Lords Sitting of 7 November 1912

LAND DRAINAGE (BRAITHWAITE MOSS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with an Amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
KENT AND BELA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
GAS AUTHORITIES (RESIDUAL PRODUCTS).
Message from the Commons, That they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with a Committee of this House to consider whether any, and if any, what restrictions should be imposed on Gas Authorities with respect to the purchase and manufacture of the residual products resulting from the manufacture of gas by other Gas Authorities, or of other chemicals, do meet the Lords Committee in Committee Room A on Tuesday next, at Twelve o'clock, as proposed by their Lordships.
LAND DRAINAGE (BRAITHWAITE MOSS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendment proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendment to be received on Monday next.
KENT AND BELA FISHERIES PROvISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be react 3a on Monday next.

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendment considered according to Order), and agreed to.

FORGERY BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a Bill of a very useful class with which your Lordships are already familiar. It proposes to take the mass of statutory provisions regarding the law of forgery and to consolidate them into something approaching to a Code. Should your Lordships think fit to read the Bill a second time I shall move that it he referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills which was set up for the purposes of a Bill of the same character—the Perjury Bill—and which is still in existence; and that Committee will then be in a position to suggest any further useful amendments of the law that may be agreed to, and thus enable the Bill to assume a inure complete form. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I now move that the Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, this is a Bill which has come up from the House of Commons, having passed through that House practically as an unopposed measure. The Bill consists of only one clause, and its object is to amend subsection (1) of Section 1 of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, by substituting the word "three" for the word "six." The reason for the proposed change is this. The promoters of the Act of 1911 had inserted in it the

879
penalty of six months' imprisonment instead of, under the old law, three months as the maximum penalty which a Court of Summary Jurisdiction could impose; but they did not discover until the Act was passed that the effect of this provision was to remove the case from the jurisdiction of the magistrates if the defendant claimed trial by jury, because, under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, where the maximum penalty exceeds three months there is a right to claim trial by jury. All that this Bill does is to return to the old procedure and enable Courts of Summary Jurisdiction to deal with these offences of cruelty, which in the majority of cases, I am glad to say, are not serious, and can be well dealt with on the spot by the justices sitting in Petty Sessions without the necessity of their going before a jury. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

FOREIGN ENLISTMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
The Lord De Mauley discharged from serving on the Joint Committee, and the Lord Balfour added to the Committee in his place.

MERCANTILE MARINE GRIEVANCES.
LORD MUSKERRY LORD MUSKERRY rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to grievances affecting the commanders and officers of the mercantile marine in respect to insufficiency of pay, inferior accommodation, undue hours of labour, and other matters which are of serious moment to the mercantile marine as a whole; and to move for a Return showing the legal obligations of the owners of merchant vessels trading under the flags of Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Russia, Denmark, Austria-Hungary, Netherlands, Greece, and Belgium towards their captains, officers, and seamen with regard to the following:—Old age pensions, pensions to widows and orphans, accident compensa-
880
tion, Sunday labour, daily hours of labour at sea and in port, payment for work performed in excess of fixed hours of labour, medical treatment, accommodation and passages of distressed seamen; also including in such a Return the regulations of these different countries for the preservation of discipline on board their merchant ships.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the grievances to which I am calling your attention are not new ones. They have for a long time furnished the subject of constant action and representation on the part of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, and from what I can gather even many shipowners in this country admit that in the way of pay and other conditions their captains and officers are not treated as they should be. As to the position assumed by the Board of Trade, their usual contention is that they have no power to intervene in this, that, or the other subject. Though I am not always disposed to accept such an argument, still if it is really the case that they have no powers of this kind then it is time that they applied to Parliament to obtain such powers. The Board of Trade and other Government Departments are ready enough to intervene in all such matters as those I am dealing with where they concern other industries; but where it is the interests of our mercantile marine and our merchant seafarers which are at stake they will not intervene, neither will they seek the powers that may be necessary to enable them to do so. In other occupations the Government and our Government Departments have gone to quite extraordinary lengths in regulating pay and improving the material conditions of those labouring in great industries ashore. Then why should those employed in our most important industry be excepted?
That captains and officers on our merchant ships suffer through the miserable nature of their pay is unquestionable. As a well-known shipowner stated publicly at Cardiff not long ago—
"It has been a great grievance that the officers in our mercantile marine service have been so inadequately paid considering the great responsibility that is attached to masters and the responsible officers and after the loyalty that they have displayed in troublous times. Their efficient service in all parts of the world in the past makes it, I think, only fitting that such loyalty and devotion should be recognised by a more adequate wage."

881
Sir Walter Runciman, a large shipowner, in a recent speech on the mercantile marine at the Autumn Conference of the Chambers of Commerce, made the following statement—
"He wanted to say to parents that he did not know a an occupation which gave such a splendid outlet to their boys as sea-service. The boys would be well accommodated, well fed, and well trained in proper kindly discipline, and they would have robust health. At the end of seven years they could rely upon occupying the position of captain."
It was a matter of no surprise to me that Mr. Moore, the Secretary of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, promptly denied the truth of such extraordinary assertions. That youngsters after seven years' experience at sea would find themselves in command of merchant vessels was characterised by Mr. Moore as quite too preposterous for the wildest imagination, and he truly stated that ally man getting a command after fifteen years service at sea might consider himself very fortunate. Mr. Moore went on to show how a miner could, if he chose, in a five-days or five-and-a-half-days week, comprising not much more than say forty hours work altogether, with ease earn as much as or more than the chief officer of a large steamer (such as those owned by Sir Walter Runciman) holding a master's certificate, who has spent long years at sea, who has to put in a seven-days week, who is on duty fifteen hours per day, whose sleep is obtained in short snatches of from three to four hours, and who, when in port on the Sabbath day is expected to and does work just as on any other day of the week. In an official statement issued by the shipowners it is stated that "the maritime wage is well understood to cover a seven-days week."
Personally, my Lords, I am not at all in favour of the State interfering in any sort of way between employer and employee as regards the fixing of wages, but, as the Government have thought otherwise and have intervened in the matter with regard to fixing a minimum wage for miners, then I do not see logically how you can avoid extending the principle to others, and especially to those who deserve it far more and whose responsibilities are far greater—namely, to the captains and officers of our merchant service. The Government have regulated hours of labour in nearly
882
all our great industries, except the most important one; they have been most zealous in this way in the interests of philanthropy. It is only very recently that they devoted an immense amount of trouble and time to the passing of the Shop Hours Act, but they have never stopped to think for a moment that the officers of our merchant ships have far more serious grievances in this way than shop assistants ever had. As to accommodation for officers and crew on board ship, it is about the last thing thought of in the construction of a ship. No regard whatever is paid to hygienic principles. All that is done is that the spaces provided should be such as can be certified as sufficient under the Act by the Board of Trade ship surveyor, who has no knowledge whatever of hygiene. The accommodation for officers is frequently placed in positions not only far from congenial but insanitary and unhealthy, whilst the space provided is, as my noble friend Lord Ellenborough said on a former occasion, just about sufficient to bury him in. We find that the cubic space allowed to an officer or seaman is 72 cubic feet; but if a mall seeks shelter in a common lodginghouse ashore he must have not less than 400 cubic feet.
The scandalous nature of this accommodation on board ship has been the subject of continual comment on the part of medical officers at certain of our large seaports. For instance, a few months ago the Port Sanitary Committee at Newport, Mon., adopted a resolution to the effect that—
"They were strongly of opinion that it was full time that something was done with a view to raising the standard of hygiene at sea, and that the conditions of living, storing of food, nuisance arising from foul contaminations, damp, dark, dirty and ill-ventilated living spaces, foul sanitary arrangements, lack of opportunities for personal ablutions, faulty designs and other matters, must render the merchant service most unattractive to self-respecting individuals who can earn a living ashore, and call for early Government inquiry."
Dr. Herbert Williams, Medical Officer of Health for the Port of London, says that until the Legislature takes some more practical interest in the welfare of seamen pulmonary tuberculosis will continue to be a cause of much mortality amongst this class of men.
Dealing with Sunday labour, it is a national disgrace that the officers of our

