    of the money which the man receives is not alone the amount of cash that he receives; there is also included the value of food and accommodation which he may receive, but that is not a definite and fixed amount in every case. It varies according to the character of the ship and whether the ship carries cargo only or both cargo and passengers. There is also the question whether the man is engaged by way of manual labour. The seagoing engineer, which term includes electricians, plumbers and other skilled craftsmen, may be engaged to a considerable extent in manual labour, but unless they are engaged mainly in manual labour, and receive over £250 a year, they are not insurable persons. Such cases have been taken to the Law Courts for decision and we have had decisions to that effect.
    At the present time, a seagoing engineer on coming home will know when he receives his card or not, whether he has been regarded as an insured person, and if not he can tell his society and they can take the matter up; but if his name is to be entered on a schedule and sent in through various Departments and finally allocated to a society, it makes a very difficult position. The man will not really know his position and the society will not know. He may have been discharged at a foreign port and if he does not receive a card he will not know his position and his society will not know. We have been able to keep in touch with our men by this card method, because at each of the ports we have branches of our union and a seagoing engineer or other craftsman on arriving at that port would go to his branch secretary and pay his contribution. He would then be asked for his insurance card and if he said, "They have not given me one," the society would take the matter up. But it would be almost impossible to take the matter up at a remote time when schedules have been sorted and aggregated in a Department and have to be finally sorted out from books.
    It will mean that many of these men who have previously been insured persons, when working in the shops or on coast-going vessels, will lose the benefit of all they have paid in and at the end of their career will find, owing to the way in which they have been treated by their employers, that they are not insured persons. When the Minister is

    2003
    drawing up the Regulations I hope those grades which are not so free and easy and happy-go-lucky as the ordinary Jack Tar, will be excluded from the operation of this proposal, and that they will continue under the old system. The big society composed of the employers and the National Seamen's Union want to monopolise the whole of this insurance. They want to make every man to go through the scheme, and we may find that they will be more readily recognised as insured persons if they go through the seamen's society than if they go through the Engineers' Amalgamated Union. That is what I fear, and I do not think it is right. If he has to put in his card his employer will be able to know whether the union to which he belongs is a trade union or not. These seagoing engineers number 3,000 members in my own particular society. We have gone into it very carefully and we see great difficulties in it. Many of the approved societies see difficulties, and the Ministry of Labour, which also handles insurance business, has refused to have anything to do with the matter.
    As no date is mentioned when this new scheme is to come into operation, I hope the Minister will hold his hand for some time and go into the whole matter. It may appear to be a better control system, but I am afraid it is a half-baked scheme at present. More conferences are required before it is applied. While I agree that the scheme is in the interests of the bulk of the men and should like to see it go through, I hope seagoing engineers will be excluded. There is another point I should like to mention. In regard to pensions, is it to be limited to those grades who are insurable? If that is the case there is a risk that many of the lower grades of engineers will be insured persons for a good part of their time and then for the latter half of their life on the sea will be uninsurable. I should like to know whether they come within the scheme or not.
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member knows that I have given great attention to the case of the engineers, and we have been in constant touch with the very efficient secretary of their organisation. I agree with him that the case of the engineers is much more difficult than the
    2004
    case of other persons affected by the scheme, but I can assure him that we will exercise every possible care and caution and do what we can to meet the administrative difficulties which he has put forward so well. We will endeavour to see that many of his objections are met if it is at all possible to do so. I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied with that answer.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In view of the explanation which has been given by the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Amendment of Section 75 of principal Act as to disposal of surpluses.)
    Dr. DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 17, line 14, to leave out the words "or similar" and to insert instead thereof the words "dispensaries or other."
    The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney), in whose name the Amendment stands, has been unfortunately called away and has asked me to move it. The Clause at the moment reads:
    "For the purpose of making occasional subscriptions or donation of an eleemosynary character to hospitals or similar charitable institutions."
    A doubt has been expressed as to whether dispensaries come under the term "hospitals or similar charitable institutions," and that is the reason why we are proposing to insert these words.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir K. WOOD: I have pleasure in accepting the Amendment. It will bring the Bill into conformity with a similar alteration previously made.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 19.—(Amendment of Schedule I to principal Act as to employments within the meaning of that Act.)
    Mr. KELLY: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary smiles, and I suppose he imagines that we are not serious in moving this Amendment. I can assure him that a very large number of people in the

    2005
    country feel very keenly the position they are in; a position which has not been dealt with by this Bill. There are a number of people who, it is stated, have no employer, but who have a great number of employers, and because the Government find it difficult to locate the particular employer who should be called upon to pay the contributions they keep these people out of insurance. I am referring to those who are engaged in the distributive trades in a small way, and whose income from this calling, industry or trade is much lower than the limit of £250. I ask whether it is possible to make sonic provision which will enable these people to come within the Insurance Act.
    The men and women who have had to leave industry, where they had to clock in and out or register in the books of the industry, and who have taken on small jobs in order to gain a livelihood, suffer a great hardship. The hardship is felt all the more keenly when these people have made endeavours to come under the pensions scheme. That hardship will become more acute as the years pass by. I would call attention particularly to the men who are engaged in such work as house repairing, who are doing what is called jobbing work and making a very few shillings per week in many cases; men who are engaged in tailoring repairs, and those occupied in many small businesses that one could enumerate. Why is it that these people are not brought under the Bill? The Clause refers to those who perform labour and have an employer. I know there will be some difficulty in finding out any one employer of people belonging to the classes I have enumerated, but surely they should not be excluded from the benefits of the Act. I hope that something may be done in order to bring them within the four corners of the Act.
    Mr. WHITELEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    We are anxious to get as many people as possible brought within the scope of this Clause. We appreciate the fact that the Clause is really an extension of insurance, in that it is including a lot of people who were excluded before. But there are many people to-day, in addition to those to whom reference has been made, who ought to be considered by
    2006
    the Minister with a view to their being brought within the ambit of the Clause. There are the small shopkeepers and other business people who ought to be included. I know of many people who some years ago became unemployed and who, when they realised that it was impossible for them to secure work in their old callings, used, the money they had in order to start businesses. Owing to the long period of unemployment, in this country they have had considerable difficulty in making ends meet. They are really their own employers and are unfortunately in the position that they are cut off from the contributory pensions scheme, old age pensions, and that kind of thing. I ask that the Minister should take the cases of these people into consideration, with a view to including them in some of the special Orders that he issues, so that they may have the advantage of the benefits which this Measure seeks to give to people who were previously excluded. There are quite a lot of people on the borderline who also ought to have some consideration. I am hoping that as a result of this discussion we will get some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he and the Minister of Health will take this question into consideration in any future Regulations that they may make.
    Sir K. WOOD: I am sure that the House generally will have considerable sympathy with the object of the Mover and the Seconder of this Amendment, in calling attention to the needs of the people whom they have mentioned. Certainly this Clause is a very considerable step forward in insurance. In accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission, certain classes of manual workers whose position is analogous to that of wage earners but who could not be brought within the ordinary tests of a legal contract of service, have now been brought in for the first time. Some of the classes which will be covered for national health insurance and other purposes for the first time include people like hay cutters working at piece rates, people working for timber merchants and forage merchants; stonebreakers and quarrymen; sub-contractors in building and various other trades; certain agricultural workers, such as hedgers, ditchers, drainers and thatchers; porters in wholesale fish, meat and vegetable

