Sitting of 19 July 1911

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

PEIVATE BUSINESS.
Chester Water Bill [Lords],
Verbal Amendments made; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries Bill [Lords],
Handsworth Urban District Council [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill [Lords],
Midland Railway Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FEOM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—
Amendments to—
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [Lords), without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Metropolitan Water Board to make waterworks and other works, and to acquire lands; and for other purposes."—[Metropolitan Water Board (New Works) Bill [Lords.]
Metropolitan Water Board (New Works) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee:—
"That, in the case of the Salford Hundred Court of Record Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
Resolution agreed to.

EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
Ordered, That the several Accounts and Papers which have been presented to the House in this Session of Parliament relating to the Revenues of India be referred to the consideration of a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Gulland.]
Resolved, That this House will, upon Wednesday next, resolve itself into the said Committee.—[Mr. Gulland.]

MIDDLESBROUGH, STOCKTON-ON- TEES, AND THORNABY TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords.]
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley)moved: "That the proceedings of the Committee on Group No. 5 of Railway Bills in respect of the Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill [Lords] be deemed to be, and be, valid notwithstanding that a Member of the said Committee had failed to sign his Declaration in accordance with Standing Order 117."
Mr. BOOTH: May we have an explanation as to how this mistake occurred?
Mr. WHITLEY: I think the matter is very simple. The hon. Member for the Eccles Division (Sir G. H. Pollard) had been nominated by the Selection Committee as a member of this Committee, but he was unfortunately unwell and away from London, and in consequence did not get his papers. Therefore he was unable to sign the Declaration. He did not sit or vote, but nevertheless, in the opinion of the authorities of the House a Motion of this kind ought to be moved in order that no person shall be able to take objection to the proceedings of the Committee.
Question put, and agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Battle Fleets and Cruisers.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he is aware that a committee of three admirals, including two who subsequently served as First Sea Lords, which reported on the naval manœuvres of 1888, declared that every battleship in a blockading fleet should be accompanied by at least one cruiser; whether he is aware that the number of battleships building, or not

  1013
  launched more than twenty years, is sixty-three, and the number of protected cruisers seventy; and whether he will say what provision will be made for the defence of our trade routes after an adequate number of cruisers has been allotted to the battle fleet?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The report of 1888 was made before wireless telegraphy was invented which has greatly altered the conditions. The number of battleships and protected cruisers, including Canadian and Australian, is correct, but to these must be added forty-three armoured cruisers.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the number of cruisers fitted with wireless telegraphy?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have given the hon. Gentleman a full answer to the question on the Paper.

  British and German Navies (Protected Cruisers).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many protected cruisers with a designed speed of twenty-one knots or over are completed or building for the British and German navies, respectively?
  Mr. McKENNA: Exclusive of six "Boadiceas" built and building, and eight scouts—all of which are classed as "unprotected" in the Dickinson Return, although they have protective decks— there are eighteen protected cruisers in His Majesty's Navy completed or building, that have a designed speed of twenty-one knots or over. The number for Germany is thirty-one. In neither case do the figures given include the ships of this year's programme.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many protected cruisers were launched for the British and German Navies, respectively, in the ten years from 1891 to 1900; and how many in the ten years from 1901 to 1910, inclusive?
  Mr. McKENNA: In the ten years from 1891 to 1900 there were sixty-five protected cruisers launched for the British Navy. During the subsequent ten years from 1901 to 1910, there have been thirteen protected cruisers launched for the British Navy. The figure thirteen is exclusive of five vessels launched of the "Boadicea" class and eight scouts, which are classed
  1014
  as "unprotected" in the Dickinson Return, although they have protective decks. The figures for Germany are:

  1891 to 1900

  …

  …

  …

  15

  1901 to 1910

  …

  …

  …

  20

  Royal Navy (Active List).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked what is the number of officers and men now actually serving on the active list of the Royal Navy; and what number of reserves would be available during the first week of a naval war?
  Mr. McKENNA: The numbers borne on the l0th June, are as follows:—

  Officers

  8,453

  Naval ratings

  106,326

  Marines (officers and men)

  17,083

  131,862

  It is undesirable to give details as to the provision and distribution of reserves on mobilisation, but it is anticipated that the numbers of reserves available during the first week of a naval war will be amply sufficient to meet requirements.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether in giving this answer he intends to further reduce the Marines?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have stated to the hon. Gentleman that there has not been for some time any suggestion to further reduce the Marines.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is it the intention to increase that body?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not quite sure, but I think there is this year a slight increase in the number. The increase is extremely small, but there is no general intention to increase the number.

  Damaged Destroyers.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the examination of the six destroyers of the second flotilla which sustained damage during the recent manœuvres has now been completed; if so, whether he can state the result; whether the "Rifleman" and three other destroyers of the Acorn class have since proceeded to sea and been compelled to return to port owing to further starting of rivets; and, if so, whether he is in a position to give any information regarding the matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: The examination of the "Rifleman," "Larne," "Lyra," and "Nymphe" has not yet been completed. Arrangements are being made for their docking as soon as convenient. Nothing is known of the circumstances referred to in the second part of the question.
  Mr. LEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to be in a position to give information on this very important subject?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think I will be able to do so very shortly. The "Rifleman," "Larne," and "Lyra" are proceeding to Portsmouth, and I think the "Nymphe" has already arrived at Devonport for docking.
  Mr. HUNTasked whether the torpedo-boat destroyers "Rifleman," "Lyra," and "Nymphe," which put into Portland about a week ago in a leaky condition, have again had to return to be repaired because the concussion of their guns had started more rivets; and, if so, whether he can give any explanation of these defects?
  Mr. McKENNA: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for North Down in answer to a similar question. I think I should state to the House that they were out in exceptionally bad weather, but I will give a full report to the House as soon as I receive it.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: What is the cause of the delay in the inspection of these vessels? Is it due to the fact that there is not sufficient docking accommodation, or what?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, they have to go to Devonport for docking.

  Director of Naval Construction.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the salary offered to the Director of Naval Construction, namely, £l,500 per annum, rising to a maximum of £1,800, is considerably lower than that which can be earned in the employment of a private firm by a man with the requisite professional knowledge; and whether, in view of this fact, the Admiralty will take the necessary steps so as to secure as the successor to the present director the most talented member of the profession?
  Mr. McKENNA: The salary named by the hon. Gentleman has not been in operation for many years. I need hardly say
  1016
  that the Admiralty will endeavour to secure the services of the most suitable gentleman to fill the prospective vacancy referred to.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is the salary of the Director of Naval Construction included in the Navy Estimates?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman will see from the Navy Estimates that the salary of the present Director of Naval Construction is £3,000.
  Mr. LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, see that the salary which has been paid for so many years is not reduced in the case of the present director's successor?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot give any undertaking on that point. We shall obtain the best man we can get, and I hope he will be paid a reasonable rate.

  Wireless Telegraphy (Royal Navy).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether there is a shortage of signal and wireless telegraphy ratings in the Fleet; if such shortage exists, to what is it due; and what steps have been taken, or are proposed, to remedy it?
  Mr. McKENNA: The numbers of signal and wireless telegraphy ratings to be worked to are fixed annually on the basis of the requirements of the Fleet for war, and it is anticipated that sufficient numbers to meet these requirements will be provided by the arrangements made this year. Full numbers are now borne both in the signal and the wireless telegraphy branches, a certain proportion being under training. The latter being a new and expanding branch, it is inevitable that some time should elapse before the full proportion of the higher telegraphist ratings is reached.

  Submarines (British and German).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked what is the amount appropriated for the construction of submarines for the British and German Navies, respectively, in the year 1911–12; and how many vessels of this type are under construction for the German fleet.
  Mr. McKENNA: The total amount included in the Navy Estimates for 1911–12 for the construction of British submarines is £680,973, exclusive of establishment and incidental charges. As regards Germany, we have no official information as to the number of submarines under construction. £733,855 was taken in the German Estimates for 1911–12 for the construction of submarines.

  Over-sea Dominions (Treaties).
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the Foreign treaties, if any, which do not directly concern the over-sea dominions, but which may be affected by the contemplated revision of commercial treaties in accordance with the resolution of the Imperial Conference?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): There are no such treaties.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked what are the countries with which it is proposed to open negotiations in accordance with the unanimous resolution of the Imperial Conference, with a view to securing liberty for any of the dominions which may so desire to withdraw from the operation of treaties without impairing the treaties in respect of the rest of the empire?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The countries are as follows: Argentina, Austria-Hungary, Costa Rica, Denmark, France, Italy, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Persia, Peru, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland and Venezuela.

  Arrest of Miss Malecka in Russia.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that at a public meeting held in Trafalgar Square on Sunday afternoon last, 16th July, a resolution was passed urging an immediate investigation by the British Government of the charges brought against Miss Malecka and urging that she should have a public and impartial trial or her release be immediately demanded; and if he can state what action the Government intend taking in the matter?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The reply to the first question is in the affirmative. As regards the second question, His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg has been instructed to address a note to the Russian Government claiming Miss Malecka as a British subject on the ground of a legal opinion as to her nationality, which has now been received. Sir George Buchanan is to ask once more that particulars of the charge against her may be given, that she may quickly be brought to trial and allowed counsel to defend her, and that His Majesty's Consul may be allowed to visit her freely and to attend the trial when it takes place.
  Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate how soon we may have more complete and definite information as the result of these steps?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No; I cannot do that.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is not it a fact that the British Ambassador asked for these particulars last week, and, as I understand from my right hon. Friend, no answer to that request has yet been received?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have not heard of any answer being given to the request for particulars.

  Federated Malay States (Revenue).
  Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the revenue of the Federated Malay States, and do they make any contribution to Imperial defence?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The estimated revenue of the Federated Malay States for 1911 is roughly $27,000,000. These States, although they are not British territory, make a substantial contribution to Imperial defence by maintaining, in accordance with the Federation Treaty of 1895, a highly efficient regiment (the Malay States Guides), which is intended to reinforce the garrison of Singapore in time of war.

  Anglo-Japanese Treaty.
  Mr. HUNTasked whether the Colonial Governments were consulted in the drafting of the new treaty with Japan?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The Prime Ministers of the self-governing Dominions were consulted before the Alliance was renewed, and unanimously approved of the renewal.

  New Caledonia.
  Mr. HUNTasked whether we have given up all our rights in New Caledonia; and, if so, when were they given up?
  Mr. HARCOURT: New Caledonia has been a French colony for over half a century. I am not aware what British rights in the islands the hon. Member refers to.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that within the last twelve months 4,000 or more coloured workmen have been imported to work in the mines in New Caledonia by a company; and whether, in view of the fact

  1019
  that Australia is only four and a-half days by steam, he can say whether the French Government have taken any steps to prevent these men from getting away and landing in Australia contrary to the Australian Immigration Acts?
  Mr. HARCOURT: As far as I am aware, the numbers quoted in the hon. Member's question are much exaggerated. No representations on the subject have reached me from the Commonwealth Government, and I have no reason to suppose that that Government is unable to prevent evasion of its own laws.

  Ex-Governors of Dominions.
  Mr. CLYNESasked how many ex-governors of Dominions are now in receipt of pensions for their services; how many of them are known to be receiving more than one pension; and how many of them sit in the House of Lords?
  Mr. HARCOURT: As far as I am aware, the number of Colonial ex-Governors in receipt of pensions is twenty-two. Only two of these served any part of their time in a self-governing Dominion. One ex-Governor is also in receipt of an Army pension, but his pension as Governor was, in consequence, reduced by one-half the amount of his military pension. Only one ex-Governor in receipt of a pension is a member of the House of Lords.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES.
    Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a society distributing any portion of its funds annually among its members can become an approved society provided it has at least 5,000 members?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH (Lord of the Treasury): The fact that a society distributes a portion of its funds annually among its members will not preclude it from becoming an approved society, provided the funds contributed under the Bill are dealt with in the manner prescribed in the Bill, and the distribution is confined to funds otherwise obtained.

    OUTWORKERS (CLOTHING TRADE).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether it is intended to include outworkers in the wholesale clothing trade as employed contributors in the National Insurance Bill, and where outworkers are
    1020
    working for as many as three or four different firms at the same time whether it is intended that the employer who gives out work first in the week shall pay the employer's contribution; and how the amount of wages and the scale of contributions are to be ascertained?
    Mr. ILLI NGWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The case of employment by several employers can be dealt with by regulations under paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule,

    MATERNITY BENEFITS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether a member of a friendly society granting a 30s. maternity benefit would, if he continued to subscribe for such benefit, be also entitled to receive the 30s. maternity benefit under the National Insurance Bill; and whether the limitation that sickness benefits should not exceed the total wages would interfere with the additional 30s. maternity benefit if the sickness benefits already assured equalled the wages?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The right of an insured person to receive maternity benefit under the National Health Insurance will be unaffected by his having effected an insurance for an additional maternity benefit outside the national scheme. The limitation of sickness benefits to total wages does not apply to maternity benefit.

    APPRENTICES.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether, in the case of boys apprenticed to a trade and for the first two or three years benefiting by their employer's instruction rather than benefiting their employer by their labour, the premium contribution by the employer and employed, respectively, will be the same as in the case of ordinary workmen?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: In the case decribed the contributions will be the same as in the case of an ordinary workman of the same age.

    WORKMEN'S CONTRIBUTIONS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked if, under the National Insurance Bill, the 4d. contributed by the workman will be handed over to the approved societies for investment, or retained and invested by the Treasury?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Under the Bill as it stands such portion of the 4d. contributed by the workman as requires to be invested would be invested by the National

    1021
    Debt Commissioners, but my right hon. Friend has under consideration an Amendment enabling the societies to control this part of the investment of funds.

    ARREARS FOR SICKNESS INSURANCE.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked if, under the National Insurance scheme, the arrears for sickness insurance for both the workman and the employer which have accumulated during a period of unemployment are to be charged as arrears against the workman, and will he be required to pay both his own and employer's arrears of contribution; if so, what method will be adopted for collecting the arrears when employment is resumed; and will the arrears be deducted from wages by regular weekly deductions?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: A workman is not required to pay arrears of contributions, but if the total arrears from the time he first became insured amount to an average of four weeks per annum over the whole period he suffers a reduction of benefits. If the arrears amount to thirteen weeks per annum he is suspended from benefits. If, in order to avoid these consequences, he desires to pay off all or part of these arrears, he must pay off the employer's portion of the contributions as well as his own. The two concluding portions of the question do not arise.

    PIECE-WORKERS (YOUTHS).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the particular persons who will be called upon to pay contributions to the National Insurance scheme in circumstances where youths work for piece-workers and the pieceworkers are employed by contractors?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I will refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield on the 3rd instant.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Does it mean that the piece-worker will be able to deduct the contributions and stamp the card in the same way as an employer?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Perhaps the hon. Member has not seen the reply to which I have referred:—"In such a case, by paragraph 5 of the Third Schedule, the workman's employer could be treated, under appropriate regulations as the employer of the helper."

    PRINTING AMENDED BILL.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will cause copies of the Insurance Bill, as amended, to be printed from time to time and circulated with the Votes?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: My right hon. Friend is considering this suggestion.

    ISLE OF MAN (INCLUSION).
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the question of the Manx people in connection with the National Insurance Bill; and whether any suggestion has been made to the governing body of the Isle of Man respecting their adoption of a similar scheme?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second, my right hon. Friend is aware of no such suggestion having been made.

    STATE CONTRIBUTION.
    Major STANLEYasked why the State contribution of two-ninths of the actual cost of benefits and expenses of administration cannot be credited to the societies weekly instead of as the liabilities arise?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The Insurance Commissioners will be left free to meet the convenience of the societies as to the time and manner of payment. There appears to be no advantage in a system of weekly credits.

    WORKMAN AND EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS.
    Major STANLEYasked whether the 5 4–9d. out of the 7d. contributed weekly by the workman and his employer which is to be placed to the credit of the friendly societies will be placed there weekly or only as the liabilities arise?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The society will obtain credit for the contributions when. it hands in its members' stamped cards.

    MEDICAL REFEREES.
    Mr. GILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has further considered the question of appointing a few medical referees who will devote the whole of their time to their duties under the Workmen's Compensation Act; and what decision he has come to in the matter?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): There would be considerable difficulties

    1023
    in connection with the appointment of whole time medical referees. Under the present system referees are appointed for particular County Court circuits, the main part of their duties being to advise in cases in which the judges require their assistance; and the work in any circuit would not be sufficient to occupy a referee's whole time. If the referees were to be whole-time officers, the area for which they would have to be appointed would be so large that a great deal of time would be taken up and expense incurred in travelling: and the arrangement would also be much less convenient to the workmen in the cases where they have to attend on the referee. Another important point is that it is the practice to select the referees as far as possible from doctors engaged in active surgical work, the experience gained in which is of great advantage in deciding on the difficult questions referred to them as referees: and I am doubtful whether I should be able to secure doctors of the same high standing if they were required to give their whole time. I fully agree that the question is one which should be considered, but I think it must stand over till the general inquiry into the Act, or possibly the somewhat similar inquiry into the appointment and duties of certifying surgeons, is set on foot.

    MEMBERS OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (BALLOT).
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that at representative meetings of friendly societies resolutions have been passed demanding that the opinion of the members of friendly societies as a whole should be ascertained, rather than that of a few of the leaders of a few of the larger societies, he will cause the National Insurance Bill, at the conclusion of the Report stage, to be printed and circulated among the friendly societies, in order that they may take a ballot of their members in regard to a measure which vitally affects their interests, before the Third Reading of the Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Government have not the same distrust of the representative character of the House of Commons as the hon. Member appears to feel, and they are not prepared to initiate the experiment of consulting separately by referendum the interests affected by a projected legislative measure.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: If it can be proved to the Prime Minister by representations from the friendly societies that they have distrust in the House, will he further consider the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

  Night-Work (Young Persons).
  Mr. GILLasked how soon the Committee for inquiring into the question of night-work by young persons will be appointed?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Committee will, I hope, be appointed in the course of a few days.
  Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to the persons who will compose this Committee?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I would rather wait until after the appointment is made.

  Case of Beatrice Carter (Warwick).
  Mr. JOHNSONasked whether the Home Secretary is aware that on 27th May last a warrant was issued by the Mayor of Warwick for the apprehension of Beatrice M. A. Carter on three charges for obtaining goods by false pretences at Warwick on 14th January last, and was forwarded by the Warwick police to the chief constable of Reading with a request that he would cause the woman to be re-arrested on her discharge from Reading Prison, where she was imprisoned for a similar offence, of which she was convicted on 10th May last, the offence at Warwick for which the warrant was issued not having been mentioned or taken into consideration when sentence was passed at Reading; whether, without any notice or explanation to the Mayor of Warwick or the Warwick police, he directed that this warrant should not be executed; and will he say what particular circumstances there were in the case of Beatrice M. A. Carter which caused him, without notice to the justice who issued the warrant, the Mayor of Warwick, and without notice to the Warwick police, to interpose and prevent the execution of the warrant and due process of law; and whether he will now explain under which Statute he took the action he did in this case?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: This woman had undergone a month's imprisonment for an offence committed at Reading; and, late on the last day of her sentence, I learned that a further warrant for her arrest had been issued at Warwick and would be

  1025
  executed by the Reading police on her release next morning. I thereupon telegraphed to the chief constable of Reading that I strongly deprecated the prisoner's re-arrest at the prison gate, and said that, if the Warwick police thought it necessary to prosecute for this further offence, they should first communicate with me. I had no time before taking this course to communicate with the Justices who issued the warrant or with the Warwick police. I have, of course, no statutory authority to "direct that a warrant should not be executed," and I did not give any such direction. I merely expressed a strong opinion that it was undesirable to execute it, and in doing so I was following the established practice of my predecessors. It has for many years past been the settled policy of the Home Office, in cases where a series of offences of a similar nature have been committed in different jurisdictions, to discourage the mechanical re-arrest of a prisoner at the prison gates to undergo one sentence after another, and circulars on the subject were issued to the police in 1896 and 1909. This policy and practice were formulated after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and the Council of Judges, and the principles on which it is based received the approval of the Court of Criminal Appeal in the case of R. v. Syres. The present case appeared to me to be emphatically one in which re-arrest after undergoing sentence was undesirable; when the woman, whose previous character was excellent, was sentenced at Reading for a petty fraud, the court took into account the fact that it was one of a series of similar petty offences committed at other places, and the other charges were then dropped. The Warwick case was not, it is true, before the court, but it was one of the same series and as trivial as the others. Moreover, the woman was in feeble health, and the circumstances pointed strongly to her suffering from some form of mental weakness. I had not, though much pressed on the subject, felt justified in reducing the sentence passed at Reading; but I had reason to think that to re-arrest her and take her back to prison at the moment she was returning to her home would have a harmful effect on a woman in her condition; and, unless there were reasons for prosecution of which the police have given me no information, it would have been an act of useless cruelty.
  Mr. JOHNSON: Would it not have been more courteous to have communicated
  1026
  with the Warwickshire authorities instead of writing them a sharp reprimand?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I wrote no sharp reprimand. All I did was, when the Warwickshire Chief Constable wrote to the Home Office and asked for information on the subject to furnish him with the information, but I took exception to some discourteous expressions, as I thought them, which occurred in his letter.
  Mr. JOHNSON: Arising out of the answer as I heard it, the reply of the Home Secretary was to my mind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order"]—very discourteous to the Warwickshire authorities.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am quite prepared to lay the reply upon the Table.

  Boy and Girl Labour (Waltham Abbey Factory).
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked whether the Factory Department of the Home Office have written to Messrs. Nobel, of Waltham Abbey, instructing the substitution of boy labour for female labour in the operation of ward-cutting; whether, in consequence, a number of women who have been working at this operation for years have been thrown out of employment, and boys engaged in what is for them a blind-alley occupation; and, if so, whether the Home Secretary will state under what authority this instruction has been given?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not the case that the Factory Department of the Home Office have instructed Messrs. Nobel to substitute boy labour for female labour in the operation of ward-cutting. There is no power to give such instructions. An inspector of the Department who recently investigated an accident at the factory expressed the opinion that the sharpening of the knives used in the process of ward-cutting while they were in motion was dangerous work for girls to perform, and suggested that either men should do the sharpening, or that the knives should be stopped while being sharpened. The firm tried the former alternative, and, finding It involved some loss of time, decided on their own initiative to do the whole work of ward-cutting with male labour.

  Places of Public Entertainment (Single Licence).
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked whether the proposal for a single licence for all places of public entertainment which was made unanimously by Mr. Samuel's

  1027
  Committee is supported by theatre managers, music hall managers, associations of actors and music hall performers, besides dramatic authors; and what is the opposition to this proposal which has led him to describe it as highly controversial?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware of the support which the proposal receives, but it will be equally within my hon. Friend's knowledge that the proposal was opposed before the Joint Committee of 1909, and is still opposed, by influential theatre and music hall managers, by representative associations of such managers, and by those concerned in the administration of the present law.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to representations which officially reached him at the Home Office, and which are directly contrary to my information?

  Secondary School Regulations.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can now issue new Regulations for Secondary Schools, in view of the fact that certain articles in the present Regulations are quite unacceptable to denominational schools, and that the continuance in force of these Regulations is causing injury and inconvenience to Roman Catholics and other denominations'
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I cannot undertake to issue any new Regulations for Secondary Schools this year. I must not be understood to accept the whole of the assumptions upon which the question is based.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Nationalist party are as opposed to the spirit and letter of these regulations as the Unionist party, only they are afraid to vote against them [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."]
  Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House assurance that the matter will be debated and voted upon here before the new secondary school regulations are introduced?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have already said that I have no intention of introducing new secondary school regulations.

  Farm Institutes.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked (1) whether before settling the details of the national
  1028
  scheme for the establishment of farm institutes, the President of the Board of Education will consider the advisability of sending a small committee to visit and study the equipment and curriculum of the exceptionally efficient institutions of a similar character in Belgium; and whether it will be the aim of his Department or the Board of Agriculture to cultivate and manage the farms attached to these institutes, as in the case of the practical farm schools of France and Belgium, with the view of making them commercially profitable; and (2) whether the proposed grant of £325,000 from the Development Fund for the purpose of establishing farm institutes will be administered wholly by the Board of Education or partly by the Board of Agriculture; when and in what counties the first of these institutes will be established; to what extent they will be under the control or supervision of the local education authorities or their agricultural committees; and out of what fund or funds is it proposed to defray the cost of their annual maintenance?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN:I think the hon. Member will find the answer to practically all of his inquiries in the Circular and Memorandum which the Board have recently issued to local education authorities a copy of which I shall be glad to give him. In considering their scheme the Board have had the benefit of the advice of Lord Reay's Committee on Agricultural Education, of the Inter-Departmental Committee of the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Education, of representative members of county education authorities, of the rural education conference, and of inspectors who are thoroughly informed as to agricultural developments and developments in agricultural education in all parts of the world. One of these expert inspectors is at the present conducting further investigations in Germany, France, and Belgium. It is intended that the farms in connection with which the farm institutes are worked should be conducted on business principles, so far as may be consistent with their primary use for educational purposes. The grants for farm institutes will be administered wholly by the Board of Education. The date of establishment of farm institutes in different areas must depend to a great extent upon the local education authorities by whom, subject to the Regulations of the Board of Education, the institutes will be controlled. Grants towards the annual maintenance of the institutes will

  1029
  be made out of the Development Fund and out of the funds placed at the disposal of the Board of Education for aiding technical education.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the balance of the cost involved both in capital expenditure and maintenance be thrown upon the rates?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not prepared to say exactly how it will be met, but I can give the hon. Member full information as to the amounts which we shall provide, and which will come from the Development Fund.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is there no danger of overlapping and friction as between the two Departments as regards these matters?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No. Most complete arrangements have been made as between the two Departments to avoid overlapping.

  School Children (Medical Inspection).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the repeated assurances on the part of the Government that adequate grants would be made by Parliament towards the cost entailed by the medical inspection of school children under the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, and of the fact that during the last two years the expenditure under this head has been steadily increasing and is already in many cases double the amount originally estimated, and the further fact that the object of medical inspection is of national importance, the President of the Board of Education will take steps to relieve the local education authorities of part of the increasing burden thrown upon them for this purpose?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have constantly stated in this House and elsewhere that the provision of additional funds from Imperial sources in aid of local expenditure on medical inspection can only be dealt with in connection with the general question of the relations between Imperial and local taxation, which are being considered by a Departmental Committee.
  Mr. BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that this particular matter is brought to the attention of the Departmental Committee?
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give special attention to the case of those authorities who in addition to
  1030
  medical inspection are dealing with medical treatment and spending large sums of money out of the rates?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No doubt all those questions will be dealt with by the Committee.

  Special Aid Grant.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Education whether he realises the effect upon the ratepayers of the non-autonomous areas of administrative counties of the new regulations of the Board under which the Special Grant for the purposes of elementary education in the more necessitous districts is only payable to those authorities whose rates for elementary education as raised over the whole area of the authority exceed 1s. 6d, in the £, although the rate in many districts of such areas may far exceed such amount without any local maladministration or extravagance, and the fact that many prosperous county towns having separate education authorities are under such regulations enjoying a boon denied to much poorer localities; and whether he will take steps to deal with this state of affairs?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am quite alive to the fact, to which I understand the hon. Member to refer, that owing to the incidence of special rates certain districts in the areas of administrative counties which fail to receive relief under the regulations governing the Special Grant for necessitous areas are nevertheless actually paying rates for elementary education exceeding 1s. 6d. in the £. It is difficult to see how the Board of Education could make grants for elementary education otherwise than to local education authorities.
  Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked the President of the Board of Education why the Board refuses to give a share in the Special Aid Grant to those local authorities in whose case the cost of elementary education has only recently risen to a greater sum than the produce of a 1s. 6d. rate, as witnessed in the case of Dudley and Wrexham, thereby penalising authorities who have exercised economy; and whether he will alter the regulations relating to this matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I have explained in a previous answer given in this House, the Special Grant has always been properly regarded as a purely temporary measure of relief. Pending the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee with re-

  1031
  gard to the relation of Imperial to local taxation the Government do not consider it desirable to extend the scope of the grant. With this view it has been necessary to impose what is, I admit, a purely arbitrary time limit.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to reconsider it next year, otherwise these authorities are left without the Special Aid Grant, although they are expending large sums of money?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes. I am quite alive to the difficulties which arise under present limitations, and the matter is receiving the consideration of the Committee.

  Tuberculosis (Report of Royal Commission).
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the President of the Local Government Board what action he proposes to take to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The Report of the Royal Commission which has just been issued is receiving my consideration.

  Vaccination Acts.
  Mr. BENTHAMasked whether the increase in the number of children exempted from vaccination through the operation of the Vaccination Acts of 1898 and 1907, and especially since the Act of 1907 came into force, has been accompanied by any noticeable increase in the number of deaths from small-pox in children under ten years of age?
  Mr. BURNS: There has been but little small-pox in this country since 1907, and up to the end of 1910 no noticeable increase in the deaths of children under ten from this disease. Figures for 1911 are not yet available.

  Second Division Clerks (Local Government Board).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if he has received any reply to the communication addressed to the Treasury some months ago with reference to the improvements in the prospects of the second division clerks in his department; and, if so, what is the nature of the reply, and, if favourable, when will the improved scheme be put into operation?
  Mr. BURNS: Correspondence with the Treasury is still proceeding on this subject.

  Dewsbury Board of Guardians.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if he has had any communication about a vacancy by death on the Dewsbury Board of Guardians; and, as the guardians will not take steps to fill the vacancy, will he give the necessary instructions to them?
  Mr. BURNS: I have received a communication on this subject. Section 66 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, as applied to the election of guardians by the Guardians (outside London) Election Order, 1898, requires that, on a casual vacancy in the office of guardian, an election shall be held within one month after notice in writing of the vacancy has been given to the chairman or to the clerk by two guardians. The view of the Local Government Board is that a casual vacancy should be filled up as soon as practicable, and although I am not empowered to give any instructions in the matter, I have informed the guardians of the Board's view and drawn their attention to the statutory provisions applicable to the case.

  Small-pox.
  Mr. ALBERT SMITHasked what is the number of cases of small-pox reported in Bury, Stalybridge, Wallasey and Birmingham this year, with the vaccinal condition of the patients, also the number of deaths, and the vaccinal condition of the victims?
  Mr. BURNS: In Bury, thirty cases of small-pox have occurred, of which none were fatal. The age incidence of these patients cannot be given at present. Eleven of the patients are known to have been unvaccinated, and sixteen had been vaccinated in infancy. The Board have no information on the vaccinal condition of the three remaining cases. The Wallasey and Birmingham outbreaks are so recent that no precise information is as yet available. There were fourteen cases of smallpox at Stalybridge, of which none were fatal. Of these cases, six were unvaccinated, seven were vaccinated, and one was said to have had a previous attack of small-pox. All the cases under twenty-years of age were unvaccinated.

  Nonconformist Chapels (Water Rate).
  Mr. HAY MORGANasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to

  1033
  the newly adopted policy of the Metropolitan Water Board of rating Nonconformist chapels for the supply of water on the basis of their sitting accommodation, viz., at the rate of one pound per annum for every 300 sittings, thus increasing the cost in many cases by 150 per cent; whether he is aware that such practice weighs heavily on those churches which possess large chapels and small congregations; and whether he proposes to take any steps, by legislation or otherwise, to secure a modification of the system adopted by the Metropolitan Water Board with a view to establishing a more equitable basis of calculation?
  Mr. BURNS: I am given to understand that the scale referred to was adopted by the Metropolitan Water Board in 1908, and that it applies to all places of worship. Also that where the supply is merely given to a tap wash-basin or heating apparatus half the rate only is charged. If my hon. Friend has any special case of hardship before him he will no doubt see that it is brought under the notice of the Water Board.

  Assisted Emigration (Central (Unemployed) Body).
  Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that £6,000 was offered by a person in New South Wales for the purpose of emigrating single men between twenty and forty years of age from the United Kingdom to New South Wales, where these men were required for work in the country districts at the current rate of wages, from 15s. to 20s. a week and their keep; whether he is aware that, although £6 per man has actually been paid for 198 men, only this number were assisted to emigrate by the Central (Unemployed) Body and other societies, and that in consequence nearly £5,000 has been sent back to New South Wales; and whether, in order that the Australian people may not be led to believe that they must go to the Continent of Europe in order to increase their population, he will in the future extend the powers of the Central (Unemployed) Body?
  Mr. BURNS: I am aware of the offer referred to. I am informed by the Central (Unemployed) Body that it was impossible to take full advantage of the offer owing to the limited time within which the prospective emigrants had to leave England. No extension of the existing powers of the Central Body in this matter appears to be required.
  Mr. HUNT: What length of time was there in which these men could be found?
  Mr. BURNS: I believe the offer was made some time in April, and it was to expire by June 30th. I regret that the offer was not for a longer period. It is no fault of the Central (Unemployed) Body that the whole of this £6,000 offered was not available.

  Rural Postmen (Stanstead).
  Mr. BECKasked the Postmaster-General what are the grounds for the refusal of the application of the rural postmen attached to Stanstead office to be placed upon the same rate of pay as those postmen of the same class who are attached to Bishop's Stortford?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER -GENERAL (Captain Norton): Stanstead is a sub-office under Bishop's Stortford, and the scale of pay at a sub-office is usually lower than that for the relative head office. Careful consideration was given to all the circumstances before the classification of Stanstead was decided upon, and I regret that it is not possible to place that office upon the same scale as Bishop's Stortford.

  Postal Telegraphs (Engineering Branch).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Postmaster-General if he has received a petition from the temporary clerks in the Postal Telegraphs Engineering Branch praying to be placed on the established Civil Service staff, as is proposed in the case of the transfer of the employés of the National Telephone Company; and, if so, whether he has yet reached a determination thereon?
  Captain NORTON: I received such a petition at the end of last month. It is under consideration.

  King Edward Memorial.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will at once cause to be exhibited in the House plans showing the site proposed for the King Edward Memorial in the Green Park, and full details of the memorial itself?
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the hon. Member for Southampton on what date he will be able to circulate the suggested plans for placing the King Edward Memorial in the Green Park, in accordance with the recent assurance that the House should be consulted upon all alterations to the Royal Parks?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer questions Nos. 60 and 61 together; the First Commissioner of Works will be happy to have site plans prepared at once for exhibition in the tea room; and he will certainly try to arrange with the Memorial Committee that as further plans and drawings are matured they will follow for inspection.
  Lord BALCARRES: Do I therefore understand that the site of the statue has been settled before the design has been made?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: Yes.
  Lord BALCARRES: Is it the north end of the avenue or the centre?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: At the Piccadilly end.
  Mr. LEE: Does the Government withdraw from the assurance it gave the House that they should be consulted with regard to any alteration in the Royal Parks?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: That question had better be addressed to the Prime Minister.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will a map be placed in the House immediately showing the exact site and dimensions of the site?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: A map will be placed immediately showing the site, but the dimensions of the site are not yet settled.
  Captain MURRAYasked (1) whether the King Edward Memorial Committee has selected a site for the King Edward Memorial; and (2) whether it has recently been suggested by the King Edward Memorial Committee that the King Edward Memorial should be placed in one of the national parks; and, if so, whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing this suggestion?
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked whether any decision has been arrived at in the matter of a site for the King Edward Memorial?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The General Committee appointed to carry out the memorial to King Edward VII. has decided to erect it at the Piccadilly end of the Broad Walk in the Green Park. If a general desire for discussion is manifest in the House, no doubt due arrangements may be made.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has assented to a proposal of the King Edward Memorial Committee to erect a memorial in the Green Park?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government will raise no objection to the site which is now proposed.

  Financial Relations (Great Britain and Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister if he will have the House furnished with a descriptive schedule of all documents prepared by Government Departments and submitted to the Committee investigating Ireland's financial relations?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. The Committee are pursuing their investigations for the information of the Cabinet, and I do not think any object would be gained by publishing a list of the documents which they may have found it necessary to discuss.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he had yet succeeded in obtaining from any Irish representative person or body an expression of approval of the Committee investigating Ireland's financial relations for the benefit of the Cabinet; and, if so, would he name the-person or body?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): My right hon. Friend has never asked or sought anybody's approval of the Committee to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. GINNELL: Has he. as a matter of fact, received any approval?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The answer is simply that it was never asked.

  Purchase of Land (Cemeteries).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the fact that at Blackburn, which has a population of 133,000, land adjoining the cemetery was recently sold by public auction at the rate of £56 an acre, and at Malton, which has a population of about 5,000, the burial board has had to pay at the rate of £234 an acre for land for extension of the cemetery; and will he introduce legislation to make the valuation of land under the Finance Act the basis of the price to be paid for land required for public purposes?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My attention has been called to cases of the kind to which the hon. Member refers, but I am afraid that I cannot, at the moment, give any promise of legislation.

  Creation of Peers.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Prime Minister whether, in any prospective creation of Peers, he will consider the suggestion of recommending for that honour some representative working men and trade unionist officials?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This appears to be a purely hypothetical question.
  Mr. CLYNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even trade union officials have some regard for the company they desire to keep out of?

  Appointment of Justices.
  Mr. NEWMANasked whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce this Session any legislation founded on the Report of the Royal Commission on the Selection of Justices of the Peace, and presented to this House in July of last year?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. No legislation is required to carry the recommendations of the Royal Commission into effect.

  Seamen's Strike (Mercantile Marine).
  Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the seamen of the mercantile marine had been granted considerable concessions in the shape of increased pay, he could say whether the officers were going to receive an increase of salary in proportion to the increased wages of the men; and, if not, would they get any increase at all?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): So far as my information goes the terms of settlement with the seamen at various ports do not appear to include officers, and I am unable to say whether any changes in the direction indicated by the hon. Member are contemplated.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentlemen aware that there is great discontent, and that some of the cooks are getting more than the navigation officers?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am watching the matter.
  Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could state the number of Chinese sailors who were engaged on British ships during the late strike?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am unable to give the information desired.
  Mr. HUNT: Is there no way of getting the information?
  Mr. BUXTON: As far as the strike is concerned, it is over in some cases. I do not think it is possible for me to get the figures for a particular period. I have no reason to believe that a larger number of Chinese were engaged during the period referred to by the hon. Member than at ordinary times.

  Foreign Shell Fish Imported.
  Mr. DIXONasked how many baskets of foreign shrimps were landed in Billingsgate during the last three months; and how many bags of Dutch mussels were landed at Hull during the months of November, December, and January last?
  Mr. BUXTON: The total weight of fresh shellfish of all kinds other than oysters consigned from the Netherlands, which were imported into London (exclusive of Queenborough) during the last three months has been 3,881 cwts., and of similar descriptions imported into Hull during November, December, and January last 29,239 cwts. I am unable, however, to indicate how much of these imports consisted of shrimps and mussels respectively, no separate particulars being available with regard to the imports of individual varieties of shellfish.

  Appointment of Magistrates.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked how many magistrates had been appointed since January, 1906, to the borough bench at Blackburn, and what were the politics of the persons appointed, so far as was known, and how many Labour representatives were included in the number; and also what was the present number of Liberal, Conservative, and Labour magistrates on the roll for the borough?
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Joseph Pease): Twenty-one magistrates have been appointed to the Blackburn Borough Bench since January, 1908. Eight of them are Liberals, one Conservative, and three representatives of Labour. I have no information as to the individual politics of nine

  1039
  others who were appointed in 1906. As regards the Bench as a whole, I am given to understand that its present complexion, so far as is known, is twenty-six Liberals, thirty-two Conservatives, six Labour representatives, and one Nationalist.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that six labour representatives out of a bench of over sixty is a fair proportion considering that a majority of the electors voted for a Labour candidate at the last election?
  Mr. PEASE: Where the bench is overmanned, as I believe it is in the case of Blackburn, I do not think it is advisable to appoint a large number of individuals to the bench in order to equalise certain interests.
  Mr. PEEL: Does the right hon. Gentle-man consider the politics of these gentlemen before their judicial fitness for the position?
  Mr. PEASE: We take into consideration every circumstance connected with their qualifications for the position.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman last year appointed nineteen magistrates, all Liberals, and not one Labour representative?
  Mr. PEASE: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether any of these magistrates who do not attend to their duties might be removed to make room for better men?
  Mr. SNOWDENasked if advisory committees on the appointment of magistrates had been appointed for the county; if so, were any trade union, labour, or other working-class bodies consulted as to the constitution of such committees; how many working men had been appointed on such committees, and, if any, in what districts; and what were the politics, so far as was known, of all the members appointed?
  Mr. PEASE: One advisory committee has been appointed for the County Palatine Bench. In appointing this committee I relied on the advice of individuals, and did not consult any working-class group or corporate bodies. The Lord Lieutenant who presides is a Liberal; two of his colleagues are Liberals and two Conserva-
  1040
  tives. Although they are all doing or have done a good deal of work for the county, I believe the hon. Member would not describe them as working men.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: There are no working men on the Advisory Committee?
  Mr. PEASE: No.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked if an Advisory Committee on the appointment of magistrates had been appointed for the Blackburn district; if so, who were the persons appointed and what were their politics; and was any Labour organisation consulted as to the nomination of a working-man member of the committee?
  Mr. PEASE: Blackburn has been grouped with Darwen, Clitheroe, and Accrington, and an Advisory Committee of five members appointed for the group. The names of the members are Messrs. H. Harrison, W. Haworth, R. Trappes-Lomax, T, Garnett, and J. Tomlinson; of these I am informed that two are Liberals, two Conservatives, and one of more or less independent views. No Labour organisation was consulted as to the nomination of a working-man member of the committee. If experience shows a good object would be served by any or all of these boroughs having each its own committee, I shall be prepared to revise the present arrangement. May I add that in appointing these committees I have tried to follow the recommendations in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Selection of Justices of the Peace, and that in appointing new magistrates, I regard as important the recommendation to the effect that persons of every social grade should be appointed justices of the peace, and that working men with a first-hand knowledge of the conditions of life among their own class should be appointed to the county as well as to the borough benches. No appointments have been made to the Blackburn bench since the institution of the committee system, as I have no reason to suppose that the bench is undermanned. I have not, so far, consulted on any subject the committee for the group which includes Blackburn.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not a fact that the gentleman of "more or less independent views" is a well-known Tory? Further, how does it happen that in the neighbouring borough of Bolton the Advisory Committee consists of Liberal, Tory, and Labour representatives, while the only re-

  1041
  presentative of Blackburn on the local Advisory Committee is a very prominent Tory?
  Mr. PEASE: There are Liberals also on the same Advisory Committee. I would remind the hon. Member that appointments to the bench are not made by the Advisory Committees. They are for consultative purposes, not to appoint magistrates.

  National Education Board (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Board of National Education recognised increase as promptly as they did decrease in the attendance of pupils; if so, would he explain why they had refused a separate building Grant for a boys' school which had increased from 18 to 40, stopped the teacher's salary, and required the school to be amalgamated with a girls' school; and whether the Board were now in a position to recognise and treat such a boys' school as separate?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the school referred to I will have inquiry made into the matter.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been called to the loss and inconvenience caused by the continued application of the term demesne to tracts of land in Ireland upon which no mansion-house had stood for more than fifty years, and which were thus withheld from use for labourers, railways, and other public purposes; and whether he would have the official and inspectors instructed to report in future all those pseudo-demesnes, with a view to scheduling them, depriving them of a character to which they are not entitled, and making them available for beneficial purposes to the same extent as other land of the class to which they really belonged?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Where a vendor claims that lands proposed to be acquired by the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board cannot be so acquired on the ground that they are demesne lands, the matter is determined in accordance with the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts. Inspectors employed on the inspection of estates, the subject of proceedings under these Acts, cannot be withdrawn from such work to make any such general inquiry as that suggested in the concluding portion of the question.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary if he would state the number of estates now in the Land Judge's Court for sale, and the number of tenants on estates in that court imprisoned by order of Mr. Justice Ross; whether he was aware that the rents of those estates were not spent on them or in Ireland, but went to money-lending mortgagees, and that all the tenants desired to purchase their holdings at the value in the manner provided by Parliament; and, with property for sale, willing buyers, a Department to ascertain the value, and compulsory powers conferred by Parliament, whether he would have the land question settled on those estates by application of those powers?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: There are no persons at present in prison under the order of the Land Judge. I am not in a position to state the number of estates pending for sale in the Land Judge's Court, and to make the necessary investigation would involve serious delay in transacting the business of the court. The Estates Commissioners have purchased estates in this court to the value of a million and a-half.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether the jurisdiction of the Irish Land Judge over estates in his court for sale was limited to sale and temporary management pending the sale; and seeing that some of the estates that had been in that court for sale during the last thirty years still remained unsold, to the detriment of the country, if he would say why the compulsory powers of sale provided by Parliament were not applied to those estates?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Speaking generally, the jurisdiction of the Land Judge has reference to the sale of estates in his court, and pending sale to the management under the court. No avoidable delay has been permitted by the court in bringing estates to sale, but there are some cases in which, owing to complexity of title and other difficulties, considerable but unavoidable delay has taken place.
  Mr. GINNELL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider thirty years too long to spend in the attempt to sell an estate?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I think it is admitted that it is a long time.

  Procedure under Statute of Edward III.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary in how many cases in Ireland since 1st January, 1906, had the procedure under the statute of Edward III. been resorted to, whereby a person acting on a public principle in an agrarian matter was brought, as a person of ill-fame, before a paid magistrate, who allowed no unpaid magistrate to adjudicate, and, without allowing the accused to produce a witness, ordered him to give security for good behaviour or go to prison; and whether he was aware that the statute mentioned was never resorted to in Great Britain in matters involving the assertion of a public principle?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I am unable to state the number of cases brought under the statute in question during the last five and a-half years. The labour involved in the collection of the information would be out of all proportion to its value. Upon application to bind to the peace or to be of good behaviour the person against whom the application is made is not entitled to be examined or to call witnesses in his own behalf. I am not aware of the practice as regards the statute in Great Britain.

