Lords Sitting of 3 January 1918

Preamble
Lord Forester—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

WILLS (SOLDIERS AND SAILORS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to testamentary dispositions of property by soldiers and sailors.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BISHOPRICS OF BRADFORD AND COVENTRY BILL. [H.L.]
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for this day) put off until Tuesday next.

COAL MINES CONTROL AGREEMENT (CONFIRMATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Confirmation of agreement.
1.—(1) The above-recited agreement of the twentieth day of July nineteen hundred and seventeen, together with all rights and powers conferred and all duties and obligations imposed thereby on the Controller of Coal Mines, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the Board of Referees, or any other persons, is hereby confirmed, and the said agreement shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, and shall be binding on the owners (including trustees) of any coal mine to which the said Regulation 9G is for the time being applied, and upon all persons whom the agreement affects.
(2) If after the date of the passing of this Act any person without reasonable cause fails as and when so required to give a return or to furnish any information or to produce or give facilities
308
for the inspection of any books, plans, or documents which, under the said agreement, he may be liable to give, furnish, or produce, or knowingly gives any information which is false in any material particular, or knowingly discloses or makes use of, for any purpose other than for such purpose as is authorised by the said agreement, any information acquired by him under the said agreement, he shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and in the case of a continuing offence to a further fine of ten pounds for each day during which the offence continues.
Where any such offence as aforesaid is committed by a company every director and manager of the company who knowingly authorises or permits the default, shall be liable to the same penalties as the company.
(3) Nothing in this Act or in the agreement confirmed thereby shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by the agreement, affect the general powers of the Board of Trade or the Controller of Coal Mines under the said regulation.
(4) References in the said agreement to the Controller of Coal Mines shall be deemed to include any person for the time being appointed to hold that office, and in the event of the office of Controller of Coal Mines being vacant or ceasing to exist shall be deemed to include the Board of Trade: Provided that nothing in this Act shall extend to apply the terms of the said agreement to the owners of any coal mine in respect of coke ovens or by-product plant belonging to them.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I move to add at the end of the proviso in subsection (4) the words "or in respect of any part of their undertaking other than the coal mine." In order to explain the object of this Amendment I must refer for a moment to what took place in the other House. Judging from what happened when this question was discussed there, I believe that the Government and I are substantially in agreement, and that the only difference which exists is in the actual words to be used so as to fulfil the intention of this Bill. In the Schedule definitions are given, and it is there stated that "undertaking" means "the whole of the undertaking of the owner of a coal mine which is for the time being under the control of the Controller." The Solicitor-General admitted in another place that these words were capable of being construed in a manner which went beyond the intention of the Bill.
During the Committee Stage in the House of Commons, or at a later stage—I am not sure which—Sir Norton Griffiths moved that coke ovens or by-product plant should be excluded; and in the discussion upon this Amendment the Solicitor-General admitted the difficulty which the insertion of these words would

309
create, because if the business of coke ovens and by-product plant were specifically excluded from the Bill it would naturally be asked why other industries that belonged to the owners of the collieries but were not really concerned with the raising of coal were not excluded also. Therefore I venture to think that, since the Amendment of Sir Norton Griffiths was accepted, it becomes even more necessary to have some words defining the absolute coal workings with which this Bill only deals; it should be limited to this, and should not extend to other industries.
After Sir Norton Griffiths's Amendment had been agreed to, General Hickman proposed the addition of words similar to the Amendment which I have placed upon the Paper. The Solicitor-General, not liking the words proposed by General Hickman, undertook to endeavour at a later stage to find words to carry out what is undoubtedly the wish of everybody concerned. So far as I know, no words have yet been proposed by the Government which will meet the case. I believe that there have been discussions about the matter, but I am not aware that any form of words has been accepted, or, indeed, suggested. It is generally admitted, however, that some words must be included in the Bill which will prevent its being construed in a manner which goes beyond its whole intention, and limit it to the operations of coal mining.
There was this specific undertaking given by the Solicitor-General in the House of Commons, and on the faith of this promise all further opposition on this point ceased, and the Third Reading was not opposed. Therefore I very strongly suggest to the Government that unless these words, or similar words really covering the case, are introduced into the Bill there will be a breach of faith in this matter. When an undertaking such as I have quoted is given, and when those who have been discussing the question agree to raise no further objection on the faith of such an undertaking, it is clear that the Government are bound to introduce some words which will cover the position.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 41, at the end insert ("or in respect of any part of their undertaking other than the coal mine").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl is quite accurate in his statement as to what took place in the other House on the occasion to which he has been referring, except, perhaps, in this respect. He spoke as if there had been an undertaking to introduce words. The undertaking of the Solicitor-General was that he would consider whether any words could be found which would meet the case. If I may refresh the noble Earl's memory, what was said will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of December 10, 1917, where in Column 914 it will be found that General Hickman said—
"May I propose, as an Amendment, at the end of the words just agreed to, to add the words 'and such-like works not directly concerned with the raining of coal'?"
Then what the Solicitor-General said was this—
"May I say that this matter is really not worthy of prolonged discussion. I personally do not like the words suggested by the hon. and gallant gentleman, but if he will leave the matter until a later stage we will endeavour to find such words as will carry out what is undoubtedly the policy common to everybody concerned."
Now, my Lords, the matter has been most carefully considered, and up to the present time no satisfactory form of words has been devised; and I will state rather more fully, in a moment or two, the reasons which in the opinion of the Government make it quite impossible to accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl. I will, however, say this at once, that we are prepared further to consider the matter between now and the Third Reading in order to see whether some form of words can be hit upon which will be free from objection either on the part of the Government or on the part of the coal-owners. We have given consideration to the matter already, but we are prepared to give it further and most careful consideration with a view to carrying out fully the promise of the Solicitor-General.
I cannot, however, on behalf of the Government, express any willingness to accept the form of words which is now proposed to the House. If that form of words were adopted, Clause 1 would run thus. At the end of the fourth subsection, after the reference to coke ovens or by-product plant being excluded, the proviso would go on "or in respect of any part of their undertaking other than the coal mine." I suggest to the noble Earl that those words would not do for this reason. The intention