    2007
    markets; slaughtermen and men of that kind. To that extent I think the Clause must receive the commendation of the House. Everyone knows the difficulty of endeavouring to bring in an extensive class of people. One is immediately confronted with the whole structure of national insurance, and the fact that the scheme is based on certain defined principles, such as a contract of service. It has required a good deal of ingenuity to bring in these additional classes of men, especially the share fishermen whose case we have already been considering this afternoon.
    We certainly have made a considerable advance. Now the hon. Members quite rightly bring forward the cases of a number of people who, in my judgment, are well worth the consideration of this House but get very little attention from it. They are very largely what we might call middle class people, who have to bear considerable burdens and certainly do not get the advantages that are open to many other people. I wish very much that it was possible to bring within the scheme the small shopkeeper and people of that type, so that they could gain not only the benefits of the National Insurance scheme but, what is more important to them, the very considerable benefits of the Contributory Pensions scheme. I wish that I could hold out to the House the hope that we had such a plan. All I can say is that I know my right hon. Friend and myself would be very desirous, if we could find a practical plan which would not unduly burden the national Exchequer, to make these considerable benefits available to that particular class of people. We shall certainly keep this matter constantly before us, and if our advisers, or any hon. Gentlemen opposite, with the assistance of the administrators of their large societies, can put any practical plan before us, subject to the limitations I have expressed, I need hardly say that it will have our most careful and sympathetic attention. At any rate to-night we are taking in this Clause a very considerable step forward, and everyone will be glad to know that the large classes of people I have enumerated, and particularly the share fishermen, will be brought under the scheme for the first time. I hope that my hon. Friends opposite will be satisfied with these observations.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Speaking on behalf of one of the classes now to be included in the National Health Insurance scheme I would like to say a few words. When the Contributory Pensions Act was before the House of Commons, I pressed very strongly on the Minister the claims of men employed in slaughterhouses and I am glad that it has now been found possible to make this concession to them. I appreciate also what the right hon. Gentleman has said in regard to the small shopkeeping class and I suggest that he should not, even yet, despair of including them in this Measure. I would like him between this stage and the consideration of the Bill in another place, to consider whether it would not be possible to make some concession to these people. Members of all parties are interested in this matter, and it is surely not beyond the imgenuity of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to devise some method of providing for them under this Measure. I appreciate the fact that some of my own constituents are now getting what they have long fought for and I have pleasure in congratulating the Minister, for once, on what is, I think, a real improvement.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned several classes of workers who were to be included under this Clause. I wish to raise the question of a class of workers who seem to be left out of consideration, and I do not know if, on the spur of the moment, the right hon. Gentleman can tell me anything about their position in connection with this Clause. They are men in Glasgow who sell coal. They are workmen working for an employer, but they are placed in charge of lorries and go about selling the coal on commission and not getting any other wages. So far, they have been cut out of the benefits of the Contributory Pensions Act, on the ground that they are employed on commission. Such a man, however, has a definite employer and works for the same employer year in and year out, and performs manual work of an extremely hard kind. Will these men now be included under the provisions of Clause 19?
    Sir K. WOOD: I will certainly make inquiries as to the point raised by the hon. Member, but I think the best procedure would be if he would send me a specific case of one of these men and

    2009
    treat it as a test matter under this Measure directly the Act comes into force. The matter could then be settled as regards the whole class of men concerned.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: My difficulty is that I cannot send a case. I have to deal with the Scottish Office. Already under the old Act, there was a test case in Edinburgh. I make no complaints about the procedure, but we were ruled out on the ground that although the man was employed by one employer, he received commission. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to find out if these men are now included, because they are manual workers employed by definite employers.
    Sir K. WOOD: I will consult with the Department and see if it is possible to make some communication to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. KELLY: In view of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that it is his intention to keep the case of the particular classes of men and women to whom we have referred in sight, and to endeavour to do something far them, I beg to leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 20, line 28, after the word "may," to insert the words
    "(a) modify in the case of persons so employed, or any class of such persons specified in the order, the provisions of this Act restricting the right of deducting or otherwise recovering the employer's contribution;
    (b)."
    This is one of the Amendments to deal with the case of the share fishermen to which reference has been made.
    Mr. PILCHER: In view of the fact that this Amendment is intended largely to meet the case of the Cornish inshore fishermen, I think it will be appropriate if I express appreciation of the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and of both the Departments interested to meet an exceptionally difficult case. When the announcement was made last summer that there would be an effort to bring part-share fishermen into the Health Insurance scheme, no one rejoiced more heartily than I did. I have one fairly
    2010
    good reason, of a party kind, for rejoicing, because my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), who has a Cornish interest, and who was in the county at that time, rather criticised the fact that the fishermen had been so long left out of the Act—forgetting, apparently, that the original Act was passed by a Government of which he was a member. I have, however, much more solid reasons than that for being grateful to find that an effort is being made to bring in the fishermen.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: These observations seem to apply to the Clause rather than to the Amendment.
    Mr. PILCHER: I come at once to the Amendment. One's satisfaction at the attempt to include the part-share fishermen was a little mitigated by the Bill in its original state, and, particularly, this Clause in its original state. As originally drafted, the Bill made the owner of a small part-share fishing boat the employer for the purposes of the Act. Thereby, he was excluded from all its benefits, and, moreover, he was made the employer within the meaning of the original Act, which made it impossible, after he had paid the employer's share, for him to recover that share from the members of his crew. Both these points have now been met, I think, quite adequately. The first point was met by an Amendment which was made upstairs in Committee. The second point is met here by this provision that a Special Order may be made in regard to the recovery of contributions. I feel sure that will go a long way to meet the case of the part-share fishermen in Cornwall, but even now there may be some difficulties ahead.
    I know that my right hon. Friend and both the Departments concerned realise those difficulties. The best effect we can hope for from this Amendment is to make it possible for fishermen who come under this Clause to pay both the shares of the employer and the shares of the employé. Whether the persons referred to in the Clause be a crew, or a fishermen's society, or a co-operative society, it is quite clear that the employers' contributions must be collected from some source. That source cannot be other than the crew of the boat, but if the solution proves to be unsatisfactory to the