  Irish Provident Assurance Company.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether the so-called Irish Provident Assurance Company was required to make a deposit of £20,000 before commencing operations and to maintain that deposit to the present time; whether that money or any portion of it was now available to indemnify the company's victims; how many such victims there were; and what percentage of the money entrusted to the company had been spent in salaries and expenses?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am asked by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to answer the hon. Member's question. The Irish Provident Assurance Company, Limited, was registered in the year 1900 with a memorandum of association by which the power to do life assurance business was expressly excluded. The company was not liable under the then existing law to make a deposit, and accordingly was not required to make a deposit of £20,000 before commencing operations. As I informed the hon. Member on the 11th instant, the winding-up of the company is entirely under the control of the Irish courts of law, and there are no official
  1044
  facts or figures relating to the company in the possession of the Chief Secretary or of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. GINNELL: How is it that an insurance company in England is required to lodge £20,000, while one in Ireland is not?
  Mr. BUXTON: If the hon. Member desires further particulars, perhaps he will give me notice.

  Tuberculosis (Ireland).
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary if his attention had been called to the final report of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, and if he intended to take any action in Ireland to give effect to the recommendations, of the Commission?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: There has not yet been time to consider fully the final Report of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis with a view to seeing how far its recommendations are applicable to Ireland.

  Royal Military College, Sandhurst.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to build residences for officers and teachers, in connection with the enlargement of the Royal Military College at Sandhurst; if so, how many are to be built; and whether inquiry has been made whether adequate residences at reasonable rent are available in the vicinity?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): It has not yet been decided to build such residences as no money is available for the purpose from public funds. The question, therefore, is entirely a matter for future consideration.
  Colonel YATE: Is it possible for the officers to live there?
  Colonel SEELY: Of course it is possible to live there: the question is whether residences are to be built out of official funds.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask if there is not a great shortage of residences there?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not wish to add anything to the answer I have given. Of course it is possible for officers to live there. There may often be in a military station a shortage of suitable houses. But, as I have said, there is no money available from public funds, and the matter therefore is one for future consideration.
  Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter in next year's Budget?
  Colonel SEELY: Oh, it will be considered.

  Admiralty Oil Fuel Depot (East Coast).
  Sir ALFRED GELDERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Admiralty have purchased land fronting the Humber, near Immingham; and, if so, is it the intention of the Admiralty to establish on the East Coast a floating dock or repairing yard, or, if not, having due regard for the public interest, can he state for what purpose the land has been acquired?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Admiralty are in negotiation with a view to purchasing land fronting the Humber at a point some distance above Immingham, for the purpose of establishing an oil fuel depot.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if he has invited tenders for the work?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. Perhaps the hon. Member would give me notice of that question.

  Small Holdings Commissioners, 1910 (Report).
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he will state what was the date of printing the Eeport of the Small Holdings Commissioners, 1910 [Cd. 5,615], and how many applications for small holdings have been received since then; and what was the number of applications that were received for a corresponding period before that date?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): The Report was sent to the printers on the 7th March last. The Board are not aware of applications received since that date, inasmuch as Returns are only called for from county councils annually.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
Mr. STANIER: I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Agriculture a question of which I have given him private notice. Whether he can give the House any further information regarding the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Sussex?
Sir E. STRACHEY: Yesterday a fresh outbreak was reported on the farm of Mr. Mair, senior, which adjoins that of his son. Six sheep in a flock of sixty-one were found to be affected. The disease was also discovered in a flock of twenty-two sheep in a marsh occupied by Mr. Cortie, adjoining the affected marsh on Road End Farm Veterinary inspection is proceeding in the adjoining marshes. Preliminary arrangements are being made for slaughtering out, if decided upon.
Mr. WALTER LONG: Having regard-to the very great gravity of the situation in regard to this outbreak, may I ask the hon. Baronet whether he is aware of the very strong feeling, amongst those who have had experience of dealing with these questions, in favour of slaughter on a very extensive scale; whether he will represent to the President of the Department that this feeling exists; and whether there is any chance of his being able to give the House a full and complete reply upon the question to-morrow in order that the universally grave anxiety may be in some degree removed?
Sir E. STRACHEY: I am not aware that there is a very strong feeling except on the other side of the House. I am quite conscious of the serious state of affairs. I can give the assurance to the right hon. Gentleman that I shall put myself in communication at once with the President of the Board of Agriculture, and inform him of these facts, so that an answer may, if possible, be given to-morrow.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: In view of these constant outbreaks, which have increased in number lately, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it would be desirable to institute an inquiry into the matter in order that the country at large, outside the Board of Agriculture, may fully understand what is being done in connection with the matter?
Sir E. STRACHEY: Whether it is desirable or not to have a Departmental Committee to consider this question, I am decidedly of opinion that it is not desirable to have it at the present time.
Mr. STANIER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to whether any foreign feeding stuffs have got on to these farms?
Sir E. STRACHEY: So far as my information goes—and I have made inquiries on

1047
the subject—there is no foreign imported feeding stuffs upon these farms—either cake, or other food stuffs, or bedding.
Mr. C. BATHURST: Has any connection been traced between these two last outbreaks?
Sir E. STRACHEY: If the hon. Member refers to the outbreaks in Middlesex and Sussex no connection has been traced. In regard to the other four so-called outbreaks probably they came from the same source.

BILL PRESENTED.

  PURE FLOUR BILL.
  "To prohibit the artificial bleaching of flour whether by chemical processes of manufacture or by the addition of chemical or other substances," presented by Sir JOHN LONSDALE; supported by Mr. Stanier
  and Mr. Charles Bathurst; to be read a second time upon, Monday next, and to be printed.

SHOPS BILL.
Ordered, "That, when the Shops Bill is under consideration, To-morrow, Standing Committee C have leave to sit while the House is sitting, and after Four of the clock."—[Mr. Churchill.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
The PRIME MINISTER The PRIME MINISTER moved, "That the proceedings on the National Insurance Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 139.

Division No. 283.]

AYES.

3.50 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Delany, William

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

John, Edward Thomas

Acland, Francis Dyke

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Johnson, William

Adamson, William

Dillon, John

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Doris, William

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Armitage, R.

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Edwards, Enoch Hanley

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Joyce, Michael

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Barnes, George N.

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Barton, William

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Beale, W. P.

Ferens, T. R.

Leach, Charles

Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

Ffrench, Peter

Levy, Sir Maurice

Bentham, George Jackson

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lewis, John Herbert

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Logan, John William

Booth, Frederick Handel

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Lundon, Thomas

Bowerman, Charles W.

Gill, Alfred Henry

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Brace, William

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Goldstone, Frank

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Burke, E. Haviland

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Maclean, Donald

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Greig, Colonel J. W.

MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

Macpherson, James Ian

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Hackett, J.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Hancock, John George

M'Callum, John M.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

M'Curdy, C. A.

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)

Chancellor, H. G.

Harmsworth, R. (Leicester)

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Manfield, Harry

Clough, William

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Clynes, J. R.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Martin, J.

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hayden, John Patrick

Meagher, Michael

Cotton, William Francis

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Herbert, Colenel Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Mond, Sir Alfred M.

Crooks, William

Higham, John Sharp

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Crumley, Patrick

Hinds, John

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Hodge, John

Mooney, John J.

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Holt, Richard Dunning

Morgan, George Hay

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Morrell, Philip

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Dawes, James Arthur

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Needham, Christopher T.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Toulmin, Sir George

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Nolan, Joseph

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Verney, Sir Harry

Norman, Sir Henry

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Wadsworth, J.

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Robinson, Sidney

Walters, John Tudor

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Walton, Sir Joseph

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

O'Doherty, Philip

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Wardle, George J.

O'Dowd, John

Rowntree, Arnold

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Ogden, Fred

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

O'Grady, James

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

O'Malley, William

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Watt, Henry A.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

Webb, H.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

Sheehy, David

White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Whitehouse, John Howard

Pointer, Joseph

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Pollard, Sir George H.

Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

Wiles, Thomas

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wilkie, Alexander

Power, Patrick Joseph

Spicer, Sir Albert

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Radford, G. H.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

Sutherland, J. E.

Winfrey, Richard

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Sutton, John E.

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

Reddy, Michael

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Rendall, Athelstan

Tennant, Harold John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Richards, Thomas

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fleming, Valentine

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Newdegate, F. A.

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Gibbs, G. A.

Newman, John R. P.

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Goldsmith, Frank

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Ashley, W. W.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Astor, Waldorf

Grant, James Augustus

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Greene, Walter Raymond

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

Balcarres, Lord

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Peto, Basil Edward

Baldwin, Stanley

Haddock, George Bahr

Pretyman, Ernest George

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Quilter, William Eley C.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Barnston, H.

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Harris, Henry Percy

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hickman, Colonel T. E.

Snowden, Philip

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hill, Sir Clement

Spear, Sir John Ward

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

Hills, J. W.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Beresford, Lord C.

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Starkey, John Ralph

Bigland, Alfred

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stewart, Gershom

Bird, Alfred

Hunt, Rowland

Swift, Rigby

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Ingleby, Holcombe

Talbot, Lord E.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Burgoyne, A. H.

Joynson-Hicks, William

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Kerry, Earl of

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Cassel, Felix

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Valentia, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Cator, John

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Cautley, H. S.

Lansbury, George

Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Larmor, Sir J.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Lee, Arthur H.

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Wolmer, Viscount

Craik, Sir Henry

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Croft, Henry Page

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Worthington-Evans, L.

Dixon, C. H.

MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Doughty, Sir George

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Falle, B. G.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hugh Barrie and Mr. Stanier.

Fell, Arthur

Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Question, "That the word 'carried' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1906) AMENDMENT.
Mr. HODGE: The Bill I ask leave to introduce is to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1906. By a recent decision in the House of Lords, taxi-cab drivers have been ruled out of the benefit of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the simple object of the Bill is to place them in the position they suppose they occupied previous to that decision. In the definition of a workman in the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1906, we find it includes:—
"Any person who has entered into or works under a contract of service or apprenticeship with an employer which is by way of manual labour, clerical work or otherwise."
4.0 P.M.
I do not think any Member of this House would seek to declare that a taxi-cab driver was not a workman in the real sense of the term. I think I will have the sympathy of the whole House when I say that the Workmen's Compensation Act was last amended it was believed it covered all workmen. I seek in this Bill, which is a Bill of one Clause, to provide that taxi-cab drivers or ordinary cab drivers plying for hire for wages or a percentage of profits or who hire a vehicle for a fixed sum for a day, in fact no matter what the method of payment is, that such drivers shall not be contracted out of the Act. I do not think I need say anything further. This Bill puts the matter in a very plain way. It is calculated that there are over 20,000 taxi-cab drivers in the whole of the United Kingdom, and to me it appears a great hardship that these men should be ruled out against the evident intention of the Act of Parliament: However, I dare say most of us have utterly failed to understand the tortuous imagination of the legal mind. I beg to ask leave to introduce the Bill.
Bill to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hodge, Mr. Gill, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Stephen Walsh, and Mr. Bowerman. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 31st July, and to be printed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee,
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

  CLAUSE 10.—(Reduced Rates of Benefits where Contributions are in Arrear.)
  (1) Where an insured person being a member of an approved society is in arrear to an amount greater than thirteen contributions a year on the average since his entry into insurance, his right to benefits under this part of this Act shall be suspended, and at the expiration of the next succeeding calendar year any sums credited to the society in respect of him, calculated in the prescribed manner, shall, if his right to benefits still continues to be suspended, be transferred to such account and dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed:
  Provided that if at any time after such suspension he again becomes employed within the meaning of this part of this Act he shall be entitled to benefits at such rate, after the lapse of such time and after the payment of such number of contributions, as would have been applicable to his case had he not previously been an insured person, but if he so elects at any time the rate of benefits shall be such rate as he would be entitled to, were the period from the time of his original entry into insurance taken as a whole.
  (2) Where an employed contributor claiming sickness benefit is at the date of such claim in arrears but the arrears are less than as aforesaid, then the rate of sickness benefit shall be reduced to a sum not less than five shillings a week, or the time when sickness benefit commences deferred proportionately to the amount of arrears in accordance with the Table in the Fifth Schedule to this Act.
  (3)Where a voluntary contributor is in arrears he shall be liable to such reduction or suspension of benefits as may be prescribed.
  (4)In calculating arrears of contributions, no account shall be taken of any arrears accruing—

  (a) during any period when the person in question has been, or but for this or the two next succeeding Sections of this Act would have been, in receipt of sickness benefit or disablement benefit; or

  (b) in the case of a woman who, being an insured person, is herself entitled to

  1053
  maternity benefit, during two weeks before and four weeks after her confinement; or

  (c) during the first twelve months after the commencement of this Act; or

  (d) during any period when the contributor (if an employed contributor) is under the age of sixteen years;

  but, save as aforesaid, contributions shall be deemed to be payable in respect of every week from the date of entry into insurance.
  (5) Where an insured person has paid any arrears of contributions payable by or in respect of him which accrued during the calendar year current at the date of payment and the previous calendar year, together with interest thereon at the rate of three per cent. per annum from the respective dates on which the contributions accrued due and the date of payment, he shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if the arrears so paid had never become due:
  Provided that if such person is at the date of payment or subsequently within one month thereafter becomes unfit to provide for his own maintenance through disease or disablement, he shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to be still in arrear in respect of the amount so paid until after the expiration of one month from the date of his recovery from such disease or disablement.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move in Subsection (1) after the word "Act" ["benefits under this part of this Act "] to insert the words "other than medical benefit, sanatorium benefit, and maternity benefit."
  I understand the arrangement is that the medical benefits are paid for a year in advance. I would have preferred with regard to the whole of the medical benefit, the sanatorium benefit and the maternity benefit, that they might have been dealt with on other lines altogether, and not in this Bill, but as this is a Bill to ensure treatment for these persons, and as the State is putting up a certain amount of money towards the public treatment of these diseases generally, I want to put it to the House that the worst thing we can do is to allow a person who is half-cured of consumption or of the terrible disease mentioned the other day by the hon. Member for South Birmingham, to suddenly stop having treatment. It might be said that a person can get a continuation of this treatment through the Poor Law, but ex-
  1054
  perience shows that persons suffering from those kind of diseases go on suffering rather than come under the Poor Law.
  With regard to the maternity side, it seems to me that, as regards the wife of a respectable artisan, who becomes a member of an approved society, the worst thing we can do is to leave her untreated at the time of confinement. I do not ask for these exemptions on the score of sentiment. There is the sentimental side to this question and there is the human side that all suffering ought to be treated. I have been convinced from experience that the worst thing that can ever happen is to leave sickness and disease untreated, or leave any person who needs skilled treatment without it. I shall defend this proposition from the point of view of public economy of money rather than on the other ground. I put it to the Committee that on two occasions you have had long discussions on phthisis and tuberculosis, and on each occasion we have been told that what was needed was early, persistent, and thorough treatment, and that the patients should be kept until they get well. As the Clause reads now they are liable to be turned out because of lapse, and the same is true of all other diseases. It might be that it is necessary to have a period set somewhere, and I am willing that that point should be discussed. I am not however willing myself that the sort of proposition contained in this Clause should remain, and should apply to the cases I have mentioned. I hope the Committee will support this Amendment, and if they wish to put in some long period, that is a matter to be decided afterwards. I suggest that it is not worth while when the State is putting up such a huge sum of money as we shall have to find for the treatment of these diseases, that we should only half cure people, and then because of some lapse, allow them to go back or leave a woman untreated at the time of maternity.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am very glad to have from the hon. Member a recognition of the fact that we are really spending a huge sum of money upon this scheme. The discussions in Committee, at any rate, have had that influence upon the hon. Members.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I have always said that we were spending a large sum of money, but I said we were spending it wrongly.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope the next time the hon. Member goes to Trafalgar Square he will make the same statement. The question is not whether it is desirable that there should be treatment in cases of maternity and that medical benefit should be given. The real question is whether you should put those charges on the Insurance fund. If you place upon the fund a charge in respect of people who only work just when they feel inclined, who go on for a few weeks and then leave again, that would not be fair. I want the hon. Member to treat this purely as an insurance proposition. From that point of view there is a good deal in the hon. Member's contention. I am glad he realised that there must be a limit, and I am prepared to meet him on that point. I suggest that 25 per cent. or thirteen weeks should remain in respect of sickness and disablement, but that the insured person should be entitled to medical benefit, sanatorium benefit, and maternity benefit up to 50 per cent. arrears, that is twenty-six weeks in all. That is infinitely more liberal than the treatment afforded by any friendly society in the world. As a matter of fact, thirteen weeks is about the average. The Amendment is that thirteen weeks shall be the limit of sickness and disablement pay, but even if he exceeds thirteen weeks average, so long as he is only twenty-six weeks in arrear, he shall still be entitled to medical, sanatorium and maternity benefits. If the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, we will propose words to meet the case I have indicated.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not rise to criticise the suggestion that has just been made. It is almost impossible for us to criticise effectively proposals which are sprung upon the House at the very last moment when the subject comes under discussion. I rise only for the purpose of renewing the protest I have made on several occasions, I hope with good temper, and in such a way as to convey to the House my sense of the injury that is done to the deliberations of the House by what is now the settled practice of the Government never to put their Amendments on the Paper. This is not fair to the House. The Government are dealing with a most complicated measure on which they are prepared to accept perhaps an unusual number of changes, and even to make on their own Motion a great number of changes, and they habitually give us no indication until we actually enter upon
  1056
  the discussion of the immediate matter of what their intention is. It is not fair to the House, and it is impossible for hon. Members to take any responsibility for what is done under those circumstances. I only desire to add a request that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us what is the amount of money he is giving away by this Amendment. When the right hon. Gentleman objects to an Amendment from our side of the House, he tells us he has to set one advantage against another, that we cannot have them all, and that everything we take in one way must come oft" somewhere else. He always gives a very large estimate of the cost of proposition from this side of the House, and I want to know if he can give us any estimate of the expense of his own propositions. It would add to our obligations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he were in a position to say at this moment that he would let us know, either by a Paper laid on the Table of the House or a statement made in the House at the earliest possible moment, what is the total cost of the various alterations accepted in the course of our discussions as compared with the original calculations when the Bill was first submitted.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think this is rather a remarkable request. This is not my Amendment, but one which appears on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, who has made suggestions for the improvement of this Bill. I am bound to give full and fair consideration to every Amendment. Is it really to be said that if I accept an Amendment which appears on the Paper, whether it stands in the name of a Labour Member, a Conservative Member or a Liberal Member, and do not give notice of my intention, that that is an outrage on the procedure of the House. I am accepting this Amendment together with the suggestion made by the hon. Member himself that there should be a limit. It is impossible for the Government in advance to always say what Amendments they can accept, because we want to hear what is to be said in support of it. I have been in opposition for about fifteen years criticising measures, and I cannot recall a single instance where I ever got up and condemned the Government for accepting an Amendment. If this was our Amendment, I could understand the right hon. Gentleman saying it is very unfair to spring this upon the House, but it is not our Amendment. We have given fair consideration to the Amendment of an hon.

  1057
  Member who belongs to a Party which is not ours, and who has been more in opposition to this Bill than even the right hon. Gentleman opposite—in fact, the hon. Member is the leader of the opposition to this Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman said I was always complaining that the suggestions made would put an additional charge upon the fund. I have always told the House what the margin was. My complaint is that the House, or at least certain Members of the House, want it both ways. They want it for the small thing, and they want it for the bigger thing, and I have always said you cannot have your cake and eat it. If you spend the money on trivial Amendments you will not have it for more important points. I have always said these questions of maternity benefits and the treatment of women are, in the judgment of the House, more deserving than other questions. The right hon. Gentleman asks me what this will cost. It will not cost very much. I did make that inquiry before accepting the Amendment. I cannot at the moment tell him how much, but it will certainly be nothing approaching the cost of Amendments moved yesterday and the day before, which would have run into hundreds of thousands. This does deal with a grievance, and it does not cost very much, and that is why I accept the Amendment, limited in the way I have suggested.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I understand the right hon. Gentleman cannot say how much it is going to cost, but ho has ignored my request as to the cost of the other changes.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am sorry. The right hon. Gentleman wants a Paper circulated saying what the changes will cost. I think that is a very fair request, and I will see that Paper is prepared, as I told him yesterday. The actuaries, however, have been very hard pressed. I pressed them again yesterday, and they told me they were at it as hard as they could be, and were working overtime.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I think it is very necessary, because undoubtedly considerable disquiet is spreading abroad amongst people who are themselves experts in questions of this kind as to what the effect of the Amendments we are passing will be. Two actuaries cannot do more than two men's work, though they may work overtime and put in special
  1058
  exertions. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider whether it is possible to have additional assistance. I am quite sure money ought not to stand in the way of their having any assistance they require, so that they may give their assistance to the House of Commons in these matters. Of course, I do not want to deter the Chancellor of the Exchequer from accepting Amendments moved in any quarter of the House when it is desirable it should be done, but in nearly twenty years' experience of this House I have never known a great Bill on which the mind of the Government was so little disclosed as it is in the present case. If this Amendment stood by itself I should not comment on the treatment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is giving to it. It is only because it is one of a long series of cases, and because we do not have even the Amendments which the Government themselves contemplate placed upon the Table of the House, that I have made this protest again. I do trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take us into his confidence a little in advance wherever he can, and give the Committee the opportunity of considering the larger changes he proposes in the Bill and a reasonable time for consultation if they desire to have it.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I just wish to point out what effect this will have upon the medical benefits. Upon the basis of the Actuarial Report a certain sum will be available for medical benefits, and if you bring in a large number of cases which you did not contemplate in the first instance it will reduce the payment which it will be in the power of the local health committee to make for medical benefits. It may force the right hon. Gentleman—and I shall not be sorry if it does—to consider some way of relieving the great difficulties which will arise with regard to the insufficient amount available for medical benefits. If he has gauged correctly the figures upon the Actuarial Report he is now placing a very considerable additional burden upon the narrow sum available for medical benefits.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No; it is not very considerable. Neither the sanatorium treatment nor the maternity benefit affects it at all. It is only the medical benefit, and that is not a serious item. I do not think it is even a portion of a farthing.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Of course, like everyone else who moves an Amendment, I am

  1059
  very glad to get even a part of my Amendment accepted. I would like to make my own position with regard to this business perfectly clear. My objection is to the manner in which the money is going to be spent. I believe it might be better spent by the provision of a public health service controlled by the State, but the Bill is as it is, and my business is to get just as much medical attention for those who need it as I can within the scope of the Bill, and that is the object of all my Amendments.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "suspended" ["under this part of this Act shall be suspended"], to insert, "and where he is in arrears to an amount greater than twenty-six contributions a year on the average since his entry into insurance, his right to medical benefit, to sanatorium benefit, and to maternity benefit shall be suspended."
  Those words carry out exactly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated was the intention of the Government. It extends the right to these three benefits to a person who is in arrears for a period of twenty-six weeks on the average, instead of thirteen weeks, so that the sickness and disablement benefit will be suspended after thirteen weeks' average, but the medical, sanatorium, and maternity benefits will only be suspended after twenty-six weeks' average. The words are very plain, and carry out exactly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not rise to oppose this Amendment, but I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find he is landing the approved societies in an extraordinary position. They will have to keep a sort of double account for a man. He will be suspended for sickness and disablement benefit after thirteen weeks' average, but not till after twenty-six weeks' average for medical, sanatorium, and maternity benefits. There will be a great difficulty about his contributions after the thirteen weeks. I am not proposing to divide against the Amendment; I am merely drawing the attention of the Committee to this difficulty.
  Mr. JAMES THOMAS: I rise to clear that point up. A large number of societies already differentiate between certain benefits, and there will therefore be no new book necessary.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "and at the expiration of the next succeeding calendar year any sums credited to the society in respect of him, calculated in the prescribed manner, shall, if his right to benefits still continues to be suspended, be transferred to such account and dealt with in such, manner as may be prescribed."
  I move this Amendment for two reasons. The Clause provides that the contributions paid by the man who is in arrear beyond an average of thirteen weeks are to be transferred to such account and dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed. I object that a man's contribution should be taken away from him on the ground of his misfortune, and should be transferred to an account to be dealt with in a manner to be prescribed at some future period, and about which the Committee knows nothing. That point might no doubt be met by providing that it should be transferred to some stated and definite account, but even then I should object to the Clause. I will deal with the objection on the broader lines. The Committee ought to understand what is happening under Clause 10. If a man is in arrears for over thirteen weeks on the average, he is suspended from benefit, except, in accordance with the Amendment just accepted, with regard to medical and sanatorium benefit, and at the end of two years, if he continues to be in arrears, a lapse occurs, and he forfeits all rights to any benefit at all, unless the Amendment just moved continues to allow him to be entitled to medical and sanatorium benefit. He can become an employed contributor again by coming into insurance as a new entrant. He will not get the benefit as if he were sixteen, but he will have to come in on some unknown age rate which is not to be found anywhere in the Bill, but which is to be subsequently ascertained by regulations of the Commissioners. He will have to wait six months before he gets medical or sick benefit. I am speaking, of course, subject to the effect of the Amendment just adopted, which I have not had time to consider. In some cases the man will be out of insurance for a year. In other cases he will have to wait six months before he gets the medical benefit. In all cases six months will elapse before he gets the sickness benefit,

  1061
  and, further, he will have to wait two years before he can get the disablement benefit.
  I call the attention of the Committee to this point because it hits those people whom we most need to bring into insurance—those who, through irregularity of employment or otherwise, will in this way be forced to pay contributions while they are employed with very little or no prospect of getting continuous insurance under the Bill. That class of man will constantly be in a state of being insured for a period, then dropping out, and then coming back again, and all through the working periods the contributions will be taken from him, but he will have no insurance at all unless he joins or tries to join an approved society; otherwise he will fall into the class of deposit contributors, and his fate will be even worse. The actuaries have shown that on the basis on which they have made their calculations the Bill is very much more severe than is really necessary. This is a point I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider, because if he were to adopt my view he would find it necessary to re-draft the whole scheme under this Clause with regard to arrears. The actuaries have calculated that the State will not receive an average of two and a-half weeks' contributions in every year from every insured person. They have calculated that every insured person will be two and a-half weeks in arrear every year. It is obvious that many insured persons will not be in arrear at all. It is obvious, too, some will be more than two and a-half weeks in arrear, and what I submit the Committee has to consider is that on the average it will be possible to be more generous in the treatment of those who fall into arrear. The simplest method of illustrating that will be to take a supposed society containing 100 members, and see how it would work. We might assume that of the 100 members ninety paid fifty-two contributions in the year, and did not full into arrear at all. The remaining ten only paid thirty-nine contributions. It would work out thus: The State would receive 4,680 weeks' contributions from the ninety members, and 390 weeks from the ten, or a total of 5,070, giving an average receipt by the State of fifty and a-half weeks' contributions. That is well within the actuaries' allowance, and therefore there would be more than sufficient money to provide for full benefit being given instead of reduced benefits in the case of the ten members in arrear.
  1062
  It seems to me the Committee ought also to understand how these provisions are going to affect individual men. They will have the effect of keeping a man in reduced benefits year after year. The Committee have decided that 10s. should be the normal amount of the benefit, and that it will enable the sick man to tide over his difficulty. But the cumulative effect will be that for a very long time after a man has once got into arrear it will be impossible for him to get full benefit. It does not apply in the case of the first year. But, say, in the case of the second year a man loses ten weeks through unemployment. His benefit for the future year would be 6s. 6d. per week instead of 10s. Let us assume that for the first, second, and third years he was, on the average, eleven weeks in arrear. His benefit by that time would be reduced to 6s., and if in the following year he paid the full fifty-two contributions and was not in arrear at all, his benefit would go up to 7s. 6d. Again assume that in the succeeding year, through unemployment, ho lost seven weeks, his benefit would then be 7s., and if he had no unemployment after that, and paid the full contribution, it would still take him a very long time to recover his position. I think, having regard to the calculation made by the actuaries, on which the funds have been provided, these provisions are unnecessarily severe in dealing with arrears.
  I will only refer very briefly to the effect on members who start with the 5s. benefit. If they get into arrear they will practically become uninsured in respect of a greater part of the sickness which experience shows they are liable to. There has not been time for any individual member to work out any alternative scheme for dealing with arrears, but I feel perfectly satisfied, from the information embodied in the actuaries' report, that it is possible to make better and more generous provisions for those in arrear. At least this could be done: permission could be given to pay up arrears and thus prevent a lapse. At the present moment that power is limited to two years, but at least it might be extended so as to enable a man to put himself back into the position which he would have occupied had he had no arrears by paying up both capital and interest. I hear a remark that that is already provided for, but it is not in the Bill, and I suggest that there should be an extension in the direction I have indicated, or that alternatively the lapse which occurs at the end of two years might be post-

  1063
  poned and the suspension might go on for a longer period, or the final confiscation of the contributions made by men might be postponed so that at least they would have a better opportunity of getting the insurance we are trying to secure for them.
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): But a small portion of the hon. Member's speech was really germane to the Amendment, the rest dealt with a very interesting proposal which would more properly come under discussion in a later part of this Clause. The Government sympathise so far with the first part of the speech that they propose to accept an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones), and I think the hon. Member for Colchester will realise that the acceptance of that Amendment will meet his point. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that reply.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: On the understanding that the Amendment in question will be moved I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I understand that the Government has signified its willingness to accept an Amendment which will practically render it unnecessary for me to move one standing in my name. Under this Clause as it stands, hon. Members will notice money accruing through the suspension of members from benefit owing to arrears is to be "transferred to such account and dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed." As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester pointed out, that presumably means the Insurance Commissioners. But in the actuaries' report it is stated clearly that these sums are to go to the account of the approved societies in order to meet their extra expenditure consequent on the increase of sickness due to a reduction in the general rate of mortality. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated himself quite clearly in reply to a question on the 27th June last that
  "The saving due to the suspension of a member of any society from benefits on account of arrears of contributions in excess of 25 per cent., accrues to the advantage of his society."
  If I have the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that I need not further detain the Committee.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The only suggestion I have to make is that the hon. Member should himself move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division as I am advised by the draftsmen that these words are better calculated to secure the object we have in view.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I hardly like to take it out of the hon. Member's hands.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I shall be quite satisfied if the hon. Member will move it.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: Then I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "transferred" ["transferred to such account"] and to insert instead thereof the word "carried."
  Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Further Amendment made: After the word "account" ["transferred to such account"] insert the words, "for the benefit of the society or any other society to which he may subsequently be transferred."
  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment in the name of the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) seems to me more properly to belong to Sub-section (4).
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I have a series of small drafting Amendments, the first of which is to leave out "again" ["he again becomes employed "].
  Amendment made: Leave out the word "again."
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The next two Amendments on the Paper in my name read together. They are not much more than drafting Amendments. The effect is that the words in the Clause as they stand, "if he so elects at any time" shall be continued, "the benefits to which he is entitled shall be such as he would be entitled to."
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: We accept them as drafting Amendments.
  Further Amendments made: Leave out the words "rate of" ["at any time the rate of benefit"].
  After the word "benefits," insert "to which he is entitled."
  After the words "shall be such," leave out the word "rate."
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "employed contributor," and to insert the words "insured person."
  It will have the effect of bringing the voluntary contributors into this provision Provision is made at present which is only applicable to the compulsory contributor, and I think it ought also to apply to the voluntary contributor. The next Clause does not seem to have any provision for it.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part."
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The effect of the Amendment, as the hon. Member who has moved it has said, would be to extend to the voluntary contributor the provisions of Sub-section (2) relating to the scale of reduction of benefits on account of arrear. But if this table were extended to the voluntary contributor it would mean that if he neglected to pay three contributions he would receive the full rates. I do not think that is fair. There is no reason why he should pay more than forty-eight contributions in that case.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That deals with one point. But there is another reason to which the right hon. Gentleman has not referred. If a compulsory contributor finally gets into arrear you let him have reduced benefits, and if it is fair for the compulsory contributor, why not for the voluntary contributor? Otherwise you shut him out altogether.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A man who is in employment pays fifty-three weeks per year, whether he likes it or not, but a voluntary contributor may get the same thing by paying forty-eight weeks. Of course, he would pay only forty-eight weeks.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think that meets both my points. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider my suggestion and keep it in mind on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, simply in order to get an explanation, to leave out the words "the Fifth Schedule." There is a reference
  1066
  in Sub-section (2) to the Fifth Schedule, and I would like to know what the Schedule means. I am unable to find in this Section any relation to that Schedule. The reference is generally to the deferring of the payments to a later day. The first part I understand, but I cannot see in the Schedule any direction as to these deferred benefits, or under what circumstances a particular benefit is to be taken on the fifth day after notice instead of the normal time, and then six and seven days and so on consecutively.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The first part I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say is perfectly clear. It begins with arrears amounting to less that four contributions per year on the average. In that case there is no reduction of benefit at all. Then you get to arrears amounting to more than four contributions on the average, and the benefits are reduced to 9s. 6d. for men and 7s. 3d. for women, and so it continues right to the end. But when they get 5s. benefits there is a reduction so many days after notice. It begins with the fifth day after notice and goes on to the sixth day after notice. That is the deferred benefit if they are in arrears.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As I understand the Schedule it refers to certain people who are in arrears, but I do not understand the application.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the last part of the note to the Schedule he will read:
  "When the rate of sickness benefit during the first thirteen weeks to which the insured person is entitled is by virtue of any of the provisions of this Act, other than those relating to arrears, less than 5s. a week, this table shall have effect as if such lower rate were therein substituted for the rate of 5s. a week."
  There is also in the Schedule the lower rate, which must begin as stated, so many days after notice—five, six, seven, and eight, and so forth.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that is quite plain. The Section which refers to the Schedule deals with people who are up to thirteen weeks in arrears, and not more than thirteen weeks. But if the person is thirteen weeks in arrears, a normal person, he is to have

  1067
  5s., and then, after that, come the other people, not specified, whose 5s. commences the fifth day after notice, instead of the fourth. Would the people who are more than thirteen weeks in arrears come under that, as the Attorney-General appears to suggest, because the Sub-section governs the application of the Schedule, which does not deal with people who are more than thirteen weeks in arrears. They have forfeited the benefit altogether.
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. May I ask what is this particular Amendment which is before the Committee?
  The CHAIRMAN: Occasionally when an explanation is asked I do allow an Amendment, which, if passed, would make nonsense; but that is only occasionally done, and it is in the discretion of the Chairman whether it is in order that an explanation should be asked and given on such an Amendment.
  Mr. BARNES: Some parts of this Act are complicated, but I do not think this is one of them. A man may be in arrears, as I understand it, for an average of three weeks, and he is not in any way penalised. These two Sub-sections deal with a man after that period has expired. He can either be dealt with under the provisions of the first part of that Schedule when he comes within the 9s. 6d. a week. If he is in arrear four weeks he gets that instead of 10s., or he can be dealt with in another way, and instead of getting the 9s. 6d., according to the top part of the Schedule, he can be dealt with under the second part of the Schedule, and get pay for the first week after the fifth day's notice, and then if he is further weeks in arrear after the sixth day of notice right down to thirteen weeks.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), who knows this Bill so very well, has just given me a personal explanation. As I understand it this matter in the Schedule deals with people who are only entitled to a small benefit. In that case the benefit is not to be reduced, but to be deferred.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg leave to move, to add to Sub-section (2), at the end, the following proviso:—
  "Provided that if on the average of the three previous years the amount of unemployment in respect to the persons
  1068
  insured in any approved society has not exceeded two and six-tenths weeks per insured person per annum the Insurance Commissioners may suspend the provisions of this Sub-section as regards that approved society on its application for such suspension."
  5.0 P.M.
  I have to apologise for moving a manuscript Amendment, but I may explain that I have sent a copy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and my excuse is that I was talking this morning to the actuary of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, and he was very anxious it should go down. He entirely approves of it. According to the actuaries' estimate the hon. Member for Colchester has pointed out that two-and-a-half weeks on the average per member per year would be the lowest possible among the membership of an approved society of their unemployment, but that really would not be the case in many societies, for the reason that unemployment in some trades is more acute than in other trades, and in every approved society practically, which represents the more fortunate trades, they will only get about eight or nine shillings per week benefit, or a lesser amount. The Clause in the Bill deals only with individuals without having regard to the average income of the society as a whole. I believe this provision in the Bill is strongly repugnant to the general feeling of friendly society members. As hon. Members know, in every lodge of the Manchester Unity, at present, there is a distress fund, one of the objects of which is to keep the men good upon the books when they happen to be out of employment. The lodges of the Manchester Unity take particular care-not to denude their benefit fund for this purpose. They take this fund for the sick and their unfortunate members who get into arrear in this way. This shows very clearly the strength of the fraternal feeling that animates friendly societies. I believe the friendly societies throughout the country would welcome this Amendment. It would permit many more of their members to receive benefit than would receive benefit under the Bill at the present moment. The Amendment has also the merit of preserving that element of self-government and self-control of which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd George) spoke so well and eloquently in a former debate. If this concession is accepted, it will reduce the surplus to a small extent, and so diminish the additional benefits in some of these

  1069
  societies. But from what has been said at meetings of friendly societies, the friendly societies do not attach much importance to the additional benefits in comparison with the maintenance of that feeling of brotherliness which has characterised them in the past.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say the friendly societies disapprove of this Clause. I do not know where he got that notion from. I would like him to point out any friendly society that gives anything like the advantages provided by this Clause. It gives a maximum of thirteen weeks for unemployment. I do not know any society which does that; certainly not the Manchester Unity. It is true societies send the hat round in order to enable people in arrear to keep on the books, but, nevertheless, there are 250,000 a year who pass out of the friendly societies purely because they are in arrear, very largely from unemployment. For the first time we are allowing something like 25 per cent. of arrears without disqualification, and allow a period without any reduction of benefits at all. Will he point out any friendly society in the country that does that? You will find in Germany if you are in arrears twice in succession you lose your rights altogether in the society. This is a very liberal attempt to meet the difficulty of unemployment. I am not sure this Amendment is the best way of dealing with this matter. I am sure it is not. It is no use giving the Insurance Commissioners power at the end of three years. They may be three very good years. You impose an obligation to give the same benefits whether a man pays or whether he does not. This may be accepted as an additional benefit, but not as a part of the mechanism of insurance. I would not object to it as one of the additional benefits.
  Mr. BOOTH: I would like the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) to withdraw this now. I wish to thank the hon. Member for doing me the favour of sending me a copy last night. The Amendment is one with which I am rather in sympathy, but it would come better as an additional benefit. If it comes in at this point it will not have the effect desired.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am inclined to think my hon. Friend would be wise to fall in with what the Chancellor suggests—that this should come as an
  1070
  additional benefit. If we had had more time and better information, it might have been possible to construct a scheme in more detail. But it has become necessary to do it at the last moment, and it is not surprising my hon. Friend has not got it in its best form or its best place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, replying to him, asked him to point out any society which gives as good terms regarding arrears as this Bill does. He did not suggest any society did. No society can give as good terms as the Bill does, for the Bill has got the State and the employers' contributions. If in respect of these it does not improve upon the practice of the societies there is no justification for compelling people to join.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: After what the right hon. Gentleman has said on the point in a very conciliatory manner, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I wish to leave out Sub-section 3. This is one of the Sub-sections I always try to leave out when I see them. Here is another of these proscriptions withdrawing from the House and the Committee of the House the control of what is to happen to the voluntary contributors. This particular Sub-section ought to come out, because it is a contradiction to Sub-section (1) which applies to insured persons.
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The hon. Member will see if this Amendment is accepted that there will be no provision in the Bill for the reduction or suspension of the contributors at all. The ordinary contributor comes into the scheme with his eyes open. Before he comes in the rules will have been made by the Commissioners, and the voluntary contributor can leave or accept the scheme as he pleases.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What you intend to do is to reduce the voluntary contributor's benefit in proportion to the amount he is in arrear; why not say that in this Sub-section instead of saying the benefit shall be reduced as may be prescribed. Why should we not give the general governing line here in the Bill. With the compulsory contributor we have provided that under certain conditions and with certain qualifications his benefit shall be reduced in proportion to the amount he is in arrear. The voluntary contributor can have his benefits reduced in proportion to the amount he is in arrear.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If Subsection (1) does not cover this, and I am wrong in supposing that it does, then you ought to set out distinctly what your proposals are, instead of leaving them to be prescribed. I think Sub-section (1) does cover it, and if it does I cannot see the necessity for Sub-section (3).
  Mr. BOOTH: I must say, speaking from the standpoint of the approved societies, it is much more desirable to have this in the Bill. I see that it would be an advantage to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), but surely the Amendment would have the effect of making a cast-iron provision. What we are anxious for is that if a scheme is found to be unworkable we shall be able to get it altered with a certain amount of ease. If we give this power to the Commissioners, and if they lay their proposal before Parliament for a certain number of weeks, that will be a simpler way of dealing with the matter than by Act of Parliament. If you put it in the Bill you cannot alter it except by Act of Parliament, but if you put the matter in the hands of the Commissioners they can lay their proposal on the Table of the House. This is a business matter, and it is important that if a difficulty should occur there should be an easy way of getting over it.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think my hon. Friend is right in stating that an insured person, under Clause 10, includes a voluntary contributor.
  Mr. McKENNA: Clause 10, Sub-section (l) deals with an insured person who is a member of an approved society, Sub-section (2) deals with an employed contributor, and Sub-section (3) deals with a voluntary contributor, who in each case is in arrears.
  Mr. GOULDING: Would it meet the case to omit the word "such" and insert the word "proportionate," and to leave out the words "as may be prescribed," so that the Sub-section would read, "Where a voluntary contributor is in arrears he shall be liable to proportionate reduction or suspension of benefits."
  Mr. McKENNA: We have prescribed by a schedule of the Bill as regards the employed contributor, but the schedule with respect to the voluntary contributor is to be prepared by the Insurance Commissioners.
  Mr. CASSEL: May I suggest that the words "or suspension" should come out also?
  The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the First Lord of the Admiralty accepts the form of words suggested by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding). In that case the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Colchester should be withdrawn.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will withdraw my Amendment and move another in the form suggested by the hon. Member for Worcester. In doing so may I protest against the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty that voluntary contributors come in with their eyes open? They do not come in with their eyes open in the sense that they have an alternative, because by this very Bill the voluntary societies are to be roped in as-approved societies, and they will not have voluntary sections, apart from what is done under this Bill, to choose from, or probably they will not.
  Mr. McKENNA: I wish to distinguish between a person who is bound to insure and one who is not bound.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move to leave out the word "such," in Sub-section (3), ["be liable to such reduction"], and to insert instead thereof the word "proportionate."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move to leave out the words "or suspension," in Sub-section (3), ["reduction or suspension of benefits"].
  Mr. McKENNA: It would be safer not to leave out these words as they may be necessary.
  Mr. HILLS: I think the question of suspension is dealt with in Sub-section (1) as regards an insured person who is a member of an approved society.
  Question, "That the words 'or suspension' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: I beg to move to leave out, in paragraph (a) Sub-section (4), the words, "Or the two next succeeding Sections of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words, "Section or any other provision of the Act disentitling a

  1073
  person to such benefit." This Amendment deals with rather a complicated point. It is intended to remove a slight injustice, which I think is not really in the mind of the Government. The object of paragraph (a) is to relieve contributors from the necessity of paying contributions during periods of sickness or disablement. Hon. Members will see from the paragraph that contributors need not pay contributions while receiving sickness benefit or disablement benefit, but by Sub-section (7) of Clause 8, which deals with the waiting period of six months as regards medical benefit, and twenty-six weeks as regards sickness benefit, persons can be sick or disabled and yet not receive sickness benefit or disablement benefit. Under the present wording of Clause 10 they would not be free from the obligation of making contributions. It seems clear that they have a right to be free from paying contributions if they fall sick or become disabled within the waiting periods, and it is in order to give this right that I move the Amendment.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I think my hon. Friend is quite right in saying that it is necessary to insert the words which he proposes for the purpose of meeting the case of the person insured during the waiting period. It is unnecessary to recapitulate what the effect of this Amendment will be. Under paragraph (a) arrears of contributions are not to be calculated during any period when the person in question has been in receipt of sickness benefit or disablement benefit, but this particular point which my hon. Friend has referred to was not met in the Bill, and, consequently, I accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. LANSBURYhad given notice of an Amendment in Sub-section (4), in paragraph (a), after the word "benefit" ["or disablement benefit"], to insert the words "unemployment benefit."
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the words of the hon. Member's Amendment cannot be inserted here. We have no unemployment benefit in the Bill up to this stage.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is there no unemployment benefit in Part II. of the Bill?
  The CHAIRMAN: We have not yet arrived at Part II. of the Bill, and there is no Clause giving unemployment benefit up to the present time.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), in paragraph (b), after the word "confinement" ["four weeks after her confinement "], to insert the words "or in the case of maternity benefit payable in respect of the posthumous child of an insured person, during the period subsequent to the father's death." This Amendment deals with another small point. If a man dies he is no longer in benefit, but if some weeks or months after his death a child is born to his wife, is she entitled to the maternity grant? It is in order to make quite clear she is entitled to it that I move the Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: We are only dealing now with the question whether arrears are to be counted after a definite time. I think the object my hon. Friend has in view is that arrears shall not be counted after a man's death in a case where a woman is confined of a posthumous child. That point has already been dealt with as regards sick benefit, and it is obvious that it should be dealt with in this case. I do not think that the words proposed by my hon. Friend are the proper words to insert, and if the Amendment is accepted now it must be on the understanding that it is subject to alteration afterwards if it should be found necessary to use other words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: I beg to move, to insert at the beginning of Sub-section (4), paragraph (c), the words "in the case of an employed contributor."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to move, to. leave out paragraph (c).
  Mr. LEIF JONES: On a point of Order. We have inserted words at the beginning of Sub-section (c), and we must finish it somehow.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member is quite correct. I had overlooked that point. The hon. and gallant Member must find some other method of amendment.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Will not the words come in front of Sub-section(d)?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: Does not the rule that applies to a Clause apply to a paragraph?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No.
  Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), paragraph (c), to leave out the words "after the commencement of this Act."
  My object is to find out what is the meaning of this Section, which appears to be rather involved. Section 8 says that no insured person shall be entitled to medical benefit during the first six months after the commencement of the Act, or shall be entitled to sickness benefit for the first twenty-six weeks. If a man is entitled to receive either of these benefits after six months I cannot understand why he should be allowed to pay no money for twelve months. It also appears to me that if a man is in arrears in the first twelvemonth his rate of insurance ought to begin in the second year.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: This applies only to an employed contributor. He cannot help himself. If he does not pay the contribution is deducted by his employer. It is intended to give him some advantage during the first twelve months. If he is out of work he has not to pay, and if he is in work he cannot help himself.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, to insert at the end of Sub-section (4), paragraph (c), the words "for any period within the second twelve months after the commencement of this Act during which the insured person is disabled after having exhausted his sickness benefit under the Act, or."
  I hope that the Attorney-General will think that this is a reasonable Amendment. Although a man may become disabled he gets no disablement pay at all until two years after the passing of the Act. He is paying contributions, but getting no benefit. If he does not pay his contributions, arrears will begin to run against him. My object is simply to exclude that second year.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman, as I understand, takes the individual case of the man who becomes disabled during the period of the first two years' operation of the Bill who is not getting disablement pay until the two years elapses, and who falls into arrears.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is so.
  Mr. McKENNA: We would all desire to have more money at our disposal to make the Bill more favourable, but I regret
  1076
  that I do not think that this is a case in which additional exemption ought to be made. It must be remembered that in framing this particular part of the Clause under which arrears are not to be counted the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone far beyond any precedent ever set by any society. There is no doubt that at each point it is quite possible to propose Amendments' pressing small concessions further and further, but I would beg the hon. Gentleman to accept the arrangements made under this Clause, which are extremely generous.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not accept this very small proposal, which covers many hard cases. The whole question is what will it cost. I cannot conceive that it will cost very much. It would not be likely to arise very often. If you have the case of a man who during the first two years had exhausted his sickness credit and could not get disablement benefit because it does not come for the first two years it is very hard that arrears, which may not amount to more than a few weeks, should count against him in regard to other benefits later on. If it were going to cost a great deal I am sure that my hon. Friend would not press it, but it would cost very little, and as it meets a very hard case I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider it.
  Mr. BOOTH: This is the kind of Amendment that we can propose all through the Bill. If we carry many of them the whole thing will be unworkable, and it will be impossible for approved societies to make both ends meet. This is a most dangerous Amendment. There is scarcely an Amendment on the Paper which would do more to encourage malingering than this. This provision is a concession to a man who would be one of the greatest recipients of benefit under this Bill. If there is any man who should be thankful to have this Bill passed it is this man. We are not helping him out of Government funds? This comes out of the funds of approved societies to which workers contribute. I think this is a fortunate, and not an unfortunate individual, when you compare his new position with his position before the passing of the Bill. It does seem to me that the malingerer will avail himself of this at once. A suggestion was made yesterday with regard to the great danger of malingering. There is no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has this idea impressed on his mind more and more