883
merchant ships should be compelled to work on their ships when lying in ports both at home and abroad on the Sabbath-day. We pride ourselves on our humanitarian instincts, but, in spite of this, still allow our officers to be treated in this way, when foreign maritime countries have long ago put a stop to it. I will read two short extracts from a letter just received from the officer of a vessel now abroad. He had evidently seen a letter in the papers from a shipowner in which he compared the holidays of ships officers at sea with the holidays of shore staffs. The officer writes—
"We were rather amused at a paragraph comparing ships officers' holidays with the holidays of the 'office' and 'shore stalls', and as a comparison we would like to quote our own ease… We have been in continuous service since … [nearly three years ago], not having had a Christmas Day free; and as for Sundays and other holidays, well we have got into the habit of working on Sundays for the slip and if we got a Sunday free we would not know what to do on that day."
Later on in his letter he says—
"I venture to say that there are not many members of an office or shore staff who could say that they have been at work for nearly three years without even a Sunday off."
I will not go into details, but you will find that France, Germany, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and, I think, others will under no circumstances allow their merchant officers to be worked when their ships are in port on Sunday. I exempt sudden stress of wind or where the safety of the ship is concerned. Here is a matter where I suppose the Board of Trade will tell us that they have no powers to act, but I insist that it is their duty to apply for such powers without any further delay.
That these and other grievances are of national moment in seriously affecting the position of our merchant service is quite clear from certain statistics which have been placed in my hands by the Imperial Merchant Service Guild. We are always assured by those representing the Board of Trade that the official statistics are a clear indication that matters are improving in this respect. It is the old story of working statistics in order to show that the Marine Department of the Board of Trade are right in their position of inaction, just the same as was done in connection with the light, load line. In the course of the "Titanic" debate the President of
884
the Board of Trade stated that he found that the proportion of British sailors had very largely increased, and that all foreign sailors had lamely diminished in the mercantile marine. Mr. Leslie Scott, the spokesman for the shipowners, said in the course of the debate that—
"From 1893 to 1903 there had been an increase in the number of foreign sailors in our ships from 29,000 to 40,000. From 1903 to 1911 that balance had been largely diminished, and there were today 30,000 more British sailors than in 1909, and 10,000 foreigners had been replaced by 10,000 British sailors."
"That," Mr. Scott said, "was all very much to the good." Mr. Scott's figures would be very much to the good were it not for other figures which are obtainable from the Quinquennial Return which is issued he the Registrar-General of Seamen, and which is a much clearer, more comprehensive, and more reliable document than those comprised within the Tables relating to Merchant Shipping which are issued annually.
From the last Quinquennial Return, issued seven days ago, we find that, very properly, the manning of the mercantile marine is divided into different departments. In this matter we are not concerned so much with departments such as the stewards' department and others. We, I think, need only confine ourselves to what the Registrar-General terms the "sailors' department," and in this department between the years 1891 and 1911 there is a clear reduction of British seamen to the extent of no fewer than 16,221. This statement, I think your Lordships will agree, is very startling, and one which should completely destroy our confidence in the satisfaction expressed by the Board of Trade and the shipowners. Some of your Lordships may not be aware that under the Merchant Shipping Act every person who is on the ship's articles is termed a "seaman"—that is, with the exception of the captain and any apprentices who may be on board. Stewardesses, stewards, hairdressers, barbers, bar-tenders, and all such attendants on passengers are seamen by Act of Parliament. This is, of course, very nice and convenient for all those people who desire to throw dust in the eyes of the nation by making out that British sailors in the mercantile marine are on the increase instead of decreasing. With the building of the enormous passenger liners