311
of the Agreement is perfectly clear. I will read the words of the definition in the first clause of the Agreement—
"'Undertaking' means the whole of the undertaking of the owner of a coal mine which is for the time being under control of the Controller, except such parts of the undertaking as are controlled establishments within the meaning of the Munitions of War Acts, 1915 and 1916, or are under the control of the Controller of Shipping, and such other parts (if any) as the Controller may exclude from the operation of this Agreement."
If the intention of these words was that the whole of the undertaking with reference to coal mines should be included and if the words now proposed were adopted, questions would arise whether a number of things incidental to the working of a colliery would not be excluded. Take the washery in connection with a coal mine, for the purpose of washing the coal. That is a very necessary part of the equipment of a properly equipped coal mine. Then you have in connection with a coal mine private wagons. Is it intended to exclude these? The words proposed are such as to suggest that the Agreement is to be strictly confined to the coal mine itself. Further than that, in every coal mine you want ponies, and it is necessary to have grazing ground on which to keep the ponies belonging to the colliery. It is ancillary to the coal mine, and it is necessary that it should come under the control of the Controller. Then I may mention also the case of cottages for workmen. That is not the coal mine itself, but it is ancillary to it. Then there is the case of ironstone. Of course, the working of the ironstone may be a separate matter, if the pits are separate, but in many cases the ironstone is brought up with the coal and is then separated and disposed of separately; but you could not keep the two things separate for the purpose of the control by the Controller under this Agreement, for up to a certain point, it is absolutely essential for the purpose of controlling the colliery to have control of the ironstone. Therefore I put it to the noble Earl that the words which he has proposed go a great deal too far and would make most serious inroads upon the Agreement.
The Agreement is perfectly specific in saying that the "undertaking," which is the word used throughout the Agreement, means "the whole of the undertaking of the owner of a coal mine which is for the time being under control of the Controller."
312
The Order made under the Defence of the Realm Acts is for the control of coal mines, and the Agreement deals with the undertaking of the owner of the coal mines of which control is taken. I put it to the House that this means obviously things connected with the mine, but nothing which is independent of the mine. For this reason I submit that it might make serious inroads upon the terms of the Agreement if the wider words which are now proposed were inserted in the Bill. It will be observed that in defining "undertaking" certain exceptions are made from the undertaking of the owner of the coal mine; and the last of these is "such other parts (if any) as the Controller may exclude from the operations of this Agreement." I think I may say, on behalf of the Government, that this power of exception will be most carefully exercised by the Controller for the purpose of preventing the control extending to anything except what is really ancillary to the coal mine and must be controlled in order that the control may be effective. For these reasons I am quite unable to accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, and I hope I have satisfied him that very considerable difficulty might arise if the words which he proposes were adopted. But, as I have said, the Government, having already considered the matter very carefully, will consider it further and give sufficient time between Committee and the Third Reading in order to see whether some form of words cannot be devised which would meet the case. I am not at all sure that if we rush too hastily into a form of words it might not be regarded as rather prejudicial in some respects possibly to the coal-owners.
What I wish to indicate in the most general terms is the view of the Government as to what will be essential. In the first place, there must be power of control with regard to anything that is in any way ancillary to the coal mine. In order to be exempt from the powers of control a business must be a separate and independent business, and it ought to be carried on at a separate establishment. From the practical working of the Agreement it is of extreme importance that the books relating to that separate business should have been kept at the time when the standard is to be ascertained, and must have been kept in such a way as to show clearly what portion of the profit is attributable to that particular business as distinguished from the rest of the general undertaking. I have

313
indicated these points in order that they might possibly help the consideration which I have no doubt will be given to this mutter before the Third Reading, and I hope that the noble Earl will appreciate that it is not from any reluctance at all to meet the point raised that I express my inability to assent to the words which he has proposed.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The noble and learned Lord has convinced me of one thing, and that is the extreme importance and necessity of getting a form of words of some kind which will clearly carry out the intentions of the Government in this Bill. There are many eases that one can call to mind—I recall one now—of colliery undertakings in which the business of a coal merchant forms a very large part of the undertaking of the colliery, although the colliery itself is a very important one. It is combined with depôts all over the world. In this case I am not at all sure—in fact, I should think it is probably quite the reverse—that these two businesses are worked from different offices or with different staffs. No doubt they are all working together. But it would be absolutely unfair that a large coal merchant's business, because it was connected with a colliery, should be subject to this control, while other large coal merchants' businesses, no more important perhaps than this one, should be exempt altogether from the conditions of the Bill because they were not connected with collieries. That seems to me to be quite clear; and I would impress upon the noble and learned Lord, who is good enough to tell me that he will give most careful consideration to this problem before the next stage of this Bill—and I am much obliged to him for giving me that assurance—the absolute necessity of finding some form of words (which, after all, the Government draftsman cannot be incapable of finding) that will carry out the intentions of the Bill and only those intentions, and will not allow some interpretation which may be made by some future Controller to rope in (if I may use the expression) undertakings and industries which Parliament does not intend to be part of this Bill.
Although the noble and learned Lord explained to me that the difficulties of finding words were so great that it had been impossible for the Government to carry out the whole of the promise—I will put it no higher than that—the promise of
314
an endeavour by the Solicitor-General to find words, still I must repeat that the words which the noble and learned Lord read out were of a very definite character and clearly led those who were pressing in another place for some such Amendment as I have on the Paper to withdraw all opposition to the Bill.
There is only one other word I would say, and that is to make reference to the words quoted by the noble and learned Lord at the, end of the paragraph defining the undertakings to be controlled, and excepting "such other parts (if any) as the Controller may exclude from the operation of this Agreement." As to that, I would say this. I have no doubt of the present Controller's intention. I have no doubt it is an excellent intention to exclude those industries that are not closely connected with the colliery. We cannot, however, rely on a Controller's intention. The place of the present Controller may be taken by some one else; and in such a Bill as this I venture to say that the position of those who are being drawn within the operations of the Bill by an Agreement which has never been agreed to by them, and in which they have had no say whatever, should be carefully safeguarded and the actual intentions of Parliament clearly stated in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Accounts and audit.
3.—(1) Sums collected by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under the said Agreement shall be paid into such account as the Controller may direct.
(2) Payments into and out of the said account shall be made, and all other matters relating to the administration of that account and to the money standing to the credit of the account (including the investment of any such money) shall be regulated in such manner as the Treasury may direct.
(3) At the end of every financial year accounts of the payments into and the expenditure defrayed out of the said account shall be made up in such form and with such particulars as may be directed by the Treasury, and shall be audited by the Controller and Auditor-General as public accounts in accordance with such regulations as the Treasury may make, and shall be laid before Parliament with a report thereon.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to add to Clause 3 a new subsection providing that "any sum falling to be paid under Clause 4 of the scheduled Agreement shall be paid to the owner each month by the Controller, subject to final adjustment at the termination of the accounting period." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is really to put the colliery owner on the same footing as the railway companies, which are being controlled by the Government, are put. It is to safeguard the owner of the colliery in financing his own business. The payments in weekly wages of a colliery owner are larger probably than would be imagined by those who have no knowledge of the subject. There are collieries which pay something like £50,000 a week in wages. It is obvious that if any considerable sum of money which is due to the owner of a colliery is held up pending an audit or pending the time when the exact figure can be made out, he will be placed in so awkward a position that it will be impossible for him to finance his business. I think that is quite clear. I propose this Amendment so that a certain proportion and a very large proportion of the amount due to him shall be paid monthly. The figures might be accurately balanced after the audit has taken place. I hope that the Government will see the justice of giving some undertaking of this sort and of accepting the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 3, after line 17, insert as a new Subsection:
"( ) Any sum falling to be paid under Clause 4 of the scheduled Agreement shall be paid to the owner each month by the Controller, subject to final adjustment at the termination of the accounting period."—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite appreciate the reasons which have led the noble Earl to propose this Amendment. I regret that the Government do not see their way to accept it, for two reasons. In the first place, it would require the making up of accounts every month. That would involve an enormous amount of trouble. Most accounts are made up annually. In some cases they are made up every six months, sometimes every three months, but those cases are extremely rare, and to do it monthly would involve an enormous amount of work. I am told that in practice it would really be impossible. The effect of the Agreement as it stands is this—that the Coal Controller will be liable to pay over the amounts as soon as the
316
accounts are ready, and I trust there will be no undue delay in getting out the accounts. But to require that it should be done every month would, I am afraid, impose a burden on the Controller greater than could be borne. Looking at it from a business point of view it is not desirable that this Amendment should be made.
But there is another reason—and I submit it is a conclusive reason—against it. This Bill is one to give effect to the Agreement arrived at after most mature and prolonged consideration between the Coal Controller and the Mining Association, The Mining Association, of course, have no legal authority to bind the various mine owners who are members of the Association, but their entering into the Agreement was a pledge that they considered that it was a fair Agreement, and, practically speaking, it carried with it the assurance that the great majority of those whom it represented would concur. That, of course, was enough for the purpose of the Controller, and this Bill was necessary for the reasons which were explained on the Second Reading. It is obvious that the whole scope of the Bill is to give effect to the Agreement which has been arrived at, and the Amendment would be a varying of that Agreement in a most material particular. I submit that it would be really making a new Agreement, and you cannot, when you are legislating to give effect to an Agreement, say we will make a new bargain for the parties. The whole basis of the Bill would be gone. For these two reasons I hope the noble Earl will not press this Amendment.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid that the noble and learned Lord has not in the least convinced me that this is an unreasonable Amendment. May I draw his attention to the fact—no doubt he knows it perfectly well—that the Controller under Regulation 9G, which is so constantly quoted, has to furnish a monthly return; a monthly balance sheet. There he has all the information. Let me remind him also that the Ministry of Munitions, where subsidies are made, pays monthly 80 per cent. of the amounts due, subject to an audit. I do not ask that the accounts should be accurately made out every month. That, of course, is impossible, but I cannot see any more difficulty in paying a large proportion of the amount due monthly to colliery owners than to such businesses as are subsidised by the Ministry of Munitions. All that I say is