  1077
  with all the concessions which he has made. It is not the working class as a rule who will malinger. It is the odd man who spoils the benefit of the other ninety-nine. My own opinion is that working people as a class are less given to it than the middle and upper classes. The percentage of malingerers which there would be among Members of this House is far greater than you would get in an average trade union. I can see many hon. Members before me who are endowed with very great gifts. I believe that they are able to drive a coach and four through any Act of Parliament, and if they were to set to in order to extract benefits under this Bill they would develop into malingerers to an extent which would put any working man to shame. It is not with any desire to attack the working people that I say this, hut we must have regard to the odd men who are looking at all the provisions simply and solely with the object of trying to extract as much money as they can from the pool. I do not wish to press that point too far. I rise now only in the interests of approved societies. We should bear in mind all through that if we give benefits and concessions to disabled people we are likely to have them turned against us, and that the finances of the approved societies would become more and more unsound.
  Mr. HILLS: The hon. Gentleman talks as though this Amendment was going to give increased benefit and thereby encourage malingering. I should like to point out that if a man is malingering under this Amendment he loses both his employment and his benefit, and why a man should malinger for the purpose of getting no wages and no sick pay I cannot understand.
  Mr. McKENNA: Will the hon. Member allow me s If this Amendment is intended to cover only what he has referred to now it has already been dealt with by the Amendment which the Attorney-General accepted to Sub-section (a). The case of the individual disabled during the first two years of the Act has been already dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Attorney - General on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones). If there has been any misunderstanding, I should say that it does not propose to touch benefits at all, but merely arrears during the first two years, and if the hon. Member looks at Sub-clause (a) where amended, he will see that his point is already covered.
  Mr. HILLS: If it is the case that in the second year the man who runs out his thirteen weeks on sick pay is not to come into arrears for the rest of that year, then I quite agree that the point is met.
  Mr. McKENNA: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the point is met by what has been already done in paragraph (a).
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I am disposed to think that is so. I have read through paragraph (a) as it now stands, and I think the alteration made in it does cover this point.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I was not in the House when the point was dealt with. I now ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after paragraph (a), to add the following paragraph: "(e) during any period when the insured person was involuntarily out of work."
  By the Bill as it stands, where a person is sick for a period of thirteen weeks he is suspended from benefit altogether. In reply to a question which I addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day, the answer was repeated that during the period of unemployment not only the arrears of the workman but the arrears of the employer have to be met, the workman being responsible for his own arrears and the arrears of the employers. I am quite sure that if the Bill is left as it stands the certain result will be very serious in respect to the benefits of the workmen, after two or three years' operation of the Act. There have been strikes of ten or eleven months' duration in South Wales, and some 1,000 or 1,200 men have been out of employment. It is quite conceivable, I think very probable, that a labour dispute of such magnitude will occur during the first three or four years of the operation of this measure. What would be the effect?
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The Amendment of the hon. Member's refers to persons involuntarily out of work. Are they out of work "involuntarily" if they strike?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: It is quite a difficult thing where there is a labour dispute to distinguish between a lock-out and a strike. I will deal with the case of a lockout, in order to meet the point of the hon. Member. The lock-out may continue for several months, and the result of that will

  1079
  be that all these men would be suspended from benefit, and it would be impossible for them to pay up the arrears. What would be the amount of arrears they would have to pay? Suppose they paid up arrears by weekly contributions, they would have their own 4d. to pay, then their 4d. for arrears, and the employer's 3d., making l1d. a week altogether. I think it would be quite impossible for the working man to pay that amount out of his wages. We must remember that fact, where there is a long period of unemployment. I should like to have this Amendment fully met, or if the Government are not in a position to do that, then the very least they can do is to relieve the working man from being responsible for the employer's contribution when he is out of work. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us more than once that there are something like a quarter-of-a-million of lapses in friendly societies every year, and these are due almost entirely to the inability of the members to pay. The rule of the friendly societies is to allow a member 10s. a week for relief, and the workman is not going to sacrifice that after paying for years. We may assume that in the quarter of a million cases of lapses there was complete inability to continue the payment of 4d., 5d., or 6d. a week. That fact alone, apart from the experience of every member of this House as to the conditions in which working men live, is sufficient to recommend this Amendment to the favourable consideration of the Government.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: In the form in which this Amendment is moved it is quite impossible to accept it. Supposing the employed contributor has paid for one week, and then afterwards fell out of employment, under this Amendment he would thereafter be entitled to benefit. I do not think that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) intends that. I do not want to limit criticism to the exact words of his Amendment; I only wish to point out to him that this Amendment, if accepted, would go much further than the hon. Member for Blackburn has appreciated. The hon. Member cited the instance of a lock-out or a strike—remarking that it was difficult to distinguish between them—in which men are involuntarily out of work for twelve or eighteen months. He suggests that it would be very hard to ask them for arrears during the whole of that period.
  1080
  But the hon. Member is leaving out of consideration the very considerable benefits already given by the Government to the person who is out of work, and who is contributing under the paragraph of this Clause with which we have already dealt. Those benefits are certainly greater than are given by any friendly society in this country, and certainly infinitely greater than are given in Germany. But let me meet the argument of my hon. Friend, that the Government are not doing sufficient. What we are doing is this: First of all, if a man is sick, he has no payment to make. That is quite clear. We have already dealt with that. We give him that advantage, which is a considerable advantage, and which he does, not get now in any insurance or friendly society. His contribution is not deducted for the time he is receiving sick benefit, and it is not counted as an arrear against him. In other words, he is treated as if he was paying during the whole time he is-sick. When we deal with the arrears, we say that when a man is in arrears for a period of four weeks it is not counted against him. That is to say, he does not lose anything in the shape of benefits. That is a very considerable advantage, which is not given by friendly societies, and under this scheme it is an advantage-to the person unemployed. But we go further than that.
  Supposing a man is in arrears during thirteen weeks. We have already decided that at the end of that period the benefit for which he is suspended is sickness and disablement benefit, but he is to continue to get medical benefit, sanatorium benefit and maternity benefit up to the period of twenty-six weeks. All these are advantages which we are giving under this Bill to a person who is in arrears and who is unable to pay because he is out of employment. I should have thought that it certainly could not be said against the Government that they are not dealing very liberally indeed with the man out of employment. If we accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member the result would be to throw out of gear the whole of the calculations upon which this scheme is based. I am sure that those who may be sympathetic to this Amendment cannot have considered what the effect of this would be. Take the case my hon. Friend put of a man being out of employment during twelve months, through a lock-out. That would be a most grave and serious-matter, but it is already met to a very large extent by the concessions to which

  1081
  I have called attention. I do not want to go into a lengthened exposition of how we deal with a man who comes into the society again and gets the benefit of his earlier contributions. My hon. Friend pointed out that a man might be out of employment for some months, and that when he comes in again he would be in great difficulty for a very long time. That is not really the case, because under the Bill he has the advantage of coming in again the moment he is employed. It is true that when he does come in again he at first gets reduced benefit, the amount being reduced to 5s. He is allowed to come in again the moment he is employed, even if he has been out of employment for years, but he is obliged to come in under reduced benefit. After he has been in employment for a time, it is possible, for him, under the Bill, to get back on the old terms under his old insurance, and he can do that the moment the benefit is reduced. I have no doubt my hon. Friend has studied the Bill, though it is not very easy to understand it, and if the House will listen I would like to explain the matter, which is a little complicated.
  6.0 P.M.
  When you talk of four weeks, of thirteen weeks, and of twenty-six weeks it should be remembered that we are speaking of an average period during years. And what does it mean? Supposing a man has been contributing for twenty years, he does not come under the suspension of benefit until he is five years in arrear. The Committee ought to keep that quite clearly in mind. When we speak of thirteen weeks we are apt to make a mistake and calculate it in just the same way. If the man has been contributing for twenty years he must be five years in arrear before he is suspended from benefit. Bearing that in mind, as well as what we are already providing under this scheme, it will be seen that we are doing a great deal for persons out of employment. Supposing a roan has been out of employment, when he returns to his employer he at once becomes an insured—that is to say, he again becomes an employed contributor. The moment he is an employed contributor his contribution goes on with a reduced rate of benefit. But with every payment which he makes he is approaching nearer to the period when it is to his advantage to get back to the old insurance—that is to say, to use a convenient expression, to couple up the new payments with the old payments, so that the man who has been in arrear for a considerable period of
  1082
  time, when he rejoins, pays the same contribution for reduced benefit for a certain period; but every week that he pays for reduced benefit brings him nearer to his full benefits, because he has lowered his average arrear for a period of years. The fact is, he goes on paying, and so lowers the average of arrears piled up against him. A man has been off for a considerable period, and the hon. Member wishes to put him back at once into the old position, and to strike out this period in which he had never been insured at all, except for the purpose of counting up the arrears to see what they would have been if spread over the whole period, before he ceased to pay, and since he came back. If we take all these considerations into mind it will be clear that the proposals of the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snow-den) and those who sympathise with his views that full benefit should be given under this Bill to those who are out of work are enormous proposals. We have already loaded this scheme very seriously in order to give these benefits, which have-always appeared to me very valuable indeed, and having done that, if we include in the scheme upon this basis these additional burdens, it must become impossible altogether. Are we to open the doors in this way, and allow free entry to all who may be out of work, not to have their arrears counted up against them, and to get full benefit just the same as if there had been a period of full time of payment. [An HON. MEMBER: "How long is he to be unemployed?"] That is not the point. The Amendment does not seem to me to relate to that particular matter. In this case you must have the payment of the contribution in order to get to the period when the arrears may be worked off and the man entitled to full benefit. I want to point out, in answer to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Blackburn, that we should open the door wider still to the man who is out of work in this part of our scheme, that we have done everything we possibly could be asked to do, and I say that to ask the House of Commons to take upon itself to accept such an Amendment is nothing more nor less than to ask us to make the scheme unsound and financially unworkable from the time it leaves the House.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: Is there not provision for re-entry?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: In the re-entry there is a great advantage. When he

  1083
  re-enters he comes in on a rate of benefit which is properly attributable to his age on entering and proportionate to the contribution he is making. If he gets benefit it is not the same benefit, and he cannot get it when he makes his first contribution. He is treated as a new member or a new entry. It is impossible to give him benefits until he has had a waiting period. But in this case, as soon as he pays back the thirteen weeks and the twenty-six for the arrears, he gets back to the old standard of insurance, and gets the benefit which is proportionate, and the old arrears having been paid up, he gets rid of the extra payment and of the reduced benefit.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: Referring to the Amendment on the Paper with regard to employer's contribution, I have an Amendment on the Paper to that effect, and it was ruled out of order in that place. I did not intend to move it, as the question is now raised in a wider form. If the Attorney-General wishes it, I will move it so that he may make an explanation.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It docs not arise now.
  Mr. BARNES: I and those who sit beside me quite appreciate the fact that the Government have been fairly liberal in the provision so far as a man is concerned who comes on sick. It is something unusual, I admit, to find a man coming on to sick benefit of this sort and getting credit for three or four weeks. I am not quite sure whether it is three or four weeks.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is reduced on the fourth week of arrear. That is the average.
  Mr. BARNES: I quite understand it begins at the fourth week, so therefore it is only three weeks actually. So far as a man going on sick benefit is concerned, the provision is fairly good, and I think the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) is of the same opinion. But we have put this Amendment down, and the man we have in our mind is the man who gets out of work, and one of the conditions in that case is that that man shall pay up not only his own contribution, but the contribution of his employer in order to keep himself in benefit. If he has not done that he will receive a reduced benefit. When a man gets out of work other things roll up as
  1084
  well as that, and it is hard that he is to be asked to pay up these arrears or get a. reduced benefit until they are paid up. A man who gets out of work has enough to do without trying to pay up for sick benefit when he gets work, and we say he has a reasonable claim for some consideration in regard to this matter. When a man is out of work he does not necessarily go sick under this Act. The Amendment of my hon. Friend may be drawn a little wide, but we have put down another Amendment a little further down the Paper which deals with the other alternative, and to some extent limits and defines the liability provided the Government are disposed to accept it. We lay down that it shall be: "during any period of unemployment when the insured person is receiving benefit under Part II. of this Act, or would be receiving such benefit if he belonged to a-trade specified in the Sixth Schedule to this Act to the extent of an average of one month each year."
  That does not require that the man should be exempt from contribution if out of work except under certain conditions. That difficulty is met by the conditions specified in the Second Part of this Act—that is to say, he would not be on strike or locked out, or would not have left his-employment under certain conditions there laid down, and, generally speaking, he will be under the provisions of that part of the Act. Then, further, we ask that the period of unemployment for which we ask such exemption shall be an average of one month per year. I do not think that proposal, at all events, is open to the statement made by the Attorney-General that it will upset the whole Bill, and upset the working of this Act in an actuarial sense. Provided he does not require sick benefit, that would not apply. The man would have to pay during the time of unemployment, and if he did not pay it then he would have to pay it afterwards, and therefore it does not apply. We seek exemption from contributions whether the man comes under sick benefit or not. We say he shall not be required to pay the 4d. in respect of himself and the 3d. in respect of his employer on a very limited scale of benefit under the Act in Part II., 7d. per week in respect to the receipt of 7s. or 6s. per week. We limit the arrangement to a period of one month per year. That, in our opinion is not an unreasonable Amendment. It gives relief to the man who goes out of work, a relief to which we think he is entitled, and which is much needed, because he has not the

  1085
  wherewithal to find 7d. a week. Therefore, I would ask the Attorney-General to reconsider the matter in the light of this more limited and reasonable proposal.
  Mr. CASSEL: I cannot support the Amendment; but I wish to call the attention of the Attorney-General to an injustice to which the provisions of the Bill lead. The Attorney-General pointed out, and it is perfectly true, that so far as arrears are concerned, the terms under the Bill are far more generous than those of any friendly society in existence. But no man is compelled to join a friendly society, whereas under this Bill you are compelling people to join. The position of great hardship is that of the seasonal workers, who on the average work only nine months in the year. They would be always paying, but unless they could make sufficient provision during the time they are earning to come in as voluntary contributors during the other three months of the year, they would never get any sickness or disablement benefit at all. The proper course with regard to these people would be to give them the option of not coming in. They say, "We do not want to be insured, because under the terms of our employment we can never pay up for a sufficient period to entitle us to benefit." Under an Amendment which has been made they might get medical or sanatorium benefit, but they will be paying for sickness and disablement benefit as well. I submit that their position is one of great hardship, and that they ought at least to have the opportunity of not being bound to come in under the Bill.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: An exceedingly important point is here involved. We all accept the statement of the Attorney-General as an excellent one, and as showing a genuine desire to meet the position, so far as it went. I have been for some years secretary to an organisation that, takes in unskilled labourers. The great difficulty experienced in the unskilled labourers unions is that when a man is out of work, not only can ho not afford to pay his union, but he has nothing to live on at all. In order to keep these men as members of our union we vest power in the hands of the branch to excuse a man altogether from paying his contributions for a month at a time. If a man is out of employment for six months on end he need not pay a cent., provided his branch excuses him on the ground of unemployment. That arrangement keeps the
  1086
  man in the union exactly in the position that he was in when he fell out of work. He does not gain any advantage by not paying his contributions, but as soon as he begins to pay his contributions again he immediately qualifies for benefit, and the period during which he has not contributed is not counted against him at all. It seems to me that if under this Bill a man is compelled to pay up arrears, you will have just the same difficulty as the trade unions have had in the past; you will have a tremendous number of men who will lapse and then rejoin; they will pay in for so-long, then lapse again, and rejoin once more. That has been the experience in the trade union movement, particularly in the unskilled workers' section. We must realise the tremendous difficulties of these people. There are hundreds of thousands in this country in receipt of wages of only 17s. or 18s. a week. They may have a wife-arid children to keep, and the Committee can easily appreciate the enormous difficulties in which these men find themselves as soon as they are unemployed. The difficulty is much greater than the Attorney-General appears to imagine, and the question ought to receive far more consideration if it is hoped to keep these men permanently in the organisation at all.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to put in a plea-for the ordinary London casual labourer, who will be in the position of being practically always something in arrear. He is never certain of regular work, and to keep himself in benefit he will continually have to pay both the employer's and his own contributions for a certain number of weeks. The basis of the scheme is that not only should the man pay something, but also the employer. Why, then, should it be landed on to the workman to bear the whole burden of unemployment in this way? The proposal is really quite indefensible. There may be something in the argument of the Attorney-General with regard to the treatment of men under this measure in the matter of exemption for arrears as compared with their treatment by friendly societies. But nothing can be said for making the men take on their shoulders the burden of the employers. As I have said before, this is not a sentimental business. Unemployment as a rule creates ill-health. Everybody knows that during periods of bad trade the figures for sickness rise, especially among the class of people of whom we are thinking just now. Therefore I join in asking the Government to give the matter more consideration.

  1087
  You do not get out of it by showing how much has been done. We agree that you are probably doing more than other people. But this is a very rich country, and unemployment, generally speaking, is not the fault of the individual man or woman. I want, not the Amendment of the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Lames), but that, or some modification of it, of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). In any case, I want to see the employer's part absolutely taken off the shoulder of the workman or workwoman.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: If this Amendment is now put, will the Amendment to which my hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes) has referred be excluded from consideration?
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): I think the question raised by that Amendment has been covered in the discussion on this Amendment.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: That being so, might we not ask the Attorney-General to give us his views on the statement of my hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes) who raised an issue much narrower than that raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn, and put certain points which had not been covered in the Attorney-General's previous speech. The point I should like to put is simply this. The Government admit that sickness necessitates certain privileges in respect of arrears. They admit that if an insured person is sick for five weeks, four weeks arrears are not counted at all.
  Mr. McKENNA: If he is sick for five weeks no arrears at all are counted. Not only that, but those five weeks during which he is getting sick benefit are counted in his favour as part of the year, and towards giving him another free run of four weeks for unemployment.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The point is that when a person is under benefit be-cause of sickness the Government give him special privileges with regard to arrears. If a person is in precisely the same position as a sick person so far as income is concerned, and is a beneficiary under Part II., why cannot the Government give him, not the same amount of consideration, but a sufficient amount of consideration to enable him to remain inside the Bill? The statement of the Attorney-General is very good so far as it goes, but I do not think he has quite
  1088
  visualised the very large number of people who will be permanently only partly in receipt of benefits under this Bill. They will be on a low scale, they will be in arrears, they will be partly in, partly out. For the sake of the success of his own scheme, more particularly in the lower strata of society, he must really meet us is some way in respect to unemployment. Therefore, I ask that he should say something in reply to the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division before this question is put to the vote.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I certainly could not support the Amendment with which the Attorney-General has dealt, nor could I have supported the other Amendment to which the hon. Member for Blackfriars has referred, which is covered by this Amendment and therefore cannot be moved. I agree with all the Attorney-General has said as to the very long way the scheme of the Bill goes towards making allowances for people who are unfortunately unable to maintain their contributions. I do not want in the least to underrate what is done. Nor must we forget the heavy charges which that places upon the fund generally, and therefore upon other contributors who are more fortunately situated. I do not want to forget or criticise, but there is one class about whom two hon. Members have spoken, and if it be the fact—I speak subject to correction, and I am not desirous to press for any immediate steps if the Government require time for the further consideration of the matter—if it be the fact, as is thought by those two hon. Members, that we are going to take a compulsory contribution from a considerable number of people, whenever they are in work, and owing to the terms and conditions of their life, they will seldom or never qualify for benefit, then I think that is a case which requires special treatment.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: In what way?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is really the case of the seasonal man. That was the case which struck me most as it was put. If other cases are of more importance than that, of course the greater number of cases the heavier will be the charge upon the fund in making special provision in their favour. The more difficult, therefore, it becomes to do anything. All the difficulties of the problem seem opening up to us. At the same time I do feel that the Committee will be uneasy if it is shown to them that they are going

  1089
  to take the contributions of a great number of men who can never hope under the conditions of their employment to get benefits. If there are a considerable number of men, as my hon. Friend, the Member for St. Pancras, suggests, who get not more than nine months employment in the year, and who cannot out of the wages of that time provide both for their own and the employers contribution in the time they are out of work, then the danger is that you are compelling them to come into the scheme in which there are nominal benefits to be derived by them, but of these benefits they will in fact have no share.
  I do not press upon the Government more than that they should consider these cases, and consider whether the terms of the Bill are quite fair to the men concerned, or whether they can get out of the Bill to which they contribute what will be their proper share. I hesitate almost to make any suggestion without much further knowledge than I have, and much further consideration than I can pretend to have given to the subject, as to dealing -with this matter. But it does seem to me that it might be possible to allow in certain cases—in a limited class of cases at any rate—that men re-entering shall not have to have a new waiting period, but shall come into benefit when they come again into work. I do not know what the financial effect of that will be. The financial result might make it impossible even to consider the suggestion. But I do hope the Government will keep it in their mind. If men in these cases lapse and then become paying members again they should not have each time when they lapse to go through the whole waiting period. It seems to me that is what will happen, and that in many of these cases this provision will exclude the men from ever drawing benefit.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I understand, Mr. Emmott, in an earlier ruling you gave this afternoon, you said that it would be open to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith) to move his Amendment, which raises a point of very grave importance, which hon. Members on this side wish to discuss. It refers to the paying of arrears represented by the employer's contribution. I want to ask now whether if this present Amendment goes to a Division the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton will be able to move the Amendment which stands in his
  1090
  name. That is in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words, "or in respect of" ["payable by or in respect of him"]?
  The CHAIRMAN: I understand that we have not discussed during this present Debate the question raised by the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith), and Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), to leave out the words "or in respect of." I have not been present during the whole of the Debate, but I do not think this matter has been settled in this Debate.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: On a point of Order. The Amendment now before the Committee is a very wide one. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) raises practically the same point, though in a much narrower form. Therefore if we reject the prior one it seems to me we ought to be permitted to move the Amendment of the narrower character, because there seem to be many Members who would not go for my wider Amendment who would support the one not so comprehensive.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On a point of Order. If it is possible to discuss thirteen or fourteen alternatives to the same general proposition we would never get to the end, I will not say of this Bill, but of any Bill. I take it that what we are really doing now is discussing the general principle. I understand the Debate has gone on for an hour and a half upon this general question—in fact, it has gone a good deal wider. I suggest that if we discuss the same thing over again on an Amendment which is simply an alternative, we will never get to an end.
  The CHAIRMAN: I can only settle the points of Order on any individual Amendment put to me. In regard to this particular Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars, which, I said, should come later, the point is so nearly the same as the one which we are discussing, that I certainly cannot allow it to be raised, because the man who "belongs to a trade specified in the Sixth Schedule to the Act," and so on, must surely be involuntarily an unemployed man.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Even if I were to withdraw this Amendment, Mr. Emmott, it would not be in order for my hon. Friend to move his?
  The CHAIRMAN: I have explained before that if an Amendment is withdrawn no

  1091
  effect whatever is produced, and the same Amendment may be moved again, though it would be rather an abuse of procedure to do it.
  Mr. BARNES: In the event of my hon. Friend pressing his Amendment to a Division, the point then is: would it be in order for me to move my Amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN: No, no, certainly not.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: In answer to the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Black-friars and Leicester, this is, of course, a much narrower Amendment, but I would point out that what this Amendment seeks from the Government we have done under the Bill. We really have already done the very thing which the hon. Member seeks.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I am not quite sure whether the Government have considered the question of averaging unemployment for a period say of twelve months. There is one case which I have in my mind at this moment, and in which I am specially interested, and it is typical of many others. It is where the workmen are employed perhaps for two days a week, more or less all the year round. These men being employed two days a week, or it may be one, three, or four days in some weeks, have the deductions made from their wages, whereas if they were continuously unemployed for four weeks, they would get the benefit under the Bill. Can there be some arrangement made whereby unemployment can be spread over a period, and averaged, so that these men and men in similar circumstances would get the benefit the same as those continuously employed?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that would be a very dangerous thing to do. It would make a very great hole in the funds of the various societies. My own impression at the present time is that it would be an enormous reduction in the money available for distribution for benefits. A word or two in reply to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chamberlain) as to the case of the seasonal trades.
  These will be enormously better off than originally. They can go on without paying anything for thirteen weeks in each year, and still keep quite a considerable benefit, and even beyond that up to about six months they can still claim to get medical benefits, maternity benefits, and sanatorium benefits. I do not think that the person engaged in a trade of the kind referred to has ever been in such a position as he will be if this Bill is carried. May I just point out that even if he is in employment up to twenty-six weeks, he can still bank his earnings, and he will get his 4d., he will get the 3d. of the employer, and the 2d. of the State. This will be placed to his credit. In addition to that he gets the benefit of the sanatorium fund of a million drawn from the whole body of insured persons throughout the whole country. He also gets the benefit of a grant of one and a-half millions towards the building of sanatoria. There again he is not altogether deprived of his benefit.
  I will consider whether it is possible to do something more for him. But I am just a little bit afraid of it at the moment. It is so difficult to distinguish between the seasonal man and the man who is more or less of a loafer. Nobody wants to encourage him at the expense of the industrious workman. He is the very man who goes on working for a few weeks and then says he is tired. He says he is very sorry, but he cannot find employment. That is the last thing in the world that he wants. We do not want to give the same benefit to the man of that kind as the steady workman who goes on all through the year. Especially we do not want to give it to him at the expense of the other. I will consider the matter carefully and see whether it is possible to do something more, but I am afraid that it will not be.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 256.

  Division No. 284.]

  AYES.

  [6.45 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Goldstone, Frank

  Hunt, Rowland

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hancock, John George

  Johnson, W.

  Barnes, George N.

  Hardie, Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Brace, William

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Clynes, John R.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hills, John Waller

  Richards, Thomas

  Gill, A. H.

  Hodge, John

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Snowden, Philip

  Wadsworth, J.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Stanley, Albert, (Staffs, N. W.)

  Wardle, George J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. C. Duncan and Mr. Lansbury.

  Sutton, John E.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  M'Callum, John M.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Ffrench, Peter

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leices., Spalding)

  Allen Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Furness, Stephen

  Manfield, Harry

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Armitage, Robert

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Meagher, Michael

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Geddard, Sir Daniel Forde

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Mond, sir Alfred Moritz

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N)

  Gray, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Barton, W.

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hackett, J.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Beale, William Phipson

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Neilson, Francis

  Beauchamp, sir Edward

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Nolan, Joseph

  Bentham, G. J.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Harwood, George

  Nuttall, Harry

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Boyton, James

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Dowd, John

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Henry, Charles E. H.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Phillips, John (Longford S.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hinds, John

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hushes, S. L.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Radford, G. H.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Raffan, peter Wilson

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Cator, John

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Reddy, M.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts., Rushcliffe)

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Keating, Matthew

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Clough, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Kelly, Edward

  Robinson, Sydney

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Crooks, William

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid., Cockerm'th)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Leach, Charles

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Davies E. William (Eifion)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Logan, John William

  Seely, Col., Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Sheehy, David

  Delany, William

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Dillon, John

  Lundon, Thomas

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Doris, W.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Maclean, Donald

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Stanler, Beville

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Farrell, James Patrick

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  1094

  1095

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Watt, Henry A.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Webb, H.

  Wortley, Rt. H. C. B. Stuart-

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Yoxall Sir James Henry

  Verney, Sir Henry

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Wiles, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, standing in the names of the hon. Member for Derby and the hon. Member for Dundee, is, I think, covered by the present paragraph (a).
  Mr. JAMES THOMAS: Then, I think, it should be clearly set out that while a man may be ill, and under the provisions of the Bill receive no sick pay from the fund because he is in receipt of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act he should not be called upon to pay contribution; that that ought to be clearly defined in the Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It could not be more clearly defined than it is defined in the Bill. The only possible additional effect of the Amendment of my hon. Friend would be this, that a man might not pay while he was actually at work.
  Mr. JAMES THOMAS: The exemptions have been clearly pointed out under Clause 11 of the Bill. A man may be ill in consequence of an accident, and may during that illness be receiving compensation, and is therefore deprived of the sick benefit of the fund. What we want then is that he should be exempt from contribution.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If my hon. Friend will look at the Clause he will see that that is what is done—
  "No account shall be taken of any arrears (a) during any period when the person in question has been or but for this or the two next succeeding Sections of this Act would have been in receipt of sickness benefit."
  Mr. LEES SMITH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words, "or in respect of ["when an insured person has paid any arrears of contributions payable by or in respect of him which accrued during the calendar year"].
  Under the Bill as it stands, if an employed contributor falls into arrears and wishes to pay them up, he has to pay the employer's arrears, or the arrears that accrue in respect of the employer, as well
  1096
  as his own. It has been pointed out that it is quite a sufficient test of the man's genuineness if he is willing to pay his own arrears, but to put upon his back the employer's arrears as well as his own is to place upon him an impossible position. I would like to call the attention of the Committee to the effect of this upon small wage-earners. Take a woman earning 9s. a week. When in employment she pays Id. a week. If she falls out of employment and gets into arrears and wants to clear them off again, then, as the Bill stands, her contribution would be raised from 1d. to 6d. per week. It is quite clear that the Bill as it stands will make it practically impossible for her, and a great body of workers like her, to recover their position by paying off their arrears. I quite understand that there are most serious difficulties in the way of the Amendment which I propose. If it is unfair to ask the workman, it is equally unfair to ask the society to pay the employer's share. I confess that under the circumstances this seems to me to be a very special case in which this money should be found by a State grant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has complained that Members bring proposals before this House without calculating how much they are going to cost. It is very difficult, indeed, to make any calculations from the actuaries' report as to what such an Amendment as this would cost. The only calculation I have been able to make works out that the employed contributors would be out of work about two weeks and a-half per year. If during those two weeks and a-half the State was to bear the employers' share of the contribution it would come to something like £300,000. That calculation assumes that all those out of work pay up their arrears, but probably most of them, even if the State bore the employers' proportion, would not do so. The State's share, therefore, would probably be half the sum I have mentioned, and probably less.
  I am quite prepared to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is not so much the financial difficulty as the

  1097
  serious administrative difficulties which stand in the way. It has been suggested to me in private conversation that if you carry such an Amendment as this it will be impossible to tell whether the person had really been unemployed or not. One Amendment of mine, which has been passed over, did suggest that the employers' share of the contribution should only be paid if the member in question had throughout the period of unemployment been on the register of a Labour Exchange, and had not refused any suitable work offered to him. That is only one suggestion. I wish to put this point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If it is only the difficulties of administration which stand in the way, I think it would be worth while taking a very great deal of trouble before giving up the task as hopeless. If the Bill passes unamended in this respect you will find that this question will be one of those things which will rankle in the mind of the people, and always be thrown against us in public. It will create a great deal of odium upon a Bill, which I expect will need all the popularity it can get.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I expected my hon. Friend would have been the last person in this House to put forward such an argument as the last he gave in favour of his Amendment. I am going to consider this Amendment on its merits. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] The hon. Member says it will only cost about £150,000. He takes a broad figure of £300,000, and then he says he thinks he can cut it down by one-half. He says that amount ought not to be borne by societies, and that it ought to be borne by the State. May I point out that it is quite outside the Resolution, and I should not take the responsibility of altering the Resolution for this purpose. I think my hon. Friend himself has made the best case against this Amendment. It is a proposal which is utterly impracticable, unless you are going to give this money to men whether they deserve it or not. As I have said several times before, it is very important that this Bill should not be an encouragement to thrift-lessness. My hon. Friend suggested that the employers' share of the contribution should only be paid if the member in question had his name on the register of a Labour Exchange, and had not refused any suitable work that had been offered to him. Who is going to judge whether the work is suitable? To carry this out you would have to set up most elaborate
  1098
  machinery. Are we going to set up umpires and referees to decide in each case whether a man is to be let off this extra 2d. per week or not? If we are to do this the £150,000, or at any rate a very good share of it, will have to go in setting up courts of Referees to decide these cases.
  This is not a practical proposal as it stands. I can understand that there are certain cases which deserve a good deal of sympathy, but my hon. Friend has utterly ignored the fact that this is a proposal which in its latitude and generosity has not got a single precedent in any friendly society. He says it will rankle in the mind of the people, but he forgets that we are giving a large sum of money already to friendly societies. The hon. Member can always challenge his constituents to produce a single society which gives anything like the latitude we are giving in respect of unemployment. Every society charges a man when he is sick either employed or unemployed, and if he is unemployed for a certain period either they strike him out or he has to pay up the whole of the arrears. Under this Bill he has an average of about three weeks a year without any deduction from his benefits. Then he goes on for thirteen weeks with reduced benefits. Can the hon. Member point out a single society in Northampton which will allow arrears to the extent of 50 per cent. and continue medical, sanatorium, and maternity benefits. The State has got to obtain this money somewhere, and it does not really drop like the gentle rain from heaven. You have to impose taxation. The hon. Member says put this charge on to the State. Who is the State? He talks as if all that he had to do was to send the bill in to me or to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but we have to get the money out of the taxation of the country.
  It is all very well to talk in this airy way about putting the cost on to the State. The House of Commons is responsible for the finances of the nation. Supposing the whole of these arrears are to be made up by those who work hard during the year and have been paying their contributions regularly. That is really the hon. Member's proposal. If this Amendment is carried the whole of that burden will be thrown upon the shoulders of the steady members of friendly societies. I would not object to friendly societies having the right to consider whether they should in these cases dispense with the arrears, but it is impossible for the State to set up elaborate machinery to try each case.

  1099
  Such a proposal is quite impracticable. May I say that after all I do not take the same view of the working man as my hon. Friend does. I think if he puts this matter fairly before them and shows how much better the provision is under this Bill than in the case of any friendly society, they are sensible enough to see what an immense improvement it is on their present position. Under this Amendment the members of friendly societies may have to pay for the loafer at their own expense unless a most elaborate system is set up to discriminate between them.
  Mr. SHERWELL: What has happened in this discussion illustrates the great difficulties under which we labour in discussing this great scheme in the way we are doing. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has quite misunderstood the object which my hon. Friend had before him in moving this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman emphasises again and again and very properly the definite benefits that are conferred under this scheme upon those who at present are not in receipt of any benefit; but I think he sometimes overlooks the point that by his introductory speech when this Bill was introduced, and by all that was written and said in defence of this scheme at the advent of this Bill, there has been created a large expectation in the public mind, and particularly in the mind of the poor and destitute which my hon. Friend and myself greatly fear may be doomed to disappointment when the Bill actually comes into operation. I am not at all sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer allows for the prospect he held out at an earlier stage of our proceedings when he suggested that it would be quite within the prerogatives and power of this Committee so to reconstruct the proposals of the Bill and alter the proposed benefits as to make it possible to throw the weight of benefit upon the most needy rather than upon some of the classes who will benefit under this scheme.
  My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment has emphasised the very grave and almost fatal deficiency in this Bill in regard to a large class of unskilled and irregular labourers, who may find themselves perfectly unable to get back into the scheme under this provision as it stands. When my hon. Friend calls attention to this grave fact he does so out of the sincere desire to avail himself of the opportunity promised by the Chancel-
  1100
  lor of the Exchequer of suggesting to the Committee some means of reconstructing the scheme so as to bring the most necessitous into the benefits of the scheme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests that under the operation of this, Amendment you would be putting a premium on loafing. I venture to think he did not pay sufficient attention to the argument of my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend most clearly pointed out that it would still be incumbent upon the man who desired to get back into benefit to pay not merely his current premium but the arrears of his own premium, and I venture to suggest, in full seriousness, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that a. man who, to regain his footing in the scheme has to pay not merely his 4d. for the current week, but the whole of his arrears, is giving the greatest proof that he at least is not a loafer. I cannot help thinking this scheme will be largely a failure if it fails to make adequate provision for a large body of helpless men in the labour market. My hon. Friend laid stress upon the woman in receipt of low wages. I have in mind the case of the unskilled labourer with a large family, whose wages are never large. If he passes through a period of unemployment he will be not merely in arrear under this scheme, but in arrear with his rent, and probably in debt to tradesmen. He is hardly in an economic position to pay the arrears under this Bill if he is to regain his place in the scheme. I do respectfully and most earnestly suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is unwittingly depriving a most important section of the, community—the section that is most deserving of consideration at the hands of this Committee—of that possibility of help and relief which they pre-eminently and in a paramount fashion demand at the hands of the House and State.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I should like, on this Amendment, to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because if I understand his speech, it appears tome to have very little relevancy, if I may say so with courtesy, to the Amendment itself. In the first place, as I understand the Bill as it now stands, it requires an insured person in arrear not only to pay his own arrears but the arrears of his employer. Prima facie, that is an obvious injustice. If a person is to get the benefit of an Act of this kind, he ought to get it so long as he fulfils his own obligation, and you ought not to put upon him the

  1101
  duty of fulfilling obligations which ought to be fulfilled by other persons. Therefore to say he is to be fined or penalized because his employer has not paid his contributions up to date is, in. my opinion, certainly unjust and unfair. The Chancellor of the Exchequer compared the conditions under this Bill with the conditions of a friendly society at the present time. Those conditions are entirely different, and are really not capable of comparison at all. We are dealing here with a case where you have compulsory contributions in respect of which you ought to receive certain benefits. You cannot compare that with the mere position of a voluntary member of a particular friendly society, because the conditions there are entirely different. You ought surely, where you have compulsory contributions, to be extremely careful that the person who pays the contributions has the full corresponding benefit, and you ought not to deprive him of any of that benefit because someone else over whom he has no control has not carried out his duties under the Act.
  What has this to do with the story of the loafer and the malingerer? The question is whether the individual, when he has fulfilled his own obligation, is to have the advantage of this Clause, or whether, besides fulfilling his own obligations he has to fulfil the obligations of someone else over whom he has no control at all. That is not a matter of the loafer or the malingerer at all. It is a matter of simple justice to a person who has been made to contribute compulsorily, and who is entitled to the benefits under the Act. Putting aside the benefit societies which have nothing to do with this question, and putting on one side the loafing individual who is not touched in this question at all, can the Chancellor of the Exchequer really substantiate the view that a man is to be deprived of his benefits because someone else over whom he has no control has not fulfilled his obligations? That is really the simple business point I want to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is very difficult in these matters to deal with what is fair and just in each particular case and at the same time keep in view the Bill at large, but it is really no answer to the case of an injustice of this kind to say there may be some difficulty with regard to funds, because the same answer may be given to every case of injustice under the Act. I do not desire to make the Act extravagant at all or to put burdens either upon
  1102
  friendly societies or upon the Treasury, but the question is whether it is just to the person who is compelled to contribute to the insurance scheme to make him liable for somebody else's contribution if he falls in arrears.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree it is purely a business proposition. The question is whether a friendly society which charges a certain sum in respect of each member is in future to give the same benefits to a man who has only contributed less than half the contributions. That is what it means.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: All his own contributions.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not the point. It is a business proposition. The State is not going to administer this Act; it is the societies, and the friendly societies are in a majority. We say, "you must allow certain, arrears, but, subject to those arrears, you are to get 9d." The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Oh, well, in certain cases they must get 6d., and, although they only get 6d., give the value of 9d." That is really the point. The hon. and learned Gentleman talks about justice; but you must look at it all round. They are getting value for their money, and what they want is something more than value for their money. I quite agree it is a business proposition, and, as a business proposition, I think we have gone to the extreme limit in meeting cases of this kind.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. and learned Member was perfectly justified in my opinion in stating the Chancellor of the Exchequer had never met the point before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman in his first speech adopted a practice, with which we are quite familiar, when he is faced with a case he cannot oppose of dealing with something which is altogether irrelevant. The speech which he delivered would have been quite appropriate to my Amendment under discussion a little while back. I would like to call his attention to the fact that what we are discussing is not whether the workman should pay his own fees, but whether he should pay somebody else's fees, and I would like the discussion to be confined to that question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said if the workmen were relieved of this additional obligation it would be an encouragement of thriftless ness. I quite agree we should do nothing in this Bill to encourage thriftless ness. There is, I think,

  1103
  an obligation upon us to observe that, but there is another and, I think, greater obligation upon us. We should not compel the observance of thrift at the expense of the starvation of our stomachs of the women and children, and that is what is proposed if you insist upon placing the arrears of the contributions of the employer upon the workman. The fact of the matter is that by opposing this the Chancellor of the Exchequer is putting an impossible burden upon the workman. He repeatedly put this question to my hon. Friend: "Is there a friendly society in Northampton that gives better terms?" That is not the question. He is trying to compare two things not comparable. Is there a friendly society in Northampton or elsewhere which calls upon its members to pay the arrears of somebody else in addition to his own arrears? Is it justifiable to compel a workman to pay, in addition to his own arrears, the arrears of his employer? I say it cannot be done.
  I will tell the Committee what is going to happen. My hon. Friend quoted the average period of unemployment as being two-and-a-half weeks per year, but there must be an enormous number of men who are out of employment for a considerable period. They cannot pay the arrears, and they will never make an attempt to do it. They will always be coming into insurance and passing out of it, and they will never get any benefit. I am inclined to think a considerable portion of the working men of this country will be in that position. They will never make the impossible effort to pay not only their 4d., but 4d. accumulated arrears on their own account and 3d. accumulated arrears of the employer. How can they, on a wage of 15s. or £l per week, spare l1d. per week? At the present time every penny of that man's wage is more than mortgaged, and, if he makes an effort to pay this, it must be at the expense of the starvation of his family. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was altogether out of the question to put what ought to be paid by the employer on the State. Why is it out of the question? He said he could not find the money. Is the Exchequer in such a state of impecuniosities that it cannot find £300,0001 If it were an object of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer approved, he could find twenty times that amount to-morrow without the slightest difficulty. I can show him easily how he can do it. He has exempted the landlord from contribution under this
  1104
  scheme altogether so far as agriculture is concerned. He is putting the employer's burden altogether on the farmer, and the landlord is not to contribute a single penny. It would not require an eighth of a penny on the landlord's Income Tax in order to raise this money. If he were to readjust the assessment under Schedule B alone, he would get this sum four times over.
  I venture to submit the employer's contributions which accumulate during a time of unemployment is an obligation on the State. It is admitted by all parties that the State has a responsibilty for the condition of the unemployed man, and the State ought therefore to show that responsibility. I want to put one further question. I want to know whether the State is going to pay its 2d. which has accumulated during the time the workman has been out of employment. I gather that is not going to be the case. Why not? Surely the State is able to do that as well as the workman who has been out of work. I repeat the obligation is on the State to find the money and certainly not on the workman. The State should have no difficulty in finding the money. It has been suggested that a man might have voluntarily remained out of work, but the machinery of the Bill is quite competent to deal with a matter like that. It is not a question of malingering, and I think we have already dealt with all the possibilities of abuse under that head, I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the ground of justice. This proposal cannot be defended as just, and I doubt if there is any member in this House who will seek to defend it on that ground.
  Mr. PEEL: I cannot help thinking that it was the observation of the hon. Member about this Bill requiring all its popularity that made the Chancellor of the Exchequer give a rather less sympathetic reply than he otherwise would have done. The town I have the honour to represent practically lives on seasonal trades. A great many of the people want, and ought, to be exempted from the Bill, and if they are not to be exempted they will suffer great injustice under this Section. I agree with the hon. Member for Blackburn that they will always be coming into benefit and at the same time will be getting no benefit whatever from the Bill. These people are not malingerers. Their position is due to the course of trade. The orders for shirts, collars and blouses come