885
of the present day there has been all enormous increase in all these, if I may so call them, domestic departments, but there has not been such increase as regards the seamen. Take, for instance, the "Titanic," the largest vessel then afloat. The seamen on board her numbered fifty-eight; the firemen numbered 300; and the other 494 were all composed of what I have termed "seamen by Act of Parliament."
Now, my Lords, we are continuing to build fresh ships for the Royal Navy, but, even taking the ships that we have at present, I venture to say that if all of them had to be put in commission it would be impossible to efficiently man them or half man them. Yet while we are providing new ships, a corresponding increase in the personnel of the Navy has not taken place. In the old days the Royal Navy had to depend for her reserves upon the merchant navy, and though times have greatly altered it is the same to-day. The only possible reserve for the Royal Navy is to be found in the seamen of the merchant service, and I venture to point out to your Lordships that should the Navy ever have to fall back on this reserve, as it is certain to do should war arise, then the seamen by Act of Parliament., such as stewards, hairdressers and cooks, are not those who would be required on the battleships. The men required would be the seamen and the stokers.
It has been an opinion generally expressed in this House that the Return which was issued four-and-a-half years ago showing the methods of other maritime countries was one of a very valuable and enlightening character, showing, as it did, that British shipowners had in reality much more latitude in dealing with their masters, officers, and men than is allowed to foreign shipowners by their respective Governments. I earnestly hope that such a Return will once again be agreed to, as, beyond a doubt, great developments and changes have taken place in the meantime. Preparation of the Return presents no real difficulties, as all the desired information can readily be obtained by our representatives in the different countries. If your Lordships agree to the Motion, I think I must in fairness ask that the Return should be issued with very much more expedition than the last one. That Return was agreed to by your Lordships on May 28, 1906, and was not ordered to be printed until February
886
17, 1908. There could be no possible excuse for such undue delay, and I hope that the new Return, if agreed to, will be issued with far greater promptitude. In conclusion, let me once again urge upon your Lordships how serious these grievances are as regards the welfare of the merchant service and how they imperatively need urgent and effective attention. I beg to move.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return showing the legal obligations of the owners of merchant vessels trading under the flags of Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Russia, Denmark, Austria-Hungary, Netherlands, Greece, and Belgium towards their captains, officers, and seamen with regard to the following:—Old age pensions, pensions to widows and orphans, accident compensation, Sunday labour, daily hours of labour at sea and in port, payment for work performed in excess of fixed hours of labour, medical treatment, accommodation and passages of distressed seamen; also including in such a Return the regulations of these different countries for the preservation of discipline on boars their merchant ships.—(Lord Muskerry.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, His Majesty's Government will certainly place no difficulty m the way of the Return for which the noble Lord has moved, and I will certainly see that steps are taken to bring to the notice of the Department concerned the complaint of the noble Lord as to the delay which took place before the last Return was printed and presented to Parliament. I hope that, so far, he will be satisfied with the reply of His Majesty's Government. With regard to his general discussion of the conditions of the mercantile marine, I hope it is unnecessary for me to assure the noble Lord that His Majesty's Government are in no way blind either to the services which are rendered by the officers and men of that service, or to the dangers which they undoubtedly run. Indeed, in this year no one can forget how great those dangers are. But I think the officers may be congratulated very warmly on having so consistent a champion as the noble Lord opposite, who has brought before us to-day, not for the first time, the various complaints which they have to make.

887
The noble Lord specially referred to the question of the pay of the commanders and officers of the mercantile marine. I am not quite sure that when on previous occasions His Majesty's Government have introduced legislation dealing with pay in other occupations it has always met with the unanimous approval of this House. I am not inclined to rely upon the opposition which such a measure would certainly invoke in this House, but I think it would be quite impossible for His Majesty's Government to try to deal by legislation with the pay of the officers of the mercantile marine. If it was necessary I think it would be easy enough to draw a very clear distinction between those classes of labour to which the noble Lord referred and the mercantile marine. Those to which he referred were concerned with a trade which is of vital importance to the country, and without which the life of the country could hardly be carried on. It is not possible to say that in the same way of the service of which the noble Lord specially spoke this afternoon.
LORD AMPTHILL: Surely!
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The noble Lord will have an opportunity of enforcing his argument if he wishes to later in this discussion. As Lord Musketry knows, it has been until now the policy of Parliament to allow this question of the wages paid, not only to officers but to seamen generally, in the mercantile marine to be left to the shipowners to settle with the persons whom they themselves employ. The Board of Trade understand that quite lately the Imperial Merchant Service Guild has approached the shipowners with a view of securing increased rates of pay, and that their representations have met with a certain measure of success. There is, however, no official information on this matter within the knowledge of the Board of Trade, although I understand that what I have stated is the fact. Certainly representations have been made lately to the Board of Trade with regard to the accommodation provided for officers on certain vessels, and the Board are obtaining reports of these cases from their officers and they will do their best to consider them. But meanwhile the noble Lord must remember that, provided the minimum requirements of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, are complied with,
888
the Board of Trade have no power to interfere.
The noble Lord specially referred to one other question—hours of labour. One of the sections—Section 92—of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, does deal with that question, not directly as to the number of hours of labour, but it deals with the number of officers who should be carried on a merchant vessel, and therefore that indirectly touches on the amount of labour which has to be performed by each of the officers on hoard the ship. As a matter of fact, the minimum requirements of that Act are almost invariably exceeded to a considerable extent by shipowners. It appears from some statistics compiled by the Board of Trade that in the year 1911, with one exception, every foreign-going ship of 4,000 tons or upwards carried three or more mates, as also did two-thirds of the vessels between 2,000 and 4,000 tons. The question of amending Section 92 of the Act of 1894 so as to increase the statutory minimum of certificated officers is at present under the consideration of the Board of Trade. I regret that I am unable to add more than that on the present occasion. If, however, the noble Lord will allow me to make a suggestion, it would be that when this Return has been secured and printed he should, if he desires to do so, raise once more the question in your Lordships' House.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, my only object in making the very mild, and, I hope, friendly interruption in the noble Earl's speech was to give him an opportunity of withdrawing or qualifying a remark which he made, I think, without sufficient thought. I mean when he said that the national life depended more on the coal-mining industry than on our shipping industry. Surely the noble Earl, if he had thought for a moment, would have recollected that a very large proportion not only of our daily bread, of our sustenance, is brought over-seas, but also the raw material with which we manufacture goods and pay for our food. Therefore it is not open to argument that any other industry is more important to the national life than the shipping industry. I did not think that a remark of that kind, as it has not been qualified, ought to pass unchallenged in this House, and that is why I have made these remarks.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what has fallen from my noble friend Lord Muskerry, but I cannot concur in his idea that the establishment of a minimum wage would improve matters. It has been rather a failure in dealing with the miners, and I think if you attempted to introduce it into the mercantile marine you would bring about endless trouble and endless strife. The question of Sunday labour has been referred to. Sunday labour is sometimes necessary. It should not be absolutely forbidden but discouraged. The best way to discourage it would be to make extra pay compulsory at a fixed sum per hour, varying in accordance with the rate of wages for each seaman. Contracting out of this should be illegal. There are at least two classes of Sunday labour, one connected with the ship and the other with loading and discharging cargo. There are a number of small repairs and adjustments to engines which cannot be carried out while they are moving. They very often only require three or four men to attend to them. If neglected, the ship would break down, and I think that it would be too hard in face of competition to expect an owner of a ship to delay her for twenty-four hours in order to give a Sunday holiday to three or four men only. All your Lordships who own motor-cars must be aware of the constant touching up and attention that all classes of engines require. I think that it would be sufficient if this Sunday work was discouraged by giving extra pay to the men who either do it themselves or who superintend work done by mechanics hired locally.
With reference to handling cargo, I am glad that Lord Muskerry has put this question as regards foreign countries as it is well to know what restrictions on Sunday labour our trade rivals have submitted to. Some lines of steamers would be seriously affected by restrictions, whereas others would scarcely feel them. very careful inquiries ought to be made before making any legal enactment that would have the effect of stopping Sunday labour altogether, whereas the grant of extra pay per hour would do much to check it without being a very serious annoyance to owners. As, however, the captain of a ship has much to do with the question of Sunday labour, I should except him from the grant of extra pay for fear of his being accused of being unduly influenced whenever he ordered
890
Sunday labour to be undertaken. I would, as I have said, save him from the chance of being wrongly accused in this way by making him the one exception to the people who should receive extra pay for Sunday work.
Complaints are constantly being made about the number of hours that railway signalmen have to work, but little notice is taken of the number of hours that a watch-keeping officer has to be on duty. When ships are run with two watchkeeping officers, one of whom has to be constantly on the bridge, it means a twelve-hours day to begin with. As lie is never below more than four hours at a time, he never gets a. real square sleep, but only snatches of three and a-half hours at a time. But on a long voyage he really has a very fair time of it in comparison with what he has to put up with on a coasting trip. In addition to keeping his watch at sea he has to be on deck both when entering and leaving harbour, and to superintend loading and unloading whether by day or by night. When the loading is completed he must remain on deck while the ship is leaving harbour, and then go on the bridge without the previous rest to which human nature is entitled. There is no limit to the number of hours that an officer may have been continuously at work. I do not complain of this when there is danger or stress of weather, hut I do think that the officers of the mercantile marine have a right to complain when kept at work in this manner as a matter of ordinary routine and in the absence of exceptional circumstances. I think that an Act of Parliament ought to be passed making it necessary to carry three watchkeeping officers in ships above a certain size, and that in the long run owners would find it beneficial, and that they would not he losers in consequence.
Then as to the question of the housing of seamen. Whenever experienced travellers make arrangements for sea voyages of some days they look at the carefully drawn plans, which show the sizes and situation of cabins, saloons, sanitary arrangements, &c., and then they have a pretty fair notion as to what degree of comfort they are likely to get for their money and select cabins according to the size of their purse. On a ship being designed, similar drawings of the housing and sanitation provided for crew and officers should be deposited at the Board