317
that the colliery owner requires it more than the other industries, because 20 per cent. is, I should say, too much to retain in the case of a colliery company where the weekly wages cover such an enormous sum. It ought to be a smaller amount than that which is withheld. I cannot see that this Amendment would be overburdening a Government Department with work, because the facts that the Controller will obtain from the colliery owner in the monthly returns and balance sheets will practically give him all the information he wants in order to enable him to give back a fair amount of the money due, without keeping the colliery owner waiting so long, practically bankrupt and unable to finance his business.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: May I remind the noble Earl that the fourth clause of the Agreement to which the Amendment refers provides that—
"Where as respects any accounting period the profits of any undertaking retained by the owner are loss than the guaranteed standard as hereinafter defined, or if there is a loss or the loss is greater than the guaranteed standard, when that standard is a negative quantity, such sum as may be required to make up the guaranteed standard shall, subject to the provisions of Clause 13, be paid to the owner by the Controller."
That is a definite statement, and the Agreement is quite specific about it. The Amendment proposed has no reference to the payment on account at all. If it were carried it would have the effect that any sum falling to be paid under Clause 4 should be paid to the owner each month by the Controller. The sum does not fall to be due in respect of the accounting period under the Agreement, and until you know what the state of things is on the accounting period you have not got a sum falling to be paid. The noble Earl said it would be a reasonable thing that something should be paid on account. That, of course, is a matter of agreement. I cannot say anything about it. But I submit that it is impossible to indicate, in the face of the terms of this Agreement, that the sums should be paid over monthly.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I shall ask to be allowed to bring this matter up at a later stage to see whether anything can be done to meet this point. I will not press the Amendment now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4, 5, and 6 agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I have on the Paper two new clauses which I move to insert after Clause 6. The first one reads: "Nothing done or omitted to be done before the passing of this Act or within ninety days thereafter shall prejudice the right of any coal-owner to a substituted standard or any other right conferred on him under the Agreement." This is really a small point, but an important one. I understand that in some cases the Controller has fixed the period within which application for the substituted standard has to be made, and now the Agreement is made binding on a new set of people who have not been parties to it. I do not imagine for a moment that this is meant to be retrospective in its action, but that the period fixed by the Controller should date from the passing of this Act, because certain persons will only, after the passing of the Act, be invited to apply for a substituted standard. I hope that this Amendment will not have the fate of the other two.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6 insert the following new clause:
".Nothing done or omitted to be done before the passing of this Act or within ninety days there-alter shall prejudice the right of any coal-owner to a substituted standard or any other light conferred on him under the agreement."—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should be extremely glad if I could accept this Amendment, but I really cannot do so. The Amendment enacts that nothing done or omitted to be done before the passing of this Bill or within ninety days thereafter shall prejudice the right of any coal-owner to a substituted standard or any other right conferred on him under the Agreement. It is very difficult to say what the scope of this Amendment would be. The words would cover, I suppose, the case where the coal-owner had voluntarily shut down his mine. That would be something done before the passing of the Act. The noble Earl said there had been some time fixed by the Controller with the mine owners who are parties with those mine owners who might be taken to be represented by the Mining Association, as to the date, but this Amendment goes very far beyond that. It is so extensive in its terms that I do not know what I should be dealing with in accepting it. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will accept the expression of my great