  1105
  in and have to be executed at a particular time. The trade only lasts for about six or seven months in the year. These people would like to be employed for the remaining five months. But it is not possible to give them employment. Surely some provision ought to be made in the Bill for this particular class of person.
  After all, the same difficulty applies here as applies to other parts of the Bill. The same treatment is meted out to those who are less well off as to those who are better off. Exactly the same treatment is meted out to the malingering as to people who are employed in these seasonal trades. How absurd it is to suggest that a person willing to pay his arrears can be considered to be a malingerer in any sense. What has he to gain by being a malingerer? One who is guilty of such conduct wants to gain by it. This man would gain nothing by it, for not only has he to pay up the money he would have paid had he been in employment, but he will have to pay 3 per cent. on it as well. He therefore would be acting very stupidly in malingering, because it would involve his paying more than would otherwise have been exacted from him. But this provision goes further. If the man does pay up his arrears, he is not going to get benefit at once. Some time must elapse before he can come into benefit. Under these circumstances, to bring forward the case of malingering is not justifiable in dealing with this matter.
  I urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make some distinction between those who are better paid and those who are worse paid. In the case of those who are better paid this provision is not an absolute bar. They may be able to climb back into insurance. But those who are worse paid may not find it possible to do so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that if special provision is to be made for these people it can only be done by reducing the benefits payable to others. There are many cases under this Bill where those who are really poorer have to pay for those who are richer, and it is not unfair that in a case of absolute necessity some rearrangement should be made which will meet these hard cases—the cases of those who are forced to come in and forced to fall out, and then find themselves faced by provisions which make it impossible for them to come in again.
  Mr. HARWOOD: The impression left on my mind after listening to the Debates
  1106
  which have taken place on this Bill is that after all, with the very best intentions, it is really too aristocratic. It is a Bill for doing good for those who have done good work for themselves, and for not doing fairly by those who most need help. I do not say that that is the intention at the back of it, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech, let the cat out of the bag. He asked if there were any friendly societies or any trade union which would give terms such as those embodied in the Bill? But we have to remember that the friendly societies represent only 6,000,000 out of the 15,000,000 who are concerned with this Bill. I am most anxious about the 9,000,000, and if we cannot deal with both classes, then I should prefer to bring this measure down to a democratic level and legislate for the people who most need it, leaving those excellent men who are members of friendly societies out of it altogether. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made the remark, "We are on business." Sometimes we are on business, and sometimes on sentiment, and I can never quite say at times which we are on. I do not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we are on business. I never heard of a business that gave 9d. for 4d., yet that is what is proposed here. I do not want to be un-businesslike, but I say that the only justification for this Bill is not that it is an act of charity, but that it is a great attempt to deal with those social evils which those of us who are acquainted with the life of this country know are at present eating into its very heart.
  I speak as an employer, and I am bound to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I am rather ashamed as an employer to hear it said that these poor men are not only to pay their own contributions, but also those that should have come from the employing class. I am not saying the man should not pay his own arrears. But let the House bear in mind that this additional burden is being put upon him just at the very moment when he is hampered by debt and by arrears of rent. You take that opportunity to say to him, "You must not only pay your own subscription, but you must pay the other man's too." We know how difficult it is to get people on their fret after they have suffered from unemployment. That certainly is not the time at which you should put a further burden on them. We may be told that the money cannot be found by the State. We say it must be. We were told by a celebrated statesman on one occasion that the re-

  1107
  sources of civilisation were not exhausted. Surely they are not exhausted in this case, with a Chancellor of the Exchequer so full of imagination and inventiveness. If we are on business why should he not be made to pay the State contribution? I believe employers as a body have too much self respect to call upon the men to pay their contribution under these circumstances. They would rather find the money themselves. Let the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter from a serious and business point of view. I believe here is a grievance that will nullify a great deal of the good feeling that would otherwise have been engendered by this Bill.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: I want to refer once more to the case of the man or woman who is getting under 15s. a week. I have, with the exception of urging a wider extension of sanatorium treatment, supported the Chancellor of the Exchequer throughout the course of this Bill. I do not wish for one moment to minimise the liberality of the terms of the Bill in comparison with those of any friendly society in the United Kingdom or with those of Germany, but I do think that if one simply speaks of the case of those who are getting less than 15s., it is extremely difficult to justify this proposal. Let us take a woman who is getting 9s. She has had to pay as long as she has been in the scheme a penny and the employer pays 5d. When she wishes to get back after her arrears—I admit the liberality of the averaging of the arrears and so forth—she will have to pay, instead of 1d., 6d., and I think that is practically an impossible proposition. After all, we want these people to get back, and the Chancellor wants them to get back, because, while I know there is the Post Office open to them, the difficulty about the Post Office is that that is not absolutely insurance in the sense that we understand it. When these people are told that in future, instead of having to pay 1d., they will have to pay 6d. plus the ordinary 1d., they will feel that it is practically an impossibility to attempt that. So I hope that the Chancellor will be able to suggest some way in which that case may be met so that it can never be said we did anything to discourage the lowest type of labour getting back into the main current of this scheme. I should also like to ask whether it is correct that the State will not pay the 2d. for those who are in arrear. That is a point that
  1108
  the House should know before it comes, to any decision on the matter. I ask the Government to very carefully consider at any rate these cases that I have mentioned if they are unable to grant the wider scheme.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can assure the Committee that it is with the greatest, reluctance that I find myself constantly opposing proposals of this kind, and if I do it it is because I must consider this not as a charitable gift but as a business proposition, and it is with the deepest reluctance and with pain that I find it difficult to justify accepting an Amendment which appeals to me, and which I should, be very glad to accept, but really I am bound to consider the business side of the proposition, because if it fails as a business proposition it fails altogether. I do not think I have been at all obstinate or obdurate in the matter of these Amendments. I have accepted many Amendments which involve responsibility, and if I cannot see my way to accept an Amendment of this kind, it is because I see the real danger of doing it. I agree that the case that is put to me is a very hard one, and if I could see a way which would make it possible to deal with cases of that kind without setting up a tribunal I would. I have made a suggestion, but up to the present it does not seem to have met with much favour. The suggestion I have made is that the friendly societies themselves—it is entirely a matter for them—should be empowered to deal with these cases. They can judge between members who are pure loafers and those who deserve a little better treatment. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the health committee?"] The hon. Member cannot know the Bill, or he would not have asked that question; it has not the remotest connection with this. If the approved societies like, out of their own funds, to give relief in these cases, I am perfectly willing to assent to any Amendment that enables them to do so, but the moment you give a statutory right of this kind it means that we are to be taken advantage of by people who ought not to receive that advantage and at the expense of thrifty members of the community. These Amendments can only be put forward on the ground of charity. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] It is purely a question of business. It is a question, of whether for 9d. you are going to get a shillings-worth. If you ask for 1s. worth for 9d. it must be on some other ground than a business ground. I agree there is a very

  1109
  good ground for doing so, the ground of sympathy, but really we must not allow that to interfere too much with the business side of this proposition. The hon. Member (Mr. Harwood) said this must be done. He was really making a violent attack on the friendly societies in his own Constituency. They do not do as much as we are doing, and if we are guilty of being unjust who are doing so much more, what language will he use about friendly societies?
  Mr. HARWOOD: Friendly societies do not pretend to be giving 9d. for 4d.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree, and we are doing it, and my hon. Friends want to give still more. We are even giving more to people who are in arrears. I do not think my hon. Friend quite realises what we are giving. We are giving these men not merely 9d. for their 4d., but we are allowing five per cent. of arrears in addition, and even twenty-five per cent., without losing benefits.
  Mr. HARWOOD: It is rather like a trader advertising that he is giving all these things and yet he is putting upon people a burden which it is impossible for them to meet and therefore they cannot get the benefit.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Really all this has nothing to do with the Bill. As a matter of fact these people are getting their 9d. for 4d. as a foundation, and 5 per cent. of arrears, in addition to arrears for the whole time they are sick. We are making no charge, and there is no society that does that. In addition to that, we have given them a 25 per cent. margin, and are still giving benefits. Beyond that there is a 50 per cent. margin, and still they will get medical, sanatorium, and maternity benefits. My hon. Friend says we are giving these people nothing. We have gone to the very limit, and my suggestion is that, in addition to that, the friendly societies, which have the funds, should have the power to deal with these hard cases themselves, because they know them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will the State give 2d.?"] Yes, certainly, there is absolutely no question of the State's 2d. I am not defending the Treasury. That is regarded as an offence in a Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know I shall get a better hearing the moment I say I am not defending the taxpayer. We pay two-ninths of the benefit, whatever the friendly society decide, which means, of course, that they
  1110
  will get the State's 2d. If my hon. Friend is satisfied with that I shall be glad to move the Amendment.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am more favourably impressed with the right hon. Gentleman's proposal than with the speech in which he has commended it to the Committee. He constantly tells us that what we have to consider is the business proposition. Of course, if we frame a scheme, it must be framed on business lines—that is to say, on solvent lines. That does not dispose of an Amendment like this, and it certainly doe3 not dispose of the argument adduced by the hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell). He, I think, put his finger on the real weakness of the Bill. I am afraid it is one which is inherent in the Bill, and which it is not possible for the Committee to eradicate. The whole Bill is framed on the lines of the State contributing two-ninths of whatever benefit is paid. The hon. Member pointed out that one result of that is that those who need help least are likely to get most. That follows from your making your contribution two-ninths of the benefit instead of making it proportionate to the needs of the man whom you force to be a contributor. I think that is a blot on the scheme of the Bill, though that is an altogether wrong analogy. It is a strand which runs through the Bill, and if you pull it out the Bill falls to pieces, and you cannot by an Amendment here and an Amendment there get rid of the difficulties which arise from that inherent principle of the Bill. That is my first objection to the Chancellor's speech. If it were not for that we might give less to those who can do most for themselves and more to those who can do least for themselves without making a raid on the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the taxpayer at all. In the main what I am asking for is not more expenditure, but better directed expenditure.
  8.0 P.M.
  In the next place the Chancellor of the Exchequer constantly says to us, "You cannot show me a friendly society in Bolton or Northampton which does these things." It cannot be compared with the scheme of the friendly societies. Everyone who joins a friendly society is a voluntary contributor. He may make sacrifices to join, but they are such sacrifices that he can make. The Chancellor of the Exchequer compels sacrifices whether the man thinks the thing in view sufficient or not. You compel sacrifices from all these people whether their means be big or

  1111
  small. It does not help us much to take the lines of defence which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has chosen. The Committee has got to face the fact that if this remains a great number of people would drop out, and never get back into an approved society. A large number would find that they had dropped out again and again. Then they would think it was no good going to the approved society, and they would become Post Office contributors. It would be a pity if people who had made a real effort to remain members of approved societies should fall into the class of Post Office contributors. I, therefore, am on the whole disposed to welcome the suggestion which the Chancellor has thrown out, although he did well not to accept the Amendment in this form. He will make it optional for the societies to forego or to pay on behalf of their members—not necessarily all their members, but such members as they think right—the contribution which would have been payable by the employer if the man had been in employment. The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. G. Harwood) said he would be ashamed of this Clause. Does he mean that he would pay the contribution of a man he discharged until that man got another engagement. That was a personal remedy, and it took a very practical form.
  Mr. G. HARWOOD: We, the employers, would rather pay the arrears of the man we take on than make the man who has been unemployed pay our arrears.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the hon. Member suggest that when he discharges a man he should continue to pay that man's contribution until he finds fresh employment.
  Mr. G. HARWOOD: That would be impossible, because you have no connection with him. My proposal is practicable.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in anticipation, about the Amendment itself. The hon. Member makes the alternative proposition that when he takes on a new man he should pay the contribution which would have been paid by the employer had the man been employed. I am not sure how he is going to check their employment dates. Human nature being as it is, the man who steps straight out of one employment into another would have a better chance of being chosen than the man who had a long list of arrears. I
  1112
  really do not think you can go as far as that. It is desirable that something of the kind suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be done, and that an option should be given to the friendly societies. Did I rightly understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal? I suppose this money has got to be carried to the credit of the individual. In fact, the society have not merely to pay the benefit, they have to make a credit as if the employer's contribution had been paid.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We let him come in on payment of his own contribution, and excuse him the other.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: And will the societies be in a position to do that from the commencement of the Act, or must it be treated as additional benefit which they can only make after a valuation. That is a point with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not deal. It makes a very considerable difference in the initial stages.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On the whole I have come to the conclusion it could not be treated as additional benefit. It must be incorporated in this Clause, and the power must be given to the friendly societies from the start to deal with this matter.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am afraid we are in fundamental disagreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has talked about a "business proposition." We are also talking about a business proposition. He talks also about the various benefits which the insured persons have under this Bill, of the elasticity regarding arrears, and that sort of thing. That does not affect this fundamental point that the Chancellor is imposing by compulsion certain lines of conduct, certain responsibilities, upon the whole of the people of the country who come under this Bill. A very substantial section of these people are not able to fulfil these obligations, and, consequently, he has got to meet that particular aspect of his problem. He has told us that when we are asking the State to pay for the unpaid portion of the employer's contribution when the workman is unemployed we are asking for charity. We are doing nothing of the kind. If it is charity for the State to pay that portion of the employer's contribution it is charity for the employer to pay it at first. We repudiate any charitable obligation. The Chancellor's theory is this, that this insurance scheme is going to consist of three sec-

  1113
  tions: the obligation of the workman, the obligation of the employer, and the obligation of the State. When the workman is unemployed he is being asked to fulfil the obligation of the employer as well as his own obligation. That double obligation means 7d. a week.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly not. The only thing is somebody has got to pay. There will be power to excuse the employer's contribution, and the friendly societies can pay it.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: It is like the house agent who insists, upon a fact that the house he is showing you has a magnificent drawing-room, when you insist upon seeing the kitchen he takes you back to the drawing-room again, and says what a magnificent drawing-room you will have if you take his house. Part of this magnificent fabric is the obligation imposed upon the unemployed man to pay up his own arrears and the arrears of his employer. For the purpose of considering this Amendment and the purpose of considering the obligation placed upon the workman, let us take the case of the woman whose wages are 9s. a week. In order to get the full benefit she has got to pay 6d. a week plus the 3d. or 1d. which she has got to pay as a person who is again employed. It cannot be done, and that is our statement. It never was in accordance with the theory and provisions of the Bill that the insured person should be responsible for the employer's contribution. Precautions are taken under the Bill to prevent an employer deducting his contribution from wages. If the employer says to the employed person I will deduct 3d. in addition to the 4d. from your wages he is committing a crime under the provisions of this Bill. What is the use of the Chancellor telling us when we ask the responsibility to be borne by some other person—the State for instance—that we are asking for charity. We are only carrying to a logical conclusion the fundamental principles of this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says the approved society to which the person belongs ought to have the right or power to excuse the employer's contribution. Who is going to pay for that? Is that going to be charity? If the workman or workwoman gets benefit at the expense of his fellow workman that is more charity than if he gets it at the charge of the general taxpayer. The Amendment is a partial Amendment, as it must be under the Standing Orders of the House. It is an Amendment which
  1114
  opens a door, and if we can only get the Chancellor to go inside that door we will take him through another one. He says he will recommit the Bill with respect to the financial provisions, but if I might say so with respect, it is simply asking an approved society to bear the responsibility and burden of the employers' contribution of its members. If the Chancellor would say that when an approved society excuses its member in that way, then the State will give it special benefit, I am not sure, but I would accept the Amendment, but the responsibility must be the State's. The State comes to every person who comes within the scope of this Bill and says, "It does not matter what your income is, you have got to pay a certain sum for your insurance. If you pay that sum, the employer has got to pay another sum, and when you pay both these sums then the State is going to pay something in addition." Surely if the conditions are such that each section of our people, in order to keep in full benefit under the scheme, have to pay their own contribution, and not the employer's contribution under conditions, it is the fluty of the State, which compels them to insure, to see that they are regularly insured persons, and that the burdens which they cannot bear under their own scheme should not be borne by their fellow-workers, but by the State.
  Mr. CASSEL: I rise to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is going to move the Amendment he has indicated, to put it only as additional benefit, because it seems to me it is a great injustice to other people who have subscribed to the fund that you should take away from their fund in order to make contributions for somebody else. You must at least give them the minimum benefit for which they have paid before authorising any society to act in the way proposed. I wish to put the case from the point of view that strikes me. It seems to me an injustice that A, B, C and D, who are compulsory contributors to the fund, should have something taken away from their fund in order to pay the amount of E's employer's subscription. I would not raise any objection to that so long as you secure the minimum benefits for which they have paid, but it seems an injustice that you should take away, before you have provided the minimum benefit, something from A, B, C, and D, because E is out of employment. It is not as if they voluntarily joined a society and were therefore bound by the resolutions of the majority.

  1115
  They are compelled to join under this Bill, and, therefore, I submit there is no justification for taking away from the other contributors any part of their contributions until at least you have assured the persons insured that they shall have their minimum benefits. That you can only get if you make the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal come in as additional benefit.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I think a great deal of misunderstanding arises when people speak of the obligation of the State. There is no such obligation. The question is: Is this an Insurance Bill? I quite sympathise with the case put before the House by hon. Members, but I would point out that in all insurance schemes a man or a woman who is in arrear with the premium is bound to suffer. You may get some means of preventing that suffering, but it cannot be under a system of insurance. Insurance must stand by fixed figures, and, if you take away these figures, the whole structure falls. It is said here that you are asking a poor man or a poor woman to pay the contribution for the master. Well, that is not so. The master Is under no obligation to pay. It comes to this, that either the insurer or his fellow insurers must pay, or that the State should pay. I am against State payment. I protest against the State being asked to find any more money, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stand fast for this reason. This is only the first of many demands to be made upon him, and I know that it is hard for him to refuse what his natural feelings would incline him to grant. I implore the Committee to help him to make this a sound measure. The provision proposed to be made here by hon. Members should be found by some other means. It would be all very well in a Right to Work Bill or an Unemployment Bill, but it is out of place in an Insurance Bill. "You cannot found an insurance policy until you have actuarial figures, and when you have them you must stand by them or else your structure falls. On the insurance policy I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stand by his figures, and I beg the Committee to enable him to do so.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not rise to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to loosen his hold on the figures. I am anxious that he should stand fast, and not increase the cost to the State under the Bill. But I wish him to make
  1116
  the distribution in a more equitable way. This, after all, is an Insurance Bill, and it would deservedly fail, in my opinion, if this blot on the Clause were allowed to remain upon it. In the earlier part of the afternoon I gave my reasons for objecting to the Clause altogether, and I do not propose to repeat them now. I disapprove of the whole arrangement made in regard to arrears, and the whole incidence of the reductions that occur to the insured person under the Clause as now drawn. I believe it would be quite possible to recast the proposals with the same money provision in regard to arrears without asking the State or the employer to pay more. I believe it would be possible to use the money at hand in a far better way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer to this, it seems to me, is not a reasoned answer. He did at one moment seem to shift the responsibility. He seemed to suggest that this was a matter for the approved societies or the friendly societies, and not one for the State or the Chancellor of the Exchequer at all. He indicated that he would leave it to the friendly societies, and he is contemplating an Amendment which will leave it to them. That is the way, apparently, he proposes to meet the position. I think that is not dealing with the question at all. We are laying down conditions which the members of friendly societies have got to observe in future, in connection with the payment of contributions and the consequences of arrears. This Committee cannot escape the responsibility. We cannot say, "Let the friendly societies settle the matter." This very Clause will bind the friendly societies in administering the benefits.
  What we have to do is to alter this Clause ourselves and not imagine we are shifting the responsibility on the friendly societies. Suppose the Chancellor's suggestion were adopted and the friendly societies began excusing the payment of the employer's contribution to those who are in arrears, deficits would very quickly pile up on those societies, and when the valuations were made those deficits would have to be paid by other friendly societies, perhaps consisting largely of agricultural labourers, in whose case there had been no arrear. It seems to me an utterly unworkable plan and quite unfair to future insured people. You had better spread it compulsorily over all the insured persons instead of doing what the Chancellor suggests. This is a particularly hard case for those with low wages. The proposition in the Bill is departing from the very prin-

  1117
  ciple of the grading of contributions. Grading of contributions has taken place in the low wages, but when you consider the employers' contributions you are not only grading but you are doing very much worse, you are trebling the original contribution on lower wages whereas you are only doubling it on higher wages. This Clause cuts at the root principles of the Bill. The Chancellor says that this is a business Bill; but it is not altogether free from its element of charity. Yesterday we tried by Amendment to provide that people under twenty-one but over eighteen should get the full benefits which we thought they were entitled to. The Chancellor answered that by saying: "We will give it to those people who have dependents upon them." Why give it to those people who have dependents upon them and not to those who have paid equal contributions but do not happen to have dependents upon them, if it is a purely business proposition? It is not a purely business proposition. It is a great scheme, to use the Chancellor's own words, for trying to help those people who need help, and on this occasion he is not going to help the people who most need help; he is going to drive them into the class of deposit contributors.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having put himself right in regard to one blunder, will now proceed to do the same in regard to another by accepting the Amendment now before the House. It is perfectly obvious that the Clause as it stands cannot be accepted. Not a single Member in any part of the House has sought to defend it. Let the Government understand what they are doing. A man is out of employment and suffers by being out of employment. He returns to work, and is punished for having been out of employment by being called upon to pay his own contribution and that of his employer. The argument, as far as I can make out, is that it will be a check on malingering. The Chancellor several times used the word "loafers" who were to be held in check by the practice of making the unemployed pay double when they resumed work. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not mean that. He does not mean to say that all unemployed persons are loafers, or that any appreciable percentage of them are loafers. Why, then, are the very large proportion who are not loafers to be penalised for the very small proportion who
  1118
  may happen to be so? At this point we are prepared to concede the Chancellor of the Exchequer's contention that there should be no charity in this Bill. I think that should be emphasised. The money for the benefits has got to come from somewhere. The only question is whether the poverty-stricken worker, who has been out of work for months, is to be called upon to pay double contributions to make up the arrears of his employer, or whether it should come from the State?
  If the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot find £150,000, which I understand is the sum at issue, there is another simple and easy way of raising it. Instead of putting it on the members of friendly societies, put it on the employer. It could be done in this way. The employer now pays 3d. a week for each workman. If for three specified weeks in the year he paid an extra 1d. for each workman, that would provide the £150,000 required and relieve the person who has been unemployed from being penalised in the way this Clause suggests. I put that forward to the Chancellor as an alternative proposal to putting the whole of the burden on the approved societies, because I submit that putting the burden on the approved societies will leave matters pretty much where the Clause put them. Take the case of a big trade union, the Boiler Makers Union. During the period of trade depression when the shipyards were practically empty, the proportion of members of that society in receipt unemployed benefit went up to over 20 per cent. What the Chancellor now suggests is that these men have to go on adding to the funds of the society for the time they were unemployed, when the period of unemployment is over, so that when these men go back to work their fellow members are again to be penalised to pay the employer's share of the contribution while out of work. Why should the members of that society more than the members of any other society be called upon to pay these additional contributions? The burden has got to be met in some way which will spread it over all and not impose it on any particular individual or particular organisations. The only ideal way of meeting it is for the State to provide the extra £150,000. If that cannot be done, if out of the whole £180,000,000 a year which we are raising there cannot be £150,000 for this purpose, then the alternative is to devise some means by which employers as a class will pay their own share to this

  1119
  fund and a special tax of 3d. a year probably on the contribution cards, if they meet the whole of the cost. Not only the case of the poor worker, but the case of the average worker must be considered in connection with this payment. Already this afternoon I have mentioned the case of men in my own Constituency who work only two or three days in the week, practically all the year round, earning on an average wages of 14s. or 15s. a week. These men have no margin to fall back upon; they do not belong to trades that are to be insured in this Bill. When they resume work they have got to pay their own arrears and also the arrears of perhaps some wealthy firm that employs them. I submit that is unfair and unjust, and it will, without a shadow of doubt, raise far more irritation in the minds of the workers than any other proposition contained within the compass of this measure. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, to keep the question open for the moment, whether the sum of £150,000 is to be found, and, in any case, neither the persons employed nor the approved societies should be called upon to pay it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the Amendment is not carried, we propose to submit a form of Amendment to the Committee in substitution for it:—
  "Any approved society may, if it thinks fit, excuse any part of the arrears which may have accrued due by, or in respect of, any member not exceeding such part as would have been payable by the employer had the Member been in his employment, and in such case the amount of arrears of that member shall be reduced accordingly."
  I want to point out that we are having Amendment after Amendment; if all these Amendments, all these little Amendments, were added together it would add a million and a half to the cost already incurred. I am not talking about the proposal to reduce the contributions, nor am I talking about another proposition in regard to married women, which would cost about two and a-half millions of money. Each of these Amendments is small, and each is supported by the same arguments. But we have got our cash limitations, and if my hon. Friends carry this to a Division they must fully realise that it may not only mean a defeat of the Government, but the defeat of the Bill.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: I belong to a. society which has for over fifty years remitted the contribution altogether in the case of members unemployed. In many other societies if the members are in receipt of unemployed benefit, they are relieved from paying their contribution to other benefits altogether. That being so, I feel sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by an effort, could meet the case of those poor people who are insured under the Bill. The Bill hits hardest the poorest of the poor workers, men and women, and I hope that something will be done for them, even if the means have to be obtained from those who are better off than they are.
  Mr. BOOTH: I cannot understand any business men or insurance men trying to work the scheme of the Bill by adopting such Amendments as those which have been proposed.
  Question put, "That those words stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 116.

  Division No. 285.]

  AYES.

  [8.45 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Doris, William

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Duffy, William J.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Armitage, R.

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Clough, William

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Balfour, sir Robert (Lanark)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Barton, William

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Furness, Stephen

  Beale, W. P.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Benn, W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Bentham, George J.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Delany, William

  Greig, Colonel James William.

  Bryce, John Annan

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hackett, John

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Lynch, Arthur Harold

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Maclean, Donald

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Harwood, George

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Robinson, Sydney

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Hayward, Evan

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Manfield, Harry

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Simon, Sir John Asslebrook

  Hinds, John

  Meagher, Michael

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Morgan, George Hay

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Isaacs, Rt. Han. Sir Rufus

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wadsworth, John

  John, Edward Thomas

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Johnson, William

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Webb, H.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Dowd, John

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Keating, Matthew

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Kelly, Edward

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Leach, Charles

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reddy, Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Logan, John William

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Lundon, Thomas

  NOES.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Richards, Thomas

  Adamson, William

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Greene, W. R.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Barnes, George N.

  Hills, John Waller

  Snowden, Philip

  Barnston, H.

  Hodge, John

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Hohler, G. F.

  Stanier, Beville

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, (N. W.)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stewart, Gershom

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Hunt, Rowland

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Sutton, J. E.

  Bird, A.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Swift, Rigby

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Boyton, J.

  Lansbury, George

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Brace, William

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Cassel, Felix

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cautley, H. S.

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Clynes, John R.

  Morrell, Philip

  Ward, Arnold S (Herts, Walford)

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Wardle, George J.

  Crooks, William

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Nield, Herbert

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Ogden, Fred

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Fell, Arthur

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Peel, Hen. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Lees Smith and Mr. Sherwell.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Goldstone, Frank

  Pointer, Joseph

  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words, "which accrued during the calendar year current at the date of payment and the previous calendar year."
  1122
  This Amendment, if agreed to, would limit the power to pay up arrears, and some at least of the hardships of the provision, as it stands, would be mitigated. I press it upon the Government because

  1123
  it could not do the insurance part of the Bill any harm, it could not do the Government any harm, and it cannot make the Bill more expensive, whilst it may help some of those who otherwise would be shut out of benefit.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: After the discussion we have had, I am sure the hon. and learned Member will not ask us to re-open the whole question, as this would do. The point was really covered by the previous Amendment.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words, "together with interest thereon at the rate of three per cent. per annum from the respective dates on which the contributions accrued due and the date of payment."
  I think I am right in saying it is a matter which concerns the friendly societies more than the Exchequer. It really is the experience of most of the friendly societies that these arrears are hardly worth the trouble they give in book-keeping, and the like.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: We accept that.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in the proviso at the end of Sub-section (5), to leave out the words "or subsequently within one month thereafter becomes."
  This is a small point, but it would make the Bill a little easier. The proviso is that if a person who is in arrear is at the date of payment, or subsequently within one month thereafter becomes, unfit to provide for his own maintenance through disease or disablement, he shall be deemed to be still in arrear and so on. I propose to leave out the words fixing the limit of one month, I quite understand the difficulty of a person who is in arrears being disabled, but at the same time I think it is very hard, in the case of the man himself, when he has been out of work and has then begun to make headway and to pay up his arrears. When he is struggling and saving, being in perfect health to get rid of these arrears, and within a month he meets with an accident or illness unconnected with his previous lack of em-
  1124
  ployment, it is hard that we should take anything out of his scrapings, or that even a small sum of money should be forfeited because he falls ill. This man cannot control the time of his illness. I do not think the Amendment would make any serious inroad on the funds, and unless there is some strong ground of opposition I suggest that the Government should accept it.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman is quite right when he says that this Amendment might not make any great inroad on the funds, but it is one of those securities against improper charges being made on the funds of the societies which I think he might receive the full amount of benefit, kind. It is obvious that a man who knew he had sickness on him would be strongly tempted to pay up his arrears in order that he might receive the full amount of benefit. The security here given is that the payment of arrears must be bonâ fide and not in contemplation of some immediate sickness. I do not think that one month is an excessive period.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The First Lord has used the words "bonâ fide," but if a man was falling sick or had sickness upon him that would not be a bonâ fide payment of arrears. The case I am putting is that of a man in perfect health, who saves up his money in order to pay off the arrears, and to get back into a sound position in the society. It seems a little hard that such a man, if misfortune overtook him at the end of three weeks, should not get the benefit, whereas if it happened on the thirty-second day he would be all right. I suggest that it is a small matter, and the Government might make the concession.
  Mr. BARNES: I would join with the hon. Member in appealing to the Government to make this alteration. The only justification for the existing proposal would be the assumption that a man knows he is going to be ill within a month, otherwise there is no sense or justice in the provision at all. We have an Amendment further down to achieve the same object. Many statements made in regard to the practice of trade unions and friendly societies are of too far-reaching a character. I have heard statements made as to the practice being so and so, when as a matter of fact it very much varies. In this particular matter the period in some unions is a month, in others more than e month, and in others less. At all events I appeal to the First Lord to give the matter fur-

  1125
  ther consideration, because, as the Bill stands, it would press hardly upon some poor men.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. GILL: I hope more consideration will be given to this proposal. If a person struggles to pay up his arrears and then, if he falls sick, is not to be entitled to anything, it is rather too severe. As an alternative suggestion I would like to move, to leave out the words, "his recovery from such disease or disablement," and insert the words, "such payment"—that is, one month after the payment has been made.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: Could the First Lord tell us whether the alternative Amendment now suggested would be accepted? If so, perhaps the hon. Member opposite would withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: I must inquire what the cost would be.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: That being so, I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. GILL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words, "his recovery from such disease or disablement," and to insert instead thereof the words,
  "such payment."
  The effect of the Amendment is that after an insured person has paid up his arrears there will be one month's grace, and if he falls sick he will be entitled to benefits at the end of the month. The existing proposal is altogether too harsh. A man may put himself to a tremendous amount of trouble to save his money, and pay up not only his own contribution but those of the employer, and then, according to the provision in the Bill, even if his illness lasts for twelve months, he will not be entitled to any benefit. I do not think anybody can justify that. I think the compromise we suggest ought to be accepted as a reasonable thing. The man will then have been punished to the extent of four weeks' benefit, and that after all the trouble and anxiety as to the paying up of his arrears.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am impressed by the argument with regard to this point. I am naturally very doubtful of committing my right hon. Friend to accepting this without knowing what the cost may be. It is difficult to estimate that, almost impossible. There is no data to go upon. I should think that on the whole one month's
  1126
  prostration would be sufficient to prevent anyone taking an undue advantage of this proviso.
  Mr. GILL: He would have to justify his bona fides.
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think anybody would risk it. I am willing to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: There is one exception in this case which I think ought to be considered before you finally dispose of this Amendment. I quite agree that provision ought to be made that no imposition is laid upon the funds by men coming forward, with no intention ordinarily of paying up his arrears, but simply paying his arrears for the sole purpose of getting benefit. Whatever the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars may say, nearly every society in the country that pays sick benefit—and I examined a little while ago the rules of some twenty or thirty trade unions—have got this provision, which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolton is now moving to insert in this Clause. But there is another case where it cannot be alleged that the man is attempting to impose on the fund. The rules of several societies which I recently examined make an exception in the case of accidents. That is something that the man could not have contemplated. Therefore, I would suggest that that point ought to be considered. Ordinary illness, I can quite understand, ought to be provided against. There should be a month's probation after the payment of arrears if the man is but of benefits owing to arrears. But in the case of the man meeting with an accident it does seem rather hard, for he never contemplated getting his leg broken, or a scaffold falling upon him, and damaging him, or anything of that kind. I notice, therefore, in these rules of the trade unions, that they do make an exception in the case of accidents. A man can hardly come forward and pay up his arrears of contributions knowing that he is going to meet with, an accident.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to be quite certain that I understand the original proposal: that if a man paid up his arrears of contributions he should not be entitled to benefit until a month had elapsed. Now I understand that the month is to be taken away.
  Mr. McKENNA: No, no; the month stands.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I apologise. The month is to stand, so that the man who finds himself ill, or thinks he is going to be ill, and comes forward and pays his contribution, shall not get payment until after that month, whereas, it is suggested, that if he knew that in the ordinary course he would not be ill he would not pay up, and so deprive the fund of his contribution.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I rather think the next Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson), has been covered by the discussion. A manuscript Amendment has been handed in by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) which I do not think either adds or subtracts anything from the Bill.
  Mr. CASSEL: I will read the Amendment. It is to add to the Clause the words:—
  "Where an employed contributor within five years of Ms entry into insurance temporarily ceases to be employed within the meaning of this part of the Act, he shall be entitled to renew his contribution at the employed rate, and shall not be deemed to be in arrear so long as he makes his contributions at that rate."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If I am not mistaken that is already in the Bill.
  Mr. CASSEL: It is not in the Bill. I tried to move the same Amendment on Clause 6, Sub-section (4), and I was then told that I ought to move it on Clause 10. I have a reference to the Debate here if I may refer to it.
  Mr. McKENNA: On a point of Order. If the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to move an Amendment of this sort why did he not place it on the Paper? He asks us to consider a long Amendment of this kind without the smallest notice.
  Mr. CASSEL: I gave notice of the Amendment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. I wanted to hear the hon. Member before I allowed the Amendment. The point I first made was as to whether this makes any difference to the question, or whether it is already provided for in the Bill.
  Mr. CASSEL: I do not think it is. I think my Amendment only carries out what is the intention on a very important point which is not at present provided for in the Bill. As the Bill stands at present, if a person becomes temporarily unemployed during the first five years after his entry into insurance and wishes to keep up his subscription, that is he does not want to go into arrear, he has to pay on the voluntary rate and not on the employed rate. That is a result of Clause 6, Sub-section (4). If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to that Clause—
  Mr. McKENNA: He pays 7d. himself.
  Mr. CASSEL: Sevenpence is the employed rate. And the employed rate is defined by Clause 4 which provides as follows:—
  "The contributions payable in respect of employed contributors shall be at the rate specified in Part I. of the Second Schedule to this Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the employed rate')"
  whilst in the case of the voluntary rate it is fixed by the Insurance Commissioner according to a table to be made after the passing of the Act. The point I want to ensure is that, where a person is temporarily unemployed and wishes to continue at the employed rate, he shall be able to do so.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Clause 5, Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), exactly covers that point.
  Mr. CASSEL: No. For this reason, that it only covers a case where the person having been an employed contributor for five years or upwards—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member who raised it clearly understood the fifth Clause—
  Mr. CASSEL: I intended to raise it there, but I was told I could not, and that I could raise it on a later Clause. This is only an attempt to give effect to something that everybody desires. The point is this: Where a man within the first five years becomes temporarily unemployed for three, four, or five months, and that, hoping to get into employment again, he does not wish to fall into arrear, but wishes to pay his subscription, this Amendment would insure that he would be able to do so at the employed rate.
  The CHAIRMAN: That clearly is dealt with by paragraph (b) of Clause 5. Does

  1129
  the hon. Gentleman say he was prevented at that point from moving this Amendment?
  Mr. CASSEL: I was prevented from raising it at two points. I referred to it then, and also on Sub-section (4) of Clause 6.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Was the hon. Member told he could not raise it on paragraph (b), Sub-section (1) of Clause 5.
  Mr. CASSEL: I submit it does not arise there at all, for that provides far those persons who, having been employed contributors for five years or afterwards, become voluntary contributors, and the rate of contribution paid by them shall be deemed to be the unemployed rate. This in the case of persons who became unemployed within that period, and that is dealt with under Sub-section (4) of Clause 6, where you have this provision:—
  "Where an employed contributor within five years from his entry into insurance ceases to be employed within the meaning of this part of this Act, and becomes a voluntary contributor, he shall be deemed to be in arrear as from the date when he became a voluntary contributor."
  That was the point at which I asked to move this Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: Sub-section (4) of Clause 6 deals with the case of persons who are employed contributors and who then become voluntary contributors. The hon. Gentleman is under the impression that an employed contributor when unemployed becomes a voluntary contributor. It has been already explained that that is not so, and that is dealt with by Sub-section (5) of Clause 10.
  Mr. CASSEL: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken there. Sub-section (5) of Clause 10 does not deal with that point. It deals with the case of a man who is in arrear and only passed out after a certain period lapsed.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The point is whether this Amendment, if a valid one, ought not to have been dealt with on paragraph (b) of Clause 5, where the question of five years or upwards is dealt with. This Amendment starts by referring to that five years. I think if this Amendment makes any addition or subtraction from the Bill it obviously ought to have come on at that point.
  Mr. CASSEL: Clause 5 deals with the case of persons who have been for five
  1130
  years employed contributors. I am dealing with the case of a man who is dealt with by Sub-section (4) of Clause 6. I have the reference here. I asked—
  "What will be the position of a man who is an employed contributor and then becomes unemployed, say, for six months, and wishes to go on making his contribution? He could only do so as a voluntary contributor.
  "Mr. McKenna: That is Clause 10.
  "Mr. Cassel: But under the Bill as it stands his case would come under this Sub-section.
  "Mr. McKenna; No, under Clause 10.
  "Mr. Cassel: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that if it does not come under Clause 10 he will amend Clause 10 so as to meet the ease?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1911, col. 265.]
  I tried to deal with it in that way. It is a perfectly definite Amendment to try to give effect to what I consider is the intention of the Government itself. My point is that a man who is unemployed and wants to pay his contribution and not to fall into arrear should be able to do so at the employed rate. I was stopped from moving my Amendment because Clause 10 was supposed to give effect to it. The First Lord of the Admiralty referred to Sub-section (5) of Clause 10 which is:—
  "Where an insured person has paid any arrears of contributions payable by or in respect of him which accrued during the calendar year current at the date of payment and the previous calendar year together with interest thereon at the rate of three per cent. per annum from the respective dates on which the contributions accrued due and the date of payment, he shall be treated for the purpose of this Section as if the arrears so paid had never become due."
  I am dealing with the case of a man who does not want to fall into arrear.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Sub-section (4) of Clause 6 deals with that point. The whole Clause deals with arrears and where contributions are in arrears.
  Mr. CASSEL: I agree with you, Mr. Whitley, the proper place was Sub-section (4) of Clause 6, and at that point I did endeavour to raise it, but the First Lord of the Admiralty indicated that he would deal with the point on Clause 10. Now when they come to Clause 10 I am told I ought to go back to Clause 6. That is not dealing farly.
  Mr. McKENNA: I have not said so.
  Mr. CASSEL: I have read the reference from the Report. If the right hon. Gentleman presses the point I will abandon my Amendment, but he will have to bring in. an Amending Bill.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: It is very difficult to follow these manuscript Amendments, and it seems to me the hon. and learned Gentleman, no doubt quite unintentionally, is hardly treating the Committee fairly in not having put his Amendment on the Paper. I should like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a question.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I thought the hon. Gentleman was about to raise a point of Order.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I understood the Amendment to be in order.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No. The hon. Member (Mr. Cassel) was still arguing the point of Order. I am still very doubtful about his point, but I do not want to rule out anything without being quite sure. Perhaps because I am doubtful I ought to give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt.
  Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: If you look at Clause 1, Sub-section (2), paragraph (b), I think you will find that this Amendment ought to have come in there:—
  "Provided that where a person who has been a voluntary contributor for five years or upwards ceases to possess such qualifications as aforesaid, he shall not by reason thereof be disentitled to continue to be insured under this Part of this Act."
  The object which the hon. and learned Member has in view would be secured by omitting the word "voluntary," so that any contributor, whether voluntary or compulsory, should not be disqualified by disablement or otherwise.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is the proper place.
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. and learned Member will look at Sub-section (3) he will see that the class of employed contributors remains in the category of contributors in arrear.
  Mr. CASSEL: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer back he will find that Subsection (3) has been struck out of the Bill.
  Mr. McKENNA: Not on that ground.
  Mr. CASSEL: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to abandon my point I will do so, but I am pressing this matter with a view to getting an explanation. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that the persons who become temporarily unemployed within five years should be
  1132
  able to continue at the employed rate. Under the Bill as it stands my view is that that is not the case, and that he would have to come under the voluntary rate. From the moment he ceases to be employed he is no longer an employed contributor, and therefore the words "employed rate" no longer apply to him, and he is simply a voluntary contributor making his voluntary contributions. The first payment he makes if he is unemployed is therefore a voluntary payment. When he will come into employment is simply a matter of conjecture, and there is no doubt that his first payment after he becomes unemployed is a voluntary payment. I press this point because I think it is an important one for the working classes. It is important for them if they have to pay their own subscriptions as well as the subscriptions of their employers that they should be able to do it at the employed rate and not at the voluntary rate. I can see no words in the Bill to obviate that. The words which would have come nearest to preventing it are the words which have been struck out. With those words struck out, my view is that he comes under the voluntary rate, and on those grounds I ask the right hon. Gentleman either to accept the Amendment, or, if he prefers it, to give me an undertaking to consider the point on the Report stage. I know there is some difficulty in dealing with this point at such high pressure.
  Mr. McKENNA: I think what the hon. and learned member has suggested is an extremely fair offer, and I will give him that undertaking. I beg to move to insert at the end of Sub-section (5) the following new Sub-section:—
  "(6) Any approved society may, if it thinks fit, excuse any part of the arrears which may have accrued by or in respect of any member not exceeding such part as would have been payable by the employer had the member been in his employment, and in such case the amount of the arrears of that member shall be reduced accordingly."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. BOOTH: I wish to call attention to the words in Sub-section (1) at the end of the first paragraph, "dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed." That is a

  1133
  phrase which often occurs. I presume that that means that the Insurance Commissioners are to make regulations. I want to make an appeal that those regulations shall lie upon the Table of the House for a specified number of days so as to give hon. Members an opportunity of consulting their constituents and obtaining their views upon them. I think it is necessary to raise the question now because the societies which are likely to become approved societies are a little concerned as to the enormous power given under this Bill to the permanent officials. I think the Insurance Commissioners would be very good servants, but I am afraid they would be rather bad masters, and those who know my views upon this question will not think it inconsistent of me making an appeal that these regulations should be laid upon the Table of the House. I would suggest that an answer should be given which will apply to these words wherever they occur in the Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: For once I am in accord with an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House. Regulations may be all very well made by permanent officials provided that the House of Commons has some control over them before they are actually put into force. I am glad the hon. Member opposite has taken up such a courageous line. The tendency of this House in recent years has been to abandon its function and allow the permanent officials to do whatever they please, without knowing what action they may take. On this point I shall have much pleasure in supporting the hon. Member if he goes to a Division, providing the right hon. Gentleman does not give some assurance that what has been suggested will be carried out. I do not know what line the First Lord of the Admiralty is going to take, but the assurance which has been asked for would not damage the Bill, although it might damage the power of the permanent officials, and with that I do not quarrel. If in future this is going to be the only House which is to have any control over the business of the nation—and I hope it will not be so—then I say the control should be kept in the hands of this House, and not allowed to get into the hands of other people.
  Mr. CASSEL: I wish to ask a question now which I was unable to ask owing to the point having been passed. I want to know what the words "the next succeeding calendar year" mean in Subsection (1). This is left indefinite by the
  1134
  Bill. We have now introduced two periods. One is thirteen weeks, during which there is an allowance for arrears of sickness and disablement benefit, and then there is a period of twenty-six weeks, during which a member still gets his sanatorium and other medical benefits. This is very ambiguous, and I think it ought to be made clear. I want to know whether the next succeeding calendar year means after the thirteen weeks or after the twenty-six weeks?
  Mr. McKENNA: It means the year in which the last payment is made. The current calendar year in which that payment is made must include the previous calendar year.
  Mr. CASSEL: Sub-section (1) contains the words, "At the expiration of the next succeeding calendar year." Then after that you have the words, "continues to be suspended," and here we have inserted the two periods I have referred to. One a period of thirteen weeks which is allowed for arrears for sickness and disablement benefit, and another a period of twenty-six weeks, which is allowed for sanatorium and medical benefit. Does "the next succeeding calendar year" mean next succeeding after the period of thirteen weeks has expired, or next succeeding after the period of twenty-six weeks has expired; or what does it mean?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. and learned Gentleman must read these words in relation to the power to pay up arrears for the year and the preceding year. The period dates from the time when a man falls into arrear. The calendar years referred to either forwards or backwards are the year in which he falls into arrear and the succeeding year. In the case of this page and the next the succeeding year is taken first and then the preceding year.
  Mr. FALLE: The date varies in the case of each individual?
  Mr. McKENNA: The date starts from the time when the insured contributor falls into arrear. You take the calendar year during which that date occurs. I think it reads so. That is the only construction which would give sense to the Clause, and I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to construe it in the way which would give it sense. With regard to the other point raised, a promise has been given that the regulations issued by the Insurance Commissioners should be laid on the Table of the House, and I think

  1135
  the promise is given that the form of the ninth Schedule should be amended so as to cover the regulations issued by the Commissioner. I think that will be sufficient guarantee that the Insurance Commissioners will not have a free hand to bully the societies as they please, but that Parliament will have strict control over them by supervision of their movements.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Does the Committee understand from the promise which has already been given, and which is now confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman, that the regulations are to lie upon the Table of the House on the condition that if an Address of either House is presented against the regulations they will not be confirmed? The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the point is one of cardinal importance with regard to this question of regulations which runs all through the Bill. Perhaps I may be allowed to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman's own experience when he was President of the Board of Education. I would remind him, to take an illustration, that the secondary schools regulations were not made pursuant to any Act of Parliament, and there is no provision as regards them that either when they were originally made or when they are changed from time to time they should be subject to confirmation. I suggest to him and to the Committee that it is absolutely essential under this Bill that no question of policy should be dealt with departmentally.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to put his question, but it would be out of order to debate this question on this Clause. If it is not raised in the Bill itself, it could be raised on a new Clause covering all these points. I could not, however, allow a debate to arise here. I thought it was merely a matter of question and answer, and I therefore did not interfere earlier.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think my hon. Friend wanted to raise any debate. He only wanted to point out the assurance was useless unless it covered another assurance that the regulations shall not become law if an Address moved to the Crown is carried.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I allowed a question and answer, but of course there must not be a debate on the matter.
  Mr. McKENNA: Of course I could not give an assurance on this Clause. I merely reminded the Committee that a general assurance had been given that these Regulations should lay on the Table of the House. I do not think it is fair on an individual Clause which does not raise the question to press me to go one step further than the assurance already given by my right hon. Friend.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am sure no one wishes to press the right hon. Gentleman on the point if he will give an assurance that he will consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if they do not come to a decision such as we desire that we shall have an opportunity of raising the question.
  Mr. McKENNA: Of course you will have an opportunity.
  Mr. BOOTH: This is an extremely important point. I want to ask—that was the purport of my inquiry—whether this will be treated in the same way as the first Clause was treated, because the word "regulations" was struck out by the Committee, and in its place the words, "by special order made in the manner provided" were inserted. I wish to ask whether the Government mean that should apply to this Clause as well as to Clause 1?
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: On a point of Order. May I ask your ruling as to where in the Bill it would be in order to raise the question as to whether the regulations should lie on the Table of the House upon the express condition that an Address from either House should negative them?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If there is not a Clause in the Bill on which that could be raised, obviously it would be quite in order on a new Clause.
  Mr. McKENNA: The point raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth) is one of drafting, but this is not the only Clause in which the matter arises, and I would appeal to him to allow us an opportunity of consulting the draftsman before he asks us to deal with it.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 77.