891
of Trade, and when approved of framed, glazed, and permanently hung in a public place just as is done to certain documents in passenger steamers. At present, as far as I am able to ascertain, the Board of Trade do not intervene until the vessel is built. When a ship has already been completed it would cost the owners a great deal of money to make alterations in accordance with the laws of hygiene which at an earlier period would not have been expensive. The situation, ventilation, and proximity to steam winches and other fittings have a great deal to do with the comfort of a living room on board ship. The amount of space of 72 cubic feet, which, as Lord Muskerry informed the House, is now allowed, is far too small for a man to do his sleeping and his eating for the greater part of his life. In 1906, when the last Merchant Shipping Act was before your Lordships' House, I tried to get the space increased, but failed. Another reason why I think the officers of the mercantile marine have a claim upon Parliament is this. They as a body are rightly averse to striking. The men can contrive to get what they want by striking. The mercantile marine officers, however, know that it would be injurious to the country if they did the same, and therefore I think they have a special claim to rely upon Parliament to improve their condition of life.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think my noble friend who has made this Motion will be satisfied at having obtained the promise of His Majesty's Government to give him this Return and to give it to him without the undue delay which characterised the publication of the Return on the last occasion. There was one observation in my noble friend's speech with which I was much struck, and which I was sorry the noble Earl opposite did not deal with. It has to do with the statistics of the progress of the merchant service. We were all gratified the other day to read in the newspapers, upon the authority of the President of the Board of Trade, that the numbers of British seamen in the merchant service had increased over the last ten years, and the newspapers wrote in their ordinary way to say how glad they were that the pessimism of some people had turned out to be wrong and that as a matter of fact we had improved our position very much
892
in this respect. My noble friend Lord Muskerry has made a very severe criticism of those figures, because he pointed out that a large number of the so-called "seamen" in those statistics are not seamen at all, but are other residents in the ship who have nothing to do with what may be called the maritime part of the vessel. I do not for a moment desire to say that their interests ought not to be studied in any discussion or determination as respects the accommodation, for example, in the marine service. They are entitled, of course, to consideration like anybody else.
But when the country is asked to be reassured as to the condition of the merchant service and as to its progress, what is meant, of course, is the maritime part of the merchant service. What we are interested in is to know whether the population of our islands engaged in the calling of the sea is diminishing or in-increasing, and the effect left by the observations of the President of the Board of Trade in another place was that it was increasing, whereas my noble friend shows that it was diminishing. That is a very important matter, and ought not to be lost sight of. I am quite sure that the President of the Board of Trade did not intend for a moment to deceive the country, but this misconception has got abroad. I am very sorry that it should be so. I should have been much happier if the President of the Board of Trade had turned out to be not merely literally but in spirit right. It is, however, much better that we should face the facts, and if it be true that the number of those engaged in the marine service is really diminishing that is a serious matter which, in my humble judgment, ought not to escape the attention of the Board of Trade and of His Majesty's Government.
How does that bear upon the present discussion? My noble friend behind me (Lord Muskerry) who understands this subject, I need not say, far better than I do, and my noble friend who has just sat down have both pointed out that the accommodation, for example, for the officers of the merchant service is not at all luxurious. Indeed, it is very shocking from the point of view of those who study housing on land to know what people have to put up with in the matter of housing at sea. We would he very glad to see that