319
regret that I am not able to take any other course than that which I have indicated in regard to the other Amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The other new clause that I wish to move reads: "Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to deprive the owner of any coal mine who is entitled to a percentage standard under the Act of his right to retain in respect of any accounting period any profits which he would be entitled to retain under the Act, so far as such profits are not in excess of his percentage standard thereunder plus £200." This clause is on the question of the standard on which the excess profits are calculated.
Under the Finance Act No. 2 the owner was given the choice of (a) a pre-war standard and (b) a percentage standard calculated on his capital outlay. The effect of Clause 3 in this Bill is to deprive him of this choice. In turning to the Schedule, page 4, we read: "Profits standard" means the profits standard determined in accordance with the Act, and the percentage standard shall in no case be taken to be the standard for the purposes of this Agreement. This, therefore, obliges the colliery owner to have his excess profits calculated on the pre-war profits standard. There are cases of collieries which have no pre-war profits. They may have invested considerable sums of money before the war in enlarging the business of the colliery and no return from this invested money might have been looked for until perhaps within the last three years; and yet this is not to be taken into account. The colliery owners cannot have a percentage standard on their capital outlay, and they are obliged to accept the pre-war standard which would take away from them, not only excess profits equal to 95 per cent., to which they do not object—I draw the attention of the House to the fact that no Amendment was moved in another place to alter this, and no objection was taken to it—but would also take away all other profits which the colliery owner may have made since the pre-war profits standard.
Clause 8, it is true, enables the Controller to fix a substituted standard in special cases, but it must be observed that it will be somewhat different from the percentage standard. It is stated that "the percentage standard shall in no case
320
be taken to be the standard for the purposes of this Agreement." The Bill only leaves the owner the 5 per cent. difference between his present profits and his profits standard. He may have no pre-war profits. Why, I ask, is he to be deprived of what every one else is allowed under the Finance Act—that is, a choice as to the standard on which it shall be calculated? That is a reasonable choice to give to other industries, and I cannot see why it is unreasonable in the case of colliery owners. I agree that the whole subject is a very complicated one, and that it is very difficult to make the form of the Bill perfectly fair to all concerned, but I must make this protest against the position in which the colliery proprietors are being placed—a position which is much worse than that held by those who are the great leaders of other industries. It does not seem to me fair that a method of calculating excess war profits should be based upon a pre-war percentage standard when there are collieries which can show that they had no profits whatever before the war, and the profits during the war cannot be called war-profits, but are due to the amount of capital which was spent in pre-war times in enlarging their undertaking.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6 insert the following new clause:
".Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to deprive the owner of any coal mine who is entitled to a percentage standard under the Act of his right to retain in respect of any accounting period any profits which he would be entitled to retain under the Act, so far as such profits are not in excess of his percentage standard thereunder plus two hundred pounds."—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I feel myself very unfortunate in not being able to accept this Amendment. The reasons are these. This Bill is to give effect to the Agreement of the parties—namely, the Mining Association on the one hand, and the Controller on the other. They considered this subject most maturely, and the Agreement, to give effect to which the Bill is introduced, provides that the "profits standard" means the profits standard determined in accordance with the Act, and that the percentage standard shall in no case be taken to be the standard for the purposes of this Agreement. If it were a case of proposing by legislation to supersede the percentage standard, the observations made by the noble Earl would deserve

321
serious consideration; but this is what the Mining Association agreed to in conference with the Controller, after the most mature consideration, and it would upset the whole matter if this alteration were made.
It is not right to say that no adequate provision is made for securing that justice is done. The circumstances were such that the Mining Association and the Controller both thought that the special standard was not applicable, but they have provided by Clause 8, to which the noble Earl did refer, that—
"If at any time, in the case of any undertaking, it appears to the Controller, either on his own motion or on the motion of the owner, that there is no profits standard or that the profits standard as ascertained under the Act cannot fairly be applied, the Controller shall fix, for the purpose of ascertaining the guaranteed standard, or the special standard, as a substitute for the profits standard, a sum equal to the average annual profits which might have been actually earned during the standard period."
That is what the parties agreed upon after prolonged conference; and Clause 11 gives an appeal from the decision of the Controller.
If the noble Earl will look at Clause 11 he will see that the Controller is not left unchecked in discharging his duty under Clause 8, because Clause 11 provides that—
"If the owner of any undertaking feels aggrieved at the refusal of the Controller to fix a substitute for the profits standard under sub-clause (1) of Clause 8, or at the amount fixed by him under either sub-clauses (1) or (2) of Clause 8, or under Clause 10, he may appeal to the Board of Referees appointed under the Act, who shall determine their procedure in hearing and disposing of any such appeal, and that Board may either confirm or revoke the decision of the Controller, or, where an amount has been fixed by the Controller, may vary," and so on.
I submit that in these circumstances it would be a very startling thing indeed to set aside the whole Agreement at which, after most elaborate consideration, all parties arrived.
The Bill is necessary because the dissenting minority do not concur in what the representatives of the Mining Association agreed to in the sense, not of making it binding Agreement—because I entirely agree that the Mining Association had no legal authority whatever to bind their members to such an Agreement—but they have authority and they say that they regard this as a fair thing, and in practice it would in all probability go through so far as the vast majority of the members of the Association are concerned. But the matter does not quite rest there, because in
322
another place both the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees ruled that any alteration of the Agreement would be out of order, being entirely contrary to the whole scope of the Bill, which is to confirm this Agreement and make it binding upon those who do not come under it. That being so, I hope that on this occasion I may have been fortunate enough to convince the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid that if I have utterly failed to convince the noble and learned Lord he has not succeeded in convincing me either. He has explained to us the position in which this Bill has been presented to Parliament, and it establishes a most unfortunate precedent. Here is a Bill to which certain officers of the Mining Association have been party, but about which I think a very large number of other members of the Association have known nothing whatever, and to which they have never been parties in any sense. And then the noble and learned Lord says that it is a Bill to force within its operation persons who were not parties to this Agreement, and that because this Agreement has been made with certain other persons it is incompetent for Parliament to make any alterations in it. He quoted the Speaker's ruling. I do not think that we in this House are bound by the Speaker's ruling. I venture to say, if the Government can come to an Agreement with certain individuals and then can come down and make many other people parties to that Agreement when they have not agreed to it and did not previously know what the Agreement contained, that this is enabling the Government to do outside Parliament what it ought never to be allowed to do. Let me remind your Lordships that every Private Bill has a clause in it that the agreement which is arrived at shall be subject to any alterations or amendments that Parliament may think it right to make in it. Yet the Government say that Parliament has no right to alter this particular Agreement. Of course, I cannot persist in my Amendment. But I regret very much that the Government have not seen fit to deal with more fairness—I must use that word—with the colliery owners who were not in any sense bound by these conferences and agreements.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule:
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I do not propose to move an Amendment to the. Schedule, but before it is passed I should like to call attention to a matter which is in my opinion of national importance. Clause 14 of the Schedule states that in certain circumstances a mine can be closed or even abandoned. I do not see anything in this clause, however, to make it obligatory on every party concerned to take care that the water is pumped out of the mine during the period it is closed so that when better times come the mine can be opened again. Your Lordships are aware that if pumping ceases in a mine the mine gets flooded, and it is a very expensive and tedious business to get rid of the water, and a great deal of damage is done to the property. I am aware that Clause 21 says that the expenses for reinstating and reopening a mine may be provided practically out of what remains of the Excess Profits Duty. I should like to call the noble and learned Lord's attention to the fact that it is of national importance that no seam of coal should be allowed to deteriorate or that any colliery should be prevented from resuming work as soon as possible after the war. I do not know whether it is possible to put in a recommendation that whenever the Controller closes a colliery he should be obliged to see that the water is constantly pumped out. I trust that it may be possible to insert that provision in the Bill at the next stage without interfering with this Agreement. In any event I would ask the noble and learned Lord to take the matter into consideration, because it is most important that valuable national property should not deteriorate through a mine being allowed to be flooded during the period of the war, which period, let us hope, may be a short one.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I appreciate the importance of the point to which the noble Viscount has called attention. He may rely upon it that the Controller, when closing a mine, will see that nothing is done which will result in such evil consequences as those to which the attention of the House has been called. The noble Viscount is, of course, aware that Clause 21 of the Agreement makes provision for a levy, which is called a voluntary levy but which may be made at the request of the Mining Association, for the purposes of maintaining, reinstating, and reopening any mine
324
which may be closed by the Controller. This shows that the question of maintaining mines was well in view when the Agreement was settled. In any event, I trust that we may depend upon the Controller not to order a mine to be closed without taking care to guard against such serious consequences as might result from flooding. The matter is one of importance, and I shall certainly consider what has been said by the noble Viscount.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: In presenting this Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading I hope that you will not find it so formidable as it looks at first sight. The Bill contains 47 clauses, and is of great importance. It passed through the House of Commons I think I may say with almost a minimum of controversy. The Bill deals with the Insurance Act of 1911, which was amended in some particulars in 1913 and has since in various details been amended according to circumstances required by the war. When we come to consider that Act, difficult and complicated as it was, dealing with the interests of 15,000,000 people and the administration of millions of money, affecting hundreds of societies and thousands of branches, and involving, I should think, hundreds of thousands of officials, it seems to me that it is remarkable not that we should require to amend this Act but that it has worked as well as it has.
I think I shall best consult the convenience of your Lordships if I endeavour to explain the main provisions of the Bill as concisely and as clearly as I can, relying upon the knowledge of your Lordships on the subject to pull me through a task which, I can assure you, I have not found a very easy one. But before I go further I should like to explain that nearly all these propositions are based upon the Report of a Departmental Committee which has come to be known as the Ryan Committee, because it was presided over by Sir Gerald Ryan. Sir Gerald Ryan, as most of us know, is, if not the greatest, certainly one of the