  Division No. 286.]

  AYES.

  [9.45 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Hackett, J.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Adamson, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Addison, Dr. C

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Harwood, George

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Armitage, R.

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Radford, George Heynes

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Sarran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Henderson, J. M' D. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Reddy, M.

  Barton, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Redmond, John E. (Waterferd)

  Beale, W. P.

  Hinds, John

  Richards, Thomas

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hodge, John

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Seek, Arthur Cecil

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Brace, William

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Robinson, Sidney

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Johnson, W.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Burl, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, H. Hadyn (Merioneth)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Buxton, Rt. Hen. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rowlands, James

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Joyce, Michael

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Keating, M.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Cassel, Felix

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Kelly, Edward

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Sheehy, David

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Clough, William

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cookerm'th)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Logan, John William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lynch, A. A.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Crooks, William

  Maclean, Donald

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Thorns, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Dawes, J. A.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Delany, William

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Doris, W.

  Manfield, Harry

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Duffy, William J.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Wardle, George J.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Meagher, Michael

  Webs, H.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Mooney, J. J.

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Morgan, George Hay

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C

  Wiles, Thomas

  Ferens, T. R.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Ffrench, Peter

  Neilson, Francis

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Nolan, Joseph

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Gill, A. H.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Glanville, H. J.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Dowd, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Ogden, Fred

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry N.)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Dixon, C. H.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bigland, Alfred

  Doughty, Sir George

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Bird, A.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Barlow, Montague (Safford, South)

  Boyton, J.

  Falle, B. G.

  Barnes, George N.

  Burn Colonel C. R.

  Fell, Arthur

  Barnston, H.

  Cautley, H. S.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  1138

  1139

  Fleming, Valentine

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Stanier, Beville

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lansbury, George

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Sutton, John E.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Swift, Rigby

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hills, J. W.

  Nield, Herbert

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Williams, Col R. (Dorset, W.)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Worthington-Evans and Mr. Mount.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Snowden, P.

  CLAUSE 11.—(Provisions in the Case of Contributors Entitled to Compensation or Damages.)
  (1) Where an insured person has received or recovered or is entitled to receive or recover, whether from his employer or any other person, any compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, or any scheme certified thereunder, or under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, or at common law, in respect of any injury or disease, the following provisions shall apply.—

  (a) No sickness benefit or disablement benefit shall be paid to such person in any case where any weekly sum or the weekly value of any lump sum paid or payable in respect of any such compensation or damages is equal to or greater than the benefit otherwise payable to such person, and where any such weekly sum or the weekly value of any such lump sum is less than the benefit in question, such part only of the benefit shall be paid as, together with the weekly sum or the weekly value of the lump sum, will be equal to the benefit:

  (b) The weekly value of any such lump sum as aforesaid may be determined by the society or committee by which the sickness and disablement benefits payable to such person are administered—

  (c) No person entitled to any such compensation as aforesaid from his employer shall, except with the consent of the society or committee by which the sickness and disablement benefits payable to such person are administered, enter into any agreement to accept any lump sum in respect thereof, and any agreement entered into without such consent shall be null and void:

  (d) Nothing in this Section shall affect the right of an employer to redeem a
  1140
  weekly payment by payment of a lump sum in any case where he is entitled to do so under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, but where he exercises such right he shall, within three days thereafter, send to the Insurance Commissioners, or to the society or committee concerned, notice in writing of such redemption, giving particulars as to the amount of the lump sum and of the application thereof:

  (e) Where an insured person is entitled to any such compensation or damages as aforesaid and refuses or neglects to take proceedings to enforce his claim, it shall be lawful for the society or committee concerned, either at its own expense, to take in the name and on behalf of such person such proceedings, in which case any compensation or damages recovered shall be held by the society or committee as trustee for the insured person, or to withhold payment of any benefit to which apart from this Section such person would be entitled.

  (2) Nothing in this Section shall prevent the society or committee paying to an insured person entitled to such compensation damages benefit by way of advance-pending the settlement of his claim for compensation or damages, and any advance so made shall, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, be recoverable by deductions from or suspension of any benefits which may subsequently become payable to such person.
  Sir G. DOUGHTY: I beg to move, to postpone the Clause in order to call attention to a serious defect in its provisions as affecting the working classes who are insured under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is intended, as I interpret the Clause, to attach to the approved society all the advantages accruing under the Workmen's Compensation Act to men

  1141
  who have sustained accidents or suffer from sickness attendant upon accidents.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I ought to point out that the Motion is to postpone the Clause, and on that there is not the same liberty of discussion as on a question of leaving out the Clause. The hon. Gentleman can only debate the question whether the Clause ought to be postponed till the end of the Bill, and give reasons for that.
  Sir G. DOUGHTY: My chief reason for postponing the Clause is that you are going to take away from insured persons advantages that they now enjoy, and by that means attach those advantages under the Act to the approved societies. Workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act are at present doubly insured, so to speak.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is an argument against the Clause, and not an argument for postponing it.
  Sir G. DOUGHTY: In my judgment it is a very bad Clause, and if it was postponed for ever, so much the better. If it becomes law it will have a very detrimental effect.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The point that the hon. Gentleman evidently desires to raise will arise on the Motion to leave out paragraph (a), and he will no doubt find liberty of debate much wider there. Perhaps, under the circumstances, he will not press his Motion.
  Sir G. DOUGHTY: May I ask whether another point I desire to raise can be raised later? I have an Amendment down which affects the share fishermen, who, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, are not workmen within the meaning of the Act. They will be under a great disability if they cannot enjoy the full advantages of the provisions of this Act.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have looked at the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and though part of it is out of order a part is in order, and I think he will have an opportunity of raising a discussion.
  Sir G. DOUGHTY: Then I do not move.
  Mr. J. WARD: I will move the Motion that this Clause be postponed, because it would be absurd to decide the way in which compensation shall be distributed until we know the whole of the conditions which are to be provided in the other Clauses of the Bill. I think it most essen-
  1142
  tial that before we decide this principle we should know exactly under what circumstances the whole of the men are going to be placed either as voluntary contributors or as employed contributors. Before we can decide what ought to be done with this Clause, and whether there is any justification for this proposed distribution, we must first of all know the whole business of the Bill and what is offered under it. For that reason I will take this Motion to a Division if I can get a teller.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: I believe it is absolutely necessary that this Clause should be postponed, because of the inevitable confusion it will create. The Clause embraces more than the Workmen's Compensation Act—some of the most obscure matters of law which can possibly be imagined. It speaks of proceedings at common law and it speaks of the Employer's Liability Act. Postponement is inevitable, and I am sure the Chancellor himself must see that the matters included in the Clauses are so obscure that postponement must really take place if satisfaction is to be given to all the great interests involved.
  Mr. HOLT: I have a great deal of sympathy with the Motion, because I do not at all like the way in which, under this Clause, it is proposed to deal with workmen's compensation. It seems to me that, workmen's compensation being a form of insurance, we are now establishing a second form of insurance, and really the two ought to be merged in one. I will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is not possible to withdraw the Clause now and bring in a fresh Clause which will abolish workmen's compensation altogether, put it all into one fund and let the employer pay a larger contribution and let the workman get his money, no matter under which account he claims, and so avoid endless litigation. It seems perfectly ridiculous that there should have to be litigation as to whether a certain workman is to be paid out of the fund to which the employer contributes a third or out of the fund to which he contributes the whole. As a matter of business, it would be very much better to average the employer's contribution and let the whole charge come upon one fund only. I suggest that the postponement of the Clause altogether would enable the promoters to consider whether they should not bring up an altogether different scheme for dealing with workmen's compensation which

  1143
  would merge it in this insurance fund and give us only one fund and one contribution and one charge upon it. It would save an endless amount of solicitor's expense, and we should all be very much better off. There would be less money to pay and more to receive. There will be less expense, because less money will be wasted in expenses. I would ask whether there is no means of combining this insurance with workman's compensation.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Frind says he has brought forward this to facilitate the progress of the Bill. He suggests I should—in addition to insurance for sickness and invalidity—add another Bill—insurance against compensation. It would be quite out of order. The getting of the Bill as it is has not been very easy; not even on this side of the House. If I were to add on to it a gigantic scheme of insurance for compensation for accidents as well, I cannot see any prospect of getting away this side of Christmas at any rate. My hon. Friend says, "You have taken over the doctors, and ought to take over the solicitors." He thinks you ought to set solicitors to catch solicitors. I think one profession at a time is enough, if he does not mind. It is all I can undertake. There are a great many more difficulties than what my right hon. Friend imagines, in doing what he suggests. I do hope we can get on to the Clause now. There are several very important Amendments the Government propose to move, and I think he had better see what this Clause will be like.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Surely it is usual in legislation to set out what you want to do and then the provisions for doing it. You
  have got to the critical point of the Bill. Surely you ought to set out what we want in the way of departures in this Bill and see how they can be fitted in under the existing provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is not the usual procedure to interpolate it here instead, and it will only create fresh difficulties.
  Sir F. BANBURY: There is something in what my hon. Friend (Mr. Hope) has said, and I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer it will be quite impossible to do as the hon. Member (Mr. Holt) desires regarding compensation, but that does not really prevent this Clause being postponed until we know what benefits we are dealing with. If the Chancellor will look at the Clause he will see it begins by saying insured persons can receive and recover certain things, and certain things will follow. We do not know what the employed person is to receive, and it would be well to postpone the Clause until we know what benefits are to be given. I cannot support the proposal of the hon. Member for Hexham Boroughs (Mr. Holt), because I am told his speech was out of order. He was not arguing that the Clause should be postponed or that it should be considered later. He was arguing certain other things should take place. I agree it would be unfair to put further burdens on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I want to make things easier for him. Let us postpone this Clause until we actually know what we are doing. We really do not know what we are talking about.
  Question put, "That Clause 11 be postponed."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 197.

  Division No. 287.]

  AYES.

  [10.10 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Grant, J. A.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Baker, Sir Randall L. (Dorset, M.)

  Cator, John

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Clynes, John R.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Barnston, H.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Barrio, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow In-Furness)

  Hodge, John

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

  Eyres-Morrsell, Bolton H.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Fell, Arthur

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Fleming, Valentine

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Bird, A.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Jewett, Frederick William

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gill, A. H.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Boyton, James

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Kerry, Earl of

  Brace, William

  Goldstone, Prank

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Lansbury, George

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Larmer, Sir J.

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Valentia, Viscount

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Wardle, George J.

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)

  Snowden, P.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Stanier, Beville

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Nield, Herbert

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sutton, John E.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Swift, Rigby

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Pointer Joseph

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir G. Doughty and Mr. John Ward.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Meagher, Michael

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Furness, Stephen

  Mooney, John J.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Gelder, Sir W. H.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Agnew, Sir George William

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Mount, William Arthur

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Armitage, R.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Neilson, Francis

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Nolan, Joseph

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Hackett, John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, B.)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Barton, William

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Beale, William Phipson

  Harwood, George

  O'Dowd, John

  Beauchamp, Sir Eaward

  Haslam James (Derbyshire)

  Ogden, Fred

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Bentham, G. J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hayward, Evan

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Bowerman, C. W,

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Higham, John Sharp

  Philipps, John (Longford, S.)

  Burns, Right. Hon. John

  Hinds, John

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Radford, G. H.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Goven)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Reddy, Michael

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  John, Edward Thomas

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Clough, William

  Johnson, W.

  Richards Thomas

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Roberts, Sir J, H. (Denbigh.)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Joyce, Michael

  Robinson, Sidney

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Keating, Matthew

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Crooks, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Crumley-Patrick

  Kelly, Edward

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rowlands, James

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Delany, William

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Logan, John William

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Doris, William

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Scott. A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Duffy, William J.

  Maclean, Donald

  Sheehy, David

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Edwards Enoch (Hartley)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Farrell, James Patrick

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leics., Bosworth)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Thorne, G. R. (Welverhampton)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Manfield, Harry

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  1146

  1147

  Walters, John Tudor

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Whyte, A. F.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Wiles, Thomas

  Webb, H.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Illingworth.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "whether" ["whether from his employer or any other person"].
  The Amendment of which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) has given notice, to leave out the words, "or any other person," "or at common law," obviously could not be moved unless the word "whether" is taken out first. The Clause is very wide as drawn, and the omission of the word "whether" raises the whole question of the desirability of passing the Clause in its present form.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not know what the hon. Member means by opening up the whole Clause. If he wants to do that he should wait until the Clause is put as amended, and then discuss the question whether the Clause should pass or not.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, in his Amendments, practically takes away half the Sub-section by leaving out "or any other person," and "or at common law." Therefore, I am bound to leave out the word "whether." The Sub-section as it stands is:—
  "Where an insured person has received or recovered or is entitled to recover, whether from his employer or any other person, any compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, or any scheme certified thereunder, or under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, or at common law, in respect of any injury or disease," certain provision shall apply.
  That means that any person who is insured under the Bill, whether an employed person or a voluntary contributor who has any claim for damages under these two Acts, either against his employer or against any other employer, comes under the provisions of this very complicated Clause. I venture to ask that the Clause be limited to the questions which I really think must have been meant in the first instance.
  The CHAIRMAN: Surely the hon. Member is discussing a different proposition. If the two propositions are to be discussed
  1148
  together I have no objection, but the omission of "whether" opens up the co-relative of "any other person." I do not mind if the propositions are discussed together.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Nor do I mind in the least.
  Mr. GILL: The Amendment simply forestalls our proposal to leave out the Subsection. I submit that it would be better that the discussion should take place on paragraph (a), which raises the whole question of whether the Workmen's Compensation Act should be included.
  The CHAIRMAN: I see no objection to the hon. Gentleman's Amendment being moved if it is connected with the words "or any other person."
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will confine it to those words and leave the question of the Workmen's Compensation Act to be dealt with at a subsequent stage. But, apart altogether from the question of workmen's compensation or employers' liability, if an insured person has any claim to damages against anybody else other than his employer, if he meets with a railway accident, is run over by a cab or a bus in the street, or if somebody hits him in the eye then his claim for damages for anything of that kind is brought under the purview of this Bill. I do submit that you are putting an enormous difficulty not merely upon the workman, but upon all those who have to do with the administration of justice in compensation claims, if you are going to bring the machinery of the approved societies into every one of these claims for damages, unless these words are omitted from the Bill. All the money that comes from compensation of every kind for damages in respect of any claim against any outside person under any conditions whatever will be swept in under the provisions of this Clause. By doing this you are importing into the existing relations between friendly societies and their members something totally outside the purview of the Bill. I do not believe that the friendly societies have asked for it at all. I do not think that the workmen want it. I am perfectly certain from the information I have

  1149
  received that the employers feel that it would very much harass them, and this is not merely the case with employers, but with all those who have to deal with questions of compensation. Take a concrete case. Suppose a man receives a slight injury in the street, on a railway, or anywhere else. He goes to the owner of the railway, or whatever caused the accident and receives a couple of sovereigns as compensation. If this Clause is passed that cannot be done without the consent of the friendly society. The couple of sovereigns are received not as compensation for lack of work, but as compensation for pain and suffering. That compensation has to go to the friendly society. I venture to suggest—I am not dealing now with employers—that a man who suffers an injury totally unconnected with the Workman's Compensation Act, or the Employers Liability Act, but from some other source outside his employment, is entitled to receive any sum of money he can get by way of compensation from that outside source without being fettered by having these negotiations with outside persons brought into the purview of this Clause.
  Mr. McKENNA: In the last words of the hon. Gentleman's speech he made it quite clear that his intention was relevant to the Amendment which he had moved, but I am bound to observe that nearly the whole of his speech was anticipating an Amendment which appears lower down on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend below the Gangway. The real and the only issue hero is whether a man who is receiving compensation for an accident, no matter who pays the compensation—that is not relevant to the issue in this Clause—should at the same time be a charge upon the funds of his society. [An HON. MEM-BER: "Any kind of accident"] Any kind of accident. whether under the Workmen's Compensation Act or the Employers' Liability Act. He is already being provided for in his time of sickness. He ought not, therefore, to come upon the funds of the society.
  Sir G. DOUGHTY: If he is a member of a friendly society he is receiving that now.
  Mr. McKENNA: The last Clause we have been dealing with was one giving the benefits that any friendly society could afford to give. We are now dealing with this Clause, and the point we have to discuss is what is the best way to distribute the funds of the society? You have only
  1150
  a certain amount of money to deal with, and surely it is far more important you should not trench upon the funds which are available?
  Mr. J. WARD: On a point of Order. Is the general Clause under discussion? Are we not discussing the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Brentford?
  Mr. McKENNA: I quite agree; but the speech of the hon. Member for Brentford was directed to the whole point and forestalled the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I am only giving an answer to him in the briefest form, and showing that this Amendment really does not apply now. I think I would agree as to the general purpose of the Clause that he is right. It is that such benefit should be withheld where a man is already provided for by payment of compensation in respect to an accident; and that it does not matter whether that compensation comes from the employer or from any other person. Therefore, I think it would be desirable that we should get rid of these preliminary Amendments, and get to the question of substance raised by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, whether in all these cases it should be withheld whilst compensation is being received.
  Mr. J. WARD: I wish to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brentford. I have heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (the First Lord of the Admiralty) who says that the first section only applies to accidents. I see nothing in the Clause to suggest that that is the case. I take the Amendment as it is proposed, and your definition, Sir, that "whether" is only connected with "or any other person." As workmen's compensation and employers' liability are not common law but Statute law we may therefore take it that "any other person" applies to the action mentioned below. I do not know whether or not I am correct in my interpretation. Lawyers evidently will differ. One lawyer says "Yes," and others shake their heads and say, "No." That is generally the case when it comes to a legal question. I only wish, therefore, to call attention to the necessity of this Amendment being carried because I notice it says "or at common law," and "in respect of any injury." But it does not say "by accident" or anything of that kind. It may be a man knocked down as an ordinary citizen in the street. It may be, so

  1151
  far as I can see, until there is some interpretation, "injury to his reputation or character." I see no saving provision in the Clause. I daresay there is some saving Clause, but it seems to be drafted sufficiently broadly in the first stages. I am informed that it has no saving Clause in it. It is quite clear the suggestion of the hon. Member for Brentford is bound to be adopted, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer has some suggestion to make with reference to the limitation of what an injury actually is. I understood that, if I proposed to bring an action for damages for libel it would be because I was injured. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, I have benefited then; but I understood you said you were injured. I understood that when you entered an action of that description that was what you said. You plead that you have been injured in your reputation or character. There is no limitation in the Clause; it simply says, "at common law, in respect of any injury." It may be against anybody, not merely the employer, unless there are some saving words which I do not see. It seems to me that if I entered an action for any kind of injury, either to person or to character, and got compensation or damages—because the term "damages" is used—if I brought an action for libel and got—as I probably should if I belonged to the opposite side—£5,000 or £10,000 damages, the approved society of which I was a member would be entitled to claim that, and to dole it out to me just as they chose. It is a monstrous proposition. There may be something in the Clause, but clearly it needs to be limited in some way.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is a question not of limiting the Clause in some way, but of limiting it in a particular way, and the hon. Member does not seem to be directing his remarks to that point.
  Mr. J. WARD: I really want to know what the Clause means, what "injury" means, what "common law" means, what "any other person" means.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is precisely what does not arise on this Amendment.
  Mr. J. WARD: I do not suppose it ever will arise.
  Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: The hon. Member says that the words, "or any other person" can have no relevance
  1152
  except to an action brought at common law, and that they have no relevance to either the Workmen's Compensation Act or the Employers' Liability Act. In Section 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, he will find these words:—
  "Where an injury for which compensation is payable under this Act is caused under circumstances creating a legal liability on some person other than the employer to pay damages in respect thereof …"
  Mr. J. WARD: "Or at common law."
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: The words of the Bill are—
  "Where an insured person has received or recovered or is entitled to receive or recover, whether from his employer or any other person any compensation or damages."
  And so on; and the Workmen's Compensation Act provides quite specifically by Section 6 that where an injury for which compensation is payable arises under circumstances creating a legal liability in some person other than the employer to pay damages in respect thereof, the workman may take proceedings against both that person to recover damages and against any other person liable to pay compensation under that Act; that is to say, in respect of an accident which arises out of and in the course of his employment he is secured in compensation either from his employer or from any other person who may be legally liable. So that "any other person" has direct relevance to the Workmen's Compensation Act. More than that, the words "or common law," as the hon. Gentleman, I should have thought with his large experience of accidents to the members of the trade union with which he is connected, would have known would apply. Up to 1880 there was no Employers' Liability Act, and where an accident arose to a workman his only remedy was at common law. That common law right exists to-day, notwithstanding the passing of the Employers' Liability Act and notwithstanding the passing of three Workmen's Compensation Acts. Common law applies as much to accidents arising out, and in course of a man's employment, as it does to accidents arising from ordinary causes. So that the words "or common law" have a direct reference to the liability which may come upon an employer's shoulders, as well as to other liabilities.
  Mr. HOHLER: I think the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken cannot deny that the language used in this section will cover the case of an insured person who on a holiday, say, gets run down in the street.
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: That is so, later in the Clause.
  Mr. HOHLER: The point of this Amendment is that we want to get rid of these words to begin with. We will remedy the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Employer's Liability Act later. I do ask in fairness: What is the principle upon which an insured man who has paid his insurance should be robbed of the benefit? Say, for example, I am an insured person and I recover damages against a person who knocked me down in the street. That is wholly independent and outside this Act. This Sub-section is one of a number of tricks in this Act, devices introduced to obtain money for the purpose of this insurance scheme, which is supposed to be a benefit to the poor people. It is not fair or right. In regard to the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke, he will permit me to say that I do not think his illustration was to the point. I have some recollection that a short while ago he was in an action for £1,200, or somebody else was, as a result of his speech, and it is quite clear that the Sub-section does not cover a case like that. I entirely agree with the argument or principle of the hon. Gentle-
  man who spoke from the opposite benches as far as it went. He did not go the whole length of saying what this Clause meant. I shall support the Amendment, for I see no justice in a provision which will entitle the Government to the benefit of the damages which a man may recover for an accident which arises wholly outside, and the Government have no right to put an embargo upon the moneys which the man. has paid for his insurance.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: The reference here is to the right of action against any other person. What I want to put to the Attorney-General is this: Assuming that an insured person has an accident policy, and in case of accident is entitled to £2 or £3 a week, are we to understand that that man may be deprived of the benefits of this Bill?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Supposing a man is ill and gets sickness pay under this Bill and undergoes a certain operation, and suppose he brings an action and gets damages against the surgeon for injuries inflicted, say, through the negligence of the surgeon and for unnecessary pain and suffering, would the damages recovered in respect of that have to be pooled under the provisions of this Bill?
  Question put, "That the word 'whether' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 128.

  Division No. 288.]

  AYES.

  [10.50 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Furness, Stephen

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Clough, William

  Glanville. H. J.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Armitage, R.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Gulland, John W.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Crooks, William

  Hackett, J.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Barton, A. W.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Harwood, George

  Beale, William Phipson

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Dawes, J. A.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Delany, William

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Bentham, George J.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Doris, William

  Hayward, Evan

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Duffy, William J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Brace, William

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hinds, John

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Bryce, John Annan

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hughes, S. L,

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  John, Edward Thomas

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Johnson, W.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Keating, M.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Sheehy, David

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Dowd, John

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Kelly, Edward

  Ogden, Fred

  Shortt, Edward

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd., Cockerm'th)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Philipps, Col Ivor (Southampton)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W)>

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Sutherland, John E.

  Logan, John William

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Tennant, Harold John

  Lynch, A. A.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Maclean, Donald

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Radford, G. H.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Verney, Sir Harry

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Walters, John Tudor

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Reddy, M.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)

  Richards, Thomas

  Webb, H.

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Manfield, Harry

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Meagher, Michael

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Mooney, John J.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Murray, Captain Hon A. C.

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Neilson. Francis

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Rowlands, James

  Nolan, Joseph

  Rowntree, Arnold

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Grant, J. A.

  Nield, Herbert

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  O'Grady, James

  Astor, Waldorf

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Barnes, George N.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Roberts. S (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Barnston, H.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hodge, John

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hohler, G. F.

  Snowden, p.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bigland, Alfred

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bird, Alfred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stewart, Gershom

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hunt, Rowland

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Sutton, John E

  Boyton, James

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Switt, Rigby

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Kerry, Earl of

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Cassel, Felix

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cater, John

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Lansbury, George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile-End)

  Walsh Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

  Dixon, C. H.

  MacCaw. Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Fell, Arthur

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fleming, Valentine

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Gill, A. H.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Mr. Falle.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Mr. TYSON WILSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (a).
  I should like to say, in moving the deletion of this paragraph, that the proposal of the Government is a most unjust one. It is going to place persons who meet with accidents, and receive compensation, in a great deal worse position than they are in at present. They now receive sick pay from their societies, but this Clause will deprive them of sick benefit under the Bill. The Government have no right whatever to take advantage of an Act passed in the interests of men and women who have met with accidents. You are putting those people in a great deal worse position than the ordinary insured person. Persons who are insured and are receiving sick benefit pay which is not equal to their wages are entitled to sick benefit under this Bill. Why should you not treat the man who meets with an accident in exactly the same way? His compensation is 12s. or 14s. per week. Why should he not be allowed to draw his sick pay under this Bill? The Clause is a most unjust and unfair one. It is going to hit hardest the people earning the lowest wages. People who receive the lowest wages receive the lowest compensation, and, that being so, it is going to hit them hardest. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment and delete this paragraph. I feel quite certain the deletion of the whole Clause would make the Bill more popular with the working classes of the country, because it would make it a more just Bill. It is simply robbing a man of a benefit for which he has paid and to which he is entitled. If you wish to make the Bill unpopular insist on keeping this paragraph and Clause in the Bill.
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. McKENNA: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind what I am saying, but I think his language was a little bit more forcible than the occasion warrants. He said that in this Clause the Government are robbing the contributor of what he has paid. I think I can show him in a few words the Government are doing no such thing. According to the Actuaries' Report the amount of saving, not to the Government—for it will not affect the Government one penny—but to the funds of the society secured by this Amendment is one-tenth of the total amount of sick pay. The Committee have to solve this problem. There is a certain amount of money to be distributed by the society. With this
  1158
  Clause in the Bill the society can afford to pay 10s. a week sick benefit. Strike out this Clause and the funds of the society will only permit of their paying 9s. per week sick benefit. If I were to use the language of the hon. Gentleman I should say he is proposing by his Amendment to rob the beneficiaries under this Bill of 1s. per week sick benefit. Of course, I say no such thing. The hon. Gentleman himself intends to convey nothing of the sort. What he means by this Amendment is to keep the sick benefit at 10s. and yet knock out this paragraph. He cannot do both. He has to take his choice. If he carries his Amendment and knocks out this paragraph the effect will be to reduce the sick benefit to 9s. Why do not the Government do that? We think it preferable to keep the general rate of sick benefit at 10s. and not to pay the benefit in cases contemplated under this Clause.
  The object of the Bill is to keep the home together, to provide for a man who is sick and has no other means of subsistence. In the case of an injured workman he will be getting compensation, and therefore he will not be under the same stress and necessity as the man who is sick and can earn nothing. He, at any rate, is provided for to some extent by the Workmen's Compensation Act. Is it not better to leave that man to look to the Workmen's Compensation Act and to maintain the general average rate of sick pay at 10s. per week, or to give the injured workman both the compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the disablement benefit and to reduce the latter benefit to 9s. per week. I do not think that anybody who has the general interests of this Bill and of the persons insured under it at heart can come to any other conclusion than that we had better maintain our rate of sick benefit at 10s. and leave the people who come under the Workmen's Compensation Act to look primarily to that compensation for their support.
  Sir G. DOUGHTY: I do not think that the hon. Member who proposed this Amendment said anything wrong when he declared that this would be a robbery of the individual who was at present insured. I think we must look at it from the standpoint of the position of the men who are under the Workmen's Compensation Act. At the present time where a workman is covered by the Compensation Act if he meets with an accident or with sickness consequent upon it, he has special

  1159
  advantage; he gets not only the half of his wages, but if he is a member of a friendly society he gets the sick pay to which he is entitled from that society, and therefore in that sense he is insured in two different ways. Under this Bill, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has his way, all these insured people are going to be robbed of the advantage they now enjoy under the Workmen's Compensation Act, that is if they are members of friendly societies, and I do not see how you can get away from that point. For that reason I support the Amendment. I consider that it is a most serious thing for the six millions of people who are now under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and who are receiving an advantage, not through the society, but personally, because they suffer injury. You are going to attach to this Bill the advantages that the individual workman is entitled to if he sustains an accident and you are going to take under the wing of this Bill vast sums of money. In certain trades the payment that the masters make to the insurance fund is over 3d. a week for accidents and sickness attendant on accident, altogether apart from accidents in which death occurs. It is clear that men under the Workmen's Compensation Act who are members of friendly societies are going to have grave injury done to them if this Clause is allowed to stand and these men are robbed of what the Workmen's Compensation Act provides for them.
  Mr. GILL: I hope this paragraph will be deleted. There is a great feeling in regard to it in the country because it is an entirely new departure—one which no one expected to see. I cannot agree with the First Lord that the State gains nothing by the transaction. If the benefit is not paid the two-ninths guaranteed by the State for the payment of benefits will not be paid. Under these circumstances the State will have so much less to pay in regard to that two-ninths.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not a halfpenny. The whole of the money which is raised under the Bill will have to be spent in benefits, therefore the State will not pay a penny less.
  Mr. GILL: I cannot quite see if the total amount is less—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The total amount is not less.
  Mr. GILL: I object to this paragraph on the ground that it is an entirely new
  1160
  departure. In the friendly societies at present which are voluntary the sum of 10s., and in many instances considerably greater sums, 12s. and over, are paid for accident benefit and are reckoned as sick benefit, and all that is in addition to what the workman receives under the Compensation Act. These are only voluntary friendly societies. You are compelling every workman to be in a society and to choose his own approved society. I will assume that the workman is only in one society. He is entitled under present circumstances to receive accident pay under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He is entitled also to receive sick pay, so that it now becomes his approved society, and he is being deprived—I will not say robbed—of that amount of money which he is now paying for sickness benefit. You may argue as much as you like that they are not being deprived of anything, but, when they find they are receiving 10s. a week less, it will be difficult to convince them. I look upon this as an attempt—not a deliberate attempt perhaps—to make the Workmen's Compensation Act somewhat a contributory scheme. The hon. Member let the cat out of the bag. lie certainly meant it to be a contributory scheme. I saw also a circular issued by a Chamber of Commerce in which they proposed it should be something like the German plan in which the compensation should be paid after a number of weeks. We should fight to the death anything of that description.
  This House has become obsessed by the idea of malingering. A great deal too much has been made of it. I have had a great deal of experience of the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act, in the society of which I am secretary. We have something like 1,000 cases a year. I have taken particular notice to see if I could detect malingerers. It was impossible to detect any. I agree there are some. In every walk of life there are some black sheep. If Members of this House were in connection with some things in which malingering could take place they would not be proof against it. From careful observation in connection with my society I am convinced that malingering does not amount to 2 per cent. And the result is that 98 per cent. are to be penalised because 2 per cent. does wrong. Great stress has been laid upon the eloquent speech of the Member for Spen Valley, but comparisons should not be made between the periods before and after the Workmen's Compensation

  1161
  Act came into operation. Before the Act came into operation the people had nothing to live upon when they were hurt. They went to work before they had been cured, and sometimes suffered for the rest of their lives. There is nothing said about the persons who go to work too soon. It is a common thing for a man to come to a trade union official with his fingers wrapped up and say, "I am going to try on Tuesday." Many of them have gone to work and have had to come off again afterwards. That shows the better side of the working classes, and they ought not to be blamed because 2 per cent. does something wrong. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire made reference to a disease doctor's call neurasthenia. People who had been injured felt they had a shock to their system and could not work; but immediately compensation ceased they went off to their work. This disease might be described as an insurance company's disease I have not met, in my society, a man who was actually fit for his work who said he was suffering only from neurasthenia. A man I know had to go to work and had to give it up again, and his society had to pay him benefit to the extent of £100 because he had no compensation in respect of that accident after the medical referee gave him notice to go to work. It was not fair to say men were shamming in this respect.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: That the disease exists medical documents prove. I am not saying it is general, but there it is.
  Mr. GILL: The hon. Member said that immediately after compensation ceased they went back to work.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: It is a common thing in the county courts for counsel to fix a sum for compensation for the reason that so long as the compensation goes on it is difficult to get the men back to work.
  Mr. GILL: Our experience of doctors in cases under the Workmen's Compensation Act has been that if you have one doctor swearing one thing on one side you have two doctors swearing the contrary on the other side. In regard to this matter what I object to is that 98 per cent. of the contributors should be penalised because 2 per cent. of them do wrong. In the case of lawyers if one member of the profession takes advantage of his position and does wrong, he is punished. You do not blame the whole body of lawyers. I think everybody would say that it would be unjust to
  1162
  do that. If a grocer sells adulterated food, you do not blame the whole body of grocers. If a farmer gets money dishonestly by adulterating milk, you do not blame all farmers. If a stockbroker starts a bucket shop, you do not blame all the whole body of stockbrokers. Working men are the only persons who are blamed because a minority of their number do wrong. I do not see why working men should be singled out in this respect. I think the compelling of a working man to go into an approved society and the depriving him of the 10s. he now gets cannot be justified under any circumstances whatever.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one question for the guidance of the Committee. Can he say whether the actuarial calculations on which the scheme is based are founded on the assumption contained in the Sub-section that no sickness benefit will be payable during the period of compensation for disablement?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The whole of the actuarial calculations have been based upon that. The actuaries reckon that this makes a difference of about 10 per cent. As a matter of fact the growing burden on the friendly societies during the last few years, especially on account of sickness, is, in the judgment of the actuaries and those who advise them, very largely due to the fact that there is double payment, which makes a difference of 10 per cent. If the Amendment were carried against us it would mean a reduction of 10 per cent. on the benefits under the Bill.
  Mr. POLLOCK: There seems to be a good deal in the point as to what is to happen to a man if his sickness benefit or disablement benefit is not paid at a time when he has a right to recover against somebody else. Is the scheme thus propounded under Clause 11 a workable scheme? I quite follow the importance of it, and after what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said I do not think it possible to support the deletion of the Clause. But what I would like to point out is this: Clause 11 says that where an insured person has received or recovered, or is entitled to receive or recover, in those circumstances Sub-section (a) will apply. It is impossible in ordinary circumstances for a man immediately to have the question determined as to whether he is entitled to receive or recover this compen-

  1163
  sation, and the result is that as the Clause stands at present a man is placed in a great difficulty. At present if he is a member of a friendly society he will be able to get his sick pay at once at a time when he sorely needs it, but under this Section if he has a possible or potential claim he will not be entitled to any sickness or disablement benefit, because he would be in a position of a person who is a litigant, and therefore hopeful of recovery, or possibly being able to recover something under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If the hon. Member will look at Sub-section (2) he will find that there is a special power given to societies to enable advances to be made, which deals with the point that he raises.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I have not considered that. It may be sufficient. But I would like to see the man safeguarded for a certain period until the question had been determined. I do not think that it is sufficient merely to give the power to the society to pay. I think that the man should be entitled to benefit for one, two, or three weeks until the matter has been determined. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House are anxious to see some provision made, not that a man may but that he shall get something immediately upon his meeting with the accident.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER: With regard to payments, it has been suggested that if this Clause is taken out of the Bill one-tenth of the benefit for sickness would have to go, namely, the cost due to the Workmen's Compensation Act which the friendly societies are now paying. That means one-tenth of their benefits. Let us assume that is so. What is the workman gaining to-day under the Workmen's Compensation Act? I believe I am correct in saying there was drawn under that Act something like £3,000,000 for the last year of which we have any record. If that amount be correct, then by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own showing the position of the worker is going to be worse under this Bill than it is at present, if he be a member of a friendly society or trade union which pays sickness benefit. I myself have dealt with thousands of cases, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, belonging to different trades. Therefore, I know something of the working of that Act, something of the charges made for witnesses.
  1164
  I submit, argue as you will, that there can be no getting away from the fact that if this Sub-section is passed the ordinary workman who is in a trade union or friendly society to-day is going to be in the position of having to forego in many cases the whole of the 10s. which he gets for sickness benefit. Where the amount of compensation is lower than his sickness benefit he is only to get the difference to make up this sickness benefit. The assumption that 10s. a week is satisfactory compensation for loss of wages through injury is altogether wrong. Ever since the First Reading I have been a keen supporter of the Bill. I am perfectly satisfied with its main provisions, apart from this and certain other limitations. But I could not go into the Lobby to support a proposal of this kind, because I am satisfied that it is one of the biggest blots on the Bill. Too much is made by the employers of the question of malingering, when it is suggested that it is so bad that it is necessary to introduce into the Bill provisions which will take away practically at least two-thirds of the value under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I shall have pleasure in supporting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. HOHLER: I must rise to make a protest against some of the language which we have heard in the discussion of this Amendment. It is quite unnecessary to use strong language. A good case never requires it. It is quite clear that until this Bill becomes law a man who is injured is entitled, assuming he is employed, to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. You cannot deprive him of it. But you are proposing to him now that he shall be compulsorily insured and he will be bound to pay. You say to him, because you have another legal right, which now exists, which may be inadequate, and often the payment is entirely inadequate, you can receive nothing back for what is compulsorily paid under this insurance. That man would be infinitely better off by paying his money into an ordinary insurance society. It is the law that if I am insured and I meet with an accident the person liable cannot invoke the fact that I have compensation from an insurance company in reduction of the amount of damages he will have to pay to me, and yet it is assumed that these men should be deprived of that legal right. We have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this does not affect the benefits. With all respect I differ from him. The Government has got to pay two-ninths of the

  1165
  benefits, but if a man is injured and he is entitled to sickness pay, and he is not paid, is it not clear that the Government do not pay the two-ninths of that, because the man never receives it? It may be said it is received elsewhere, but the Government by their Resolution are not to pay the 2d., but to pay two-ninths of the benefit. You may build up the fund somewhat, but still the Government pay less, and it is perfectly clear that the Member for Bolton (Mr. Gill) was right, and that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was no answer to him.
  I do not think that the House really appreciates the case. I know of a case of a man who has got compensation which is permanent, subject to power to review tinder the Workmen's Compensation Act, for an injury to his left arm which will permanently incapacitate him. He is getting 10s. a week. He has recovered that compensation and is entitled to it every week. Let us assume that man gets what we call light work. Some benevolent person employs him as messenger. He again becomes an insured person and will be bound to pay his 3d. or 4d. per week. But by virtue of the fact that he is receiving, or has recovered, compensation for this accident, which is weekly and permanent, he can never get sickness benefit under this Bill though you compel him to contribute. No one can say that the language of the Section as it stands does not cover this case, and I say it is a grievous injustice. We have heard about malingering. I trust we shall not have that point raised again when other objections are taken to this Bill.
  Mr. BOOTH: No.
  Mr. HOHLER: The Member for Pontefract is always on the malingering tack. I do not believe in this theory about general malingering. Many a man after his injury is in such a state of anxiety that he is quite incapacitated for work. It is so easy to say that people are dishonest. There are such cases, but it is not a right implication to make broadcast. Supposing a man does not get his compensation under this Bill. The friendly society will not trouble about him a bit. There will be no reason why they should. They will say, "We are not paying him, why should we bother about him?" If there be malingering, the only tendency of this clause will be to increase it, as it will be to nobody's interest to see whether the man is well or ill. As trade unions may become approved societies, the matter is equally im-
  1166
  portant to them as to the great approved societies. I shall certainly support the Amendment.
  Sir ALFRED MOND: The question is obviously not an easy one. The Labour Members have stated the difficulty which they undoubtedly feel, and the difficulty exists. To deprive any man through this Bill of any right which he has through his trade union or friendly society will be felt as a great grievance. It will be no satisfaction to him to be told that the finance of the Bill, of which he knows nothing and cares less, will not enable him to obtain what he has had before. On the other hand, it seems to me that those Members who have argued for the deletion of the Sub-section have overlooked one cardinal difference between the contribution under this Bill and the old friendly society or trade union contribution. Under this Bill the employer and the State contribute as well as the workman. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act the employer is paying directly a benefit or compensation, call it what you will, to the injured person. If this Sub-section were deleted the employer would be paying twice over, first as an employer in respect of the accident, and then as a contributor to this fund. My suggestion is that, as far as his 4d. is concerned, the workman ought to be entitled to be paid that in benefit, whether receiving compensation or not. That would undoubtedly reduce the amount from 9d. to 4d., and would thereby ease the actuarial position.
  It seems to me not quite reasonable to say that a man who has been contributing 4d. all the time, because he is receiving compensation for an accident, should not also receive the benefit of his 4d. contribution for insurance. That, it seems to me, is the difficulty. I think that some kind of compromise should be arranged on the lines I have suggested. This will remove the objections of hon. Members, will meet the point that is apparently in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and will add to the general friends of the scheme. We cannot, I think, adopt the altitude that we have only a certain amount of money which must be spent. There is no certain amount of money in the Bill; no definite sum is mentioned. We know roughly how much the actual expenditure is likely to be. But there should be no feeling of unfairness or of grievance left; nor should we starve a great national scheme even if the final cost is a little more. I am the last person in

  1167
  the House to wish to add to the burden of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; we all feel our responsibility in suggesting anything in that direction, but it would be a very sad thing if by an adherence to the idea of absolutely mathematical finance we produced a scheme which was not favourably viewed by the great trade unions, the great friendly societies, or, for the matter of that, amongst the workmen generally. I suggest this compromise in the belief that it will undoubtedly for the moment relieve a difficult situation.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This Clause, I think, is a difficult one. The Chancellor has told us that the actuaries have made their calculations so that the 4d. contributed by the workman is only able to give him the benefits, less the exceptions, specified, and that if sickness benefit or disablement benefit arising from accident were to be included in the benefits the contribution would be greater by one-tenth, or that nearly a penny a week would have to be exacted in order to make the fund watertight. Apparently the one-tenth cost that would be added by the Amendment would be £500,000 or £700,000 a year more. While I find great difficulty in supporting the Amendment that will add that large cost to the scheme, the actuaries have never taken into account, so far as I can gather from a cursory perusal of the report, the damages arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act. They only say that this Clause goes a good deal further. This Clause also includes employers' liability and common law liability. I want to draw a distinction not between the Employers' Liability Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act, but between the latter and common law liability. Supposing a man meets with an accident not in the course of his employment at all. Supposing one of the terrible motor omnibuses ran over him not when he was going to or from work. He would not be entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He might possibly be entitled to compensation from the motor omnibus company if the motor omnibus had been driven negligently.
  It seems to me that the actuaries have not taken that into account. It might well be taken into account now, and that part of the benefit that arises from an accident might be excluded from this Clause. The actuaries say that the whole cost is 10 per cent. of the benefit, and that it falls
  1168
  unequally on the various insured people. Some people are in hazardous trades, and you are going to make the agricultural labourer—if his work is non-hazardous—pay a part of the insurance of those, miners and others, who are engaged in hazardous occupations, and are accentuating the difficulty that we have found with the flat rate by the provisions of this Clause. I do not very much like the Clause, but on the other hand I find great difficulty in supporting an Amendment which is going to put another £500,000 or £700,000 upon the funds. I hope the Government will be able to do something in regard to the expenditure taken into account by the actuaries. Again, men who are at present in friendly societies and have current contracts with these societies are in a difficult position. They are insured in their societies against accidents, and they are not to be insured in future, but friendly societies will have to carry out these existing contracts with their existing members so insured, and in order to provide for them there will be another inroad upon the existing funds of those societies, and the Registrar of Friendly Societies will have to take into account that existing members will not in future be insured in their societies against this class of accident. I think the Chancellor would do well to reconsider this Clause, which is not complete as it stands. There are obvious injustices or difficulties in it, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is putting the Committee in the very difficult position of either voting for something that will increase the expenditure by many hundreds of thousands of pounds or else letting pass a Clause which obviously contains points of real difficulty which, with a little further consideration, might be adequately amended.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: Malingering may be divided into two classes—the detected malingering and the undetected malingering; the detected must be very small and the undetected very large. The undetected malingering must be very extensive from the very nature of the case. A man complains to a doctor that he has a pain in his back and cannot work. There is no possible way of detecting whether that man is malingering. No examination by doctors would absolutely prove that that man had not a pain in his back, and when there is doubt the patient must be given the benefit of that doubt. If the doctor signs a paper and says the man is unfit to work he is risking only the funds, but if he says the man is malingering he is running a