    2011
    fishermen themselves, the right hon. Gentleman has got the power to exclude them after experiment duly made. From all that I have heard upstairs in Committee and this evening, I know that it is the positive intention of both the Departments concerned to do their utmost to bring in these men in the most equitable and helpful sense possible; and I desire to thank my right hon. Friend and to express my appreciation of the work done by the permanent staffs of the two Departments. I think we owe almost as much to them as to my right hon. Friend himself.
    Mr. TEMPLETON: As one who was at the beginning very largely responsible for drawing the attention of the Ministry of Health to the position of the share fishermen in this matter, I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having approached a very difficult situation and brought forward a Measure that, I believe, will be of incalculable benefit to men who are among the most deserving of the people of this country, and especially for having, in this present Amendment, taken away many of the misgivings that most of us had who have had any connection with or knowledge of the share fishermen of this country. I desire to express my thanks in the hope that this solution will work smoothly; and if it does not, we have the assurance that we shall have such Amendments made as will make it a success.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 22.—(Transitional regulations.)
    Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 21, line 13, to leave out the words "at the commencement of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "or entitled to medical benefit on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight."
    This is an alteration consequent on the postponement of the commencement of the Act to the 1st January, 1929.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 24.—(Short title, construction, and commencement.)
    Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 22, line 11, to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert instead thereof the words:
    2012
    "(3) Section two, Sub-section (2), of Section eleven and Section twelve of this Act shall come into operation on the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, but save as aforesaid this Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine."
    As many hon. Members will appreciate, owing to the extensive consideration that has been given to this Bill, and the time occupied, and the necessity, in order to fulfil our pledges, to consult the various interests affected in connection with our Regulations, we have been advised to fix the commencement of this Act on the 1st January, 1929. That will give us adequate time in which to prepare a good many difficult Regulations that have still to be drawn up and to consult the various interests.
    Amendment agreed to.

    SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Minor and Consequential Amendments of the principal Act.)
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 29, line 23, to leave out the words "at least one-half," and to insert instead thereof the words "two-thirds."
    9.0 p.m.
    The right hon. Gentleman has had rather an easy time up to now, but we cannot promise him quite as easy a passage from this moment onwards. This Schedule amends several Sections of the original Act, and goes on to state:
    "The seamen's special fund shall be vested in and administered by a body or bodies constituted in accordance with a scheme to be prepared by the joint committee, after consultation with the Board of Trade, and comprising persons representing shipowners and masters and seamen."
    Now comes the point to which I wish particularly to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. It says:
    "Provided that at least one-half of the governing body shall he representative of all classes of persons entitled to benefits out of the fund."
    We want to alter the "one-half" to "two-thirds." If the Bill passes as it now stands, it will be one-half shipowners and one-half seamen, but we want two-thirds seamen and one-third shipowners. I was not very much opposed to the words as they now appear in the Schedule until I read the Report of the Royal Commission on the subject, and I am convinced that the right hon. Gentle-

    2013
    man and his Department are in this case, at any rate, violating an understanding—it may be a silent understanding—which was arrived at in connection with the Royal Commission. Up to now what is called the Lascar Fund, which is made up of contributions of shipowners in respect of lascars, who can never receive any benefits—[HON. MEMBERS: "Lascars and others!"] Yes, but in the main they are lascars, and it is called the Lascar Fund in consequence.
    In this fund there is at the moment nearly £1,000,000, and it is managed by six persons representing seamen and three representing shipowners. Out of the six persons representing seamen, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends will have it that three, because they represent seamen's approved societies, are thereby representing jointly the insured and the employers. Surely that is a new doctrine. Let me take, for the sake of my argument, the case of the average approved society. I happen to be the secretary of an approved society with 36,000 members. If I attend a conference on behalf of my approved society anywhere, does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that, in my capacity as a delegate from my society, I am representing the employers, my members, and the State? I say, "No," definitely. Whenever I am sent as a delegate on behalf of my Society, it is always understood that I represent the membership of my society and their interests, and nobody else. I have attended conferences, at the Ministry of Health, of approved societies' associations, and this is the first time that I have ever heard it stated that a delegate from an approved society, when he is speaking on behalf of his society, is speaking on behalf of the three parties to the contributions, namely, the insured persons, the State, and the employers. I say, therefore, that the claim of the right hon. Gentleman is not a good one, and I want to lay it down very definitely that the board of management of the Seamen's Special Fund shall have three representing the shipowners and then, on the other side, six representing directly the seamen, and nobody else.
    I agree that there is a change in the method of collecting contributions. I agree, too, that under the new scheme the position of the workmen in this case is altered considerably. He is no longer
    2014
    an insured person in the way that has already been indicated, but the employer is compelled by law to pay contributions in respect even of exempt persons employed by him, and it is no argument to say that, because he is compelled to pay contributions by law, he must have half the representation on the board of management of this fund. I could almost understand the State coming in and claiming some representation, but I submit—and this is the strongest point I want to make—that the people mainly concerned are the beneficiaries of the pensions payable out of the fund, and the persons who get benefit out of the fund are much more concerned than the people who pay contributions into the fund. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman that there ought to be a 50–50 basis, is equal to saying that no approved society ought to have its affairs administered unless the empoyers come in in respect of the contributions which they pay. There are some approved societies with 5,000 members, all employés of one firm. I have never vet heard is stated, or suggested from any quarter, that, because the employer pays the contributions under the State Insurance Scheme in respect of the 5,000, they must sit on the committee of management of the approved society. No employer has any right in any approved society to have any say in the benefits of that society.
    Sir K. WOOD: In the approved society the hon. Gentleman has in mind, quite rightly the employers are not represented, but, if he will look at Section 63 of the Act of 1924, he will find there that the Seamen's National Insurance Society is constituted in a different way altogether from the other approved societies, and also that
    "the affairs of the society shall be managed by a committee constituted in accordance with a scheme … comprising representatives of the Board of Trade, of shipowners, and of members of the society, in equal proportions."
    It is because this is a special society in which employers are represented that I have always put forward the contention, which I think is correct, that when these representatives sit on the governing body of the fund, they do in fact represent both employers and employed.
    Mr. DAVIES: It is beyond my comprehension to find the right hon. Gentle-

    2015
    man and the Minister of Health, when it suits their purpose, turning to what they call the Charter of the Insured—the original Act. I wish they had carried out that idea throughout. When it came to the Economy Bill, and taking money from the insured people, the Charter of the Insured counted for nothing. I protest, therefore, that when it suits the right hon. Gentleman, he calls the original Act the Charter of the Insured, but it does not matter when the Government want to destroy part of that Charter. Let me follow this point a little further. The right hon. Gentleman has said several times to-day that the Royal Commission has declared this and that, that the members of the Commission are experts and have received advice and evidence, that they have sat for years, and that their recommendations must be regarded as sacrosanct; but on this point there is no recommendation at all. If the board of management of this fund was to be changed the suggestion ought to have been put before the Royal Commission, and dealt with by them; but what do we find on page 231 of their Report? Sir Walter Kinnear made the suggestion that there ought to be a change in the method of dealing with the contributions of these people, but there is nothing in this document, which is regarded by the right hon. Gentleman when it suits his purpose as a Bible, a New Testament and a Book of Common Prayer, to support the present proposal, and we are entitled to protest against the new proposal which was put into the Bill upstairs.
    I move this Amendment in order to do the fair thing by the seamen, because this is the first time that employers have ever asked for representation in the administration of any benefits under this scheme at all. If the reply is forthcoming that this scheme differs from the ordinary approved society, my contention is that the method of taking the contributions is exactly the same, and I do not see why the employers should have a greater right to a part in the administration of this Fund than if they claimed to do so in connection with an approved society. For these reasons, I hope that the House will revert to the status quo. I am not asking for anything new. This
    2016
    Bill does put something new into the scheme, and I have my own suspicions from whence the suggestion comes. The Government are more or less in the hands of the shipowners. They are in the hands of every capitalist group in the country, and anybody who knows anything of the political history of this country knows that much. I move this Amendment in order, as I said, to revert to the status quo. It is the right hon. Gentleman and his friend who brought in the first Amendment to get what is called the fifty-fifty basis. I want to revert to the two-thirds on behalf of the work-people, and one-third on behalf of the employers, and thereby get what I think is the right proportion, because, after all, it is not the employers who pay contributions who have the most say in this connection, but the hundreds of thousands of old people who become the beneficiaries under the scheme.
    Mr. KELLY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The right hon. Gentleman will by this time have seen that there is no justification for the alteration that is being made, by the proposal in this Bill. I hope that he will realise that it is the people who are the beneficiaries under the Act who ought to form the major portion of this particular Committee.
    Dr. DAVIES: Why not say all?
    Mr. KELLY: I would be prepared to say that, and if the hon. Member will move an Amendment to that effect I am ready to follow him into the Lobby in support of it. There have been endeavours with regard to other funds concerned with Unemployment Insurance and Health Insurance for employers to secure a representation, but I am convinced they are not entitled to it. I trust that, even in spite of what was said upstairs in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that two-thirds of the representations should be given to the insured people.
    Sir K. WOOD: I have just refreshed my memory as to what took place in Committee. I thought we came to an agreement on this matter. Certainly no Division was challenged, and, so far as I am able to observe, everyone seems perfectly satisfied, except, of course, the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies), and I cannot recollect him