893
state of things improved, because unless we can improve the conditions of the merchant service we cannot hope that the tendency to which I have called attention of diminishing numbers will be arrested. If we mean that there should be a change in this tendency and that instead of a diminishing service it should be an increasing service, we must hope to improve the conditions of the service. Now the question I should like to put to the noble Earl and through him to the Board of Trade is, Are they satisfied that those conditions ought not further to be improved? What, of course, they have to consider in arriving at a determination on that subject is this—whether if they put a greater burden upon shipowners they would do an injury to the trade; whether the trade can bear the increased expenses which better accommodation would involve. If it could not bear it, the thing falls to the ground.
I am not prepared, certainly at this moment, to advocate a change which would injure the shipping trade of this country. But if it be true, and it may be true, that improvements in the condition both of officers and men of the merchant service could be brought about without throwing an undue burden on shipowners And those engaged in the trade, then I say such changes should occupy the serious attention of His Majesty's Government. I do not want to give the impression to the Government that reckless changes ought to be made without reference to the conditions of the service or to the burden which it already has to bear. All I say is this, that I do not think we can be better employed than in improving, so far as they may be improved safely, the conditions under which the merchant service is carried on, because upon the welfare of the merchant service and upon its progress depends the supply of the maritime population of these islands, and upon the supply of that maritime population must to a large extent depend the trade of our country and the safety of it in time of war.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, the noble Marquess who has just sat down has drawn attention to one or two points in the speech of the noble Lord who has made this Motion, in the first place with
894
reference to an observation made in. another place by my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the increasing number of British seamen. On that point it seems to me that the subject rather divides itself into two parts. Lord Muskeriy stated that, as matters now were, those who were described in the Return as sailors were not sailors in the strict sense in which we understand the word, but included persons of all kinds, many of them employed in domestic capacities on board ship. The noble Lord instanced the case of a great passenger liner. It is, of course, quite true that there are on board ships of that kind a great number of persons on the strength of the ship who are in no sense sailors, and so far as they are included in any Return enumerating the number of sailors in the mercantile marine the Return is hound to that extent to mislead the public. That we all admit.
But there is also a further point in connection with this matter—namely, that the whole character of service at sea has as years have passed somewhat changed. That observation could be applied no less to the Royal Navy than to the mercantile marine. In former days a sailor was assumed to be a man on the strength of a ship whose life was spend in going aloft and in the ordinary routine of seamanship, in many cases in a sailing ship and in others in a steamer, which depended also to some extent upon masts and sails. But now, as we know—and this applies equally to the Royal Navy—a very large proportion of a ship's complement are artificers and skilled men in various branches, electricians, and others, rather than seamen as we understand the term, and the fact must apply also to the mercantile marine, that in that sense, too, a very large proportion of the men employed, who would properly be described as forming part of the ship's company, are not sailors in the old-fashioned sense. Therefore it is not quite fair to state, although the fact may have a serious bearing on the consideration which the noble Lord mentioned—namely, that our mercantile marine must be regarded as in some sense the reserve of our Royal Navy—it is not quite fair to regard every man who is not a sailor in the conventional sense of the word as not being available for that purpose, or as not being properly included in a Return such as that which my right

895
hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade made.
As regards the second point to which the noble Marquess alluded, that of accommodation, I am quite certain that the President of the Board of Trade, when he becomes acquainted with the observations which were made by the noble Lord opposite and by the noble Marquess, will desire to give his close attention to this question. It is quite true that to an outsider the figures of cubic space and similar matters mentioned by the noble Lord are somewhat startling in comparison with those with which we are used to deal on land. I think that my noble friend behind me (Earl Beauchamp) stated the fact that the Board of Trade are now engaged in obtaining reports with regard to the accommodation provided for officers of the mercantile marine, and that when they receive these reports they will give close attention to them. As a matter of fact, however, unless further legislation can be introduced the Board are bound, as I have no doubt the noble Lord knows perfectly well, by the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1906, which provide a certain minimum space, and if that minimum space is provided the Board of Trade have no further locus standi and no means of interfering. I do not know whether the noble Lord considers that the minima provided in that Act are too low, but he will remember that the Board of Trade are absolutely bound by that Act and cannot exceed its provisions.
LORD MUSKERRY: That is exactly my point. What I want the Board of Trade to do is to apply for additional powers to remedy these grievances. I thank the noble Earl who replied to me for the answer he gave, and I trust that we shall have the Return shortly in our hands.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: I should like to say that I did not blame the Board of Trade at all. The Board of Trade are bound by Section 64 of the Merchant Shipping Act, and it is that section which requires alteration. What I ask is that the Government should amend the law.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

IMPORTATION OF IRISH CATTLE.
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government in how many counties in England the importation of cattle from Ireland is prohibited, and from which counties the Minister for Agriculture has received approval of his relaxation of the restrictions in regard to the importation of Irish cattle into England; and whether considering the admitted increase of the foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland and the almost unanimous refusal of the local authorities to admit Irish cattle within their county areas the Minister of Agriculture will now consider the advisability of revoking the objectionable Order and thereby relieve England from the considerable risk involved in the transit of cattle from Ireland without any advantage and against the general wish of those responsible for local government in the different counties of England.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, thirty-three administrative counties out of fifty-one have prohibited the importation of cattle from Ireland; the remaining eighteen have made no regulations to that effect. The noble Lord asks from which counties my right hon. friend has received approval of his relaxation. If by that he means official approval from the local authorities concerned, I do not know that he has received any. On the other hand, I think you may take it that the eighteen administrative counties who have not applied these restrictions have at any rate expressed a tacit approval of the relaxation. As far as unofficial approval is concerned, I can assure the noble Lord that my right hon. friend is overwhelmed with masses of it, which come in by every post.
As to the latter part of the noble Lord's Question, I would like to point out that what he calls the almost unanimous refusal of these local authorities is, in view of the figures I have given, hardly an accurate statement of the case. I can only say, with regard to that, that we are not prepared to revoke the Order, because in our opinion nothing has occurred to alter materially the situation since the time when we first decided to put the Order into force. This whole question has, I think, been prejudiced to an undue degree by somewhat exaggerated assertions on both sides. This is essentially not a case where you can