  1169
  much greater risk, so that in all cases of doubt the man gets the benefit of it, and it is the unanimous view of medical men that there is an enormous amount of malingering which they cannot detect. Malingering is the enemy of the friendly societies. The best guarantee against malingering is to ensure that it does not pay. If a man gets twice the amount while idle that he would earn while at work, there is a strong inducement to him to be idle. Every member of a friendly society should be so loyal to his society and so loyal to the funds that he should look upon malingering as an enemy and treat it as such. It is wise to put in every safeguard possible against malingering, but it does not mean that members of friendly societies generally malinger because such safeguards are put in. A great many members of friendly societies are so conscientious and so sensitive that they continue to work when they are really ill, and in that way a great deal of injury is done. For this we do not require any safeguard, but for the few who do malinger it is essential. I think we may assume that an enormous amount of malingering would go on if you make it worth men's while.
  Mr. CLYNES: With regard to the speech we have just heard, as the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Gill) has made clear, the number of men who go back to their work after accidents before they are fit is far greater than the number of proved malingerers. May I remind the hon. Member that men do not get compensation for saying that they have got a pain in their back. Accidents have to happen first, and you have to prove them. They do not get compensation simply for the asking, and the man alleged to be injured must be certified as being in a state of physical disability. Are we to take it that doctors are so indifferent as to the certifying of facts that they will provide certificates merely for the pay they receive?
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I did not make that assertion. I said that when there was a doubt in the doctor's mind he would not run the risk of doing the patient an in justice, and would give him the benefit of the doubt.
  Mr. CLYNES: The charge against the workmen that they malinger, to my mind, casts a great reflection more upon the competency of the doctors than upon the workers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has informed the Committee as to the cost that will fall upon the State if this Amend-
  1170
  ment is carried, and we are asked to remember that there is only a certain sum at the disposal of the Government to make this Bill workable. On each occasion, when we raise a point specifically involving the possibility of an increase in the State contribution, are we to be told that no financial change can be made? When the Financial Resolution was under discussion we were told that the passing of it would not tie the hands of the House or the Committee, and we were assured that further provision could be made by other resolutions, or by some other amended proposal, if the Committee felt that some financial alteration was essential. I want to ask whether we can have some assurance that should a point be reached which, in the opinion of the Committee, it is necessary to increase the state contribution, will the Committee be free to make that increase should they so decide? Broadly, we look upon the income which an injured workman receives as compensation as something which ought to be absolutely independent of any other source of income whatever. This is not a sentimental question.
  We oppose this Clause because it is so obviously unjust. The First Lord of the Admiralty argued that an injured workman was provided for by the compensation he receives. He receives at most half his wages, and he receives it, not because of physical pain and suffering, but because he is unable any longer to earn his full wages. In any other section of the community compensation is not calculated on that basis. Those who lose property or income from any other cause would never think of being content with half the loss they suffer. As a rule, they claim and get more than the total they lose. Seeing the amount of compensation is only half the man's total financial loss, altogether apart from his pain and suffering, and in view of the increased necessity for care and support in the case of an injured person, I think the Committee should agree the compensation should be absolutely independent and apart from any other form of income whatever. This is a great question affecting more than 300,000 persons who are injured in this country every year, and it is a question where above all others the Committee should try not merely to be just but generous. You will not be able to convince any injured workman a further injury is not done him by this Bill if after having paid for a sickness benefit he is robbed of it because he is receiving compensation. There is a further objection which might

  1171
  be offered to this Clause. It is the objection to legally limiting a workman's income. I know of no other instance where any class of the community has its income limited by law. That, together with the necessities of the injured workman, constitutes the strongest ground for offering the most resolute and determined opposition to this Clause as it stands.
  Mr. HUNT: A man pays to his friendly society for twenty years. He then meets with an accident, and ho gets 10s. a week compensation. His pay from his friendly society is 10s. per week. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to take it away from him because he happens to have had an accident and is paid 10s. per week compensation? That, as I understand it, is the effect of the Clause, and I must say it is distinctly unfair. The man has paid for twenty years, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "Although you have paid for twenty years you shall get nothing for it."
  12.0 M.
  Mr. CAWLEY: It appears to me that this paragraph is absolutely necessary as a protection against malingering. The hon. Member for Bolton, in a spirited defence of the working people of this country against the charge of malingering, said one would not blame grocers as a body because a few of their number mixed sand with their sugar, neither would dairymen generally be condemned because some of them watered their milk. The criminal law is not framed because everybody is criminally inclined; it is directed against the few who are criminals. If this Clause is not adopted in the form proposed by the Government there will be men receiving more money when unemployed than when. in work. Most people, indeed, would rather receive a good deal for doing nothing than a smaller sum for working hard. By this proposal you are putting a strong temptation in the way of working men to not only claim sick benefit but to also seek compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. There is the authority of the actuaries for stating that this demand for sick benefit in addition to compensation under the Act has already led to a serious depletion of the funds of friendly societies, and common sense clearly points to the desirability of not following in this Bill the present practice of the friendly societies in this matter. This will be a very much better insurance bill with this Clause in in than without it. The object is to
  1172
  ensure that the workman when he is sick shall have the means of subsistence, and that is just as well secured by the Bill with the Clause in it as without it. He is insured 10s. a week while ill, but if you cut out this paragraph he will only get 9s. a week. The hon. Member for the Westhoughton Division talked about robbing insured persons. That is a very strong and at the same time incorrect expression. It is no question of taking away the property of an insured person: by this provision you do not take away one halfpenny from him. The object aimed at is to secure this benefit to working men and women when they need it; it is not to give it to those who already have sufficient subsistence; and because this Clause ensures that the Bill will provide it for a man or woman when it is really needed I believe it to be absolutely necessary, and I shall support it in its present form.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think sufficient notice was taken of the Chancellor's defence against the Amendment. He told us that with this Amendment he would give 10s., but only 9s. under the provisions of the Bill. We had the right hon. Gentleman going up and down the country telling everyone he was going to give them 10s. a week sick pay, but he never told them he was only giving 9s., and that 1s. was going to be taken from the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is robbed from those who are unfortunate enough to meet with accidents. It seems to me to be a far more serious statement than he has yet made in the Debates on the Bill. We have had these inequalities all through the Bill. The young man is robbed to make up for the older man, and hero we find that the injured man is robbed to make up for the man who does not have an injury. Let each class of the community pay for itself, and get its own benefits. In that case you would find that the people who are employed in dangerous trades would pay for their own insurance, and sickness benefit of 9s. a week, and they are going to get the odd shilling for those injured in mines and factories and in dangerous occupations. This is a very serious flaw in the Bill. I still support the aims of the Bill.
  It would, I think, be far better and fairer in the interests of the working man himself that the Chancellor should say that the benefits under the Bill are 9s. and leave the benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He wants to get his 10s. If the odd shilling is to be

  1173
  provided at the expense of what I have always regarded as one of the charters of the working man in times of accident and injury, the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Employers' Liability Act, if it is provided by robbing these men who are insured, there would be very serious dissatisfaction. I for one should not like to go to my constituents, working men in friendly societies, and say: "We are going to pay you 10s. by taking a shilling, though we never told you beforehand, out of the benefits which you get under the Workmen's Compensation Act." Let me put another point. If a man who is not compulsorily insured voluntarily joins a friendly society or an insurance society and pays his contribution he gets his sick pay, and if he is injured he gets his workmen's compensation money just the same, and yet you are compelling these workmen to join a particular form of society and pay, many of us think not 4d. but 7d. a week. Many of us think that sooner or later a good deal of the employer's 3d. will fall on the shoulders of the working man also. You are compelling the working man at all events to pay 4d., and if he has an injury you are not giving him the same right to receive the benefit for which he pays.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: There is only one point it seems to me which has not been dealt with. If forcible language would alter the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I am quite prepared to use it. But, as I do not suppose it will, I would like to deal with this one special point. When a man secures compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act he may be entitled originally to a sum of £300, which is the maximum sum. I put this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Supposing a man is entitled to £300 full compensation. He gets £250 of that in weekly sums, and after that he settles for a lump sum, and the £250 is handed over to the trustees of an approved society on his behalf. When £50 of that £250 has gone in benefits he dies. What proportion of the balance of £200 goes to his dependents according to the original Act? What provision is there in this Clause for the distribution of the balance due to the man?
  The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member please point out the words in this paragraph which raise this point?
  Mr. J. WARD: I only asked the Chancellor if they were anywhere in the Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is what I complain of. We are talking about the excision of a particular paragraph, and the hon. Member cannot tell me if there are words in it which raise this particular point.
  Mr. J. WARD: The statement in this paragraph is that certain sums must be paid over and the man only receives a sum proportionate.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is misinformed. The paragraph merely says that if the man who has been injured receives compensation either by way of a lump sum or weekly payment, and if the weekly value is less than the benefit under this Act, part of the benefit under this Act shall be paid. The hon. Member must apply himself to that point.
  Mr. J. WARD: I want to know whether "no sickness benefit shall be paid to such person in any case where any weekly sum or weekly value of any lump sum'' of which they have become possessed has been paid, and therefore whether the lump sum is being considered under this Clause.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member wants to know what the paragraph says and wants to read it, he had better read it through.
  Mr. J. WARD: I have just read a portion of it, and I will read the remainder: "the weekly value of any lump sum paid or payable in respect of any such compensation or damage is equal to or greater than the benefit otherwise payable to such person, and where any such weekly sum or the weekly value of any such sum is less than the benefit in question, such part only of the benefit shall be paid as, together with the weekly sum or the weekly value of the lump sum, will be equal to the benefit." It is a very illuminating proposition. I venture to suggest it is a most outrageous thing that compensation should be considered at all in the slightest degree. The idea of stealing a man's benefits, as is suggested in this Clause, because ho secures compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and avoiding liabilities which ought to be placed on the fund, is, I think, most outrageous. If we had known at the beginning that this was the suggestion, I think a far different reception would have been given to the measure.
  Viscount WOLMER: In answer to hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been talking about malingering, I would say that if

  1175
  their proposal were accepted they would do much to perpetuate malingering. It would remove the whole machinery which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is setting up to prevent malingering. The right hon. Gentleman has enlisted the services of the friendly societies to help him in securing the proper administration of the Act. I believe hon. Members opposite would find it more economical in the end to give good benefit and administer it well than to give bad benefit and administer it badly. Not only will this Clause as it stands greatly increase malingering, but it will also inflict what would be felt to be an injustice upon many thousands of workmen who have been injured. An hon. Member opposite said that a man who received compensation did not need any sickness benefit. I ask the Committee whether a man who has to support his family and only gets half wages can be said to be in no need of assistance. I believe this Clause if allowed to stand without amendment will injure thousands of men in the country. It will do nothing to check malingering. It will rather increase it, and thereby benefit the dishonest at the expense of the honest.
  Mr. S. WALSH: It is with some diffidence that I rise at all. I think if ever there was a time when speeches for purely political purposes were out of place it is on such an occasion as this. I think everyone who heard the speech of the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) must have seen that he was not delivering his philippics against the Sub-section because he disliked it but because of what was to go on at Luton to-morrow or elsewhere later. From the first time I saw the Bill in print I did not like it, and I have not refrained from expressing my dislike. This Sub-section applies to all injured persons and not merely to men. The words in paragraph (a) are "No sickness benefit or disablement benefit shall be paid to such person in any case where any weekly sum or the weekly value of any lump sum …" I rather think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's advisers have lost sight of one very important fact, namely, that every person under the Workmen's Compensation Act whose wages are 10s. or under in the event of accident receives his full earnings. Every person from the earliest working age until he is twenty-one will be entitled to 5s. sickness benefit, and that alone so far as sickness benefit is concerned. I think I am right in saying that that is in accordance with the
  1176
  concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a couple of nights ago. Except in the case of members of from sixteen to twenty-one, with persons wholly or mainly dependent upon them, when the approved society can exercise an option, there will not be one case in a thousand in which these young persons will be entitled to sickness benefit, because there are very few young persons earning such small wages as 5s. a week, though, in the event of accident, these persons are entitled to the full wages.
  But take the smallest wages imaginable, 14d. or 16d. a day, for three days a week, the smallest working time, they will get in the event of accident as much compensation as they would be entitled to sickness benefit. One deprecates speaking so much upon a particular industry, but when one's knowledge has been localised in a particular industry one can speak on that with the greatest information. Take the case of the mines. I myself have been engaged from the first moment of the Workmen's Compensation Act down to the present in administering tens of thousands of cases. Our accident rate in. the mines is one MI six of every person employed in and about the mines. There are over a million persons employed in mines. Hon. Members can imagine the immense work we have to do with regard to workmen's compensation. At least three-sevenths of that million persons in the mines are twenty-one years of age or under. In the event of accident for which they are entitled to compensation there will not be one out of 1,000 of these young persons who will be entitled to sickness benefit. I am quite sure that the legal advisers of the right hon. Gentleman can hardly have studied that point It is not from a spirit of perversity that we oppose this, but we can see what it really means.
  I will not say it is robbery, because one cannot be robbed of that which he never had, but it is harshness at the very least that, when you do place compulsion upon this working person, young or old, in consequence of some other beneficent Act having been passed many years ago by which they are to receive a benefit in case of accident, that when you do impose a compulsory deduction upon their wages, especially in the case of these young people, that that compensation to which they are entitled will deprive them of practically all sickness benefit. Whatever one's private feelings may be upon the Bill one cannot deny that the Chancellor has certainly given the utmost consideration to

  1177
  almost every point that has been raised. I think that this is a real point. It has not been mentioned during the night. I say to the House that there are 400,000 young people, the vast majority of whom get 10s. a week wages or down to 5s., and all these are cut out by this provision because the sickness benefit would only be 5s. In this vast number of compensation cases in mines hardly one out of a thousand would receive any sickness benefit at all. That which applies in so great a degree to the mines would apply in a lesser degree to the other industries and especially to the textile factories, for which the Member for Bolton (Mr. Gill) can speak more effectively than I can. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not considered this point with the closeness that he ought to have given to it, and I trust that if he cannot agree to the deletion of the Sub-section he will have to agree to very substantial amendments made on it to remove the hardships in it, not to say the injustices.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When the hon. Member who has just spoken rose and began to call attention to this point, I thought at first that he had discovered a grievance. I think, however, that is really not the case. A young person under twenty-one years of age gets 100 per cent. of his wages as compensation if he does not. receive 10s. wages. He has the right to be paid up to 10s. a week under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore he gets what is equal to full pay under this Bill.
  Mr. S. WALSH: Pardon me for interrupting. He does not get 10s. in every case. It is only where the earnings are equal to 10s. that he gets 10s. He gets the equivalent to his earnings in the other cases. He does not get 10s.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I see. But supposing his wages are only 7s. a week he gets the whole of his wages. The suggestion is that he shall get more than his wages.
  Mr. S. WALSH: I did not say he should get more than his wages. I am sorry to interrupt because I know how anxious the Tight hon. Gentleman is to meet a grievance.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am really.
  Mr. S. WALSH: My point is that in the majority of cases of young persons injured who get compensation, from the ages of twelve to twenty-one, there will not be a
  1178
  single penny paid to them for sickness, because in every ease the compensation to which they will be entitled will be greater than the sickness benefits in the Bill, and therefore they will pay their contributions to this fund without any corresponding benefit.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: But they are still fully provided for. They get 100 per cent. of their wages up to 10s., which is the maximum under the Bill, and therefore they have no special grievance. I will further consider the point raised by the hon. Member, and if on mature reflection I find there is really something in it I will undertake to see that matters are put right.
  Mr. S. WALSH: I thank you very much for your promise I hope you will reconsider the question of imposing the maximum deduction upon a young person.
  Mr. PETO: I wish to make a point before a decision is taken. It seems to me a great deal has been said in somewhat harsh terms by hon. Members about robbery and words of that sort, but I wish to urge a grievance that has not, been dealt with. In the case of a person who has received compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, a case put by an hon. Member on this side a short time ago, he may, although wholly or partly disabled, be a wage-earner again, doing light work, and on becoming a wage-earner will be compelled to make a weekly contribution for something which he can never be entitled to receive. It is not entirely a question of taking something away from a working man which he has never got, but it is a case of insisting upon taking something from him for a benefit which he can never receive. It is not so much the deletion of the Section that is required as some alteration in the contribution required from such a person, so as to make the contribution accurately represent the amount that person can possibly receive. If they can get nothing in addition to their compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act they should not be called upon to pay any contribution whatever to the insurance fund, because they can get no benefit. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look at it from that point of view and see whether it is not absolutely necessary to have this Sub-section framed so that there will be a new category of contributors who can only receive a small part of the benefits, and that they will be left out of the Bill altogether if they can receive no benefit at all.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, down to the word 'in' ["such person in any case"], stand part of the Clause."
  The committee divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 79.

  Division No. 289.]

  AYES.

  [12.25 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Guest, Hon Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Gulland, John William

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Hackett, J.

  O'Dowd, John

  Armitage, Robert

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Ogden, Fred

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Havelock-Allan. Sir Henry

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Beale, W. P.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Reddy, M.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hughes, S. L.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  John, Edward Thomas

  Robinson, Sidney

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cave, George

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Keating, Matthew

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Kelly, Edward

  Sheehy, David

  Clough, William

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Shortt, Edward

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Cotton, William Francis

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

  Crawshay-Williams Eliot

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Crumley, Patrick

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Maclean, Donald

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Delany, William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Doris, W.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Curdy, C. A

  Webb, H.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leics.)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Manfield, Harry

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Meagher, Michael

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Furness, Stephen

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Nolan, Joseph

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Falle, B. G.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fell, Arthur

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Barnes, George N.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Lansbury, George

  Barnston, Harry

  Gill, A. H.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Goldstone, Frank

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Grant, James Augustus

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Boyton, James

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Brace, William

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hancock, John George

  Pointer, Joseph

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Cassel, Felix

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rawson, Col R. H.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Richards, Thomas

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hohler, G. F

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rowlands, James

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton).

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Yate, Col. C. E

  Swift, Rigby

  Wardle, George J.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. George Roberts and Mr. Charles Duncan.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilkle, Alexander

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), after the word "person" ["to such person in any case"] to insert the words "in respect of any such injury or disease."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), at the end of paragraph (a), to insert the words, "Provided that in the case of share fishermen who are insured persons, and who have been rendered unfit to provide their own maintenance by bodily or mental disablement caused by accident, and who, but for the provisions of Section seven, Sub-section two, of The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, would be entitled to compensation under that Act, sickness and disablement benefit shall be paid as in the case of ordinary sickness, but the society or committee shall be entitled to recover from the Insurance Commissioners all payments so made."
  In the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1906 there is a Clause which precludes these share fishermen from any advantages of that Act. The consequence is that when this present Bill becomes law these men will be in this position: that if they apply to an approved society for membership they will be refused because their risk is greater than that of the ordinary man who comes under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I am desirous that these men should enjoy the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act. I have a private Bill which has been blocked by the Government Whip several times, and if I had the opportunity of getting that Bill through Parliament this grievance would no longer exist. These men are placed in a very unfair position. They are prejudiced because they will not be able to join an approved society as a consequence of their risk being greater than that of the ordinary man. There is one way that I suggest that this difficulty should be met, and that is that the Insurance Commissioners should pay to the approved society any sum of money that may be represented by an accident, or sickness arising out of an accident. That would put these men in the same position as the workman under the Compensation Act when he joins an
  1182
  approved society. There are many thousands of these men placed in this unfair and invidious position. Not only will these fishermen have to pay as employers, but. where they are part owners I am afraid they will have to pay the 3d. employer's contribution as well as their own 4d.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I understood the hon. Baronet to say that the Insurance Commissioners shall pay?
  Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: Yes.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If that is the effect of the Amendment, then I submit, Mr. Emmott, that it will be out of order, for the Insurance Commissioners have no fund at all. It is not the general insurance fund which is affected by this. The hon. Baronet must by this Amendment get the money from the general fund, which means the State.
  Sir G. DOUGHTY: Then, as I understand, that part of my Amendment would be out of order?
  The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move his Amendment without that part?
  Sir G. DOUGHTY: Yes, Sir; I only made that suggestion in order perhaps that the Chancellor might think it equitable to find the money in that direction. Seeing this great disability on that large body of men I asked the Government to put in facilities, or to give some small assistance to those men. There are tens of thousands of fishermen outside the Workmen's Compensation Act.
  The CHAIRMAN: We have nothing to do with that now; the hon. Member must stick to his Amendment.
  Sir G. DOUGHTY: I only ask the Government to assist as far as possible to have this grievance removed in the way I suggest.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's Amendment now is: "Provided that in the case of share fishermen who are insured persons, and who have been rendered unfit to provide their own maintenance by bodily or mental disablement caused by accident, and who, but for the provisions of Section seven, Sub-section two, of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, would be entitled

  1183
  to compensation under that Act, sickness and disablement benefit shall be paid as in the case of ordinary sickness."
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Gentleman is disappointed that he has not passed his own Bill, which he introduced into the House; that I am afraid is his real difficulty and is the answer to his Amendment. Share fishermen do not at present come under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the hon. Gentleman points out that in consequence of that these fishermen will find it more difficult to get into the friendly societies or become members of approved societies. The answer to that is that they can form societies of their own; it may be possible they would not have sufficient members to make up the number requisite under the Bill. That is a point which can be raised later on and the difficulty may not be as great as the hon. Member thinks. I cannot conceive that approved societies would reject these fishermen because they do not come under the Workmen's Compensation Act. They might affiliate with other societies and in that way become approved societies, assuming they are in sufficient numbers to come up to the figures required in the Bill. The alternative suggested by the hon. Member in his Amendment is hardly one that could be accepted by the Government, and I am quite certain he hardly expects that this Amendment could be accepted and that the benefits should be paid as in the case of ordinary sickness. If there is no question of a society coming in there is, of course, no benefits. You cannot take the benefits out of the general body of the insurers; all you can do is to provide they should join, as they are entitled to join, as an approved society either of their own or with any other society to which they might become affiliated.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that this case is not quite so simple as the Attorney-General seems to think. He suggests that these men may have societies of their own. I believe that the societies they have are very small and I think it will be difficult for them to form societies of their own. But that does not meet the case. These men will require one-tenth more benefit than the ordinary member. Does the Attorney-General think that the ordinary approved society will take a man at the common rate who is a 10 per cent. worse risk than the common rate?
  Mr. McKENNA: But this Amendment does not meet that point.
  Mr. AUSTEN CWAMBERLAI N: That is perfectly true. No private Member can move an Amendment altering the terms of the Resolution which the Government have bound the Committee to, and my hon. Friend is only permitted to raise this question by moving an Amendment which does not effect his object. In Committee of Supply we are not permitted to move an increase in the Vote, and therefore we often move to reduce the Vote when we really want to increase it. My hon. Friend has moved this Amendment in order to raise what is really a serious difficulty.
  The Attorney-General must not be satisfied with the technical defence he has put forward. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer bound the House by the Financial Resolution we have adopted, he said he would not enforce it too narrowly, and would listen to a case even outside the scope of the Resolution, and if convinced by the arguments the right hon. Gentleman promised that he would vary the Resolution. The, Government ought not to rule out a substantial case because the Resolution was so narrowly drawn in the first instance, but if they do so they must take the responsibility and not ask us to share it. You are forcing all these people to become insured people, and you deduct from their wages the same rates of pay as you deduct from everybody else, but because they are not included in the Workmen's Compensation Act the deductions you make from their wages and the contributions of their employers will not be sufficient to make them desirable persons for an approved society. With regard to what has been said about the rates my information is that in many cases they are only taken on payment of increased rates to cover the increased risk.
  They are a bad business proposition. The Attorney-General suggested that the Workmen's Compensation Act might be amended. The particular sub-section which excludes these men from the benefits of that Act is not one in the. original Workmen's Compensation Act, but is a Clause of the Act of 1906. No seamen were included at all in the original Act. In the Amending Act passed in 1906 by this Government seamen were included, but this particular class of men were specially excluded. I think the Government did that for good reasons. I do not suppose they are willing to alter that, at any rate, they are blocking the Bill which my hon.

  1185
  Friend has introduced for the purpose of altering it. Under those circumstances it is no good the Attorney-General referring us to our power to alter an Act which they are not prepared to see altered. We must deal with it, if we are to deal with it at all, in this Bill. I think a real case of hardship has been disclosed, and I do not think it ought to be disposed of by the mere technical objection that under the Financial Resolution my hon. Friend cannot move the Amendment in the form he would desire to move it.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think there is some misapprehension. So far as I understand the facts relating to fishermen, the real risk under the Workmen's Compensation Act is not in respect of accidents which may cause them to be laid up for some time, but in respect of fatal accidents. What makes the fisherman a risk is not the question of his health, because he leads a healthy occupation and, as a rule, is a very healthy life—that is why an approved society would be glad to have him—but it is that they are afraid of funeral and death benefits. If they had to pay death benefits, it would be a serious matter.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: And accidents.
  1.0 A.M.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: An accident to a fisherman is usually a fatal accident. They must be more fatal than to persons in other occupations of life. That is certainly the information which is supplied to me from a very good source. If I may I will put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. Supposing he was managing an approved society, and received an offer of a number of share fishermen, strong, healthy men, the best lives, usually, that you can find, or at any rate, amongst the best as regards sickness, I think he would be very glad indeed to take them.
  Mr. CAVE: With all respect to the Attorney-General, he has not answered the point. The point is that a distinction is made by this Bill to the prejudice of the fishermen. Under the present system they can join a friendly society on equal terms with other people so far as accident goes. The present friendly society pays sickness benefit in case of accident. Under the new law which we are now making the case will be different. A friendly society which takes an ordinary employed person will be
  1186
  able to take him, because, they will say, in case of accident we shall not have to pay sick benefit. But with the share fishermen there is a difference. They will take a greater risk and they will be less willing to take him. I do think that ought to be met. I quite agree that there is a difficulty, but there are two ways of meeting it. One is to give my hon. Friend the assurance he wants, that the Bill which he has pressed with so much vigour and so much knowledge, shall be considered. The other way is to meet the case specially under this Bill. I do not know whether my hon. Friend would be content with a suggestion that in the case of the share fisherman he shall, in consideration of this benefit, this extra benefit, in case of accident, get a somewhat smaller sum by way of sickness allowance. That might possibly meet the point. I do not know whether the Government would consider that. At all events there is a real grievance to a special class of men which ought to receive more consideration.
  Mr. BOOTH: I think I can remove the idea of a grievance. There will be competition for these share fishermen by the approved societies that will be formed under this Act. I think I can guarantee that the ten or twelve that will come into Grimsby will be only too desirous to bring all these men in. They are very desirable people. I believe the great friendly societies, and the approved societies which will be branches of the insurance companies, will be only too ready to get these men in. They would not be charged or fined, but welcomed in a very keen degree. I hope that with that assurance the hon. Member will be satisfied.
  Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: I am sorry I cannot accept the assurance; I should want some higher authority. But the right hon. Gentleman has not conceived the real position. All the fishermen are not outside the Act. About seventy per cent. of the fishermen are included in the Workmen's Compensation Act, and that seventy per cent., naturally, will join the approved societies. The men that are not under the Workmen's Compensation Act will be placed in a serious disability when this Bill becomes law. May I say that the risk is much more considerable than ten per cent. As a matter of fact in the insurance companies that have insured fishermen threepence per week is about the amount that represents the risk that the insurance company pays, not for the loss of life but for the

  1187
  sickness and accidents that occur other than loss of life. I can assure the Attorney-General that it is not the question of the loss of life which costs a serious sum of money; it is the minor accidents that are constantly occurring, and larger accidents also, I am sorry to say, which cost so much to the insurance companies. It is because of these large charges that I am quite certain approved societies will not accept these men at the same price as they accept other men under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is quite clear there is a serious disability. All I ask for is that the Government will assist in some way to remove this disability. They can do it, if they will assist in passing the small Bill to which I have referred. I am sure that everybody who knows what the Bill does will be in favour of it.
  Mr. BRYCE: I hope the Attorney-General will listen to the appeal of the hon. Baronet. This is a request that concerns not only Grimsby and the East of England, but the North-East of Scotland to a very large extent, because there is a very large number of share fishermen there. Perhaps the hon. Member who has
  guaranteed the approach of these approved societies to Grimsby will assure us also of their approach to the North-East of Scotland.
  Mr. BOOTH: With pleasure.
  Mr. BRYCE: I am very glad to hear it; the hon. Member is a person of great authority. In the meantime I cannot conceive that the hon. Baronet will very much like the way in which the Government have dealt with his case.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether this type of workman will come under the Bill as a compulsorily insured person? My impression is that they will not. However, if the Government intend to lend a favourable ear to the appeal on behalf of the little Bill in which the hon. Baronet is interested, I hope the same Member will remember the taxicab drivers of London and put them in the same position.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: And a good many more.
  Question put, "That those words be-there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes 51; Noes, 149.

  Division No. 290.]

  AYES.

  [1.10 a.m.

  Adamson, William

  Fell, Arthur

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Ashley, W. W

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Barnston, Harry

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Goldstone, Frank

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hohler, G. F.

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hope. James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Chaloner, Col. Ft. G. W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir George Doughty and Mr. Joynson-Hicks.

  Dixon, C. H.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Falle, Bertram Godfrey

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Clough, William

  Ferens, T. R.

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ffrench, Peter

  Armitage, Robert

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Furness, Stephen

  Barry, Redmond John

  Crumley, Patrick

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Barton, W.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Gill, A. H.

  Beale, W. P.

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Dawes, J. A.

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Delany, William

  Gulland, John W.

  Brace, William

  Doris, William

  Hackett, J.

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Duffy, William J.

  Hancock, John George

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Harwood, George

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  M'Laren, Henry Duncan (Leics.)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Hayward, Evan

  Manfield, Harry

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Meagher, Michael

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mond, Sir Alfred

  Sheehy, David

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholson, Charles N, (Doncaster)

  Shortt, Edward

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nolan, Joseph

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Ogden, Fred

  Tennant, Harold John

  John, Edward Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wardle, G. J.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Keating, M.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Webb, H.

  Kelly, Edward

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Lansbury, George

  Reddy, M.

  Wilkle, Alexander

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd, Cockerm'th)

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Richards, Thomas

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

  Maclean, Donald

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T, J.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (c).
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree to that.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move, in paragraph (d), to omit the words "Nothing in this Section shall affect the right of an employer to redeem a weekly payment by payment of a lump sum in any case where he is entitled to do so under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, but where he exercises such a right he" and to insert instead thereof the words "Where an agreement is made as to the amount of such compensation as aforesaid, or as to the redemption of a weekly payment by a lump sum under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, the employer" ["shall within three days thereafter."]
  As my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out quite rightly, the effect of leaving out paragraph (c) makes it necessary to introduce some amendment to paragraph (d). I think it would be better, and would save the time of the Committee, if I said that the Government intend to accept certain Amendments which will make the Clause read as follows: "Where an agreement is made as to the amount of such compensation as aforesaid, or as to the redemption of a weekly payment by a lump sum under the Workmen's Compen-
  1190
  sation Act, 1906, the employer shall, within three days thereafter, send to the Insurance Commissioners or to the society or committee concerned, notice in writing of such agreement, giving the prescribed particulars thereof, and paragraph (d) to paragraph (9) of the Second Schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, (which relates to the powers of registrars of county courts to refuse to record memoranda of agreements and to refer the matter to the judge) shall, in cases where the workman is an injured person, apply to agreements as to the amount of compensation in like manner as to agreements as to the redemption of weekly payments by lump sums and the society or committee concerned may appear to be heard before the registrar or judge in any proceedings preliminary to the memoranda. The substance of it is this: that an agreement may be made as to the amount of the compensation, but when it is made it is necessary to carry out exactly the same form as under the Workmen's Compensation Act where you have an agreement, in the case of a man receiving a weekly payment, to take a lump sum, in other words to redeem a weekly payment by a lump sum. In that case you have by paragraph (9) of the Second Schedule of that Act to send notice to the Registrar of the County Court and then that notice is recorded unless he considers that the amount to be paid to the workman is inadequate. If he thinks

  1191
  the agreement has been arrived at upon an inadequate basis what he does is to refer it to the Judge, and in that case the employer would be heard upon the matter. It is for that reason that we have to provide here that the society or committee shall also be entitled to be heard in the same way as the employer would be entitled to be heard under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It amounts to this, that notice of the agreement has to be given to the Registrar in order that he may, before he records it, consider whether the terms are adequate. It is for the purpose of carrying that out that we have introduced the words in the Amendment.
  Mr. S. WALSH: I rise for the purpose not of grinding an axe of my own, but of ascertaining so far as I can what is the position of those organisations which for fourteen years have been administering the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act —with what I submit to be the most beneficial results to the workmen themselves— under the paragraphs that have already been agreed to and under the provisions now being submitted to the Committee.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think it affects them at all. There is a question which arises hereafter, but not on this Amendment. I think I know the point to which the hon. Member refers, but it really does not arise on any of the Amendments I am moving.
  Mr. S. WALSH: The proviso read out by the learned Attorney-General is really so lengthy that I am not quite sure whether I have the hang of it. In the preceding paragraph the right is reserved to friendly societies or committees to determine what shall be the weekly value of a lump sum. That will make it impossible for any person to commute any benefits he may be entitled to except with the approval of the friendly society or the committee.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a point of Order. Have we not already deleted that paragraph?
  Mr. S. WALSH: If paragraph (c) has gone it does largely modify my position.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: These Amendments are introduced because paragraph (c) is gone. I accepted the Amendment to omit paragraph (c).
  Mr. S. WALSH: It went while I was gone also.
  Mr. ALBERT SMITH: The Amendment proposed by the Attorney-General is a long one. I want to ask whether the relations between a trade union member and his society on the one hand and his employer on the other hand as to the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act are going to be in any way disturbed by it.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Not by this. The point arises later.
  Mr. GILL: I take it that this relates merely to the agreement which has to be recorded.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is all. This is simply introduced for the purpose of giving the workman the same benefit he has now of the protection of the registrar and judge of the county court who have to see that the agreement made is adequate.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Attorney-General has not quite explained the matter. The idea is to give the workman some protection. Incidentally it alters the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Attorney-General has not explained that there is an alteration which I am bound to say is not to the advantage of the employer or of the workman. Under the provisions of that Act when an agreement is made between an adult in full possession of his sense and his employer it cannot be touched by anybody.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Are you reading the Second Schedule paragraph (9)?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes. If the Attorney-General will look at paragraph (9), Sub-section (d), of the Second Schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act, he will find it reads:—
  "Where it appears to the registrar of the county court, on any information which he considers sufficient, that an agreement as to the redemption of a weekly payment by a lump sum, or an agreement as to the amount of compensation payable to a person not under legal disability, or to dependents, ought not to be registered by reason of the inadequacy of the sum or amount"—
  and so forth, he can refer it to the judge. Therefore, under the provisions of the law as it stands, when a workman who is insured and goes to the employer and says "Let us settle," and it is settled for a £5 note or a £20 note, that agreement is final and conclusive. [Hon. MEMBERS: "NO, no."]
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The words the hon. Member has read shows that it is not.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not think I am unduly cavilling. Although, thanks to the Attorney-General, some of us have had an opportunity of seeing this Amendment in manuscript, it is a striking example of the practice of the Government in not allowing us to have the Amendments sufficiently early. But for the courtesy of the Attorney-General no man in the Committee could have pretended to understand the words he read out. I will not delay the Committee, but I do press upon the Government, on the strength of what is happening now, that they will save time, trouble, and temper if they can make up their minds on this subject in time to place their Amendments on the Paper.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Let me put my point quite clearly to the Attorney-General. Where a workman not under disability suffers an accident and makes an agreement with his employer as to compensation that agreement is final. It is only where a person is under a legal disability or the amount of compensation is payable to dependents that the Registrar can refuse to register.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I really do not think the hon. Gentleman can have followed what I said.
  Mr. J. O'CONNOR: I have taken no part in the discussion up to the present because I leave it to hon. Members opposite to understand their own business, but I have some feelings about this question, and have some practice in the county courts, where agreements have been registered and where the registration of agreements has been refused. I have had no difficulty in following what the learned Attorney-General has said, perhaps because I have had some experience in this matter and know the difficulties of registration, and I do say, basing it upon my own experience, that the Amendment as read out by the learned Attorney-General meets all the requirements of the case. If any hon. Members were to honour me by coming to my chambers and asking my advice, I would unhesitatingly say that they were perfectly safe in relying upon the Amendment proposed by the learned Attorney-General.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: I beg to move, in paragraph (d), to leave out the words "within three days" ["but where he exercises such right he shall, within three days thereafter, send to the Insurance Commissioners "].
  I do not quite understand from the Attorney-General why it should be limited to three days. I am led to believe by those who have some experience of these agreements that it is rather too short a time, that in many cases the employer does not know how the sum is to be applied, and you are putting upon him a task which he is not able to perform. Perhaps the Attorney-General can explain it.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think it would be desirable if we could give some longer period, and if the hon. Member will be content with that we will look into the matter. I can assure him we will give the longest time we can. I think it is possible to give four days, but I would ask the Committee to be satisfied to leave it there until we have looked into the matter more closely.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: I would suggest that the words "as soon as practicable" would meet the case.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If it is to be done under the Workmen's Compensation Act it is no use saying "as soon as practicable."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, in paragraph (d), to leave out the words "or to the society or committee concerned" ["send to the Insurance Commissioners, or to the society or committee concerned, notice in writing of such redemption"].
  What I want to ask is, whether in sending this information to these people the employer has not to have disclosed to him certain particulars. I understood it to be an essential part of the scheme that the employer does not know what society, trade union, or approved society, the man is in, and how can an employer send a notice to some one he does not know?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: We are dealing now with the agreement which is provided for under the Amendment. Notice of that has to be sent to the Insurance Commissioners or to the society concerned,

  1195
  because you want the society or committee concerned to have the opportunity of appearing before the Registrar if they want to make any objection. They must have notice of the agreement. It must be sent to the society for them to appear. Of course, if the employer does not know anything about the society he will not send it to them, but will send it to the Insurance Commissioners. If he does know the society or committee he will send it direct to them.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am not raising the question on that at all. I am very much obliged to the Attorney-General for explaining to me how it would work. I think that is simple enough. What I am asking is this: Is not this going against the foundation principle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech? He wished to avoid the possibility of the employer knowing what union the man belonged to. Is the Attorney-General satisfied on that point?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Yes.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In paragraph (d) leave out the word "redemption" ["notice in writing of such redemption"] and insert instead thereof the word "agreement."—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]
  Further Amendment proposed: In paragraph (d) leave out the words "particulars as to the amount of the lump sum and of the application thereof," and insert instead thereof the words "the prescribed particulars thereof, and proviso (d) to paragraph (9) of the Second Schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (which relates to the powers of registrars of county courts to refuse to record memoranda of agreements and to refer the matter to the judge), shall in cases where the workman is an insured person apply to agreements as to the amount of compensation in like manner as to agreements as to the redemption of weekly payments by lump sums, and the society or committee concerned may appear and be heard before the registrar and the judge in any proceedings preliminary to the recording of the memorandum."—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]
  Mr. CAVE: May I submit to you that that is an Amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Act? I think you ruled another Amendment out of order on that ground.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, that is a point which the Chair has to consider on the Bill, particularly on paragraph (c), which is now out of the Bill. The reason I was not able to take the Amendment just now was not that it amended the Workmen's Compensation Act, but that it had no necessary relation to the matters of the Bill. I cannot rule this Amendment out of order.
  Mr. GILL: I am not satisfied. Supposing an injured person is a member of a trade union. It is customary for trade union officials to deal with matters of this description, and they know exactly what a lump sum should amount to in redemption of weekly payment. Supposing they are not satisfied. Can they appear before the registrar and state their case in regard to their own member for whom they have always been accustomed to act? Can it be arranged that the trade union can take part in this matter and appear before the registrar?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It does not displace anybody. It gives the society or committee the right to appear which otherwise they would not have. It does not alter the practice in any other way.
  Mr. WALSH: Does it not allow the society to appear of itself, per se? Can it send its officers, say, to lay the case before the county court judge or registrar as the case may be? Does not that give quite a superior power to the society or firm as against the powers already exercised by the trade unions? The trade unions cannot act in that manner except under one of the very obscure provisions of the rules of court—a provision which is not exercised once in ten thousand times. We have to appear, if at all as trade union representatives, by a solicitor or by counsel, and a very good thing it has been for counsel. But still I think that here there is a real point. Those powers are nearly always used by the trade unions on behalf of the injured workman, and we can honestly say that they have been exercised with the completest advantage to everybody, because hundreds of thousands of pounds have been settled in this manner, and I do not think up to now one single word of offence has been said against the trade union authorities, and the employers themselves have been satisfied that we have brought the highest code of conduct to the work. Why there should be given to people who know very little about the intricacies a power that has not hitherto

  1197
  been exercised by the trade unions is really quite beyond my imagination to understand. I think at least we ought to be put on the same level if there is to be any alteration at all.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am quite prepared to join with the hon. Member for Ince, and I can assure him that my speech will have no reference to the Luton election. I entirely agree that trade unions should act on behalf of the injured. My point against this Amendment is this: When the trade union official acting on behalf of the injured man has gone to the employer and settled with the employer for a lump sum down, five, ten, twenty, or any number of pounds, and has got the man back to work again as quickly as possible, they have done the work very well on behalf of the workman. Now, for the first time, the Government has imported a Clause into this Bill that all those agreements entered into between the trade union officials and the employer, between two men who are in full possession of their senses, are no longer to be binding, or at all events that they are to be subject to the decision of the county court judge, and the friendly society can come in over and above the trade union official and say to the judge, "That agreement is not a good one, and I want to upset it." I do suggest that could not be the wish of hon. Gentlemen acting as they have done on behalf of the trade unions. I do not think it is for the benefit either of the working men or of the employers.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: May I say one word possibly to remove any misapprehension. If there is any doubt about the proposed Amendment I will reconsider the words. There need be no difficulty. I thought "society" would cover "trade union." Of course there might be the case in which a trade union official might be appealing when the member appealing is not a member of the approved society.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am very anxious that this Bill should go on, but the Amendment which has now been moved is one that may or may not—and it certainly may be of very considerable importance in the working of the Compensation Act so far as trade unions are concerned. I am bound to say we would like to be a little bit more comfortable in our minds than we are with regard to what is really going to happen. I am rather unwilling to report Progress, but I think we ought to see this and have suffi-
  1198
  cient time to consider it very carefully before voting one way or another. My friends around me hold very strong views against certain provisions o£ this Clause. We are opposed to a complexity of authorities dealing with workmen's compensation. The method followed up till now has been, on the whole, not only satisfactory, but very successful from the workmen's point of view. We must, in duty bound, scrutinise with the greatest care any alterations proposed by this Clause. I hope, therefore, the Government will take this matter into consideration, and allow us to adjourn now. I press the matter further in view of the very important subjects upon which we have just entered.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I trust the Government will give a favourable reply to the appeal the hon. Gentleman has just made. We have arrived at a matter which is complicated, and which very closely concerns the interests of the great labour bodies and, I think, is of very considerable importance to the employers. We are discussing an Amendment about which there is some doubt and in regard to which the Attorney-General thinks it may be necessary for him to make some alteration in the words he has proposed. We have reached the hour of two o'clock. I urge the Government, and particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has not been unfairly treated, to accept the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I recognise what the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman has just said. Our idea was that we might get on so that we could next begin with the medical benefits. I see we cannot get Clause 12 to-night without remaining much longer than I anticipated. I think, however, that we might get to the end of Clause 11. It is far better that we should deal with it when the whole matter is fresh in our minds rather than begin again with a sort of the remnants, as it were, of the Clause. If my hon. Friend (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) thinks these words may be full of peril, there is nothing to prevent our considering the matter on Report. I think we might take the words which are not considered at all controversial and take the other words later on. We do not want to take any fresh words not on the Paper and which are regarded as controversial or, whether controversial or not, are regarded with any sense of suspicion by hon. Members. I do hope, however, that we will complete Clause 11.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: What I propose to do is to leave out the words which give rise to suspicion so that the words can be put on the Paper and be properly discussed. I think that would meet the objection which has been raised in regard to the Clause.
  Mr. J. THOMAS: Would that meet the position of friendly societies approved under this Bill but practically limited to one class of employés, such as a railway society which would become approved? Here you would have the anomaly, if this society was the body responsible for claiming compensation, that you would not only rule the trade union out entirely but you would, practically throw the responsibility of suing upon the men concerned. I think what ought to be distinctly and firmly laid down on this point is this—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We have withdrawn that.
  Mr. J. THOMAS: Does that mean that so far as the approved society is concerned they have nothing whatever to do with compensation?
  2.0 A.M.
  Mr. S. WALSH: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman cannot complain of the reception his Bill has received to-day. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I have listened to almost every word that has been said and although I quite admit that progress has not been made as quickly as it might have been, yet this is really one of the most important Clauses in the whole Bill. It has the most serious effect upon one of the most important social measures that has ever been passed in the history of the country. We are here after all in a specially representative capacity. It is not because we dislike the whole Bill or because we are offering any captious opposition. Surely when we have the interests of hundreds of thousands of members to represent it is not an unfair proposal to make that the right hon. Gentleman should give a little more time for representations being made. The particular body I speak for has in it over six hundred thousand people with all the dependent people concerned. Their interests in this particular Clause are vast. We have not the words before us, and we really cannot judge them as read out. We have not trained legal minds, and do not know the exact bearing of the words proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Surely the right hon. Gentleman himself, in the interests of speedier progress upon the
  1200
  non-contentious or less contentious parts, of the Bill, would be very well advised to allow us to rest and to come with fresher minds to the consideration of the point. It is now two o'clock. The right hon. Gentleman, when he made the generous, statement at the commencement of the Bill that he wanted the whole House to cooperate with him and that he wanted us all to bring our best minds to making the measure a good one, surely meant that in reality. Some of us have been on these premises to-day for over fifteen hours continuously. We were at Committee first thing in the morning, and in Committee throughout the day on this Bill, and we have not been away from the premises. [HON. MEMBERS: "So have we."] Surely that is one reason why, jaded and dull as we are, that the right hon. Gentleman should see that this particular Clause does really need more consideration, that we ought to have it on paper, so that we can compare it with what has gone before. We cannot do that at present. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will meet the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), and let this matter have the proper consideration it deserves. We are not suggesting this out of captious, opposition.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Really, I think the hon. Member is unreasonable. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) got up and said he would like to see these words on paper before we proceeded to consider them. We said we would withdraw the words. What more can we do? [HON. MEMBERS: "We have not seen the others."] Those have been disposed of already. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Surely they have been added to-the Bill.
  Mr. CAVE: On a point of Order. The whole of this Amendment to paragraph (9), of the Second Schedule of the Workmen's. Compensation Act is new, and has not been added to the Bill at all.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Very well. With regard to these words there is no dispute at all. The whole point has arisen in reference to the words at the end and their effect. I hope hon. Members will consider the general interests of the Bill, because, after all, the Government's view was that this Bill could be considered much, better under other arrangements. That was not the view of several sections in the House, notably that to which the hon.