    2017
    ever being satisfied with the conclusions we reach. I thought the proposal in the Bill was reasonable. Half are to represent the employers and half the seamen. It is only fair to point out that the whole of this fund is derived from the contributions of the shipowners. Surely that has a little bearing upon this not very important problem, and I think it ought to be stated. As the employers are finding the whole income of the fund, I could have understood a contention being put forward that they ought to have more than half representation, but, so far as I know, that has not been put forward. Let us look at the old position. I know the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is very anxious to talk about Section 64 (2) and Section 63 of the old Act, and this is the old position. Under the old management of the fund there were nine members, three being appointed by the shipowners, three by the Seamen's Union, and three by the committee of the Seamen's National Insurance Society.
    Where the hon. Member for Westhoughton, who does not often make a, mistake, went wrong in his speech was in saying there was no approved society which had employers on the committee of management, and that, therefore, you could not say that these three individuals representing the Seamen's National Insurance Society represented the employers and the men as well. As a matter of fact, he had forgotten, quite naturally, because it is difficult to remember everything in this scheme, that this Seamen's National Insurance Society was specially constituted and that representation was given to the employers on the Committee of this particular society. Therefore, I do not think it is unreasonable to say that when these three people went to help to administer this fund, they were equally representing employers and men. This matter is not one which is going to shake the scheme to its foundation, but with the suggestion that half should represent the employers and half the men I thought everyone was perfectly satisfied in Committee, with one or two exceptions. I do not think we need unduly delay our proceedings over this not very vital matter, because, so far as I am aware, the committee of this society is not ranged into opposite camps, and I think they act in the general interests of the society; but when we come to choose the figures
    2018
    I think it is not an unfair thing to give half to one side and half to the other.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I think the right hon. Gentleman was a little too definite in the concluding part of his speech. If the representation is divided between three sections, I believe it is done not on the basis of this schedule but on the basis of Section 64 (2) of the old Act, which I will now read to the House, because when the right hon. Gentleman unintentionally went on to 63 (2) he misled the House. It is perfectly true, as he says, that Section 63 does arrange for a special board to manage the affairs of the society, but an entirely different arrangement was made under the Act of 1924 for the management of the fund, expressly and deliberately made in order that the insured person should have two-thirds and the employers one-third. Section 64 (2) states:
    "The seamen's special fund shall be vested in trustees nominated under, and managed by a governing body constituted in accordance with, a scheme prepared by the joint committee"—
    that is the committee to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—
    "after consultation with the Board of Trade, and comprising three representatives of shipowners and six representatives of insured persons"—
    I repeat, three representatives of shipowners and six representatives of insured persons—
    "and the scheme shall provide for the representatives of insured persons being selected from the members of the society and of any other societies more than three-fourths of whose members are masters or seamen, as nearly as may be in proportion to the membership of those societies respectively."
    I submit to the House that the case for the Amendment is made out on two grounds, first that when the law was framed in 1924 it was obviously the intention of Parliament to give insured persons two-thirds of the representation and the owners only one-third, and, secondly, by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who has admitted that of the nine persons now managing the fund the insured persons have, in fact, two-thirds. It is quite obvious that while the shipowners pay the contributions of these seamen, lascars and others, who are not domiciled in this country, and, therefore, not insured persons under the Act, yet the administration of the fund as apart

    2019
    from the society is a very vital thing to insured persons, because difficult and delicate problems have to be settled as to which disabled persons or old people are to get these benefits, and it is quite obvious that the representatives of insured persons must have more detailed knowledge of the people deserving benefits than do the representatives of the owners, although these may provide the fund. Unless I can get a very much better reason in favour of the Schedule as it now stands, I shall propose to vote in favour of reverting to the provisions of Section 64 (2) of the Act of 1924, which the right hon. Gentleman did not see fit to read in his speech.
    Mr. WHITELEY: I am very glad the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) brought the right hon. Gentleman back to the original position which provides for the government of this special fund. Of course, I am aware that he said there were three from the Seamen's Society, but those three might be actual insured persons or might be some others, so that the alteration which he seeks to bring about under the present Bill means that the possibility of these three being actual representatives of the insured persons or insured persons themselves is eliminated altogether. With regard to his claim for a 50–50 representation, he said ship-
    owners paid the whole of the contributions. That condition applies to other cases. The miners themselves pay their own contributions and 85 per cent. of the owners' contributions, but surely no one would suggest that the government of the affairs of approved societies for miners should be shared by the mine-owners. This is another attempt to alter the basis of the constitution of control under National Health Insurance. On the second Clause discussed to-night we had a Debate dealing with the control by insured persons of their own affairs. It has been very much limited under this scheme by the fact that that Clause was not accepted. Now we have another inroad made into this, and I say that this is really getting beyond the intention of National Health Insurance, because, after all, it is a scheme for insured persons to govern their own affairs, and, if we allow this kind of thing to go from one stage to another, as it is doing by these proposals which we are now discussing, then the democratic control which the Measure originally pint into operation will be taken away from the insured person altogether.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 157; Noes, 115.

    Division No. 151.]

    AYES.

    [9.27 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut. -Colonel

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Cowan Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn, N.)

    Haslam, Henry C

    Alexander, sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Allen. J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

    Henn, Sir Sydney h.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsay, Gainsbro)

    Hilton, Cecil

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Atkinson, C.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Balniel, Lord

    Dixey, A. C.