325
greatest, authorities on insurance; and for the time and assiduity he gave to the work of this Committee I think the country and the Government owe him a great debt of gratitude, which debt extends also to his Committee. That Committee was composed of ladies and gentlemen holding extremely diverse views on various political and social subjects, but all of them were alike in this, that they were actuated by a sincere desire to come to right conclusions with a single-mindedness beyond all praise.
The Bill is divided into two Parts. The first Part, containing six clauses, has to do with the rearrangement to a certain extent of the financial scheme of the Act of 1911. Part II is entirely concerned with the simplification of methods in the Act of 1911 which have been found to be too cumbersome. It is to Part I that I will first direct your Lordships' attention. The Act of 1911 was based upon the supposition that the contributions, in the first place from the insured, in the second place from the employers, and in the third place from the Exchequer, would be found adequately to secure the financial stability of the scheme. But experience shows that these hopes have not been fully realised. It is also clear that there is a necessity for one comprehensive scheme, to embrace as far as possible all societies, for the readjustment of the finance of the principal Act.
The approved societies are of very different kinds. You have one class, which I will for the moment style individual, which has for its membership men or women or members from some particular industrial occupation. On the other hand you have another class, which I will call for the moment collective, which comprises in membership men and women and people belonging to various occupations and concerns. There are also societies with extremely numerous and others with very small memberships, and when valuation is made at the proper time it is possible that through no fault of their own but owing to the constitution of their membership, some of these societies may not be in a position to continue to pay the benefits for which they are liable under the Act. As a reason I might state this, that in a society you may have a large number of people who are employed in trades which are more dangerous to health than are some other trades, or you may have them living in localities which are unhealthy. Epidemics
326
may supervene and health may be more precarious, especially in the case, of women, than averages have led us to expect. The principal object of Part I is so to readjust the finance that properly administered societies may be able to pay their way.
This, of course, necessitates money. It is proposed in the Bill to get this money from two sources—one, to a certain extent from money within the Act to be redistributed; and, two, by an extra grant from the Exchequer of £400,000 a year. This gives me £1,900,000. The present amount of the Sinking Fund is £4,500,000, which should redeem the reserve values of £70,000,000 by the year 1932. The whole of the money in the Act, as you know, comes from the 7d. paid by the men and the 6d. paid by the women and a State supplement of two-ninths of the expenditure in the case of men, and a quarter in the case of women. The Commissioners retain 1 5/9d. in the case of the men and 1½d. in the case of the women, and these small sums go to make up the £4,500,000. Now I propose to take away £1,500,000 from the Sinking Fund and reduce it to £3,000,000, and therefore at 3 per cent. the redemption will be postponed to 1947.
Having got the money, how is it proposed to dispose of it? Of the £1,500,000 from the Sinking Fund it is intended to set aside £280,000 to augment the funds for providing benefits for all women in all societies. The money is to be allocated in proportion to the number of women in each society. Out of the remainder of the £1,500,000 it is proposed to set up what is to be known as a Contingency Fund, which I will presently explain. Of the £400,000 it is proposed to set aside £250,000 for benefits for married women, especially in regard to pregnancy. That is to be allocated in proportion to the number of married women in societies and the number of confinements. That is to be called the Women's Equalisation Fund; and the remaining £150,000 is to start what is to be known as a Central Fund, from which money is to be taken to aid societies which for various reasons may have fallen into deficiency. That £150,000 is not to be automatically distributed, but is to be retained by the Commissioners and to be given out as and when occasion may demand. Then if that is insufficient, there may be taken a sum not exceeding £150,000 from the unused balances of the contingency funds of all societies. Power for

327
taken in the Bill. The contingency fund is nothing more or less than a reserve fund, as it would be called in business parlance. Each society is to have its own fund, and the money will be distributed according to the numerical membership of each society. The object is that when on valuation a deficiency is shown the society will be able to make good out of its own resources. If there is no deficiency, the money will be placed to current account, but will not be expended in benefits until five years have elapsed.
Here I must ask leave to say a word with regard to pooling and association. The word "pool" appears in the Act of 1911. By that Act a society of 5,000 had an entity of its own, but societies below 5,000 were styled "small societies" and could associate with one another. The association became the unit, and societies forming that association became the branches. Societies within the association had to render to its authority one-third of their surplus if any, and their position in regard to deficiency was not so favourable as I shall hope presently to propose under this Bill. Small societies under 5,000 not joining an association were pooled according to groups in counties and county boroughs, of which there were 128. The county pool therefore became the society, the societies became the branches, and so on. It is proposed in the Bill that a society of 1,000 members shall have its own entity, its own valuation, and its own contingency fund. Societies of less than a thousand members are to be styled "small societies." The right of association of small societies will continue. Each association will have its own contingency fund, from which societies or branches will be aided as necessity arises, and each associated society will retain the whole of its own surplus. Small societies not associated will be grouped into four national groups. Each will retain its own surplus, and in case of deficiency will draw on its own contingency fund. It will draw on the national pool only if its own contingency fund is found to be insufficient, and will be in the same position as regards the central fund as the larger societies are.
This brings me to Part II, the whole object of which is simplification. Since 1912 experience which had to be gained has shown that there were anomalies, that methods were perplexing, that they led in many cases to avoidable expense
328
and to a variety of complications, adding work and indeed in many cases creating work. Our object is, as far as we can, to prune away these methods which are not balanced by advantages; to do away with a great number of the innumerable exceptions—for exceptions in themselves lead to complications—and endeavour as far as possible to have one uniform rate of contribution and one uniform rate of benefit.
I think I shall probably best consult your Lordships' convenience if in regard to simplification I give two or three instances of how the Act works, and then pass to two subjects of more general interest. For instance, under the Act the late entrants can choose one of three courses. They can (1) pay the ordinary rate of contribution for a reduced rate of benefit; (2) pay an increased rate of contribution in proportion to age for full benefit; (3) pay a lump sum compensating for full benefit. You can easily imagine how perplexing were these alternatives and the references to tables and comparisons between ages and rates; altogether it was an extremely inconvenient system. It is now proposed to provide that all new or late entrants shall be entitled, after twenty-six weeks waiting period, to enter at a reduced rate of sick benefit—6s. instead of 10 s. for men, and 5s. instead of 7s. 6d. for women; with, of course, medical and sanatorium benefit. At the end of two years, including the twenty-six weeks, they will be entitled to full benefit. We also abolish the differential rate for persons under twenty-one without dependants, so that all entering into insurance after reaching sixteen years of age will be eligible for full benefits at eighteen.
There is a new provision which was inserted in the House of Commons. It refers to the case of the unmarried mother. By the Act, under the misconduct rule it was provided that the sickness benefit might be suspended owing to misconduct of members, and some societies have refused to pay sickness benefit in the case of the pregnancy of unmarried women. The effect of subsection (3) of Clause 12 of this Bill makes it impossible for the benefit to be withheld, and the change in the law is accepted by all types of societies, I understand. The subsection is so drawn as not to prejudice the question whether such conduct is misconduct or not, and I