897
marshal an overwhelming array of facts on one side or on the other. It is a case where you have to proceed with the greatest caution, where you have to weigh the risk with the utmost care, and on the balance of possibilities and of probabilities you have to decide your course. Therefore any action taken does require the sanest and coolest judgment, which is not always applied in this particular case.
When one is considering what measures can be taken one cannot leave out of sight the magnitude of the interests that are at stake. I do not want to refer especially to the case of Irish farmers, who are suffering very materially from this prohibition, because I am responsible primarily for the interests of British farmers, but I think that is an aspect of the case which this House at any rate cannot afford to disregard. When you consider the position from this side of the Channel, the figures of the export of store cattle are alone sufficient to show how big the interests are. Out of the 950,000 store cattle that were exposed for sale in Great Britain last year no fewer than 540,000 of those cattle were of Irish origin.
LORD HENEAGE: In Great Britain?
LORD LUCAS: Yes.
LORD HENEAGE: My Question had reference to England only.
LORD LUCAS: I have not the figures for England only, but the majority of these cattle come to England. Not only is that a very large importation, but this is the time of year when the importation is at its greatest. Yet during the months of September, October, and November, when in a normal year 200,000 store cattle would come into this country, it will probably be found this year that by the end of November the number will not be more than 4,000 or 5,000; at the present moment it is something like 2,000. That is a ridiculously small number, and that in a year, too, when in a great many parts of the country there is an exceptional amount of feed and therefore a great demand for store cattle. That shows sufficiently what the size of this trade is and the seriousness of the interests involved.
Then you conic to a question which is more important still—the question of the risk. Far be it from me to try and make out that there is no risk. You cannot say
898
there is no risk. The great problem is to try and ascertain what the degree of risk is, because this is essentially a question in which the degree of the risk is everything. There is one important fact with regard to that—namely, that from July 8 (the day on which we began to remove the restrictions against Irish cattle and allowed stock to come into this country) up to the date when the most recent figures are available 440,000 head of live stock have come to this country and there has not been one single case of foot-and-mouth disease among them, though they were all subjected to the most careful veterinary examination. Then you have to consider the nature of the safeguards which are applied. These animals have to be quarantined for fourteen days at the place of landing, and removed therefrom by licence of an inspector of the Board of Agriculture to premises in which they have to be isolated for twenty-one days. Further, all animals have to be examined in Ireland before shipment, store cattle have to be accompanied by a declaration of their place of origin, and there is a special examination of the mouth of each beast, so that you have what in our opinion are restrictions and safeguards sufficient to remove, I will not say the whole of the risk, but a very great amount of the risk.
In view of the facts I have quoted it is our opinion—and it is an opinion that we have arrived at after most carefully weighing all possible circumstances and all probabilities, and which I would like to say we have arrived at with no pressure put upon us by any outside body whatever—that the risk, such as it is, is not sufficient to justify the entire exclusion of Irish store stock. We have done what we always do in cases of outbreaks of disease. When the severity of the outbreak begins to decrease or when it becomes more strictly localised we begin to relax gradually the restrictions. That is what has happened in the present case, and we hope to be able to continue to relax them. There are some local authorities which disapprove of the course we have taken and have not availed themselves of the relaxation, but I do say most emphatically that it is our opinion that there is not sufficient risk to justify us in refusing to let those counties have Irish store stock which want to have them and testify to that by not putting in force these prohibitive restrictions.

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
LORD HENEAGE LORD HENEAGE rose to call attention to the National Insurance Act and the impossibility of workers understanding the unlimited amount of regulations and literature issued by the Insurance Commissioners from time to time to modify or explain the complicated provisions of the Act; and to ask whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce an amending Bill during the present session of Parliament.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the summer we had several what the noble and learned viscount on the Woolsack called useful conversations with regard to this Act, and we were told that there were colossal difficulties in the way. I want to know what has been done to meet these great difficulties. First, with regard to medical benefits, your Lordships passed a resolution that it was absolutely necessary that the Government should come to an agreement with the medical profession in order that the Act might be carried out. A similar resolution was also adopted by the House of Commons. Three months elapsed and nothing was done. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported to have said that he always knew that the terms offered in the Act were insufficient; also that it is absurd to ask labouring men in rural districts to send prescriptions to a chemist, and that the doctor ought to be allowed to dispense his own medicine. I made exactly the same suggestion last July, but I did not receive very much sympathy from the Government Bench with regard to it at that time.
We are also told in the Press that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now after three months offered new terms. I should like to ask the noble Earl who is going to reply to me what are the exact advantages of the new proposals over those of the Act which have already been refused by the doctors and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer now admits he did not think were quite fair to them. I am quite sure that no settlement will be satisfactory to those who have to contribute under this Act unless they have a free choice of doctors and unless the doctors are allowed to dispense their own medicines in the rural districts. One of the great faults of the Insurance Act is the failure to recognise the entirely different circumstances and requirements of workers in country districts and workers in the
900
towns, and the great distances which the doctors have to travel in country districts to see their patients, necessitating their keeping either horses or motor-cars. Had there been a greater distinction made between what is required by rural contributors and contributors in towns, and a recognition of the conditions of medical service in the country in comparison with that in towns, I think the Act would have worked much more smoothly. There is one thing which I am quite certain, having had some experience lately in forming a rural workers' association in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire, will not satisfy the contributors. They will not consider that a staff medical service of doctors set up from among the medical students of Wales or Ireland, or perhaps of England will carry out the contract entered into with them in the Act by the Government. They desire to have the best medical advice at their disposal, and to have the free choice of the medical men whom they desire to employ.
There is another question to which I desire to call the noble Earl's attention, and that is the transfer question. He will recollect that in the summer I called attention to what would be certain to be the result of the misleading pamphlet which was circulated through the Post Office. My prognostications have proved to be absolutely true. An enormous number of labourers in the country districts were raked into the Prudential and other societies through fear that they would be under a penalty if they did not become contributors by July 15. The Insurance Commissioners have had to take cognisance of that, and for the last six weeks these people have been allowed to transfer to societies which were more beneficial to them without the societies of which they had already become members being allowed to prevent them. But the period fixed has already expired or expires in the course of a few days. What I want to know is, What are the conditions under which transfer is to be made in the future? I do not wish to press the noble Earl too far on that point, because I happen to know by accident that the matter is still under the consideration of the Commissioners, and that they have not perfected the circular which they are going to send out. At any rate I hope that these misguided people will be allowed every freedom possible to enable them to transfer to societies which