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Drewe, C.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Edmondson, Major A. J

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Elliott, Major Walter E.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Berry, Sir George

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Fraser. Captain Ian

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lougher, Lewis

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Buchan. John

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Gates, Percy

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R.(Prtsmth, S.)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    McLean, Major A.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Macquisten, F. k.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Makins, Brigadier-General D.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hamilton, sir George

    Margesson, Captain D

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Harland, A.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Couper, J. B.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Meller, R. J.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Salmon, Major I.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Ht. Hon. B. M.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Waddington, R.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Savery, S. S.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)

    Wells, S. R.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Skelton, A. N.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Staney, Major P. Kenyon

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Froms)

    Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Pilcher, G.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Ramsden, E.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Withers, John James

    Remer, J. R.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Tasker, R. Inlgo.

    Captain Wallace and Sir Victor

    Ropner, Major L.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Warrender.

    Rye, F. G.

    Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)

    Hardie, George D.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Alexander, A. v. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Hayday, Arthur

    Scurr, John

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hayes, John Henry

    Sexton, James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Baker, Walter

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Shinwell, E.

    Barnes, A.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Batey, Joseph

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Smillie, Robert

    Broad, F. A.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bromfield, William

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Snell, Harry

    Bromley, J.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Kennedy, T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Buchanan, G.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Cape, Thomas

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sullivan, J.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lowth, T.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, plaistow)

    Compton, Joseph

    Lunn, William

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Connolly, M.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Mackinder, W.

    viant, S. P.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Day, Harry

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Duncan, C.

    March, S.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Dunnico, H.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Edge, Sir William

    Murnin, H.

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C

    England, Colonel A.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Fenby, T. D.

    Palin, John Henry

    Williams. David (Swansea, East)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Paling, W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Gillett, George M.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wright, W.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Potts, John S.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Riley, Ben

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Groves, T.

    Ritson, J.

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Whiteley.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    Mr. KELLY: I beg to move, in page 30, to leave out lines 16 to 26, inclusive.
    These particular words contain what is considered to be a definition of unemployment. It lays down that the Health Minister should leave it to the Ministry of Labour and the Unemployment Insurance Acts to decide the conditions that affect health insurance. Not only that, but it also lays down the counting of arrears as a disqualification for pen-
    2022
    sions. I think it is wrong for the Minister of Health to leave it to the Minister of Labour to decide these points, and the Ministry of Health should have a definition of their own that covers health insurance. They should lay down clearly what they consider unemployment is in the matter of arrears, and we ought not to allow one Act of Parliament to decide what should be done under another Act of Parliament. I can quite see that many of these people who would

    2023
    be deemed to be available for but unable to obtain employment in the legal sense by the Minister of Labour, would still be unemployed in the sense that their arrears ought to be counted as a disqualification for health insurance, and pensions would be affected later. For these reasons I claim that the Minister of Health should have his own definition of arrears, and that is why I have moved the omission of those words.
    Mr. WHITELEY: I beg to second the Amendment. Approved societies in the past have been in a position to give satisfactory reasons to the Government auditor in regard to unemployment, and the reasons supplied have been quite satisfactory. Now this duty is to be taken out of the hands of the approved societies and transferred to the Ministry of Labour. We have had a good deal of experience of what the Ministry of Labour consider to be genuine unemployment, and that Department has taken away much of our freedom and many rights we used to enjoy as approved societies. Five reasons were given by the Minister of Labour as to when a man is not supposed to be genuinely unemployed. You may have a young man applying for unemployment benefit and he may be living with his parents; but because the Ministry of Labour feel that the parents are responsible and not the Unemployment Fund, they say that that young man should not receive unemployment benefit and he goes out of benefit. After he has been out of benefit for a certain time he is removed from the register and he will be considered not to be unemployed for the purpose of being covered by this Act in the shape of arrears and other matters.
    There is the point when the Ministry of Labour decides that a man would no longer be able to secure employment if times were normal. There have been many cases recently where men have been deemed not to be available for employment if employment was normal, and often these are men whom we know could commence work to-morrow if they had the opportunity. If this power is going to be put into the hands of the Ministry of Labour, and if that Department is going to be allowed to decide what is genuine
    2024
    unemployment and what is not, then so far as the National Health Insurance Act is concerned, their position is going to be very much weakened. This is a very dangerous provision in the Bill, and I hope we shall agree that the power shall be left in the hands of the approved societies who should be the bodies to decide these questions because they know the circumstances better than the Ministry of Labour. The officials of the approved societies receive the insurance cards; they know whether these men have been in receipt of compensation, and they know all about the other matters which are dealt with by approved societies. Consequently, the approved societies are in a much better position to decide the question than the Ministry of Labour.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) is founded on a misapprehension of the actual effect of the words which he has proposed to leave out of the Schedule. Both the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment have treated these words as though they made the Ministry of Labour the sole authority as to the interpretation of the words
    "shall be deemed to be available for but unable to obtain employment."
    That is not the effect of the paragraph which says that certain persons are to be deemed to be available for but unable to obtain employment if they can prove that for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920–1927, they were, or would have been if they had been insured under those Acts, deemed to be unemployed. Therefore, we do not wish to restrict the definition but to extend it.
    If this Amendment is carried, it will mean that a number of persons will be excluded from the benefits of Clause 1 and be without the prolongation of insurance and the excusal of arrears which will be given under the Bill if these words are left in. There are cases of persons now eligible for unemployment benefits who would not come strictly under the words
    "available for but unable to obtain employment."

    2025
    A man who does an hour's work at some other trade in the evening would be brought in by these words, but, if they are taken out, he would be left out altogether. To use a common expression, I think hon. Members are "barking up the wrong tree," when they move to leave out these words, under the impression that they restrict the definition, because they do not do that at all, and they really extend it.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May I put the question to the right hon. Gentleman in this form? If these words are left out, wilt it still be competent for an approved society to determine for itself whether an insured person in that society is unemployed, without reference to the employment exchange for a definition of his unemployment?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite certain that it is correct to say that the approved societies can determine, but certainly the approved society could bring evidence if it could not be decided definitely whether the person concerned came under the Ministry of Labour's definition.
    Mr. DAVIES: Let me pursue the matter by another question. Where the approved society has not the evidence of the employment exchange that an insured person is unemployed, can it take other evidence into account?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, yes, certainly.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: When the Contributory Pensions Act was going through the House, a similar question cropped up, as to a man being genuinely seeking work, in connection with the definition of a widow's pension, and, if my memory serves me rightly, the determination of that question was left to the approved societies. I presume that what the right hon. Gentleman means is that, wherever a person is deemed by the Ministry of Labour to be genuinely seeking work, he will automatically be classified as being a correct person to come within the scope of the Act. But does the last explanation of the right hon. Gentleman mean that a person who is refused by the Ministry of Labour is definitely refused as regards this Measure?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, not necessarily.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley) was, if I may say so, slightly mistaken in what he said about young persons, because now, under the new Act, they are not disqualified if they live with their parents. That has been abolished. But quite a large number of people, under the new Act, will not qualify for the 30 stamps within two years, and they are automatically refused benefit if they have not 30 stamps within the past two years. It is, therefore, no use their applying for benefit, because they are automatically ruled out. Those people will not sign at the exchange, and the Ministry of Labour has no record either for or against them; it knows nothing about them, and so far as the Ministry is concerned, they have ceased to come under official notice. It is not fair, in my opinion, that the Ministry of Labour should be the judges as to whether people are genuinely seeking work or not. There is also the case of the person who, it may be, is working in a business for part of the year, and is working with a firm during another part of the year. He never really comes within the scope of the Unemployment insurance Act in the same way in which a regularly employed person does. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is quite clear that the judgment of the Ministry of Labour will only apply automatically in regard to allowing persons to be brought in, and will not apply to exclude anyone. I think that that makes a difference from our point of view.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is absolutely correct. Where the Ministry of Labour does not give it, it will be for the society itself to decide, and, of course, there will be a great number of persons who, as the hon. Member says, do not come within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Act, such as agricultural labourers and domestic workers.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will those persons who partly come in be covered?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the trouble in regard to this matter due to the fact that the Ministry have not been very careful in drafting this