329
think that it is a wise provision in the interests of the race.
Clause 13 defines the position of insured people who cease to be employed. A man might take a shop or become an employer himself, and he would then drop out of insurance. Assuming, however, a person could say that he or she was searching for work and was unemployed, he or she would be able to go on with full benefit for one year—a year's grace. Now it is proposed that all people who cease employment shall go on for one year on full benefit and then they will drop out of the society, and if they become re-employed they will have to re-insure and come in as new entrants.
I must pause at Clause 20 because I know there are one or two noble Lords in this House, who are administrators of large charitable undertakings, who take a particular interest in this. This clause makes more elastic the power, which was rather restricted in the Act, in regard to the payment of money to insured persons who are the inmates of institutions. You know that nothing can be paid to institutions which are maintained out of public funds; and the Bill now proposes that, after consultation with the insured and at the discretion of the society, the money payable to the insured who is in an institution can be paid to the dependants, if any, or, if none, can be paid in respect of any expenses for which the insured may be liable while in the institution, and, failing both these arrangements, the money can be paid to the institution; while if the money is not expended in any of these, ways it may be given to the insured when he comes out in a lump sum or in instalments, and at his death it passes to his estate.
Then there is a provision which I know has excited some interest, because one or two of my noble friends have been good enough to give me notice that they may at a subsequent stage suggest Amendments. That is with regard to what is known as the marriage benefit. It is proposed by the Bill to add to women's benefits by paying a marriage benefit of £2 to insured women when they marry, and to continue them at the same time in insurance as far as medical benefit is concerned; they have that advantage to the end of the following calendar year from the date of their marriage. If, having taken this £2, they remain employed or re-enter employment, they are to be treated as new entrants into
330
insurance from the date of marriage or their re-employment, as the case may be. A woman who does not take the £2 marriage benefit and leaves employment remains in receipt of full benefits after her employment ends, as in the case I mentioned just now—that is, she has a year's grace. Notice of marriage should be given four weeks after marriage. It is hoped that this £2 benefit may be an inducement to women to give that notice. They are not at all prompt to do so, though it is very necessary that they should give notice as soon as possible to enable their insurance to be wound up, and for the general efficiency of administration. It is computed that six out of seven women cease to be employed on marriage. There are some rare cases, no doubt, in which women continue in employment immediately after they are married. These women would be entitled to continue in full insurance if they did not receive the £2 marriage benefit.
There are conditions attached to this benefit. In the case of a woman who has been insured for less than fifty-two weeks and more than thirteen, she would not receive her £2 marriage benefit but she would get 3d. per contribution for each week in the intervening period, and if she has been insured for less than thirteen weeks she does not get the benefit. If there had been sick benefit paid to the woman between the date of her marriage and the date of her election to take the £2, the money so paid would be deducted from the marriage benefit. I may add that this proposal obviates the necessity, which was rather inconvenient from many points of view, of ascertaining a woman's intentions as to employment in the present and in the future. I may mention that women's insurance is a very difficult matter indeed. I do not suggest that this proposal is ideal. It is a matter of compromise. The subject was fully explored by the Ryan Committee, the Advisory Committee, and also by a special sub-committee which examined alternative proposals from all sources, including those of the Women's Co-operative Guild. If the proposal had not its origin with these bodies, which I think it had, it certainly has the adherence of all of them; and the sub-committee concluded their deliberations by remarking that no alternative which had been put forward was open to less objection than the proposal now in the Bill. I venture to say that to change it now would lead to considerable controversy. It will doubtless save much labour,

331
and I think I can show it is fair. Take the case of a girl of sixteen years of age who insures and subsequently marries at about twenty-three She has never been ill, has paid all her contributions, and had nothing to show for them. She was compulsorily insured, and, equally compulsorily, drops out of insurance on marriage. Her insurance is closed, and I think it is quite fair to regard the £2 marriage benefit in the light of a surrender value. If she is again employed and therefore reinsured, she has to begin again and go twenty-six weeks before cash benefit, and two years before full benefit, is payable. It does not interfere in any way with the provision for the maternity benefit, which conies from the husband's insurance.
In Clause 24 mention is made of soldiers and sailors. I do not think I need detain your Lordships for any length of time over that. They are mentioned in this Bill owing to certain reconstructions arising from amendments. They have practically all been already enacted in the existing Acts, and the arrangement for the surrender of a lump sum by the Admiralty and the Army Council to the Commissioners, which has been the method in practice for a long time, is now given statutory effect, and various minor alterations which have been made in the Acts to suit war conditions are now brought together in a more convenient form.
One subject will interest your Lordships very much. It created interest in the House of Commons and a certain amount of discussion in Committee; it is the question of the Mercantile Marine. This is rather a complicated matter, and I will explain it as clearly as I can and in broad outline. I may say that the origin of the changes finds its place, like that of all the other changes, in the pages of the Ryan Report. Both sides were heard before that Committee, and after protracted sittings and very careful consideration it reported unanimously in favour of the proposals which are to be found in the Bill. Experience shows that many of the existing methods have given rise to a certain amount of dissatisfaction and involve administrative difficulties. For instance, the National Seamen's and Firemen's Union say that the register work in regard to mercantile seamen is far more complicated and takes three times as long as the work for the ordinary employed contributor. The evidence of the Ryan Committee goes to show that the special process of accounting was
332
extremely complicated, owing, among other things, to the differentiation of rates and conditions of contribution between seamen and their employers. For the purpose of calculating arrears four contributions count as five, because the foreign-going seamen pays for forty-two weeks, while his employer pays for fifty-two weeks, and the foreign-going seaman can claim an exemption certificate from having to pay more than his forty-two weeks. But these men very seldom avail themselves of this right or privilege. Then a separate card is required for each voyage, and there is no ready plan by which a seaman can ascertain his exact position in a contribution year. There are often, again, too many stamps affixed to the cards, and this further involves conversions of credits and reserve contributions for drawing on if unemployed. All this has to do with the foreign-going seamen.
The case of the men employed in the home trade or on shore or in hospital, as well as on foreign service, is more complicated and possibly worse still, to this extent, that it is shown that the man himself is a loser by the transaction. In some cases he pays more than the section demands. There exist fractions for which credit is not sometimes given, with the further result that the man goes on building credits of reserve contributions in excess of his needs. The whole thing seems to be perplexing in the extreme. We have so many different classes of the mercantile sailor. There is the foreign-going sailor in a foreign-going ship, the home-trading man in a home-trading ship or very possibly a foreign-going ship, the man on shore in hospital, and men now and then unemployed; and it was thought necessary, with so many different classes and so many different methods, to find a plan to meet them all in the Act. We endeavour to sweep away and reduce as far as possible these many methods, to disentangle the procedure, and to make a simple, broad, and intelligible plan.
The plan very shortly is this. It is proposed to require payment by the foreign-going seaman of a complete contribution at a special foreign-going rate for every week of employment in foreign trade, and to utilise the small additional income for weeks over the forty-two weeks by enabling the society to pay sickness benefit to the dependants of these foreign-going seamen belonging to the society who are ill in hospital abroad. This discretion