  1201
  Member (Mr. Walsh) belongs, and we decided to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule. We have not yet had a very late sitting on the Bill such as we had on the Finance Bill last year or the year before. We have been discussing this Bill for some days and I hope hon. Members will let us proceed. I am not asking for something which is unreasonable. The hon. Member says he has been here for fifteen hours. I have been here longer. I hope we may get this Clause to-night. If there is any objection to these latter words we will leave them out now and put them down for the Report stage.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The position is quite frankly this: We are very suspicious of the whole of this Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that from the beginning. We are exceedingly suspicious of an Amendment which is technical and which we have not had sufficient time to seriously consider. I am very anxious to get the Bill proceeded with, and so far as I am concerned I am quite willing to go on, especially provided that these latter words are not now going to be inserted. That will give us an opportunity of considering the effect of these words before the Report stage.
  Mr. CAVE: I do not want to stop progress, but I doubt very much whether these words ought to be added, and I should like to consider the question. Will the Government agree if I move to leave out everything after the word "thereof"? They can on Report bring up not part, but the whole of their Amendment. We shall then have it on the Paper and consider it as a whole.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Mr. CAVE: I beg to move to omit all the words after the word "thereof" ["the prescribed particulars thereof."]
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: What I suggest as a reasonable way of meeting the matter is this: We have discussed everything up to the question of the society or committee concerned appearing before the Registrar. Surely it would be better to insert the words as they are in the Act, and if there is any question regarding them the whole matter can come up on Report stage, and we can discuss it again, when hon. Mem-
  1202
  bers will have an opportunity of reopening the whole question. I do not think, anybody would be injured by that.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member press his Amendment?
  Mr. CAVE: No, Sir.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will only move the Amendment down to the words "weekly payments by lump sums," and I therefore beg to move to amend the proposed Amendment by omitting the words "and the society or committee concerned may appear and be heard before the registrar and the judge in any proceedings preliminary to the recording of the memorandum."
  Question, "That those words stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (e).
  I do not know whether the Government will accept this. I have never personally known a ease in which a man has had a reasonable claim on his employer in which the trade union has refused to take it up, but under the provisions of this paragraph, after the point has been discussed between, the injured man and his trade union, then, the approved society has the right to come along and insist on taking proceedings, and I cannot help thinking that this is going to add enormously to the amount of litigation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. A great advantage under the Act has been the very clear and easy way in which claims have been settled, but here-is a Clause which is practically inviting approved societies to take up claims which have been dropped by trade unions—claims which are not good enough for a workman himself to take up, and, after all, a man is not going to refuse to press a claim if there is any good ground for it at all, and when he has dropped it and the trade union has dropped it, the approved society is invited by this Bill to take it up and have a go against the employer. I venture to suggest that no one has asked for this Clause. Trades unions, workmen, and employers do not want it, because it increases the prospect of litigation.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can have seriously

  1203
  considered what this really means. It means that the employer would be relieved of his liability because if the workman knows that he can get his money out of the friendly society or trade union he would say, "It is much easier to get it out of my trade union or friendly society," and he would not bother to get it out of the employer. If you leave out this paragraph it would relieve the employer of his liability under the Employers' Liability Act.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I do not quite take the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford, but very serious objections have been stated to me by members of friendly societies as to the way in which this Clause will work. The point apparently is this: where a member of a friendly society is entitled to any compensation and neglects to take proceedings, the friendly society has the choice of two courses—either they may take proceedings in his name or withhold the payment of any benefit to which such person may be entitled. The point put to me is that the friendly society would naturally take the latter course, because it would be very difficult for them to take the former. In the former course they would have to act at their own expense, and, even if successful, they could not recover the expense of the proceedings. The society might say to a man, "You are entitled to recover compensation." The man concerned would say, "I don't see my way to take proceedings; you ought to do it." They would say, "You must do it or we will withhold the benefit from you," and in that way the unfortunate man would suffer. The real difficulty here is that they cannot recover the expenses of their proceedings even if successful, and I think the point would be met to some extent if the words "after deducting the expense of such proceeding" were put in.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is another Amendment later on dealing with that, and we propose to accept it.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: That will meet me to that extent.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does not the last part of the paragraph to which my hon. Friend has been referring really meet the point raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer! What I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman is whether you ought to keep in the whole Subsection. Clearly a society ought not to be called upon to pay for the negligence of a man
  1204
  who has a claim and has not tried to enforce it. Would not the Chancellor of the Exchequer's object be quite sufficiently attained if he authorised a society in such a case to withhold the payment of benefit to the man, that is to say, the man not having chosen to claim compensation which ho might have got from the employer, he should not be allowed to turn round and say, "As I have no compensation from the employer, you must pay it." It would then be the man's business to take action, if ground for action there were, and it would be the society's right to refuse the payment if the man had failed to take action.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Unless there is a power of this kind—a power which trade unions very often exercise at the present time to recover from the employer—this scheme would be a scheme rather for the relief of the liability now incurred under the Compensation Act. I think the man himself ought to be protected against a thing of that sort. I can well understand that if he likes to bring an action himself he might prefer leaving it to the society, and, in fact, that is really what happens in many cases. I know many cases where the trades union takes practically the odium as it were of bringing the action where a man says he will not bring the action. If there is a power of this kind he can always shift that odium upon his society.
  Mr. ALBERT SMITH: Supposing a society compelled an insured person to take action under this Bill and money has been advanced to meet the cost of the action, what is the position of the insured person?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We propose to meet that by accepting the Amendment which is down later on the Paper.
  Mr. S. WALSH: The reason I think more consideration ought to be given to this Sub-section, is this: it starts off with a presumption which may or may not be founded on fact—"Where the insured person is entitled to any such compensation or damages as aforesaid." To begin, with, the term is a most curious one when you take into consideration the complexities of the various laws that are referred to in this Clause. There seems to be a tendency on the part of almost every speaker to take the question of compensation as being the one guiding law. There is the matter of common law, than which there is nothing more obscure in the whole range of

  1205
  English. The learned Gentleman on the Front Bench knows it quite well. There is the matter of the Employers' Liability Act that is holed and honeycombed with a thousand restrictions and dangers. Yet an approved society, many officered by a body of men who can have had no experience at all practically, are to be called upon in the first instance. The trade unions act for at least two million members. It may be said that those two million members represent six million persons at the very least. There are therefore about eight million persons represented directly or indirectly by the trade unions. Supposing the trade union officer, say a miner's agent, the secretary of the railway workers, the secretary of the textile workers, has considered a person's case, and has said, "I do not think you have any chance at all of recovering compensation, because you will probably be indicted as having brought the accident about by your own serious and wilful misconduct." But it would still be left within the competence of the officers of the approved society to say, "We shall take proceedings, whatever you think; we think you ought to act." Or, supposing he had the option of an alternative remedy under the Employers' Liability Act, as is usual in many cases now, and the trade union officer again said, "No, you have contributed in some degree, in a degree fatal to your claim, to that accident. The plea of contributory negligence will be set up, and you will fail in your action." It would still be within the competence of the approved society to say, "You must take action or we will stop your benefit."
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What I say is that the action that is taken is taken at the cost of the approved society. Would my hon. Friend tell me what he proposes? He is dealing with cases that affect trade unions. They represent only about two millions of workmen. There are sixteen millions in this Bill. What does he propose to do with the fourteen millions who are not in any trade union at all? Does he propose that there shall be no protection for them; that they shall be left in such a plight that they will relieve the employer at the expense of their society?
  Mr. S. WALSH: I think that is rather hard of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon me. I was asking him to pay attention to the point that I urged, that the trade unions represent directly two million of people, that they represent directly and indirectly a population of eight millions,
  1206
  and about three-fifths of those eight millions will be insured persons under this Rill. It is not for me to suggest what should be done. This is the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. The point I am urging is this. The right hon. Gentleman says that if the approved society takes proceedings it does so at its own cost. But suppose they do not choose to take proceedings and stop a man's benefits? They can do that. They could say, "It may be that you have the best advice that can be given, that the trade union officers know all about the law of which we know comparatively little, but unless you take action we will withhold your benefit." Surely that condition cannot be a fair one; surely the Subsection cannot be held to be a fair one. The right hon. Gentleman is hardly fair when he says," What do you propose?" It is his Bill. We have a right to say to him: What do you propose in face of these admitted difficulties? If this goes to a Division I shall be very happy in supporting the deletion.
  Mr. HOLT: I do hope my right hon. Friend will reconsider his attitude about this. It is a very serious thing for any society, on behalf of a grown-up person to take action for him against somebody else with whom he does not want to quarrel. There are a great many people insured under this Bill besides what are roughly known as working men. Take the case of a clerk getting £120 a year—a man living on the best of terms with his employer. He may or may not have a technical claim against the employer. Between the two of them the thing is made right to the satisfaction of the clerk. Thereupon in steps the society and says, "We do not know anything about it; we are going to bring an action against your employer on your behalf." That is only making bad blood, and I believe it is illegal. But that is exactly what is going to be done in this case it may be done. I really do not think that this Sub-section as it stands is satisfactory. I do hope my right hon. Friend will agree to its deletion.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand that from the employer's point of view it would be very desirable to leave the Clause out. Let me put another case to my hon. Friends. Supposing a man received an accident and his employer said to him, "Why should you bring an action against me in respect of the accident? You are insured in your friendly society or trade union. Why do you not claim

  1207
  against your trade union or your approved society, and get your money there?" Unless paragraph (e) stands he could do that, and, of course, the employer would in every case gain at the expense of the society. I should think that was against the interest of the society, and I do not think that in the long run it would be in the interest of the employé. In the end it would practically be a very large subsidy to the employers of this country, relieving them of their liability. I think that is perfectly obvious to anyone. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester saw that at once and pointed it out. That is what would happen. We do not want a workman to be put in that invidious position of having pressure brought to bear upon him. We want him to claim his rights under the Workmen's Compensation Act. That is the whole point of this Clause.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I think that point of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement is not very good. If a workman receives an injury in the course of his employment and claims against his society on the ground that he is suffering from sickness he has to get a medical certificate. If the doctor is in collusion paragraph (e) does not help him, because his society has got a certificate from the medical gentleman that a certain member of the society is suffering from sickness and comes under the Bill. So he is not helped by paragraph (e). The effect of that Clause seems to be simply that a society can say to one of its members, "You are injured and you ought to prosecute." That means that in a great many cases you are going to have rival societies competing for the privilege of prosecuting under the Workmen's Compensation Act. You cannot help it.
  It is a most objectionable step to take to try and encourage new sources of prosecution under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is all very well to talk about the non-unionist. It appears to be beneficial to him, but it is not. It simply means that certain machinery which has grown up since the first Workmen's Compensation Act was passed has got altogether to be revised and be subject to certain competition which in the long run will turn out to be very bad and disadvantageous. The position of the non-unionist at present is that if he receives an injury, let us assume he claims upon his society. His society
  1208
  has got to get the medical certificate, which states it is not a case of sickness under the Act because the right hon. Gentleman is equally adequately safeguarded in the first two lines of the Clause. If the certificate states the sickness is owing to an accident, and is not sickness under this Act, then the member must either go without his compensation at all or must claim against his employer. As a matter of fact the cases will work out after this Act is passed as they do now except that members of approved societies will receive more inducement than they have now to go to their regular societies rather than to get their claims met under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The trade unions now exercise this right and impose it upon their members. What my hon. Friend (Mr. E. Macdonald) is doing is to deny to the friendly societies the very right trade unions have got at the present moment. All I want to claim is that there should be the same freedom and rights for the friendly societies to take this action as is exercised now by the trade unions as a matter of policy and a matter of rule. I have always said trade unions should receive the same treatment as friendly societies, but I have also said that friendly societies should be treated the same as trade unions. That is the policy laid down in this Clause.
  Mr. S. WALSH: Might I suggest a form of words that might perhaps help the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If an insured person is at the time of his accident, and has been before the passing of this Act, a member of a trade union or other organisation whose officers have recommended him not to take proceedings, then, there ought not to be an alternative to the approved societies to stop his benefits. I only desire to say that this is not captious criticism.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: So long as the friendly societies have got the same rights I do not mind words of that kind. I shall, of course, have to consider the form of words. I see what hon. Members want. All I want is that there shall be the same protection for a man who is a member of a friendly society. I shall consider the bringing up of a form of words to protect the case of the trade unionist.
  Mr. CAVE: I would suggest another form of words. I think a non-unionist ought to be protected. I quite see the object of the Sub-section, and see that

  1209
  something should be done. The position of the non-unionist is this. Take the case of the servant girl who is injured in the street by an omnibus. The Committee might say, "We think you have a right to action. You sue, but unless you sue we will not give you any benefit at all—sickness or medical benefit. It may be you think you have no right, and you would rather not run the risk, as you cannot afford it, but sue you must." Would it meet the case to say that the consent of the Insurance Commissioners or some independent body should be required before the society or committee ever sued for or withheld benefit?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that is there—the protection of Insurance Commissioners in this case. If there is any doubt about it, it is really protected. I am perfectly prepared to meet the case of the trade unionist.
  Mr. HOHLER: I object to this Clause as it stands. I should not object to it if it were framed to enable an approved society to assist the man in his litigation. That power is of great value to the working man, because he is often unable to plead the Act for himself. I object to the Clause because it does not contain a provision that an approved society can take action on behalf of a man, giving him an indemnity against costs. A society may take action in his name, but may lose it. This applies to both the voluntary contributor and the employed contributor. What is his position if the action is lost? He is liable for the costs and not the approved society, with the result that an order may be made against him for monthly or weekly payments, which would be a very serious matter for him. The Clause should give proper protection in that respect. I also object to it because it contains merely one alternative, which is that if the approved society does not bring an action they can withhold the man's benefit. I certainly object to the Clause as drawn, and I shall certainly vote against it.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: We have always been led to understand that there was a strong desire among all sections of politicians to minimise the amount of litigation in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act. I am seriously apprehensive that if this Clause goes through as it is in the Bill we are going to provide a weapon to encourage litigation. The
  1210
  number of insured persons which is going to constitute an approved society has not yet been definitely fixed. We know the number in the Bill, but I think all sections outside this House are clamouring for a considerable reduction in that number. That simply means that we are going to have a very large number of approved societies working under the Bill. We are putting a weapon into their hands to urge insured persons to take action under this Section. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his last remarks, said he wanted the friendly societies to have the same privilege under it as the trade unions. I do not think he has made out a case for that. May I suggest that the work that the friendly societies have been doing, so far as the Workmen's Compensation Act is concerned, is infinitesimal compared with the work that the trade unions have been doing. The trade unions are industrial organisations. It is their business to look after the interests of their members in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act.
  I do not know, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to tell me, of any of our friendly societies that have hitherto done this work in connection with the defending of their members' cases in industrial actions. That point has been rather overlooked by both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his legal advisers. After the trade unions have set up all the machinery and have been doing the work to the advantage of thousands of working people in this country, the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes along and is going to incite the approved societies outside the trade unions, whether they are large friendly societies or small benefit clubs, to enter into competition with what hitherto has been the legitimate work of the trade unions—a work they have done to the satisfaction of the members concerned and to the advantage of the general community. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) says, "Only for their own members." Quite so. But we know that he is going to make it his business, when not engaged in this House, to organise societies as approved societies. He has repeatedly told us so, and said he would be glad to come down into some of our constituencies and show us how it could be done.
  Mr. BOOTH: No.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I am within the recollection of the Committee.

  1211
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Does the hon. Member admit that he is prepared to do it? If he is, then we are going to have any number of these societies, and the more there are the more they are going to compete with the legitimate functions of the trade unions so far as protecting workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act is concerned. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer really intends that. If he does all I have to say is that the trade unionists in the country who have hitherto given their support and approval to this Bill will be surprised when they read the newspapers to-morrow morning and find that the friendly societies are to compete with them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members say "Oh!" but they cannot claim to know more about the work of trade unions than those of us who for well on into thirty years have been working officially in connection with trade unions. It is because we feel strongly that we make this stand. If hon. Members want to defend the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in saying there shall be a form of competition with our unions, I hope they will be bold enough to rise and express their opinions and not merely say "Oh!" when we as officials of the unions are doing our best to protect them.
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: I am not going to follow the wonderful Free Trade doctrine that has just been laid down by the hon. Member. I do not suppose anybody will question my sincere regard for the preservation intact of all the powers of the trade unions in this country, but looking at the thing with absolutely sympathetic regard for trade unions, I rise to say that I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not minimise this provision in the least degree. I have had a great deal of experience in connection with trade unions, and in connection with litigation for compensation, and I say that it is of imperative importance that you should have a provision of this sort. No one was more ardent than the trades unions of this country in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act in insisting on employers and workmen being prevented from entering into secret and surreptitious agreements for the settlement of claims for compensation; and for the settlement of a compensation claim to be binding it has to be registered and approved in a county court, because, as every trade unionist here knows perfectly well, there
  1212
  is a constant effort on the part of the employer, and still more on the part of insurance companies with whom the employers are insured against accident happening to their workmen, to drive hard and unconscionable bargains with the workmen in settlement of their claims. That is what happens now without there being any incentive on the part of the workmen to come to any settlement. But under the whole scheme of the Bill there would be a very active and a very keen incentive indeed given to the workmen—that is to say, he is, in the absence of this provision in the event of an accident, guaranteed the equivalent of his compensation money from his society. What is there to prevent a workman who is entitled say to a sum of £200 or £300 damages for accident either at common law or under the employers' liability going to his employer, entering into a collusive agreement with his employer for £100 down, nothing to be said about it, and then to say he would take no proceedings, and then come upon the society under the Bill and get his full compensation.
  Not merely in the economic interests of the trades unions, but in the moral interests of the workmen constituting the organisation of these societies, it is imperative that you should have a provision of this sort, and I quite recognise, and I am quite sure from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, that a proper provision will be made to safeguard the interests of the trades unions. The position, if I understand it, is this: approximately 16,000,000 will be insured under this Bill. Of these 16,000,000, two millions are-trade unionists. With the remaining fourteen millions the members of trades unions sitting on these benches are not directly concerned, so that if it is left entirely free for those fourteen millions to be dealt with as to claims for compensation or for damages through the other societies, they can be so dealt with without question or qualification from these benches. There then comes the case of the remaining two millions, and, quite apart from the mere question of relative rights, I think that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to consider the particular form in which he is going to give shape to the views expressed from these benches, he-might have regard to two considerations.
  The first consideration is that where you have the approved society consisting of an employers-workmen society such as has been instanced by the hon. Member for Derby—a society consisting of a railway

  1213
  company on the one side, and the workmen of that railway company on the other—I do not think that such a society under any circumstances can be a right society to exercise discretitionary power as to whether the workman should bring an action against his employer. It is notorious—and the Liberal party recognised it in the great fight on the Employers' Liability Bill in 1892—that such societies as those are largely dominated by the employers' point of view. To say that such a society dominated by the employers' point of view is to be permitted to exercise a discretionary power—an hon. Member near me asks, "Who has suggested that?" As the Clause now stands, I take it that any approved society would be enabled to exercise this right and power, and, as I understand it, not only friendly societies controlled by workmen and trades unions, but also joint employers and workmen's societies, such as the North-Western Sick Fund, would be an approved society which could exercise such power.
  On grounds of morality it is wrong to give to a society consisting of an interested party, as well as a disinterested party, the power of saying that such a society shall decide Yea or Nay whether proceedings shall be taken against one half of the society, namely, the employers, And I do say that in coming to deal with the requisite word, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will at once shut out societies of that kind, which will go a long way to meet the very legitimate point of view expressed by the trades unions. I am not certain that, inasmuch as the Bill has already said in effect, that this insurance scheme shall not trespass upon the domains of the insurance societies dealing in life insurance, there is something of a precedent for the Chancellor of the Exchequer considering whether it might not be regarded as a beneficial function of a trade union to decide where men are members of a trades union to be appointed practically as the arbiters, as to whether proceedings ought or ought not to be taken. I do hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will insist upon the carrying of this proviso, as I regard it of imperative importance in the interests not only of the Bill but of the trades unions themselves.
  Mr. JAMES THOMAS: In the early stages of this Bill it was defended exclusively on the ground that we were satisfied that it would not interfere with our trade union activity. This particular sub-section does very largely interfere with that activity, but let me point out to the Chan-
  1214
  cellor of the Exchequer the difficulty that we on these benches and the House generally are in in trying to appreciate the real difference between a trade union and a friendly society. We are not justified however, in saying for the purpose of this Bill that the friendly society shall be on precisely the same terms as the trade-union.
  On the face of it it would appear that that was a legitimate demand, on the face of it it would appear that no one ought in fairness to argue any preference for the trade union as against the friendly society. Let me try for a moment to point out the difficulty of the situation. My own organisation has 90,000 members. Less than 5,000 are sick fund members. Under the provisions of this Clause we as an organisation would only be empowered to deal with compensation for less than 5,000 of our members, for the very simple reason that the other 85,000 members might make another society, their approved society. But the strongest argument is this: That a trade union in the past has been limited to industrial activity, that friendly societies have been limited to sick funds, and it is because in Clause 11 we have, unfortunately I think, taken upon ourselves to interfere with the workmen's compensation, that this Clause is necessary. Therefore, we on these benches are opposed to the proposal entirely on the ground that it is not equitable, that it is not just, and that it will lead to overlapping and friction, and certainly will limit trade union activity.
  Mr. CLYNES: As I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer he has asserted to the Committee that this Sub-section (e) is designed to give to the friendly societies a right which the trade union now enjoys. I would like him to inform us whether there is in any law anything conferring the right on trade unions to take action in any case of this kind against the will of its members. It may be that it has grown up and has become the practice for a trade union to act on behalf of the general body of its members, and in the interests in the first instance of an individual. But I assert that there is no instance whatever of any case where a workman has been unwilling to have proceedings taken on his behalf, where he has, in the words of this Clause, refused to take proceedings, and then the union has been empowered by law to take his case into court and to have proceedings taken in his name. If the

  1215
  Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes the friendly societies to be equal with the trade unions why not let them by process of growth or practice acquire the right which the trade unions have so far exercised?
  Why would an insured person refuse to take proceedings in the case of an injury? Obviously for the reason that it would pay him better not to have compensation, but to have benefits under this Act. Proceedings under the compensation law are costly. I will suggest that the proceedings that will take place all over the country from time to time will be a very harmful advertisement for the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with this feature of his Bill. The Sub-section itself bears its part of the general taint of iniquity that pervades the whole Clause. But it is not merely iniquitous; it is absurd. It puts two laws into competition; it does not present them as alternatives. It puts the law of the Insurance Act, as I will term
  it, into competition with the Workmen's Compensation Act. That, to my mind, is an absurd position. It sets up also a new principle—the principle of permitting a second party, an approved society, to take an action which the individual himself does not desire to take. The whole of the parts of this Clause are an injury to the injured workers of this country. This particular part of the Clause is, to my mind, about the worst of the whole of those parts, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman who has moved the deletion of this Sub-section (e) will press the matter to a Division, as it does not appear to my mind that any kind of excuse has been offered by any of the suggestions so far made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, down to the word 'concerned' ['committee concerned'], stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 44.

  Division No. 291.]

  AYES.

  [3.10 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Glanville, H. J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Armitage, R.

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Ogden, Fred

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Gulland, John W.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Hackett, John

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Barton, William

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Benn, W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Bentham, G. J

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hay ward, Evan

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Reddy, Michael

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, Charles H, (Lincoln)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Clough, William

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  John, Edward Thomas

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Sheehy, David

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Keating, Matthew

  Shortt, Edward

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Delany, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Doris, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Duffy, William J.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Maclean, Donald

  Webb, H.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Ffrench, Peter

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  M'Laren, H. D (Leicester)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meagher, Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. William Jones and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

  Furness, Stephen

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Nolan, Joseph

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cave, George

  Goldstone, Frank

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Clynes, John R.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Brace, William

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gill, A. H.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lansbury, George

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Mr. Harold Smith.

  Parker, James Halifax

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wardle, George J.

  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move in paragraph (e) after the word "concerned" [" it shall be lawful for the society or committee concerned"] to insert the words "with the consent of the Insurance Commissioners."
  My object is to prevent any unnecessary litigation. If the consent of the Commissioners has to be obtained there will not be a large number of test cases coming on at the same time. The Insurance Commissioners will be sympathetic and will be able to profit by experience they have received from other districts.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This refers not merely to friendly societies, but to trade unions as well. It means that you would have to seek the consent of the Insurance Commissioners before any action could be brought. I think that would be casting a great responsibility on the Insurance Commission. It would involve enormous labour before they went into the merits of each case. I think it would be interfering with their other work too much. It would be better to leave it to the trade union or friendly societies as the case may be.
  Mr. BOOTH: I should be very sorry if the trade unions were hampered, and I do not mean the friendly societies to be hampered. Under the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move in paragraph (e), after the word "person" I" any compensation or damages recovered shall be held by the society or committee as trustee for the insured person"] to insert the words, "deducting the expense of such proceedings."
  The point is that where a society takes action because one of its members will not do so, they have to hold the money they recover as a trustee for that person. Surely they ought to be allowed to deduct the expense of such proceedings. The fact of their being penalised by the expense would make them unwilling to act. I think it is a simple and reasonable Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is exactly the opposite of what we have been pressed to do. What we have been asked to do is to say that the society should have to bear the whole of the expense if they go wrong. What the hon. Gentleman wants to do is to put the expense of the proceedings upon the person in whose name the action is taken.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: No, no. I only want to give them their costs.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Where money is recovered the costs are recovered from the other side.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I do not think that necessarily would be so in all cases. It is only where they have taken action on behalf of a person that it should be made quite clear that they should not be put to any expense. I think it is only fair they should deduct any expense over and above the costs. I do not think it could do any harm, anyhow.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is absolutely unnecessary. If the society loses by this Amendment it will have to bear the expense. If it succeeds the expenses will come from the other side.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: All the expenses? Friendly societies who approach me on this matter attach great importance to it.
  Mr. CAVE: Even if you succeed you do not get all your expenses.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: You do in the county court.
  Mr. CAVE: These may be High Court proceedings, and the difference between party and party costs and solicitor and client costs may be considerable. The net money ought to be held in trust by the society for the insured person.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, 122.

  Division No. 292.]

  AYES.

  [3.22 a.m.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Barnston, H.

  Home, Win. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Cave, George

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. James Hope and Sir George Doughty.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Glanville, H. J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Adamson, William

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Ogden, Fred

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Armitage, R.

  Gulland, John William

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Hackett, J.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Barry, Redmond John

  Hancock, J. G.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Barton, W.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Benn, W. T. H'mts., St. George)

  Handle, J. Keir

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Reddy, M.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hayward, Evan

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brace, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Henry, Sir Charles Solomon

  Robinson, Sidney

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Higham, John Sharp

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hughes, S. L.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Clough, William

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Clynes, John R.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Sheehy, David

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Shortt, Edward

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Keating M. Kelly Edward

  Tennant, Harold John

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lansbury, George

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Delany, William

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd, Cockerm'th)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Doris, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ward W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Wardle, George J.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Macdonald, Ramsay (Leicester)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Maclean, Donald

  Webb, H.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T.J.

  white, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leics.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Meagher, Michael

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Furness, Stephen

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. William Jones and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Nolan, Joseph

  Gill, A. H.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Sir E. CORNWALLmoved, at the end of paragraph (e) to insert the words, "In the event of the society or committee concerned taking proceedings as aforesaid, and failing in the proceedings, they shall be responsible for the costs of the proceedings as if they were claiming on their own account."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. JAMES THOMAS: I beg to move the rejection of the Clause.
  Whatever argument there may have been for the postponement of this Clause, there are certainly strong arguments at
  1220
  this stage for the absolute rejection of the Clause. I am perfectly satisfied that when it is discovered that the Insurance Bill deprives the workman of benefits which he at present enjoys under the Compensation Act, nothing will have rendered this scheme so unpopular as to-night's proceedings. Considerable argument has been adduced from all sides of the House to show that, so far as this particular Clause is concerned, the primary object is to prevent what is termed malingering. I am not going to labour that point, but I am going to try and show one typical case among thousands of cases of what may be termed real injustice under this Bill. Take a railway man in receipt of £l per week who meets with an accident and

  1221
  loses his hand. Under the provisions of the Compensation Act he is entitled to 10s. a week compensation. No one can suggest that he receives that compensation for his sickness. No one suggests that that 10s. compensation is paid him because of his illness. It is paid him in consequence of his incapacity and his inability to go into the labour market in future on precisely the same terms as he did prior to the accident. Let us assume that for nine months that man is in receipt of 10s. a week compensation, during the whole of that period he is deprived of his sick pay.
  Let it be remembered that the man with the £l a week is unable to make any other provision, and therefore we have to assume that during the whole period of that nine months 10s. is the sum coming into that man's house weekly. At the end of that period the employer agrees to commute the allowance of 10s. a week. It is commuted not on the basis of the full compensation, but the man is further penalised because the amount he has received is taken into consideration. Here is a man who loses his arm or leg having to face the world handicapped, as he will be under those circumstances, deprived throughout the whole of the period he receives compensation from the benefits that would help to mitigate his loss. This, I submit, is a very serious position, and it is one which I am perfectly satisfied the workers will not tolerate. So far as we are concerned in defending this Bill, first on the ground that it is of material advantage not only to friendly societies but to trades unions as well, we can no longer say that, in face of the passing of this Clause 11. No one who has defended the Bill has dared say on the platform that he anticipated this Clause standing part of the Bill. I have delivered scores of speeches on this Bill, and without a solitary exception I have always pointed out that in my opinion this Clause would never stand part of the Bill, but that the general sense of the House would be such as to render it impossible in the future for the workman to be deprived of compensation.
  I come to the second aspect of the question, which is that trade unions are absolutely prevented in the future from doing what they have done in the past. I will give a typical illustration. I have figures which will, I think, clearly demonstrate it. I have taken out from our own record the experiences of the last ten years. I will give the figures in bulk. During the past ten years my own organisation has
  1222
  obtained from employers £23,333 in weekly allowances. In the same period for non-fatal accidents they have obtained £70,000, and dealt with 6,000 cases. Out of the whole of these 6,000 cases there are less than fifty members on the sick fund of our society, and the remarkable thing is that under the decision we have arrived at with regard to this Clause the whole of the remainder of those members might have been members of another approved society for sick benefit, and we as an organisation would have been limited absolutely to the members of the sick fund. It is very questionable under the proposals of this Bill whether trades unions will all become approved societies.
  Then there is the further peculiar point as far as railway companies are concerned. The majority of railway companies have got their sick fund and friendly societies, many of which are a condition of employment, and even when they are not the pressure of the officials is such that it will render it really difficult for the men to make any other but that society approved. Therefore, having regard to all these circumstances—having regard to the fact that this Bill has been defended as far as the trade unionists are concerned because it would not interefere with trade union activity—it does, after all, interfere with that activity by the passing of this Clause. The second is, that it does give a preference really to societies, and, above all, it brings into the field of trade union activity the real protection of labour, friendly societies that hitherto have been limited to one aspect of work. For those reasons I move the rejection of the Clause. If the Motion is not carried I am perfectly certain the opposition to this Bill will be stronger in the future than it has been in the past; in fact I am afraid it will destroy the principal intention, and objects of the Government in this direction.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to support the rejection of this Clause. I do so for a good many reasons. First of all I want to say a word or two on what I believe is the main object of the Clause, as I have gathered from the discussion, and that is that you are not to pay a man sick pay when he gets compensation, because people are afraid that he might malinger. Well, I have sat here through the whole of these discussions, and if there is one thing that has come out more than another it is that most Members of the House are afraid to trust the workman with too much money. When you have cut off one of his arms, or

  1223
  smashed one of his legs, or fractured one side of his skull, or carved him up in all kinds of shapes, then you think that if he gets half his money, another 10s. a week, he might waste it in riotous living. You think that when you have paid the wretched compensation for his being maimed in the mine, torn to pieces in the factory, and generally disfigured for life, you are entitled to plunder him of this 10s. a week. That is the real crux of the whole of this Clause. We are all well-fed men, none of us ever goes without a meal; there is not one of us but what has good holidays each year. A holiday to you is four or five months, and of sailing trips round the world. But the working man's holiday—
  The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member please confine himself to the subject, and not repeat himself so much?
  Mr. LANSBURY: Well, I was interrupted, and I wanted to emphasise the point that hon. Members appear to me to be in this position, that as they are such authorities on malingering themselves we have had all these imputations during the last few days of the iniquities of malingering. As a rule the person who is an authority on that kind of thing is the person who indulges in it himself. I am bound to say from my knowledge of the middle and upper classes that they are adepts at the game of malingering. If a man feels a little run down his doctor orders him off to the seaside, or tells him he must have a voyage, or that he must rest; and Cabinet Ministers and their officials when they get a little done up and have a couple of months away on full pay, do not seem to meet with any harm. What is sauce for the goose on the Treasury Bench—I might have put it the other way round and said that what was sauce for the geese on the Treasury Bench ought certainly to be sauce for the unhappy people whose case we are advocating. None of us here earns anything; somebody has to earn it for us all the time.
  But what I am really trying to get into the minds of the Committee is that they have no right to stand up one after the other and tell the working man that he is a malingerer if he gets something approaching his earning money when he is sick. It is an insult to the working classes for them to be discussed and inquested as they have been on this sub-
  1224
  ject. There is not one of us in this House but what knows that a workman needs more money when he is sick than when, he is well; and when he has met with an accident his wife and children and himself need more money in the home. I am not going to be a party—probably I disagree with some of my own friends on this matter—in any sort of way to countenance the idea that a family needs less money when there is sickness or accident in the house. To bring in a National Insurance Bill and stick in the centre or almost at the beginning of it clauses like this is insulting to the working classes. Many workmen I know go back to work a jolly sight earlier than any of them ought to go. I am ashamed that men in this House should constantly be standing up preaching about malingering when they do not practice the kind of doctrine that they preach. When I hear that they do, and see that they do, then I shall believe in their anxiety to preserve people from wanting to mump.
  The other point which I want to make is this: The Government have seen fit to introduce an entirely new principle into this Bill with regard to compensation, and I say without any hesitation that I believe that is in for the express purpose of softening the 3d. a week that the employer has to pay. It seems to me that all the big vested interests have been stroked down in one way or the other, and this is an indirect way of stroking down the big employer by providing that payments for accidents shall be part and parcel of the National Insurance scheme. I am against that altogether. So far as I understand, and I know something about it, the Workmen's Compensation Act is working fairly well in the case of most people who meet with accidents. I want to say that I do not think you can ever really compensate a man or woman after losing an arm or leg. A man showed me his hands the other day, ruined in a coal mine. Anyone would, know that no money could ever compensate for the manner in which that man's hands had been mangled. What I feel is that at present we are giving some sort of money compensation to people, which is little enough, in all conscience. I contend that compensation and the right to compensation ought not to have been introduced into this Bill in any shape or form. It has raised all these difficulties as between the trade union and the friendly society, and the new societies

  1225
  all over the country which the hon. Member for Pontefract threatened us with.
  Mr. BOOTH: I never said any such thing.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Well, we all misunderstood you. You are like myself—a most misunderstood person. The point I want to urge is that if there were no other reason for the rejection of the Clause it should be rejected for the reasons I mentioned at the beginning. Another reason why it should not be passed to-night is the present condition of the House. Members have been trying in all kinds of attitudes to get the sleep the Chancellor of the Exchequer has robbed us of.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is speaking to the question of whether the Clause should stand part, he should confine himself to the merits of the Clause.
  Mr. LANSBURY: With very great respect I am wanting to give reasons why we are moving the rejection of the Clause. It is because I think the House at four o'clock in the morning is not in a fit condition to give a proper decision in the matter as to whether it should stand part or not. They are worn out. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no.] It is all very well for those Members who have been getting part of their night's rest in the corridors and in the smoking rooms. That is my opinion.
  The CHAIRMAN: That does not really arise on the merits of the Clause, which is the only question before the House.
  Mr. LANSBURY: If you will allow me to say so I do not think there are any merits except extremely bad merits. For that reason I think it ought to be rejected. At any rate, I think it is disgraceful that at this hour so important a provision as this should be carried through and passed. It will do tremendous harm to trade unions, but what is of more importance is that it is going to rob the poor people of that which the Bill is compelling them to pay for and for which, when the time comes, you will not allow funds to foot the bill. I hope this National Insurance Scheme will be spurned and rejected by every one of them.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: According to the hon. Member for Derby the Bill is now not worth anything in money. I think that is a very serious position because if the
  1226
  Labour party, in its mass is going to adopt that attitude from now on, it is very essential that the supporters of the Bill should understand the position to which we have been brought. I would appeal to the Labour Members to reconsider that attitude. I really think they would be most misguided to say that this Bill is not worth having even with the Clause as it stands. I most earnestly appeal to them to think for themselves and not to-night go into the Lobby for the wholesale rejection of this Clause. Such an action would be interpreted outside as a vote on the part of the Labour party for the rejection of a very essential element in the Bill. Surely the hon. Member for Derby is labouring under a misapprehension. I can quite understand his objection if his view is correct. I think, however, that he is labouring under a misapprehension.
  It has been difficult to follow the manuscript Amendment. My view is that whenever a trade union cares in the future, as in the past, to sue in court, it will be able to do so with the same liberty as in the past. I do not think there has been anything negativing in any shape or form the capacity of trade unions. Surely the hon. Member for Derby must agree that when you look at the poor clerk, domestic servant, and rural labourer, when you look at the great proportion of that fourteen millions who are being drawn into this Bill, who have had absolutely no protection throughout these years up till now, coming to court without any compensation or keeping out of court after a miserable bargain, surely in putting at their disposal an organisation like the friendly society and insuring to them compensation, that is something the Labour party is not going to reject scornfully and without very serious consideration. I appreciate their difficulty and the danger they apprehend with regard to the present two million members of the trade unions. I think when we have got the final form of this Clause it will be possible to meet that. If the trade. union has taken action in the court of law the friendly society need not take it afterwards. I do not think a friendly society would be so foolish. If a trade union has spent money on one compensation case, the friendly society is not going to waste its money in repeating the process over again.
  So much for that point. The real point I wanted to put in my appeal to hon. Members was on the wider question with regard to the financial problem, which I under-

  1227
  stand they view seriously. I for one would say unhesitatingly that I have to agree on the merits of the question as to the tremendous hardship of refusing sick pay to those people who also receive compensation pay. Representing one of the Constituencies of the country which has a sad toll of accidents, probably more than any other constituency, I say for my constituents that it is going to be as great a loss for them as for any other part of the country. It is going to be exceedingly unpopular, and I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer realises this. We have only three alternatives. First, to increase the State contribution; secondly, to increase the contributions of members or employers; and thirdly, to rearrange the benefits. To-night I have not heard any proposal to increase the subscriptions of members or the contributions of employers. I have not heard anybody contend that it would be better to rearrange the benefits. I do not think it would be better to do so. I do not know that there is a single benefit in the list given in the Bill that we can afford to give up.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is talking at large about the Bill and not about this Clause. He must confine his remarks to the Clause.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: I was endeavour to deal with the first Section of the Clause, namely, the question of refusing to give sick benefit to people who are receiving compensation, and I was pointing out the three alternatives. I was on the point of saying that if you cannot rearrange the benefits you come to the third alternative, namely, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should increase the contribution from the State. The position is this. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he cannot or will not do it, what we can insist upon is to vote the Chancellor of the Exchequer down and defeat him. That means the destruction of the Bill and goodness only knows what other consequences. If the Labour Members are not prepared to take that responsibility there is no other way out of the matter but for us to accept this, unpopular as it is, and however much we should like to get this double money. We have nothing else to do. We cannot possibly keep on moving Amendment after Amendment. We have either to kill the Bill now and have done with it, and get our summer holidays, or set about taking it and dealing with the matter under the scheme the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  1228
  has been able to give us. I therefore appeal to the Labour Members to see if they cannot reconsider their position, and let this Clause go through.
  Mr. ALBERT SMITH: I make no apology for getting up at this early hour to give my full opposition to this Clause. At the same time I do it with the utmost regret, as I realise to the full the amount of work and enthusiasm the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put into this matter. Of all Clauses in the Bill in regard to which he has been most misguided, this is the worst. If I had the same experience of the ghastly accidents to which the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Edgar Jones) alluded and of which other Members have had experience I could not hold up my hand or raise my voice to pass a Clause against those people who are to be deprived of compensation at the expense of the benefits they are to receive. Nobody connected with the working of the Workmen's Compensation Act in a trade union ever thought for a second it was really true that the finance of the Insurance Bill was to be met by penalising those who are entitled to workmen's compensation. Apart from that the insurance of people is not equal. On the one hand, you have members who are well enough off to be members of two friendly societies, they can have their benefits increased by the aid of the State and the whole of the money they contribute, while a poor man on the other hand injured at work and receiving compensation cannot expect to receive one farthing more than his compensation. There is no equality about it. The expense is too much for employers or for trade union officials. The whole working of the Workmen's Compensation Act has been very difficult. Cases have had had to be fought from one court to another by societies and trade unions and employers. Test cases have been arranged to decide certain points until there is absolute confidence in each other between employers and trade unions as to cases of compensation for injured people. This Bill is going to rob them of a lot of confidence in that arrangement, and the Clause is going to be a far-reaching evil.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr asked the Labour party to reconsider their decision, but it is practically impossible to give way on the matter. I can answer for over 200,000 cotton operatives in Lancashire that when they see in the papers that because they receive compensation they are to be deprived of insurance benefits, any

  1229
  sympathy they might have had for the Insurance Bill will entirely vanish. Whether we are serious on the floor of the House this morning or not, these people in the cotton mills of Lancashire, will be serious when we come to meet them on this matter. I only wish to say one word more with regard to the much-discussed word "malingering." I do not like what the hon. Member above the Gangway who is in the medical profession said about it. I do not dispute that there may be malingering, but I am not going to punish the whole of these people for it any more than I would punish the whole medical profession for the action of one doctor who failed to attend to his duties. It has been said that there are 14,000,000 people outside the trade unions.
  I do not want it to be understood in this House that we are standing in the way of these people having methods of obtaining their compensation, if we can be of any assistance in the way trade unions have been of assistance to thousands outside trade unions. It is because of the depriving of those who are entitled to receive compensation from that compensation, and the friction that is going to be set up between the societies and the trade unions unless we know definitely where we stand, that we object to this provision. It is all very well for some hon. Members to cry "Divide!" but I have heard twenty-three speeches all from one side of the House on the question whether the pay of an army captain should be increased, and surely I am entitled to plead for industrial workers who have been deprived of their insurance benefit simply because they have been injured, perhaps permanently, inside a cotton mill or a coal mine.
  As regards the question of malingering, no man is more detested by the fellow-members of his trade union than the man who tries to receive money to which he is not entitled. We know there is a difficulty of detection, but there is no class of persons in this country more, desirous of detecting malingering, which not only robs the insurance companies of their money, but perhaps their own societies, than trade unionists. There are no people who get more opprobrium than do malingerers from their fellow-workers. You can always get the assistance of a member of a trade union in detecting those men. For these reasons I had hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have given us more time to discuss the Government's manuscript Amendments. I am sure I do not understand them
  1230
  thoroughly. There is an uneasy feeling about this matter, and knowing as we do the dissatisfaction which this Clause is going to produce in the working-class industry, we feel that we should be misusing the very powers we were sent here to exercise were we not to raise our voice against such a Clause as this.
  Mr. POINTER: Although I have been on these premises for close upon nineteen hours, I cannot refrain from saying a word in regard to this Clause. I want to say, with all moderation, that I think this Clause is a serious blot upon this Bill, and it appears to be introducing a principle that is altogether foreign to the general tenour of the Clauses of the Bill. I do want to say, without making any threat, that if the Government persist in pushing this Clause forward they are going to make it very difficult, so far as we are concerned, to defend the Bill. It is no exaggeration to say that, whatever attitude we may or may not take up to-night, the members of the trade unions up and down the country and the people generally who are supporting the principle of this Bill will be up in arms when once they know that this is a settled feature of the Bill.
  I have addressed quite a considerable number of meetings in regard to this Bill, and I have always done my best to defend it. I have said that the Bill had serious flaws and faults, but that, generally speaking, the principle of the Bill was sound, and that in its progress through Committee it would be so altered as to make it a measure that we could accept. I have had this point put to me specifically, not once or twice, but on every single occasion when I have addressed a meeting on the Bill—and I have addressed trades unions, friendly societies, and labour parties of one description and another—"What do you think of Clause 11? What do you think of a man who is going to have his compensation interfered with because of the operation of this particular Clause?" And I have said on each and every occasion that this provision, seemed to me so unjust that I did not believe it would pass the House of Commons. "If that," I said, "is the only objection you have against the Bill I think you can rest assured that objection will be removed." It appears I was mistaken. It appears the Government have not taken the same line of thought that I have, and that they attach a great amount of importance—as a matter of fact I do but in the