    2027
    Bill? When a provision of this kind is misunderstood by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), who is dealing weekly with these cases as a trade union official, and when he is led into a misunderstanding or difference of opinion with the Minister of Health, what chance has the ordinary working man? I must say that, reading the words very carefully, I do not think the English is very clear, and I think that the Minister of Health should be very careful to send out instructions to his representative explaining exactly what this provision in the Schedule really means.
    Mr. KELLY: In view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the approved societies will have the opportunity of coming to a decision in these cases, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    I think we may congratulate ourselves that this Measure has had, on the whole, a very favourable reception, and that it has been recognised that the various provisions which it contains will result in considerable improvement in the administration of the National Health Insurance scheme. I do not forget that some hon. Members opposite have indicated at various stages that they would have preferred a Bill of a different character—a Bill which would have more widely extended the scope of the National Health Insurance scheme; but from the first we have made it plain that what we were endeavouring to do in the Bill was not to extend the scope of the National Health Insurance scheme, but, within its present financial limits, to improve the machinery, and, in particular, to give some relief in cases where relief was required.
    I think it will be recognised that, under the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill, the scheme offers very generous and liberal treatment to insured persons who, by reason of genuine unemployment—that is to say, by reason of the fact that they have been unable to obtain employment, though they were anxious to obtain it—have fallen into arrears with their contributions. As I explained to the House
    2028
    in moving the Second Reading, under the new provisions insured persons who have ceased to make contributions and have become unemployed will get, on the average, one year and nine months of free insurance with full benefits, and, if they can prove, at the end of that time, that they were genuinely unable to find employment during that period, they get another year of insurance, if not with full benefits, at any rate with a stipulation that their benefits shall not be reduced by more than one-half of the standard rate. They, therefore, get, on the average, between 2½ and three years after they have ceased to pay their contributions, if the reason for that cessation is the fact that they were unable to obtain work.
    At the same time we have the provision which deals with the state of things under which insured persons who had fallen into arrears were penalised by reduction of their benefit. That is done away with by Sub-section (5) of Clause 1, and that, too, will, I think, be recognised as a very great improvement. We have also improved the position of the married woman who has been insured and who ceases to be employed upon marriage. She now will have the full sickness benefit of 12s., instead of a reduced benefit of only 7s. 6d., and there is no reduction in the maternity benefit. During the passage of the Bill through Committee, a provision was inserted, I think in Clause 10, under which insurance committees are able to contribute towards the superannuation of their officers and staffs, and that also is an improvement in the Bill.
    We have had a good deal of discussion as to the administration of additional benefits. I think it has served to clear the minds of all who are interested in the subject upon that provision which dealt with the administration of benefits that are of the nature of medical benefits. It is clearly understood, and agreed now, that there are certain kinds of benefits which are of the nature of medical benefits, but are really not suitable for administration by insurance committees, or even solely by the approved societies.
    We have to contemplate in future, particularly in the administration of clinics, some of which will be set up under this Bill, an arrangement under which there will be a joint representation of the professional men who are concerned in the

    2029
    carrying out of the service and the approved societies, and I hope, under the Regulations which will be made under the Bill, we shall be able to set up a more satisfactory administration of these benefits than we have been able to do in the past. That has given an opportunity to insert in the Bill a definite statement which embodies the assurance I have given more than once as to the right of the insured person to a free choice of his dentist or doctor. Under Clause 16 (3), there is a proviso which specifically states that Regulations are not to restrict the right on the part of any insured person to obtain treatment from any practitioner, clinic, or other institution with whom arrangements in respect of that form of treatment have been made in accordance with the Regulations. That we have always stated we regard as a cardinal feature of any arrangements that were made, and I believe that will receive general acceptance.
    10.0 p.m.
    The only other point I will mention is the question of specialist treatment. My right hon. Friend to-day has expressed the regret which he and I feel that it has not been possible to include an arrangement by which a specialist service could be provided for insured persons. I hold very strongly that that is the greatest improvement that could be made at this stage to the general scheme of National Health Insurance. I do not think it will be easy to exaggerate the importance of the addition of such a service as that in the interests of insured persons. I certainly hope that in course of time it may be possible to make arrangements under which we can ensure the provision of specialist advice, but the recommendation of the Royal Commission upon this subject was accompanied by a proposal that the specialist service should be obtained by means of a partial pooling of surpluses. That was not a proposal that commended itself to approved societies generally, and there is a considerable body of opinion in the House which will support the approved societies in that view. Therefore I did net feel that it was possible for us to put that forward in the Bill. But we have perhaps made some little advance towards it by adding to the list of additional benefits in the first Schedule No. 16, which deals with payments to approved charitable institu-
    2030
    tions where insured persons may get the benefit of specialist treatment, and as it was represented to us that that perhaps was a little unfair to the private practitioner or private specialist who ought to be allowed to give treatment if approved societies desired to offer an additional benefit which would enable treatment of that kind to be given, we have made an addition to paragraph 8 by which a service of that kind which is not within the scope of medical benefit may be made possible.
    The treatment of the Bill in Committee and on Report has been characterised by a genuine desire on the part of Members in all quarters of the House to make constructive and useful suggestions for the improvement of it. I should like to make my acknowledgments and offer my thanks to Members who have really been of assistance to the Government in the interest of insured persons in effecting a number of genuine and definite improvements to the Bill. I hope now, after some comment which no doubt we shall have from the hon. Gentleman opposite, the House will see its way to giving unanimous approval to the Third Reading.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: We do not propose to divide on the Third Reading, not that we are satisfied with everything the Bill contains—we never are, and it will be a bad day for the country when we are satisfied with all this Government is doing. The right hon. Gentleman has said quite rightly that the Bill has received very friendly criticism from all quarters of the House. The only time I have seen any anger at all on the part of hon. Members opposite was when I mentioned the Economy Act. Somehow of other they seemed to regard that as a red rag to a bull. Otherwise the proceedings have been more or less pleasant. The Amendment in relation to bankrupt employers will help the approved societies considerably, and the same applies to the abolition of Section 26 of the old Act. On that point I should like to make a suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman will be setting up clinics. I did not quite catch his words about freedom of choice of dentists and doctors. The insured person already has freedom of choice in respect of his medical practitioner.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should have said freedom of choice as to his dentist as he already has as to his doctor.
    Mr. DAVIES: What I meant was that in abolishing Section 26—the right hon. Gentleman knows my views on the abolition of Section 26—I am very anxious particularly in respect of South Wales that if any arrangement is set up we shall experiment in that part, because there are no additional benefits possible at all with some of the societies in South Wales. I would appeal to him to try to meet the case they have put to me, and probably to him as well. Under Section 26 they have a dental and an optical benefit of a kind. Now that we have cleared all that up and are going to do the thing on right lines, I would plead that if we are going to experiment in clinics, we might experiment where the need is greatest and where there is no chance of any additional benefits in the usual way. I am not quite clear yet as to what is going to happen in connection with opticians. Probably we shall be able to get that cleared up later on. I welcome the Bill from the point of view of the machinery of the approved societies. Every official of an approved society will be glad to see it becoming law. Its deficiencies, of course, are many. I had expected something more from the Government in amending the present law. I wanted to see something done in connection with maternity mortality and in connection with rheumatism and some of these new diseases that are cropping up. But anyway we are anxious to get the Bill through. It is just an instalment of what we ought to get. We do not propose to divide on the Third Reading.
    Dr. DAVIES: On Third Reading of the Bill I would like to congratulate the Ministry upon the success which has attended their efforts upon a Bill which has caused a very great deal of satisfaction throughout the country. I wish to mention, however, that there is, perhaps, one section of the community who have viewed the Bill with certain suspicions, and who are still not quite happy as to what may in future years be the result. I refer, of course, to the medical profession. Before the National Health Insurance started there was a certain amount of friction and discussion between the approved societies and the medical
    2032
    men, and it was found necessary to include in the first Bill certain statutory provisions concerning medical benefit. That statutory right has been retained by the medical profession up to the present Bill. The Minister of Health has now withdrawn that statutory right, and given the profession the promise of Departmental Regulations instead. The medical profession, rightly or wrongly, feel that a Statutory provision is of very much more value to them than any Departmental Regulation. I tried in Committee upstairs to get that view accepted, but was unsuccessful. I would like to point out that the medical profession view the present Measure with a certain amount of I hardly like to say suspicion, but with slight misgiving, although we have absolute confidence in the present Minister of Health. If I may say so, we recognise that he will hold the scales absolutely fairly between the medical profession and the approved societies, but the time may come, indeed it will come, when the right hon. Gentleman will not be the Minister of Health, and at that time the medical profession will be more or less in the hands of a Gentleman who may hold different views.
    May I give the House an example of what I mean? It is possible that at some future date the Minister of Health may be a Member of this House with very strong views on co-operative societies, and may think that the co-operative system of trade is for the benefit of the community at large. He may honestly and sincerely think that the proper way would be for the co-operative societies to start a clinic either for eyes, ears, nose or throat, and then appoint their own doctor. He might be perfectly honest and well-meaning in his intentions, and under this Act he will be empowered to make regulations to enable that to be done. If such an unfortunate course were ever to happen, I am perfectly certain it would arouse again all that antagonism between the Approved Societies and the medical men which was so prevalent in 1911. That is a thing which we as members of the medical profession are particularly anxious to avoid. We are anxious that this National Health Insurance scheme should be a success, and that the insured persons should receive its full benefits. We recognise that that can only be done by hearty co-operation between the Approved Societies, the pro-