333
societies already possess in regard to the men serving in home ships. The other men—other than the foreign-going seamen—will continue as employed contributors at the 7d. rate, the usual rate, subject as at present to the conditions imposed on employers and men by the Merchant Shipping Acts. Then, again, any illness of a merchant seaman, on board, is at present counted as part of the twenty-six weeks for which he is entitled to sick benefit, although the seaman is not entitled to benefit for such illness, because under the Merchant Shipping Acts the master has to provide medical attendance, medicine, and so forth. The Bill provides that the seaman shall get the full benefit of the twenty-six weeks for illness on shore without any account being taken of illness on board ship.
One other point only I will deal with, and that is the money contributions which are paid by shipowners in respect of those who are domiciled outside the United Kingdom and do not come within the Act. That is popularly known as the Lascar money, and about it there has been a considerable amount of dissatisfaction. It is now proposed that there shall be created a body of trustees, from shipowners and representatives of the various seamen's societies, to deal with and administer the fund. The plan, I suggest, is simple. None will deny that the Mercantile Marine deserve our best endeavours to render the method simple and the benefits due under the Act easily procurable. The only other point I have to allude to is one dropping out pupil teachers and student teachers who have gone to their training colleges and become certificated teachers, and who then come under the superannuation scheme.
In Clause 32 mention is made of panel doctors. At present there is power to remove a panel doctor from one panel, but not from all panels. Power is also taken to reinstate this officer if it should be considered desirable and justifiable, and the procedure in regard to the various necessary inquiries is made much more simple. I do not think that I need weary you with any more details of this Bill. I said that the greater portion of Part II had to do with machinery and with matters of detail, and I fear that I have already overtaxed your patience. I have but to add that if you see well to pass this Bill through its various stages, I am assured that those who are best qualified to judge will consider that
334
you have taken a great step towards rendering more efficient the administration of an Act of Parliament than which, many of us think, none more humane or beneficent ever received the Royal Assent. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a (Viscount Sandhurst.)
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I am not very conversant with the rules of this House, but I believe that this is the proper time to protest against one clause of this Bill which introduces for the first time a vital and radical change in all ideas of national health insurance. I do not think that many noble Lords can possibly know or have realised what is being introduced into this Bill, or we should not see such an empty House. At any rate, it is a satisfaction to the speaker that he will not have to bore many people with what must seem to many of us very complicated matters.
All will desire that everything should be done to simplify the Act of 1911 and its Amendments, and I am sure that those of us who have heard the speech of the noble Viscount will agree that, if I may say so without presumption, he dealt in an admirable way with a most complicated and difficult matter. I defy any one to read this Bill, simplified as it is said to be now, and understand it, even with the closest study and a most acute headache. It is Gladstonian and Henry James combined in the length of its sentences, and by the time that you have tried to master them you feel as if you were with Alice in Wonderland. No Bill that I have ever seen is so difficult to understand. I am not, however, complaining of the drafting of the Bill, except that it would be a very great cruelty to tell a woman that she should not have this or that benefit because she did not know the provision in the Act. If the public are to understand their benefits under this Bill some very much simpler form of it will need to be published.
I want, however, to draw your Lordships' attention—and I hope that what I say may go further—to a proposal in this Bill that is contrary and completely foreign to all idea of national health insurance. We are all anxious at this moment about the child-life of the nation, and any one of your Lordships who has been in close contact with the poor—and there are many of you who have been, and none perhaps more so than the noble Viscount

335
who brought this Bill forward, who is head of the leading hospital in England—must realise the great want of equipment and misery in which the majority of your country-women have to face woman's greatest danger; and it is the misery and the conditions in which they have to face child-bearing that make the birth of a child to be deplored and mourned instead of being a matter for a woman to be proud of. It was to relieve some of this unnecessary suffering that the National Insurance Act was brought in, and the maternity benefit which was given to mothers was the most popular of all the benefits and the most far-reaching for good. I think that any one who has been in connection with the poor will admit that.
Might we not reasonably expect, when an amending Bill is brought in, that this maternity benefit would be extended; that this popular and healthful benefit would be more widespread and made easier if there are funds available? But what do we find? I very earnestly ask your Lordships' attention to this. There is money available, and it is to be used under Clause 22, not to provide for the mother, not to provide for the baby, not to give help to mother or child to get a stronger hold on life, but it is to be used to give a wedding present of £2 to every woman at the time of her marriage, provided that she notifies the marriage within a month to the society to which she belongs. It is almost incredible! Naturally Lord Sandhurst, in bringing it forward, could not lay stress upon the very great change that this involves. Here, for the very first time is a clause in a National Health Insurance Act diverting to another purpose money subscribed for the purposes of health, and giving a present of £2 to a woman on her marriage. A sum of no less than from £250,000 to £300,000 is to be taken away from money actually subscribed for the national security of health and given as a marriage present to these young women at the time of their marriage. Do the framers of this clause expect that these women will put by this £2 to provide perhaps for the coming child or to provide for sickness? We know that a young woman at the time of her marriage suddenly getting a present of £2 and able to buy comforts and luxuries—which, perhaps, she never will be able to buy again—will spend the £2 on luxuries. We know that no woman will resist, when the whole world is smiling upon her, the temptation
336
of spending this money upon luxuries for her home.
The question is not whether a marriage dowry even of a miserable £2 should be given, but whether we have any right whatever to take this £2 from money subscribed for one purpose and give it to a purpose utterly foreign from national health insurance. If the State wants to give wedding presents to every woman who marries, let it do so, but not under a National Health Insurance Bill. What possible excuse can there be for doing this? I have had a number of letters from different authorities protesting against it. County councils all over England and other bodies are being asked to provide for maternity benefits out of the rates, and they turn to us and see that this vast sum of from £250,000 to £300,000 is being wasted upon this utterly inadequate marriage portion. At the moment when we are doing this, the Academy of Medicine in France is proposing to give a premium on motherhood. There is a proposal also in France to grant to French mothers from 2s. 6d. to 4s. a month for four months before the child is born and for one month afterwards, with the very wise provision that she must do no work in the period. Here are we taking away money which, as I say, is subscribed for the very purpose of national health insurance, and using it in this extravagant and stupid way.
What is the defence? The first line of defence which the noble Viscount has taken is this, that women who have been subscribers to a society for a considerable time have a sort of surrender value. It is perfectly true up to a point that there may be a surrender value, but I am not quite sure about it, because it seems to me that the subscription that a man or a woman pays each year for his insurance insures him for that one year. I should not have thought, therefore, that there was a surrender value. But granted that there is, is that any reason for applying the money in a totally different way from that for which it was subscribed? If there is a surrender value, for goodness sake let us spend the money in some useful manner connected with health insurance. Why should not the £2 be kept? Here is a married woman who is leaving off being insured, who is entering on married life. Instead of wasting it on a marriage dowry, why should not we keep it and give it to her when she has her first child? Then we should be helping the child-life of the country.