  1231
  opposite direction—to this particular provision. After all, what evil is this provision meant to meet? Simply an exaggerated fear of malingering. Some one says "No," but it is idle to say "no" when so many of you have told us that you want to prevent malingering, and as one of my hon. Friends remarked, if there is any fear of malingering, there is no earthly use of the Clause at all. I want to say a word or two with regard to malingering.
  We who have been in the workshops for many years know something about men by whose side we have worked. I worked at a shop with 150 members, and there was only one man out of them we even suspected of malingering, and I may say, as bearing out what the hon. Member for Clitheroe has said about the resentment that is meted out to a man who does malinger, that we promptly altered the rules of the fund in order to get a man out, and we got him out, so strong is the feeling of his fellow-workers against a man who presumes to linger on a sick fund of this kind. I want to say a word or two with regard to the practical effect of this. I have on my thumb a very serious scar, which I received before the Compensation Act became law, and, consequently, I had not the benefit of the Act, but at that time I was on a friendly society, drawing 15s. a week. Supposing the Compensation Act had also been in operation, I should then have been drawing 35s. a week. Assuming I was a married man and had a family, is anyone here going to suggest that I was going to malinger on 35s. a week, when I could draw £2 by working? I shall be told that there are men who receive very low wages, and that with the benefits under the Bill, plus their compensation, they would have as much, and probably in some few cases more, money coming in than when they are working. I do not think it is fair or just or equitable that you should penalise the great mass of people who will be penalised by this Bill just to prevent a few about whom you have fears, and who may have some incentive to malingering, from doing so.
  Consequently, as far as I am concerned, I do regard most seriously this Clause as a very great blot upon the Bill. I want to answer a remark that was made by the senior Member for Merthyr. I rather resent—perhaps that is not the right word—I certainly do not like the way in which he appealed to sentiment in regard to this
  1232
  Clause, which is, after all, a strictly business proposal and a strictly practical one. He appeals to us to consider the agricultural labourer, the domestic servant and the host of other people who are for the first time, so he says, being brought into the benefits of such a scheme as this. But surely that is no reason for placing disadvantages upon other people in order that these might get a benefit. If there is to be doubt anywhere, let the doubt be in favour of the bulk of the workmen who will come within the ambit of this particular Bill. Then the hon. Member rather chided us with the fact that we had not shown where the money was to come from to provide for this change. That has nothing to do with us. What we have to decide first is whether the principle is right or wrong; it is for the Government to provide the sinews of war from their own resources.
  There is not a man upon these benches who, if he was in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's place, but would get the money and get it quite easily. The Chancellor knows quite well that if the necessity for money arises he can find it. He admitted the point when he said that if necessary he was prepared to recommit the Resolution in order that that might be done. Even at this late hour I appeal to the Government to realise what this part of the Bill means—that however popular or unpopular this Bill may have been up to now it will certainly be very unpopular if this particular provision is insisted upon. A great outcry has already been made. It is a point that has been pressed home at meeting after meeting. If it is settled that in the event of this Bill becoming law working men are to have only the difference between the amount of compensation they are entitled to and the 10s. in the Bill, which in many cases would be-something like 2s. 6d. or 3s. a week, then it will be resented most keenly. I hope the Government will not make the mistake of thinking that we are opposing this out of any frivolity, but because we recognise what it means and how it would be viewed by the people with whom we come in contact from day to day.
  Mr. McKENNA: I hope my hon. Friends, to whom I have listened with the greatest-interest, will not feel that I am making an unfair appeal if I ask them to allow us now to take a vote on the Clause. The objections to the Clause were raised more fully upon the original Amendment to leave out Sub-section (a), and nothing has

  1233
  been added since then, or could be added. Everybody in the House recognises the sincerity and the conviction with which hon. Gentlemen have spoken against this Clause, and that they do feel a very real grievance with regard to the Clause. But on the other hand, the Government have put forward very strongly their reasons for adhering to the Bill in its present form. The reason put forward has been purely and simply a financial reason. We have nothing further to add. As the Bill stands, there is a contribution of 4d. from the workman, 3d. from the employer, and the equivalent of 2d. from the State. The rejection of this Clause will not find another halfpenny. If hon. Gentlemen insist on rejecting this Clause and succeed the inevitable consequence will be to reduce the sick benefit from 10s. to 9s. That follows inevitably from the previous decision of the Committee.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I can assure the Committee that the reason why we have taken the action that we have taken is that we desire to save this Bill. Let there be no mistake about that. We consider that this Clause, with one or two other things, especially one thing that happened to-day before we came to the Clause, has very nearly brought us to the point when we will have to consider whether we should continue to support the Bill or not. That point has not been reached. Let there be no mistake about that either. But there is not the least doubt about this, that if these points that we are raising, which to us are fundamental, are to be rejected one after another, then that point will very soon be reached. We regard Clause 11 as being essentially bad. So strong is the objection of the trade unionists to the Clause that it is useless for us to go and ask them to support with anything like enthusiasm a Bill which contains such a provision. But that is not the point.
  I think we have already shown the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we are prepared to face the music both here and outside, but we are conscientiously and firmly opposed to Clause 11. We think that its intention is wrong. We think it is a great mistake. We do not believe that when a man or woman has suffered an accident his or her sickness benefit ought to be withdrawn. That is our first objection. Our second objection is that if the Government insist upon withholding this sickness benefit it
  1234
  is then bound to take certain consequential actions, which we consider to be a grave menace to trade unionism. That consequential action is outlined in the latter part of this Clause. If I agreed with the beginning of the Clause I should also be bound to agree with the latter part of the Clause. The whole Clause is a complete unity, logically and consistently thought out and very well devised. To that we have no objection. But fundamentally we object to it. We object to its intention and its consequences. With profound regret, but with a very clear idea of what we are doing we are determined to make the most emphatic protest against the inclusion of Clause 11 in this Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think after the speech of my hon. Friend something requires to be said by the Government. Mr. right hon. Friend (Mr. McKenna) has already put the case, and I do not know that I need elaborate it very much. I think I may, at this hour, just repeat not merely why we introduce this into the Bill, but why we attach very great importance to it, and why we have departed from the practice which so many of the trade unions prefer. We have done-it for this reason. We were advised—and further inquiry I have made proves that the advice is sound—that the effect of this double insurance was undoubtedly injurious to the interests of friendly societies. I do not think any one who will look at the figures can possibly doubt that. We were advised that the increase in the charge of friendly societies during the last few years is very largely attributable to the fact that workmen insured in friendly societies were receiving a certain amount of money from their societies in addition to the compensation which they received elsewhere, so that either they were in a good position, and, in some cases, in a better position. We were advised by those whose advice we were bound to give the greatest heed to that the effect of this would be very serious upon the whole finance of the Bill. My right hon. Friend has put this point to the Committee. We can only see our way to raising a certain sum of money. I know exactly what the Exchequer can spare. We cannot possibly put on an extra ½d. or 1d.
  I do not think we can put anything further upon the employer. That means, therefore, that we are limited in our finance. The whole point is what is the best use we can make of our finance. If our money were unlimited there would be

  1235
  a good deal to be said for the point, but that is not the case. My hon. Friend says we are constantly rejecting proposals that come from him and his friends. That is really not so. I have accepted a good many Amendments coming from them, including a very important one that came from the Member for Merthyr, one which came from the hon. Member for Blackburn and others, all of them involving, not merely additional charges upon the fund, but additional charges upon the State to such an extent that, I think, it will be necessary even to extend the Financial Resolution in order to meet them. When I have opposed Amendments of this kind I have done it because I have other things in mind. If the money is given for this purpose it will not be there for another purpose. My hon. Friend and those associated with him have really got to elect whether they would spend the money in giving double benefits to those who are receiving compensation, or whether they would not prefer to apply it in strengthening other parts of the Bill which are weak at the present moment. I have already indicated some of these. Sanatoria benefits for the women and children; the important condition of women under Clause 34; those who are already insured, and whose benefits would be suspended—I will have a proposal there which will involve a considerable burden. There are several matters of that kind which more than absorb all that we could possibly provide. If I gave way on this there would really be no money left. The State cannot undertake the burden.
  I really could not undertake the responsibility of providing, not for the benefit of the women and children, but purely in order that workmen should get double benefits. I do not think it would be advisable. There is another point I would like to put to my hon. Friends below the Gangway. If they want this they are in a position to get it. It involves simply a small increase upon their own society—either trade union or friendly society. We take a considerable burden off both the trade union and the friendly society. They can, without even paying as much as they are paying now—I say deliberately without paying anything like they are paying now—insure and put themselves in exactly the same position they are in at present, and, indeed, be better. But what I have to consider is whether the 3d. of the employer or the 5d. which the employer finds in certain cases and the
  1236
  2d. of the State shall be utilised for this purpose, or whether it will be utilised for some other purpose. There is nothing to prevent trade unions and friendly societies from insuring and putting their members in exactly the position they are in now without incurring the expense which they are now incurring by way of a levy on their members. They are doing it now by voluntary effort and they can still do it.
  Mr. S. WALSH: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. A great many trade unions do not pay sick benefit at all, but are simply industrial organisations, and therefore these societies cannot quite so readily take upon themselves this burden.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Very well. In that case I do not see where the grievance is. We are not depriving the trade unions of anything they have got at the present moment.
  Mr. J. PARKER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps telling us that he is not depriving them of anything they have got now. Take the case of an unskilled labourer working for—l per week. He gets his 10s. from a friendly society and would have half his wages under the Compensation Act. Will the Chancellor tell us how he is not depriving that man when he is compelling him to pay 1d. more than he is paying now.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have not made my proposition clear. For that 10s. he is paying now, according to whether he is in town or in country, 6d. or 6½d. That is the charge. He is charged 4d. under the State scheme for that benefit. He has, therefore, got a balance of 2d., and he need not pay 2d. in order to get this benefit, or anything like it. That is exactly the point. My own computation is that ½d. would do it, so that his actual gain under this scheme is 3½d. before the deficiency is wiped out. He pays 4d. under the State scheme where he formerly paid 6d. All he has got to do in the future is to pay an extra ½d. to the society, making it 4id. in all, and he gets this double benefit and would still be 3½d. a week better off than he was before. That is the case. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I have taken the very case mentioned by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER: Does he get both benefits under the scheme?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Undoubtedly he gets more benefits.
  Mr. J. PARKER: Both?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly, he gets the benefits of the scheme. He gets medical services, maternity benefit, and sanatorium benefit, and if he is over sixteen years of age he gets the benefit of the enormous reserves carried to every trade union and every friendly society. Supposing he wants to insure for the double benefit, all he has to do is to go on with his trade union and pay them ½d. or 1d. a week at the outside, in addition to what he pays the friendly society, so that if he pays 4½d. where he formerly paid 6d. he will get the additional benefits of the scheme, and also the very things hon. Members are asking for.
  Mr. POINTER: How will that operate in the case of a man earning £l a week who is not a member of a union or a friendly society?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: He gets the compensation of 10s. a week for which he has paid nothing. The insurance against accidents is a very small item. For ½d. or 1d. at the outside he can insure against accidents. The 4d. is for the ordinary illnesses to which a man is liable. The hon. Member shakes his head. What does he mean?
  Mr. POINTER: You will not get the man with £l a week to understand that.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: He will understand it if it is fairly put to him in intelligible language. The man earning £l a week is not—I will not say such a fool—but at such a pass as not to be able to understand it if it is fairly put to him. I think there are members of trade unions who, if you put it to them, that for 4d. a week they are getting 9d.—and again I emphasise the fact—that there is not a penny of that 9d. which the State touches, because the whole expenses of administration by the State is outside that 9d., and he will get the whole of that 9d. for 4d.—if that is told to the working man, he is quite sensible enough to see that when he is offered 9d. for 4d. he is getting a good bargain. Here is another thing I want to put to my hon. Friends. We are only at the eleventh Clause. They can put it, if they like, that they have wrung concessions out of the Exchequer.
  Mr. JAMES THOMAS: That is a way a man talks when he is beaten.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have been beaten sometimes, but I have sometimes beaten off the attack. That is the fortune of war and I am quite ready to take it.
  1238
  Hon. Members are entitled to say that they have wrung considerable concessions out of an obstinate, stubborn, hard-hearted Treasury. They cannot have it all their own way in this world. Let them be satisfied with what they have got. They are entitled to say this is not a perfect Bill, but then this is not a perfect world. Do let them be fair. It is £15,000,000 of money which is not wrung out of the workmen's pockets, but which goes, every penny of it, into the workmen's pocket. Let them bear that in mind. I think they are right in fighting for organisations which have achieved great things for the working classes. I am not at all surprised that they regard them with reverence. I would not do anything which would impair their position. Because in my heart I believe that the Bill will strengthen their power is one of the reasons why I am in favour of this Bill. In Germany, the trade union movement was a poor, miserable, wretched thing some years ago. Insurance has done more to teach the working classes the value of organisation than any single thing in the whole history of German industrial organisation. I have met several German Labour leaders and Socialist leaders and employers, and they all say the same thing. May I also say another thing. They all state that when the matter was first of all proposed they were all dead against it. They criticised it, even more severely than my hon. Friends have done this Bill and they regarded it with the same suspicion and apprehension. Their imaginations saw disaster and ruin in it. There is not one of them now who would lift a little finger to get it off the statute book. They have put every muscle into a fight to keep it there. You cannot get a Socialist leader in Germany to-day to do anything to get rid of that Bill, and I think they will find that many Socialist leaders in Germany will say that they would rather have our Bill than their own Bill. This Bill marks an enormous advance. If hon. Members reject the Bill it will be a very serious responsibility. I do not think it is one for which the labouring classes would thank them. They are right in fighting for their trade unions. They represent, on the whole, the best stock of the working classes. I would remind them that this Bill benefits the poorer classes and that it will do greater things for them than any Bill introduced for a great many years in this House. It will remove anxiety as to distress, it will heal, it will lift them up, and it will give them a new hope. It will do

  1239
  more than that because it will give them a new weapon which will enable them to organise, and the most valuable and vital thing is that the "working classes will be organised£15,000,000 of them—for the first time for their own purposes. Hon. Members can reject this Bill with all these boons, but it is a responsibility I am not prepared to share with them.
  Mr. JOWETT: I do not think that any Member of the party to which I belong will have a single word of complaint to offer as to the tone and spirit of the appeal that has been made to these benches by the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time I wish to associate myself with other Members on these benches who have spoken against this Clause. I not only do it as against the principle of the Clause itself, but as against the workings of the details which follow on its fundamental principles. Let me, in the first place, say this regarding the provision, that it will enable a clash of interests for the first time to arise between those who are fighting the battle of injured workers under the Compensation Act. The trade unions do not merely care for their own members, they care also for, and fight the battles of, other workers who are not members of their own unions. In my own town, for instance, the organised representative body to which I belong takes every case, whether the worker belongs to a trade union or not, and fights it under the Compensation Act. I am told that the same thing exists in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. There again, not only do the organised trades unions fight cases for their own members, but for other workers as well, and it seems to me a most dangerous tampering with present conditions to bring in this new system of allowing approved societies to jeopardise the harmonious working which at present exists. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer must admit that for the first time we are, under the guise of giving a new boon to the working classes of this country, taking away part of one that already exists.
  The organised labour of this country has come to regard the Workmen's Compensation Act as one of the best Acts of Parliament this generation has seen placed upon the Statute Book. They are jealous of any tampering with it. It is tampered with by this Bill. Those who have benefits under that Act have no chance of getting those benefits if this
  1240
  Clause is passed that they otherwise would have, and, therefore, on behalf of the organised workers of the West Riding of Yorkshire, I, like my Friend who represents organised workers in cotton factories in Lancashire, wish to say that if this Clause is included in this Bill it will cause a tremendous amount of misunderstanding which cannot possibly be removed. It will take the gilt off the gingerbread, so to speak. It would cause alarm amongst the working classes, and make the Bill such that it could not work harmoniously, as it otherwise would. We are constantly asked where the money is to come from. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not raided all the hen-roosts yet. There are others. If in fifteen years the wealthy can increase their wealth to the extent of £415,000,000, surely they can spare some more, and we call upon them to face their responsibilities and to meet the hopes planted in the breasts of so many of the poor of this country by finding the money to enable this Clause to be deleted.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I think there is one point the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not altogether realise. He, following the lead of my hon. colleague behind me, appealed to the Labour party not to take the responsibility of wrecking this Bill,. but he forgets that the last word does not rest with us. We are here as representatives. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that in trying to get concessions we have not unduly or in any raucous spirit criticised the Bill either in the House of Commons or outside. Individuals may have done so, but individual Liberals have done the same. I am not sure that the hon. Member who interrupts loves the Bill much himself, or if he does he dissembles his love very successfully.
  Mr. BOOTH: I voted for it,
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: What I was going to say was that we have endeavoured to-smooth the way amongst the working classes for the passage of this Bill, but there is a large element among us who regard many of these details with distrust—I am not speaking of Socialists, but of trade unionists. All among us bring the: tale that whilst everyone desires some kind of scheme like the present, they are distrustful of many of its details, and when this Clause gets to be understood, that distrust will certainly be deep. I listened with both interest and pleasure to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to my mind he did not clear up one points

  1241
  At the present time a workman is entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He will still retain that if this Bill becomes law, but if he gets compensation to the extent of the benefits provided under this Bill his benefits cease. That is the point I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to face. Even all the ingenuity and subtlety and the charm of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would fail to convince a working-class audience that that was not a correct statement.
  Desiring, as I do, to see the Bill go through, if there was no alternative but to reduce the sick pay in order to get rid of this Clause, speaking for myself, I believe that would be a lesser evil. A second point is this: the last part of this Clause has a distinct tendency to weaken the trade union movement. I know that is not the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One of the strong reasons which now exists to induce workmen to join trade unions is the securing of a medium whereby compensation will be secured to them when accidents occur. Propaganda speeches are always taken up in part in showing the amount of compensation which the union has obtained for its members, and showing also that where there is no union the employers are apt to force a smaller scale on the men who are injured. If this Clause goes through that argument is taken away from the trade unions because the committee of the society which is their benefit society will be able to act for them—in fact is compelled to act for them.
  In the minds of many hon. Members who have spoken on this Clause the working classes are regarded as malingering loafers. Someone has said it, and I am going to quote it. The hon. Member for
  East Glamorgan justified his support of this Clause because, if it were not in the Bill, workmen would enter into dishonest compacts with their employers, secret contracts to get the compensation and draw the sick benefit at the same time. We on these benches resent that greatly.
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: I did not say anything of the kind; I did not say anything within a hundred thousand miles of it. What I did say was this: that we knew there were occasionally now collusive agreements, and that there were unconscionable agreements imposed on the workmen by the employers, and it was in consequence of that that the trade unionists themselves had fought to get that provision in the Workmen's Compensation Act which prevented any agreement being binding for settling compensation unless it was registered and approved by the county court.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow will show who is right. The hon. Member argued for this Clause because if it was not there workmen would be able to enter into secret agreements with their employers, meaning, of course, that workmen are dishonest.3
  Mr. C. EDWARDS:In my experience I have found workmen, some workmen, like some employers and like some Labour leaders, utterly dishonest.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I ask the Chairman, if that is not the reason for this Clause, why is it there? The financial side is insignificant; it would be easily overcome.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as Amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 23.

  Division No. 293.]

  AYES.

  [5.10 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hackett, John

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Crumley, Patrick

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Armitage, Robert

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Delany, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Doris, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  John, Edward Thomas

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Keating, Matthew

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Furness, Stephen

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Clough, William

  George. Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Lawson. Sir W (Cumb'rl'nd., Cockerm'th)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gulland, John William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Ogden, Fred

  Shortt, Edward

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Maclean, Donald

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Verney, Sir Harry

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leics.)

  Reddy, Michael

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Meagher, Michael

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Webb, H.

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Robinson, Sidney

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Seely, Col, Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Guest.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Sheehy, David

  NOES;

  Adamson, William

  Goldstone, Frank

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Benn Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Wardle, George J.

  Brace, William

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Lansbury, George

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Pointer, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. C. Duncan and Mr. Parker.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 24th July.
  ADJOURNMENT—esolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen minutes after Five a.m., Thursday. 20th July.

  Licence Duty (Metropolis).
  Licence Duty (Metropolis).
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  SMALL DIVIDING SOCIETIES.
  SMALL DIVIDING SOCIETIES.
  Irish School Teachers.
  Irish School Teachers.
  Reinstatement Applications (Ireland).
  Reinstatement Applications (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Irish Teacher's Residence.
  Irish Teacher's Residence.
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Army Hones (Purchases in Scotland).
  Army Hones (Purchases in Scotland).
  Copyright Bill.
  Copyright Bill.
  Essex County Asylum.
  Essex County Asylum.
  Closing of Smaller Prisons.
  Closing of Smaller Prisons.
  Manchester Telephone Exchange.
  Manchester Telephone Exchange.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
LORD ROWALLAN.
Archibald Cameron Corbett, Esquire, having been created Baron Rowallan of Rowallan in the County of Ayr—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LORD INCHCAPE.
Sir James Lyle Mackay, G.C.M.G., K.C.S.I., K.C.I.E., having been created Baron Inchcape of Strathnaver in the County of Sutherland—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord SONDES—Took the Oath.

METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

EAST KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of this Bill, and that the Bill be read a third time. The effect of suspending the Standing Order will be to expedite slightly the progress of this Bill, which is a late Bill, and for that reason I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed and sent to the Commons.

CORPORATION OF LONDON (BRIDGES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read. 3a To-morrow.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow,
GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Committees made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING].
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shaftesbury, in whose name this Bill stands and who is on duty at Holyrood Palace, has asked me to take charge of the Bill in his absence, and in moving the Second Reading I will explain its provisions in as few words as possible. It is a Bill to further amend the Public Health Acts relating to Ireland, and its object is to enable urban district-councils in Ireland, in addition to their existing powers, to make by-laws for the inspection of all meat intended to be sold within their district and also prohibiting the sale of meat within their district for human consumption except after inspection in accordance with the by-laws. The Bill consists of two clauses only, and is agreed to by all the Irish Members—Unionists, Nationalists, and O'Brienites—in the House of Commons.
The urban district councils are the sanitary authorities in Ireland. Various Public Health Acts have been passed between the years 1878 and 1907 giving wide powers to those bodies, and the object of this Bill is to amplify those powers. The Bill allows urban district councils to control the smaller class of slaughter-houses, which are not conducted as they should be and require inspection. Some urban district councils have erected public slaughter-houses, and if this Bill becomes law it is felt that butchers will most likely use the public slaughter-houses. They have not done so hitherto, and the urban district councils in some cases have almost decided to give up the public slaughter-houses. As showing how useful public slaughter-houses are, I may mention that in Scotland 88 per cent. of the total urban population are provided with home-killed meat from slaughter-houses which are under public control.
We are fighting tuberculosis in Ireland to the best of our ability, and we think it is our duty to see that properly slaughtered meat is provided for the people. Though if this Bill becomes law and meat is inspected at private slaughter-houses it may have the effect, as I have said, that butchers will use the public slaughter-
554
houses, it does not follow that urban district councils will prevent private slaughter-houses from being used. The district councils have to make by-laws under this Bill and those by-laws would have to go before the Local Government Board, and we have every confidence in Ireland that no by-law would be allowed by the Board which prevented a private slaughter-house from being used unless some public reason could be shown to justify the action of the urban district council in asking for such a by-law. It is not, as I have said, the object of this Bill to do away with private slaughterhouses, but to have them inspected and also the meat that is butchered in them. I only mention that because exception was taken to the Bill on this ground in the House of Commons. I have answered that point in the same way as it was answered in the other House, the answer there being regarded as perfectly satisfactory and the Bill being allowed to go through without amendment. I may add that twenty-one district councils have passed a Resolution in favour of the Bill I and asking the Chief Secretary to support it. I hope that in these circumstances your Lordships will grant the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Mayo.)
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I need only say one word with regard to the attitude of the Irish Government towards this Bill. They are in entire sympathy with the object of the Bill and would be glad to see it passed into law. Your Lordships will notice that there is ample provision in the Bill to secure that no; unreasonable restrictions are placed upon traders—I refer to the subsection which i makes it necessary that the Local Government Board should approve of the by-laws passed by the local authorities. Seeing that unsound meat is undoubtedly one I of the most fruitful sources of tuberculosis, it is hoped that the provisions of this Bill will enable further effective steps to be taken to prevent the spread of this disease in Ireland. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

LAND TRANSFER.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I rise to ask my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack the Question of which I have given notice—namely, whether he can give the House any information as to the steps which His Majesty's Government have in contemplation for utilising the labours of the Royal Commission on the Land Transfer Acts, and whether their recommendations for the improvement of the Land Registry will be carried out with a view to the extension of the system.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, I am glad this question has been put. The country is under a great debt of gratitude to the members of the Royal Commission who investigated this most intricate and, to laymen, unattractive subject. Their Report is of great value. I have already practically got into shape a Bill for the purpose of giving, in substance, effect to their recommendations, and I hope to submit it to my colleagues with a view to obtaining their approbation and having the question brought before Parliament as soon as possible. I think the noble and learned Earl desires that I should say, as I desire to say, a little in regard to the subject in general and the reasons which led to the appointment of the Royal Commission. Although comparatively few people take an interest in it, the subject is one of very great importance for many reasons. The present condition of the law in England as regards titles to landed property and the methods of transferring landed property, except where provision exists for the registration of title—namely, in the County of London—is really a scandal, and is almost unique for its obscurity and its cost.
When a man wants to buy a piece of land, no matter how small, he must, personally or through his solicitor and at his own risk and expense, procure and examine all deeds, mortgages, and documents of that kind extending over a long period, ascertain dispositions by wills and settlements, and whether there has been payment or non-payment of duties, and so forth, so as to be practically safe in paying money for the purchase of land; and it does sometimes occur that after having done all that he finds himself still with a defective title. Further than that, often the purchaser's right to inves-
556
tigate a title is limited to twenty or thirty years by the condition of the sale, which still leaves a good deal of investigation to be done and does not give complete security. Besides it is found to lead to the costly employment of solicitors, and the costly reinvestigation of title on every transfer of land, whether mortgage, sale, or lease, on which money has to be laid out. Sometimes, of course, the investigation can be dispensed with, and sometimes the full solicitors' charges are not charged. These are the legal conditions of transfer of property in England, and I say it is almost a scandal to civilisation. It is impossible to say with precision what this system costs those who are interested in land, but it has been estimated by a very high authority that, quite apart from stamps, duties, or Government charges, the solicitor's costs and charges out of pocket for these transfers of landed property amount to £4,000,000 sterling a year, and I believe that this is within the mark. The people who suffer from this are primarily the landowners, and also the purchasers of land. It is a clog upon landed property, and falls especially hard on poor people who like to buy their houses or small pieces of land. It has, therefore, a direct bearing on the policy of both Parties in the State, who wish to encourage the acquisition of land by larger numbers of occupying owners.
There are, moreover, dangers under the present system—the loss of deeds, which may involve the loss of proofs of right to property; frauds by duplication of deeds, or forgery; and concealment of deeds so as to hide defects of title. Fraud and concealment can be prevented to a large extent, at all events, by the registration of deeds, but we have registration of deeds only in two counties in England; and registration of deeds would have little or no effect upon all the other evils to which I have adverted. One may well ask how it is that this absurdity has lasted so long. The reasons, I think, are the extreme complexity and technical character of this subject, so that public opinion cannot be intelligently brought to bear upon it; the enormous strength of the vested interests concerned in the maintenance of the present system; and the aversion to learning a new system and dislike of innovation which are fortunately or unfortunately characteristic of the legal profession.

557
For these evils there is not the least doubt a remedy could be provided. It is possible for the Government to set up a register all over England under which the actual ownership or right to possession can be recorded, together with all other rights attaching to the land, and the Government can offer to any purchaser a guarantee of the title which he acquires, so that either he will get the property with a good title or will be repaid the money which he has given on the faith of getting a good title. A system of this kind has been for a long time in force in Australia and in New Zealand, in which the same laws prevail as in this country, and also in the whole of Central Europe under different laws. After the first registration the expense of such a system is very small. When a purchaser acquires property under a registered title, as I say he can pay his money with absolute safety because the guarantee of the State is behind it. This has already been partially accomplished in a very small degree in England. I am not going to give your Lordships the history of the efforts that have been made in this direction. They began in 1857, and Lord Westbury, Lord Hatherley, Lord Selborne, Lord Cairns, and Lord Herschell have all taken part in the endeavour to pass Registration of Titles Bills and some of them have passed instalments in that direction.
But the principal mover, the most-successful legislator, on this subject has been the noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury. The noble Earl began his efforts in 1887, and continued them down to 1897; and I am happy to think that in my position in the House of Commons during all that time I did my best to support and assist the passage of the proposals of the noble and learned Earl. In 1897 the noble Earl passed the Bill which is now applicable to the County of London, the effect of which was to institute registration of title compulsorily upon any transfer of land within the County of London and in any other county where the county council desired it. I am sorry to say that from the date of the passing of that Act the most strenuous resistance has been offered to it by the majority of the legal profession, principally supported by the Incorporated Law Society. The subject is one which laymen cannot understand without much study. No single county except London has asked
558
for this Act to be applied. I do not suggest for a moment that there has been any unworthy action or unworthy motive, but the solicitors who have to advise the county councils have almost invariably advised against an extension of the system. The result is that the clause requiring the consent of the county councils has killed the prospect of an extension of this most beneficial system.
There is a regular literature upon the subject, making every kind of groundless objection to the system in the noble and learned Earl's Act, and there are constant efforts to prejudice it in the public mind. I may say, for example, that I have quite lately received from some of the borough councils in London a number of resolutions condemning the existence of the system of the registration of title in London and asking that it should be undone. If I thought that the members of the borough councils in London had studied the meaning of registration of title or familiarised themselves with the Act, I should, of course, pay attention to what they urged; but it is a great misfortune that important public bodies should be induced, without any inquiry, to commit themselves to opposition to a system which has been supported by so many very high authorities.
These criticisms, misleading to the ignorant public, were so rife that it was thought desirable to appoint a Royal Commission for the purpose of considering the subject. I do not say for a moment that the system established under the Act of 1897 is not susceptible of improvement. The noble and learned Earl himself would, no doubt, be the first to admit that. He carried the Act in the face of great difficulty, and if the noble Earl's intentions had been observed a great deal of the difficulty, such as it is, that has arisen in the working of that Act would not have arisen at all. But the obstacles that were placed in the way—I need not specify them as they are too technical to be appreciated—by the limitations of the Act have given rise to some difficulties, and those difficulties have been considered by the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission was appointed at the request, I may say, of the Incorporated Law Society, doubtless in the hope that it would condemn the registration of title. On the contrary, my Lords, the

559
Report, which has now been published, approves the principle of registration of title, and it recommends the gradual extension of compulsory registration of title after sufficient experience has been obtained of its working, and under some amendments in technical and practical details. I hope that the result of these labours will not be thrown away, or that the Recommendations will be allowed to remain as a dead letter. I hope that I shall be able to present a Bill carrying them into effect in substance, and I hope it may also be found practicable—although at present I cannot put this beyond an aspiration—to reduce the expense to landowners in the initial stage of registration where alone the expense is complained of. Whether that will be done or not, the House will allow me to express my own personal and pious aspiration. I shall certainly do my best to suggest to my colleagues some such method if it is practicable.
I have very little further to say, beyond this. I should like to appeal to laymen on all sides of politics who do not understand the details of this subject to recall one or two facts. Every man who has held the Great Seal during the last fifty or sixty years has been in favour of this system of registration of title. The only Lord Chancellor of whom no record remains as to his opinion is Lord Chelmsford, but there is no reason whatever to suppose that he was opposed to it. Every other Lord Chancellor since the time of Lord Westbury, and including Lord Westbury, has told the House and the country that this is practicable, and has endeavoured actively to further it. I think that this fact might well be considered by those who are invited by interested opposition to believe that what is practicable in Australia and New Zealand is impracticable in England under the same law. The present system is, to my mind, an oppressive tax on landed property—as I have said, the solicitors' costs and charges for England alone amount to about £4,000,000 a year, whereas the Government stamps on dealings in land, which are often complained of, only amount to £1,000,000—it is a hindrance in the development of land and of its acquisition by small people; it depresses the value of land by making it less disposable; and I hope we shall be accorded some measure of public support in doing our best to overcome the inveterate prepossessions of professional men.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, this subject is almost too technical to ask your Lordships' attention upon it at any length. But there is one proposition which everybody will understand and which is very simple in itself—namely, whether when a title has been once examined and found to be a good title there should not be some finality about it. The great vice of the system hitherto is that there is no finality about it at all. On every change of ownership, on everything that necessitates an investigation of title, the whole thing has to be done over again, and the result is that the expense incurred is enormous.
I do not suggest unworthy or improper motives on the part of the solicitors in respect of the fees they charge. If you make a thing a necessity to be done, you cannot complain that people who have to do it should charge for what they do. No doubt there are some charges which it is quite reasonable for solicitors to make. I remember receiving in the course of my investigations, a very serious complaint from an old lady, who complained bitterly of her solicitors' charges. Her complaint was not in respect of the extent of the particular charge so much as that the charge had been made at all. She said "I took the solicitor over my land and pointed out to him everything that was mine. I gave him all the information, and then he charged me for it." Whether she thought that this ought to have been its own reward and that it was a delightful occupation to walk over land with herself as principal witness in this way I do not know, but she was perfectly sincere in believing that it was a most unreasonable and improper thing for the solicitor to charge her, as she put it, for her own information. Of course, I have no sympathy with unreasonable objections of this sort. But can any one say that it is a reasonable thing that after a title had been investigated possibly over sixty years and found to be good the whole thing should be gone over again whenever the owner desired to sell or to alter his ownership for some reason, and that every marriage which had taken place in the time and every dealing with the property of any sort or kind should be gone into once more to see whether the title had been affected. It is obvious that some system by which you should arrive at a final determination whether or not such and

561
such a title is good is what we ought to look for. I believe some such system is absolutely essential, and I entirely concur with what the Lord Chancellor has said about the scandal of allowing the present system to continue.
I am afraid I must concur also with my noble and learned friend that there has been an unreasonable obstruction of the operation of the Act of 1897. I am not at all certain that I should not add something perhaps to what my noble and learned friend said, and say that I think that to some extent there has been an unreasonable charge of fees, owing to the effort on the part of those who are entrusted with the administration of this work that it should be self-supporting and that there should not be any application to the State. The Treasury, of course, are bound to look after the interests of the State; but I am afraid one of the difficulties has been that there has been an occasional overcharge in respect of large property. I do not think that in the case of smaller properties there has been any overcharge. That matter has been very fairly considered; but with regard to large properties, where it was thought, I suppose, that it was not unreasonable to charge a large fee, there has, I think, been some exaggeration in the amount charged. But whether that be so or not, and whether or not it is a desirable thing for the State to intervene and pay for this, there can be no doubt about the propriety of some such institution as has been established in the Land Registry. The acquisition of land for small holdings is a thing now greatly desired by both political Parties, and nothing could check that movement more than the cumbersomeness and cost of the present system. I am quite sure that under the guidance of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack the system will be improved in pursuance of some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and I hope he will succeed in the end in crowning our labours, after a very, long struggle, by establishing a simpler and less expensive system.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I rise to say a word or two in this discussion, having spent a good deal of my life in the practical dealing with this subject. I think the House is to be congratulated that my noble and learned friend on the
562
Woolsack and the noble and learned Earl opposite are agreed upon a great principle and in the feeling that the time has come when that principle may be brought into operation. There is a class, no doubt, who dislike change and have obstructed the attempt to bring it about. On the other hand, there are many eminent legal practitioners who have given the matter careful consideration and while most desirous to do the best in the public interest are greatly impressed by the difficulties surrounding the subject. What is easy in New Zealand and in Australia is difficult in an old country like this, where, to begin with, land is much more valuable and minute boundaries are very important and it is difficult to ascertain them with exactness. In the second place, the interests associated with land in England are so complicated, ranging from settlements to leases, that the problem of land transfer is a different problem, in degree at all events, from what it is in other places. The Royal Commission over which the noble Viscount opposite presided has done a great deal to clear up the difficulties, and, I hope, to map out a simple course for the future; but I should not like it to go forth that the only source of the difficulties met with in this case has been a desire to hinder and obstruct change. As I have said, there are many legal practitioners who have taken the deepest interest in this question and who have given their time and labour with a view to bringing about improvements in the system.
I have known noble Lords in this House to take their title deeds to the Land Registry, and after a short interview the able officials of the Land Registry have investigated the title and given either a possessory or absolute title and the thing was done very easily. But every one has not the time or the inclination to do that, and consequently they employ a solicitor. The result is two bills of cost. That has tended, I think, to occasion a certain amount of criticism and misunderstanding about the system. I have no doubt that in course of time these things will be got right, but it is not altogether the simple matter that it appears at the outset. The Royal Commission have done a good deal to grapple with the problem, and I am glad to think that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will in a Bill get rid of some of the difficulties.

563
I only rose for the purpose of pointing out that there has been a good deal of legitimate criticism about the first fruits of the new system. It is not easy to apply a new system to anything so complicated as English land rights, and there has naturally been a certain amount of disappointment. But I do not think that one should class all the criticism under one head, but should rather welcome the labours of those who may have been very critical, but who, by the evidence they have given and by the work they have put into it, have done a good deal to smooth the path of the reformer in this matter.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, as I had the honour to be Chairman of the Royal Commission which considered this subject, I may thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the reference he made to our labours, but I should like to say that if the Commission has had any success it is really due to the never-failing attention which was paid to the subject by the five legal gentlemen, four barristers and one solicitor—gentlemen of the highest experience and standing in their profession—who sat on the Commission and devoted the greatest thought to the whole matter. We were successful in arriving at a unanimous Report on this very complicated subject, and I sincerely hope that it may have assisted the noble and learned Lord in the Bill which I am glad to hear he proposes to introduce.
I sympathise with what the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down said. There has been, no doubt, unreasonable opposition on the part of solicitors, who feared interference with their professional work. They did not like the State stepping in as between them and their clients, and I suppose there has been dislike of a new system of land transfer to which they were not accustomed. But there have been other difficulties inherent in the nature of landed property itself. You cannot expect that under any conceivable system of registry of title land can be passed from hand to hand as simply as shares or stocks are transferred. That, I think, will be perfectly clear to anybody who has had to look into the subject. As it is, the certificates of title which have hitherto been given have often had such a complicated appearance that it was ex-
564
tremely difficult for a layman to understand them. This, however, I hope will be remedied in the future.
There is another difficulty—the question of cost. It must be remembered that most corporations or individuals who buy land in England do not buy it in order to sell. They buy it in order to hold, and probably at the time they have no expectation whatever that they will ever be called upon to part with it. Therefore if to the necessary expense of purchase you add fees for something which to them appears useless because they are satisfied with the title to the property which their solicitors advise them to take, they naturally rather shrink from registration. Then, again, there are many persons holding properties which have descended to them perhaps through successions of hundreds of years who know that they have a good holding title, at any rate, but who do not want their titles investigated by a public authority which they think may discover some kind of flaw in the title which they have never heard of themselves. There have been difficulties of this kind in the way of registration of title, not entirely, I think, due to the opposition of solicitors, which have to be considered in dealing with the subject.
I have spoken of the expense. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had to deal with this matter under new rules as to fees which he established in 1908, and he very wisely, if I may say so, lowered the fees on applications for absolute title. The great defect of the system hitherto has been that, as a rule, absolute title has not been given, only possessory title; and that is merely a certificate of the fact of a certain person being in possession at a particular moment, and does not clear the title before the date of registration at all, so that with every fresh transaction after the grant of possessory title it may be necessary to go into the whole history of the matter before the registration of the possessory title. What is wanted in this matter, as my noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury has said, is finality. You want an absolute title which shall be indefeasible. If you give that you are giving something to a landowner which is worth having; but if you give him anything less, you cannot blame him if he does not care to pay for it.

565
In the fee rules in 1908, to which I have referred, I think it was a misfortune that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack increased the charges in the case of properties over £1,000 in value. He was obliged to do it, I suppose, because the law provides that the receipts from fees for registration shall pay the cost of the office. We have made certain recommendations upon that subject which the noble and learned Lord, I suppose, was not authorised to say much about to-day, but which, to my mind, are of the greatest importance in dealing with this matter. I suppose the justification of compulsory registration of title is that it is for the benefit of the community as a whole. There is no reason why you should compel a landowner to register merely for his own benefit. You want to establish registration of title in order that the purchase and sale of property may be cheap and easy, and that therefore the owners of property may be multiplied in the country. You ought, therefore, to be careful how you burden the existing owners of property with excessive fees, or even high fees, for registration of title. One thing was done in this matter which to my mind cannot be defended. When the Registry Office building in Lincoln's Inn Fields was put up some twelve years ago it cost, I think, £55,000 to build, but the land on which it stood cost £150,000; yet it has been provided that the whole of that sum of £205,000 shall be paid out of the receipts of the Registry Office in forty years. County councils which buy land for the purpose of small holdings are allowed to pay off the loan in eighty years, and it is perfectly clear that the provision to which I have referred was not fair upon the existing working of the Registry Office. I hope that may be remedied.
I hope also that something may be done by the Government to utilise their new system of valuation of landed property, adopted under the Finance Act of 1910, so as to work it in with the registration of title. That is done in Germany, with the result that the fees charged to landowners for the registration of title are very small indeed. I commend that suggestion to the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues, because I am convinced that if a real attempt is made to work upon those lines you will go a long way towards getting rid of the present objection of
566
landowners to register their properties. And if the present system is amended in various points—which I need not go into now because they are dealt with in our Report—I cannot help thinking that it will be found to work so much more easily that even the solicitors themselves may be induced to look upon it as an advantage to their profession. It surely must be clear that if owing to the adoption of a good system of registry titles can be made really secure, and all dealings in land simplified, transactions will be encouraged, so that where a solicitor now has merely to carry through one case he may have to carry through half-a-dozen cases in the future, and by the multiplicity of transactions he may actually increase the receipts of his profession. I apologise for having detained your Lordships at such length, but as I devoted two years and a half to the investigation of this subject perhaps I may be excused.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords I quite agree that whatever difficulties have arisen have not been solely due to the resistance and opposition of solicitors, and I hope that they will assist in this reform. I must observe, however, in regard to what was said by the noble Viscount who has just sat down as to possessory title, that in the rules of 1908 I authorised the registrar to offer free of expense an absolute title where only a possessory title was asked for, and I am sorry to say that in a good many cases, notwithstanding that the offer of an absolute title was made without any charge, the solicitors concerned would not for their clients accept an absolute title with the benefit of State guarantee. I will now say a word about expense. I agree that this is a very important question. I cannot promise anything with regard to that, but the noble Viscount made a very fertile suggestion. It was this, that registration of title might be worked simultaneously with, and as part of, the system of valuation. In Germany registration of title, survey, and valuation of land are all worked together. I will certainly make the suggestion to those who are responsible for the finance of this country. I am quite sure that if they can they will endeavour to advance any good system of this kind; but I can say no more than that I will with great pleasure make the suggestion in the proper quarter. Indeed, I have already been considering it, although

567
only from the legal point of view. I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount for what he has said, and I hope that his labours and those of his colleagues on the Royal Commission will prove to be of value to the country. In that case I am sure the noble Viscount will feel himself repaid for his great labour and trouble.

RIGHTS OF WAY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for receiving the report of Amendments, read.
Moved, That this Report be now received.—(Lord Eversley.)
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I had the misfortune not to be in the House yesterday, but I understand that the noble Lord intimated his intention to propose at a future stage of the Bill some Amendment to an Amendment which was inserted by the Select Committee. If so, I shall be much obliged if he would give me due notice of its nature and when the Amendment will come on.
LORD EVERSLEY: I did not indicate that I should move any Amendment. I merely made some comments on the Motion to go into Committee, and suggested that between now and the time when the Bill reached the other House it probably would be carefully examined by the Government draftsman with regard to the Amendment of the noble Lord, but I expressed the hope that it would be found unnecessary to make any change in it.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I only ask, should the noble Lord come to the conclusion that some Amendment is necessary, that I may have due notice of it.
LORD EVERSLEY: I cannot, of course, undertake to say what will happen when the Bill gets to the other House.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I am alluding only to what may happen in this House.
LORD EVERSLEY: I do not understand whether the noble Lord wishes the Report stage to be postponed.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: No. If the proposed Amendment is not going to be inserted in this House, of course I have nothing further to say on the matter.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I understand from my noble friend Lord Eversley that he does not propose to move any further Amendment in this House.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL.
A Memorandum relating to the Bill ordered to be printed. (No. 144.)
House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, Four o'clock.