    2033
    fession and the State all working equally together for the good of the insured population. I am naturally particularly anxious that nothing should be said or done which would cause the slightest rift to occur between these three parties, and that we can hope that in the future this co-operation will be more pronounced than it has been in the past. We have to recognise that there have been difficulties, and we only hope that the Minister by his action has not increased those difficulties, but that he may be right in expecting that the present scheme will be a success and that our suspicions have not been justified.
    Dr. SHIELS: I quite agree with what has been said as to the merits of this Bill as far as it goes, but I think we have a very reasonable complaint that it does not go nearly far enough. As an expression of the recommendations or an application of the recommendations of the Royal Commission it is extremely inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, in speaking about specialist services did not give a very clear idea of why these were not dealt with in this Bill. It is quite well known, the great importance that the Royal Commission placed on specialist services, and the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he himself places the same value on these. I do not propose to take up time in emphasising that, but the fact is, that the Royal Commission did suggest a method by which specialist services could be carried out. While it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that approved societies did not look enthusiastically upon that proposal, still if it were a right proposal, why did not the Minister of Health seek to carry it out? I would like to point out that Sir Walter Kinnear, who has control of the Health Insurance Section in the Ministry of Health and is a very great authority, as we all know, emphasised two years ago in regard to this matter that there is an urgent demand and a proved necessity for this specialist and consultant service. He then proceeded to deal with the financial matter and urged the importance and necessity of pooling as the Royal Commission suggested. While, no doubt, there are great difficulties, I think the Minister has been guilty of a lack of courage in not tackling this question. If it is desir-
    2034
    able and equally essential and certainly urgent that this specialist service should be provided, if there is no other obvious way of doing it, why is it not done in the way suggested by the Royal Commission and approved by others who have considered the subject? I think that as long as these services are not provided the National Health Insurance Scheme must be considered to be giving to the great mass of the population an incomplete and inadequate medical service.
    The second point I would like to remark upon is that of maternal mortality, especially in the provision of midwives. As members of the Committee upstairs we tried by various Amendments to assure in the case of insured persons that their wives should have, in confinement, adequate midwifery service. At present money payment is very often used, and quite naturally often used, for some other purpose, and confinements take place without any medical or midwifery attendance. The Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary and the whole Department of the Ministry of Health are extremely sympathetic on this subject, and they have in hand various schemes dealing with that matter. It was largely on that account that we did not on the Report stage press the point further, because we understand that some effort is being made by the Standing Joint Committee or one of its sub-committees to arrive at some method of achieving progress in this connection. While the problem of maternity mortality is very complicated and difficult, everyone is agreed that one thing to be done is to provide adequate midwifery attendance at the time of confinement. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is going to speak again to-night, but if he does the House will be glad to know whether any progress has been made in devising some method of seeing that the maternity benefit does take some form of midwifery attendance.
    With regard to dental benefit, it has always been the practice up to now that dental benefit, like other additional benefits, was not provided until five years' membership had elapsed. The result is that we have had a very extraordinary position. We have had the school dental service, certainly a very inadequate school dental service, where the child could get dental treatment up to the age