901
will be more beneficial to them. I have been led to put this Question on the Paper partly by a resolution which was passed by the Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire Rural Workers' Insurance Society, a copy of which resolution the noble Earl has in his hand. Therefore I will not trouble to read it to the House, as no doubt the noble Earl will, in the course of his remarks, reply to the points therein referred to.
The greatest difficulties have arisen in regard to sub-contractors, estate and casual labourers, and outworkers generally, and these difficulties have been pressed from time to time upon the attention of the Commissioners, not only by the Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire Rural Workers' Association, but by the friendly and other societies. I should like very much to know what has been done with regard to these different classes. There are also two other classes in connection with which great difficulties have arisen—charwomen and domestic servants. The conditions with regard to these persons all require to be made clear. It is not fair that it should be left to the Insurance Commissioners to decide from day to day who are and who are not legally compelled to be contributors. A great many hard cases have arisen. I know from my own knowledge that a large number of women who have been in the habit of earning a small pittance, and also casual labourers, have been thrown out of employment, in some eases through a misunderstanding of the Act and in other cases through the Act itself. One of the reasons why so much confusion has been caused is that with regard to two different classes the words "exceptions" and "exemptions" have been used. The two words are so similar that people who do not understand the Act—and I admit that I do not understand it myself—confuse those who come under the exemption clauses with those who come under the exception clauses. All that requires to be made clear. It is impossible to keep pace with the number of pamphlets and regulations which are issued to us day after day, and as far as I am concerned I have entirely given it up. I ask that when these questions have been considered—and I should think they ought to have been considered by now—an amending Bill should be brought in and passed through Parliament making absolutely clear what the clauses do mean, and where they require alteration they
902
should be altered in a fair and reasonable manner.
I wish to call attention to the char women's question. It has always been understood that women were not to be compelled to become contributors if what they earned was not their real means of livelihood. That is to say, if a wife or a daughter was adding to the breadwinner's earnings some two or three shillings a week apiece by going out chasing or washing, that should not compel them to come under the Act. But I can assure the noble Earl that in a great number of cases they have been told that they must come under the Act. Take the case of a woman who goes to assist at a public-house on the occasion of a cricket match or a football match. She gets 1s. for the day, and out of that 1s. she has to pay 3d., and her employer has to pay 3d., because she has been employed for the purposes of trade. I am informed that if she had gone to the noble Earl's house or to the house of any other noble Lord at the time of an entertainment she would not have been chargeable, because entertainments are not supposed to be a profitable part of the householder's business. There is even a worse case than that, to my mind, the case of the poor woman who comes in to clean schools for an hour, we will say, every day in the week. She only gets 6d. a day, and the most she could earn in the week is from 2s. 6d. to 3s.; but out of that she has to pay 3d., and another 3d. in respect of her has to come out of the rates; and I am told that in Parts of Lindsey the cost for these school-cleaners will amount to £1,000 in the year on the rates.
I would impress upon the noble Earl and upon those more responsible for the conduct of this Act that it is no good going on issuing these complicated leaflets when the Act must be amended and made clear. The Government have had nearly a year with advisory committees in existence, and they must know what they intend the Act to mean. At any rate, if they do not they ought to say so. The sanatoria arrangements are at the present moment most unsatisfactory, and from all I hear, unless some clear and satisfactory agreement is made with the medical profession before January 12 next there will be a tremendous revolt among all classes against this Act, and it will not be as successful as, now that it is the law, I should wish it to be.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies I should like to associate myself with everything that has fallen from my noble friend Lord Heneage in regard to the Insurance Act. Probably no Act that has ever been passed by Parliament was drawn up in such a slovenly fashion, or has caused so many difficulties to those who really wish to administer the law in the best possible manner. I can speak as one who has worked on a county council and also on a couple of approved societies, and I can assure your Lordships that the number of leaflets we receive on this subject every day would take one hour if not two hours to read through. Surely the time has arrived when these leaflets might come to an end. I suggest that His Majesty's Government should convene meetings of the advisory councils and consult with them, and finally make up their minds about a great many points concerning which questions are continually being sent up by county councils, insurance bodies, and approved societies, and which questions very often are either not attended to or ambiguous answers are returned which leave those bodies in the same state of doubt as before. The treatment meted out to those who are trying to carry out this slovenly Act and the difficulty in interpreting it really make it almost impossible for those concerned to see that the insured individuals get the best possible return for their contributions.
I should like to say a word on the question of transfer from one society to another. I do not think the majority of insured persons understand the transfer regulations, and I am sure that a great many would wish to transfer from some of those societies into which they were driven on July 15 by misleading statements on the part of His Majesty's Government. I am certain that those who have not paid close attention to the working of this Act are not aware how absolutely important it is for healthy individuals to join societies which deal with healthy individuals. I mean that people employed in the country should join approved societies which are mainly filled with men employed in country occupations. I will quote examples from Scotland. I am sure they are identical with what exists all over Great Britain. In connection with two or three farms in Scotland we got the farmers to make a return showing what would have happened had the Act been in force and their farm hands been employed over a five year period. We asked them to
904
show exactly what the farm hands would have received in respect of maternity benefit, what they would have saved themselves in the matter of doctors' attendance, and what they would have got during the five years in sickness and other benefits, and we found that the very large majority of the men would have received absolutely nothing during that period. In the case of one large estate on which there are 140 employed individuals the return showed that, with the employer's contributions added, something like £800 or £900 would have been paid in during the five year period, but, including maternity benefits, only £60 would have been received. It is obvious that these people are only benefited if they enter societies which comprise employees engaged in other healthy trades. These men were taken in by the statements made in July last and rushed into societies which deal with all individuals, some good lives and some bad. Therefore I wish to insist on the point brought out by Lord Heneage, that the minds of insured people should be disabused of the idea of any difficulty in transferring to more suitable societies. Then men occupied in healthy country pursuits will once again have the opportunity of getting into those societies which deal with healthy employees, so that they may get full advantage out of the Act.
No mention was made by Lord Heneage of the subject of unemployment. It is surely a gross anomaly that men like estate carpenters and men engaged on timber works who are not in the trade and who are paid by the year or by the month should have to pay that contribution. There have been several instances brought to my notice, but as yet, as far as I know, the cases of these men have not been attended to. The Act being passed both sides wish to make it a success, but I can assure the noble Earl that those concerned with its administration are growing tired of the obstacles that are put in their way, the little attention that has been given to their recommendations, and the difficulty of getting answers to questions, mainly on account; no doubt, of the very slovenly way in which the Act was drawn.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I know quite well that when on previous occasions Lord Heneage has brought up for discussion in this House subjects connected with the Insurance Act we have not always been able to agree, but I should be sorry if he thought we did not regard his