337
The second defence raised was "administrative reasons." It is said that it is all-important for the societies to know whether the woman is married or not—granted, it is very important—and that the offer of this £2 will be a bribe or an inducement to her to notify her marriage to the insurance company. If she does not notify, you observe, she does not get the £2. Therefore the £2 is to be offered as a bribe to the woman to notify her marriage. I have never had any experience in a spending Department of the Government, but I should have thought that it was very expensive to spend from £250,000 to £300,000 a year simply in bribing women to notify their marriages. After all, I have no doubt that what Lord Sandhurst said is quite true, that it is very important for the insurance companies to know whether a woman is married or not. But have we not to think of something more than the convenience of administration of the insurance company? Have we not to think a little bit about the woman who has given this money, and whether we cannot help the community more, and help the woman more, and help her child more by using this £2 in a better way than in giving it to her upon her marriage? And if it is so necessary for the society to know that the woman is married, why you have everywhere all over England the registrars of marriages. It would not cost from £200,000 to £300,000 to put the registrars of marriages in close touch with the societies, and then you would have notification of marriages.
Is there an alternative? Well, we are told that people have sat and considered whether there was an alternative. I have never found any difficulty in finding an alternative when I had money to spend, and I cannot think that it passes the wit of man to evolve a better scheme than this for spending this money. But there is an alternative. If a woman does not notify her marriage there is an alternative suggested in the Bill itself. She is to get other benefits. Why not make that apply to all women who marry and leave their society? That is one alternative. She is to get her insurance for a year and 30 s. maternity benefit for her child if it is born within a year. That condition is an unnecessary cruelty, because how could you refuse to a woman the maternity benefit if the child is born on the 366th day?
The alternative that I should like to see would be that the £2 which is proposed to
338
be given as a marriage dowry should be given to the woman as a present on the birth of her first child. Then we know that the money would necessarily be well spent because then the need is pressing on the woman for money for herself and for her child. My alternative may not be the best one. I should be very sorry to say that anything was best where people quarrel, as they do, over this insurance, and where so many interests are involved, and I have no experience to say whether my alternative is the best one, but I have experience enough to say that this £2 gift on marriage is an outrage on common sense. It is utterly bad, and in my opinion it is indefensible, because it goes away from all the principles of national health insurance—in fact, instead of being a step forward it is distinctly and most regrettably a very serious step backwards.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, this is a very important and most necessary Bill, as the noble Viscount has made so clear in his admirable explanation. The principal Act was a somewhat hasty piece of legislation, and possibly for that reason it has disappointed some of the rather too rosy expectations which were formed of its operation. But when one considers the complexity of the Act, which it is impossible for anybody but an expert to understand, I think it is wonderful, as the noble Viscount has said, that the Act has worked as well as it has. But it has had the disadvantage, already pointed out, that it has led the approved societies very near to the verge of bankruptcy. This Bill will introduce many improvements and simplifications, and I hope it will have the effect of creating permanent financial stability for all the societies.
There are, in my opinion, two important defects in the Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, has pointed out most clearly the objections which we both feel to Clause 22, and I agree with every word he said. The treatment of the married insured woman has not been quite satisfactory under the old Act, and I am inclined to think that the new Bill will make it somewhat worse, especially from the point of view of maternity benefit, to which the noble Viscount referred. But the main objection is that on which he laid most stress, that Clause 22 appropriates money raised for health purposes and turns it over to provide a wedding present to a woman on the day of her marriage. The

339
Act of 1911 is entitled "an Act to provide for insurance against loss of health and for the prevention and cure of sickness and for insurance against unemployment, and for purposes incidental thereto." The words "incidental thereto" are, I admit, of a rather comprehensive character. But I do submit to your Lordships that the provision of this £2 dowry does not fall within the definition of the principal Act, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will reconsider this clause before we get into Committee. I believe that there are several alternatives which might be found, and that probably an agreed Amendment might be arrived at.
There is another serious want in the Bill, and I have put down an Amendment which I trust will fill that want. In Clause 12, subsection (3), provision is made to abrogate the misconduct rule in the case of certain women. That is a most wise, necessary, and humane change, and I ask by my Amendment that this abrogation of the misconduct rule shall be made general in the case of all persons suffering from venereal disease. The effect of that rule as it now operates, as I hope to be able to show in Committee, is seriously detrimental to national health; and it is also quite at variance with what we now know of the nature and treatment of venereal diseases. I think that my Amendment will not be found to be controversial, and I hope the Government and your Lordships will accept it. I strongly support the Second Reading of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday, January 17.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (UNEMPLOYMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, this is a Bill which has passed through the House of Commons, at every stage without any comment whatever. The reasons for
340
the Bill are set out in the short Memorandum, and I think I shall best consult the convenience of the House by moving the Second Reading without saying anything further.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, before the Motion for the adjournment of the House is put, may I make an appeal to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who is in charge of the Coal Mines Agreement (Confirmation) Bill, to consider before the next stage of the Bill is taken the point I raised earlier in the evening. I would remind the Lord Chancellor that the Solicitor-General in the other House gave an undertaking to consider a form of words in connection with Clause 1, and I trust that the noble and learned Lord will not think it inconvenient, or the delay too long, if the Bill is put off until the week following that for which the next stage is fixed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like the noble Earl to consider whether it would not be better to see if the parties interested cannot state at once what they wish to be done. My experience is that the granting of longer time does not always tend to a more efficient conduct of business. I would ask the noble Earl to allow next Thursday to stand for the further consideration of the Bill. Then if he finds that there is a general desire for further time, and if the arrangements of the House admit of an extension of time being granted, an application to that effect might be seriously considered.
Moved, That the House do adjourn until Tuesday next.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half-past six o'clock.