    2035
    of 14 and then from 14 to 36 and up to 21 years there were seven years before there was an effective method of dental service. Dental service stands out specially as one of the services which should be given early and which young people require, because it saves a great deal of treatment afterwards. The unfortunate thing is that the present dental service for insured persons consists almost entirely of taking out teeth and supplying dentures instead of the service being, as it ought to be, that of stopping and making minor adjustments which would prevent these more serious things being required afterwards. It would not only be an economy ultimately—there are not many things that we can regard as an economy—but apart from the question of economy in dental service it would be an economy from the point of view of the general health.
    I have made representations on that matter to the Minister, and I am glad to say that they are being favourably considered. I should be very glad to know if any decision has been arrived at. I know that it is a matter which does not come under statutory provisions but under Regulations for the administration of additional benefits. Can the Minister tell us whether anything has been decided which would make it possible for young people in regard to this one benefit to obtain attention for their teeth at or immediately after they become insured persons? That would be received, I am sure, with very great approval by all those who understand the subject, and I am sure by the officials of the approved societies. If something can be done on these lines we shall have very much greater satisfaction in this Bill, because I do feel that there is a tendency to concentrate too much under this scheme on the financial side and on the side of money benefits rather than on the providing of an efficient and comprehensive medical scheme for the insured person.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I do not intend to detain the House for more than a moment, but I do not think this Bill with its large extension of the scheme of 1911, should pass without a word from these benches. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have seen the scheme in working from 1911 right up to the present time, and have suggested all kinds of
    2036
    additions to it. I do not propose to make any contribution of that kind to the Debate, but I sincerely wish to congratulate the Minister on the step forward he has taken and to congratulate him without any reservation whatever. I hope the very difficult and delicate step forward which has been taken with regard to the fishermen will work out well in practice. When I was listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) I could not help thinking of the paper which I only destroyed this Easter which I read before medical men and friendly societies at Torquay in 1911 on the Bill of 1911. Looking through that paper before destroying it I found that the first sentence read something like this: "This is a doctor's endowment Bill." It may not have proved to be quite that, but at any rate the fears and misgivings of the medical profession in 1911 were undoubtedly greatly exaggerated, and I hope the present fears are equally as exaggerated. I wish the Bill well.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I do not want to make many remarks after the full Debate we have had, but I should like to refer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). The medical Members of this House always look at insurance Bills not from the point of view of the pockets of the medical profession but from the point of view of the health of the community, with which we are naturally specially interested. If the hon. Member for Leith had not destroyed the paper which he read in 1911 but had produced it in the House to-day we should probably find some glowing passages as to how that Bill was going to prevent disease, reduce sickness, and how there was a wonderful Clause in the Act of 1911 by which the death rate in those districts where it was high was going to be "straffed"—in the language of the War. I am sorry the hon. Member for Leith shakes his head. It shows that he was rather a rebel in 1911. On that point the Bill has not been as successful as we had hoped. I entirely agree with what has been said by some hon. Members to-night.
    We have to remember that the insurance scheme is watertight, so far as finance is concerned. I myself am not immune from the general error of constantly trying to put a quart into a pint pot; trying to provide further benefits

    2037
    under national insurance out of the same amount of money. Definite contributions are fixed and, therefore, what we really have to do is to rearrange the distribution of the fund, which is a much more difficult thing than to suggest other useful benefits of one kind or another. From that point of view the question is: are we using these funds aright? Look at the way in which these funds are distributed and the way in which the additional benefits are divided, and you find that the first seven of these new additional benefits are cash benefits. All the way through the cash benefits loom infinitely larger than the benefits in kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Somebody asks, Why not? Because it is a balanced Measure for the improvement of the health of the people, and it is balanced between two things—the need of giving financial relief at the time of distress, and the need of giving technical treatment for the cure, and still more for the prevention of the causes, of that distress. It is that combined purpose which was the basis of the insurance scheme, originally. If it ever leads in other directions, it is failing in its purpose. I fear that in the scheme now there is too much given in free cash distribution and not enough given in the actual treatment.
    I particularly want to show how that applies to maternity. There are few things that appeal to this House and to the public generally so much as the problem of maternity. We are glad to realise that the Minister himself has paid special attention to this subject and has appointed a Committee, the names of whose Members we were pleased to see in to-day's newspapers. But look at what the Bill does. Statutory benefit was originally 30s. for maternity and no professional attendance. That was increased to 40s. in cash maternity benefit and no treatment. It has been increased still more. What is the additional benefit? Again cash treatment only, an increase of cash benefit, and it is commonly understood that the average is 46s. and no treatment. Originally it was suggested that the payment of cash to the mother would secure proper treatment, but I ask my hon. Friends who from different points of view know how this Act works, is it true that these people who receive that money do get the best treatment that can be provided and such as was
    2038
    intended? We know that it is not the case.
    Upstairs in Standing Committee we proposed a rearrangement. We proposed that anyhow, if additional benefit were to be given to maternity in the form of cash, it should also be given in the form of professional attendance by the midwife or doctor, whichever was chosen. It was suggested that that should be an addition. What was the opposition? The Government opposed that proposal, Why? Because it was only an additional benefit and would very seldom be used. And meanwhile they were promising attention to the subject. It was pointed out that it would be infinitely more important to get a general benefit, general treatment, maternity service as a statutory benefit, than to give a few extra additional benefits that a few approved societies would use in the form of professional treatment. I hope, therefore, that if we are to have a reply on this Debate we shall get a definite statement on that point as to the rearrangement of the cash benefits under this Bill. It is on that point that those of us who look after the health of the community are concerned. We hope that we may get more and more a professional and proper use made of the limited funds, although great funds, of the insurance scheme, and it is in that hope that we welcome this Bill as a steady step forward towards the improved health of the people. In that sense I am glad to add my tribute to the Minister for the very great help that he has given in forwarding this Bill.
    Mr. JOHN: The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken is much concerned about the fact that the majority of the benefits under the Bill are cash benefits, and he suggests that these benefits have been provided to the extent of neglecting maternity and specialist and general medical treatment. The association to which the hon. and gallant Member belongs, was the strongest factor in removing from the original Act a Clause which made possible a much better system of maternity and specialist and general medical treatment than is given under this Bill. In the original Act there was a Clause which enabled the workers of this country to form medical schemes and to co-ordinate different forms

    2039
    of medical treatment. There are schemes in existence—which will be wiped out under this Bill—co-ordinating maternity, dental, surgical and medical treatment. The Medical Aid Society has brought certain pressure to bear upon the Ministry of Health and the possibility of co-ordinating these medical services is now being removed. If hon. Members opposite are so much concerned about the medical treatment of the workers, they ought to assist in retaining the schemes already in existence which provide medical aid on the lines I have indicated.
    There are certain approved societies in South Wales which, unless the Minister pays special regard to them, will be wiped out under the Bill. There are in the aggregate about 40,000 members of approved societies there and, at the present time, in consequence of the depression in the mining industry there are no disposable surpluses. Under the original Act they could send subscriptions to a charitable institution and through the medium of that institution they were able to provide certain additional benefits. Those charitable institutions have been abolished and in consequence there is no possibility of these approved societies giving additional benefits. I ask the Minister to take into consideration the distressed condition of those societies. If, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) suggested, it is the intention of the Minister to set up clinics, one of those clinics should be established in South Wales or else there should be some scheme under the auspices, say, of the Insurance Committee for Wales, whereby the approved societies in the distressed areas would be able to
    2040
    compete for additional benefits with the other societies. In the event of failure to do that it is inevitable that a deputation will wait upon the Minister prior to the drawing-up of the Regulations and I trust, if that is found necessary, that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to meet a deputation from these approved societies and to consider what would be the best course to adopt.

    GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.
    Resolved,
    "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Dursley Gas Light and Coke Company, Limited, which was presented on the 7th May and published, be approved."
    Resolved,
    "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Maplethorpe and Sutton Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 23rd April and published, be approved."—[Mr. H. Williams.]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.