905
efforts with sympathy, because we know he has been good enough, in Lincolnshire especially, to take great interest in the working of the Act, as also has Lord Lovat in Scotland. I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing our acknowledgments to Lord Heneage for all the trouble he has taken on behalf especially of the Rural Workers' Society in Lincolnshire. But I think, so far as the number of circulars is concerned, that both noble Lords have probably received a double number, for this raison—they probably received them as members of this House, and also in the case of the noble Lord below the Gangway, as the trustee of a society, and in the case of Lord Lovat probably as a member of an insurance committee. Therefore having received two copies of every document which has been issued by the Insurance Commissioners, they, perhaps, have an exaggerated view of the total number, which really is not so large as they think.
But I freely admit that a large number of circulars have been issued by the Insurance Commissioners, and I think it is quite right that they should have done all they could to explain the provisions of the Act. On a former occasion the noble Marquess opposite did me the honour of quoting from an imperfect report of a speech I made on the subject, in which I laid stress on the complications of the measure. It is quite true the Act is complicated, but any Act which deals with the organisation of society as a whole must necessarily be complicated. In the history of the world society was never so complicated in its organisation as it is to-day. Therefore in so far as it was determined—and rightly determined—that this Act should deal with something more than the main first principles it was bound to be complicated. Although it would have been possible to lay down one or two principles and he content with that, it was quite rightly thought that that was an improper way of conducting legislation of this importance and magnitude, and as an alternative it was thought right that we should deal in some detail with the conditions of the people of to-day. That being so, I quite admit that the Insurance Commissioners have had to issue a number of circulars dealing, with the different classes.
It is not necessary, however, for all the insured people to study all or even a large
906
part of the documents issued. In the ordinary course insured persons will apply to their approved societies for information as to the conduct of business under the Act, and the literature issued on this subject is intended more especially -for the officials of societies. Let me give an example. It is quite unnecessary for soldiers and sailors to study the circulars which are issued with regard to charwomen, nor is it necessary for charwomen to consider the circulars which deal with soldiers and sailors. The Commissioners have issued a subject-index, of which I shall be glad to send a copy to the noble Lord if he has not already received one, and this distinguishes seven circulars and memoranda as being of special importance. The Commissioner would be prepared, if desire was expressed for it, to extend that index into a handbook for society officials. But the general part of the literature dealing with sanatoria and medical benefits is addressed to the members and clerks of insurance committees and not to insured members. It will be for them to disseminate the information to insured persons in their area. In the same way documents explaining provisions of the Act with regard to particular classes of employment are intended, in the first place, for the employers concerned, with whom rests responsibility for seeing that the proper contributions are made. No society or person is required to read the whole of this literature. The total number of documents issued in connection with the insurance of 14,000,000 persons through more than 20,000 societies and branches must necessarily be considerable.
The noble Lord has asked whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to deal with this matter by legislation during the present session. It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to do so, and for this reason. A great many of the matters referred to by the noble Lord—matters, I think, of real difficulty—must, in their Opinion, be settled by administration by the Insurance Commissioners. There is direct power given in the Act itself to the Commissioners to settle a good many of these points, and it is in the opinion of the Government right that they should exercise that power rather than that there should be introduced an amending Bill. We do not at present see the need for an amending Bill.
LORD HENEAGE: The Commissioners cannot go outside the four corners of the Act, can they?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: No.
LORD HENEAGE: Therefore it is only within the Act that they can act.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think it is quite easy to compose tremendously difficult puzzles about charwomen and the method of their employment, questions which I do not think any legislation can fairly settle. You must in these complicated and difficult questions settle the principle, and then give the Insurance Commissioners power to decide within the limits laid down in the Act. That is the line on which the Insurance Commissioners are proceeding at the present time. I can assure the noble Lord that if he would be good enough to communicate to us the points on which he thinks that amendment is desirable we should be very glad indeed to consider them, though, so far as we are at present advised, not with a view to any immediate amendment of the Act.
With regard to medical benefits, to which the noble Lord referred, I am sorry to say that I did not expect from the terms of his Question that he would lay so much stress upon them as he has done; but it is, I am sure, matter of common knowledge that fresh terms have been suggested and are now being considered by the medical associations throughout the country. It was only yesterday or the day before that there was an important meeting of the doctors in London, and if, as seems likely, their willingness to work the Act is followed very generally throughout the country, I think we have every reason to hope there will be an efficient medical service at the disposal of the insured people upon the day on which it is promised in the Act itself.
The noble Lord referred to a certain resolution which has been sent by the committee of a society in Lincolnshire. I hope the noble Lord will allow me, in referring to this, to say that from the documents which I have here I understand that a conference, which met on September 12, appointed representatives to a joint meeting which met on September 27, and that they sent to the Commissioners a certain letter. It was despatched, I
908
think, on September 27. It was acknowledged at once, and a further letter in answer to it was sent on October 16 to the secretary from whom the communication had been received. This resolution to which the noble Lord refers dealt, in the first place, with the question of transfer. That matter has already been referred to by the noble Lord on a previous occasion in this House. It was after that discussion that a conference took place between the representatives of a large number of societies and the Insurance Commissioners, and some 700 societies in all agreed for the time being to a system by which transfers should be possible from one society to another without any objection being made or without any discussion of any kind; and that was to last until September 30. A good many of these societies, by mutual arrangement, have agreed to extend the time or did agree to extend it so long as it concerned the first quarter card. That, of course, as the noble Lord knows, has now expired. All transfers after October 26 have to be dealt with under Section 31 of the Act. The noble Lord probably remembers that the Insurance Commissioners were required to issue instructions. Those are in an advanced state, and the Commissioners hope they will be immediately issued, perhaps even to-night, but certainly in a few days. This matter has already been dealt with in another place. No doubt the noble Lord remembers that no society may unreasonably withhold their permission from any individual to transfer from one society to another; and in another place Mr. Masterman said—
"The Commissioners in the early months of the Act would require very clear proof that the society from which a member was withdrawing would suffer material harm by his withdrawal before they decided not to pay his transfer value to the second society."
Therefore it is clear that for the next month or so it will be easy for any individual following the prescribed course to secure his transfer from one society to another. The appeal will lie to the Insurance Commissioners, and it will be for them to say whether in their opinion the consent is being unreasonably withheld. It is clear that the temporary arrangement which was in force during the months of August and September cannot be continued, because it was dependent upon the mutual consent of a number of these societies. The time for which they agreed has now elapsed, and unless they came together and agreed

909
among themselves that there should be a renewal of that arrangement it would not be possible for the Insurance Commissioners to force it upon them.
The noble Lord's reference to the Lincolnshire resolution reminds me that difficulties have arisen with regard to the administration and the interpretation of the Act in reference to sub-contractors, estate workers, casual labourers, charwomen, and outworkers generally, as well as regards domestic servants. We are quite ready to admit that there may be exceedingly difficult questions of interpretation and administration, but we do not yet feel that they are such as to require any amending legislation at the present time. I can assure the noble Lord that the Insurance Commissioners are doing their best to settle all these questions as they arise, and I do not suppose they will find any real difficulty to contend with at the expiration of a month or two from now.
910
If I understood rightly the reference which was made by Lord Lovat to estate workers, he allude rather to unemployment. As the unemployment section of the Act refers more to the Board of Trade than to the National Health Insurance Commissioners it would be more convenient that it should be dealt with on a separate occasion and in a separate way. That question is not intimately connected with the health side, at any rate, of national insurance, and is not administered by the same Commisioners. On the whole, therefore, I do not know that there is anything more I hace to say, except to express the hope that Lord Heneage will continue to take the same interest in the administration of the Act in the future, and to assure him that we shall always be glad to consider any suggestions he may have to make on the subject.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.