Sitting of 1 November 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Glasgow and South Western Railway," presented by the Lord Advocate; read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a second time upon Thursday, 9th November.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 31st October, 1911, amending the Schedule to the Minute of 30th January, 1905, providing for the establishment of Committees for the Training of Teachers [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Northern Masai.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received reports showing how the Northern Masai were transported to the new territory assigned to them, the incidents which took place on the way, and their experiences of their new country; and whether he proposes to publish these reports?
  Sir CLEMENT HILLasked whether the removal of the Masai from their northern reserve, which was dealt with in Cd. 5584, has been satisfactorily carried out; and, if not, what is the present position of the question?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have received reports from the Governor as to the
  844
  move of the Northern Masai. The move has at present only been partially carried out. The reasons for this and the present situation are not altogether clear to me, and further communication with the Governor will be necessary. But I propose eventually to publish the correspondence.

  Case of Mr. Galbraith Cole.
  Sir C. HILLasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he will lay before the House any correspondence which has passed between the Colonial Office and the Governor of the East Africa Protectorate relating to the case of Mr. Galbraith Cole, and the reasons for the order of deportation which has been issued against that gentleman?
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, with a view to giving publicity to the facts of the case, he can now see his way to publish in full the judge's report on the trial of the hon. Galbraith Cole, together with the comments of the Governor of British East Africa upon the trial?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I will show the report of the trial to my hon. Friends, but unless there is a general desire in the House I do not think any public advantage can be gained by giving further currency to the story.

  Italy and Turkey (Bombardment of Tripoli).
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the suffering to which 1,300 British Maltese refugees were subjected during their voyage from Tripoli to Malta on the steamer "Castlegarth"; whether four of the refugees lost their reason during the voyage and a child died for want of nutrition; whether, when the "Castlegarth" entered the port of Malta at 11 p.m. on 1st October, the passengers were not allowed to land, but were left without food or drink and at the mercy of inclement weather until 2 p.m. on the afternoon of the following day; whether, previous to the annuoncement of the bombardment, the Maltese colony at Tripoli had asked the Vice-Consul there and had telegraphed to the Malta Government for the dispatch of warships, which, had they been sent, might have conveyed the colonists safely to Malta without trouble; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the cause of this delay and suffering?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have heard with much regret of the sufferings of these refugees, and I am glad to learn that those of them who are without means and friends are being cared for by the Government of Malta. I am aware that one child died on the voyage, but the cause of death has not been reported to me, nor have I heard that any of the refugees have lost their reason. I have caused inquiries to be made as to the length of time which elapsed before the refugees were permitted to land, and as to the reason for their detention. The suggestion was made from several quarters that His Majesty's Government should send a ship for the protection of British subjects in Tripoli, but having regard to all the circumstances it was not thought advisable to do so.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, consequent upon the hasty departure of Maltese colonists from Tripoli, the property which they were compelled to leave behind was pillaged by Arabs and that the harvests of the Maltese have been reaped by natives; whether His Majesty's Government intend to make representations to the Italian Government with a view to securing compensation for all British subjects who have suffered damage through the present war; and whether in the meantime, His Majesty's Government intend following the precedent established during the bombardment of Alexandria, creating a local Maltese committee to help refugees who are still in the island, or who have been taken back to Tripoli, and giving to such committee all the power vested in the Malta Egyptian Committee of 1884?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. F. D. Acland): His Majesty's Government have been informed that, on the withdrawal of the Turkish troops from Tripoli, the country people pillaged a number of shops and stores in that town. I have not yet been informed how far Maltese were affected, but will inquire. I am not aware that the harvests of the Maltese have been reaped by natives. No claims for compensation have yet been received; but if any are received they shall be considered on their merits, and I shall examine the principle on which His Majesty's Government dealt with claims arising out of the South African war, with the view of securing its application in this case. At present the refugees are being cared for by the Maltese Government; and, if it should eventually
  846
  be found desirable, the question of appointing local committees will no doubt be considered.

  Fair-Wages Clause (Admiralty Contracts).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what contracts for steam coal have been placed by his Department with colliery firms in South Wales, specifying the name of each colliery and the number of tons at present contracted for?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): It has always been the practice of the Admiralty in the public interests to treat the details of the coal contracts as confidential, and I am not in a position therefore to furnish the hon. Member with the particulars which he desires.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Might I ask whether it is possible to publish the names?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We publish no official list of the names in which the contracts are held, though I believe some of them are, not authoritatively, published in the newspapers.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the Fair-Wages Clause can be enforced if the workmen do not know what firms have the contracts?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Fair-Wages Clause is not in these contracts. As my hon. Friend knows, there is a special sliding scale, and it would be very difficult indeed to apply it.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether in August last his Department referred to the Advisory Committee the question as to whether the work done by moulders at Dowlais in making parts of the machinery used for rolling plates for the Admiralty by the same firm at their works at Cardiff brought the said workmen within the protection of the Fair-Wages Resolution; whether any decision has yet been arrived at by the Committee on the point; and whether the First Lord of the Admiralty adheres to the decision of his predecessor in office that the non-payment of fair wages generally by a firm is a good ground for the non-retention of that firm on the list of Admiralty contractors?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirma-

  847
  tive. To the second the reply is that the Committee recommended a detailed inquiry on this point on the spot in connection with the general inquiry into wages at Dowlais. In the meantime the Committee did not recommend any exclusion from the Government list of other works of the firm than those at Dowlais. The exact position, both as to Cardiff plant and the general inquiry, was stated in replies by the President of the Board of Trade and myself to the hon. Member's questions of 27th October. From those replies the hon. Member will have gathered that the inquiry as to Dowlais wages has been in progress for some time, but is not yet completed, owing to the very intricate nature of the questions involved; and as regards plant at Cardiff, that the Admiralty is assured that no work of any kind is done at Dowlais that has any connection with work under Admiralty contracts at the Cardiff works of the firm in question. The last part of the question presumably relates to the general principle stated by the late First Lord of the Admiralty on the 15th and 17th August, in which I entirely concur.

  Rosyth Dock Works.
  Mr. J. WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to a recent accident on the dock works at Rosyth, when a workman named Cassey or Beckett was killed; and what action he proposes to take to inquire into the causes and circumstances of such accident?
  The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. Lambert): A report has been received of a fatal accident at Rosyth. I understand that an inquiry will be held by the Procurator-Fiscal in accordance with the provisions of Scotch law. Pending the result of this inquiry I am not in a position to make any statement.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked whether the Local Government Board for Scotland intend to publish the report of their inspector, Dr. Dewar, upon the housing conditions of the navvies engaged upon the dock works at Rosyth; and, if not, why not?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The report is in print, and will shortly be issued.

  Royal Naval Reserve.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether any steps have been taken to induce medical
  848
  men to take commissions in the Royal Naval Reserve, with a view to securing their professional services in war time, or whether such a step is in contemplation?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We have done a great deal in the direction suggested by the hon. Member. Revised regulations for Medical Officers, Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, embodying improved conditions of service, have recently been introduced, and have been brought prominently to the notice of medical men throughout the country. The result so far is considered satisfactory.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Have any steps been taken to help these new recruits to get their sea legs?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: You had better give me notice of that question.

  Osborne College.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the complaints with regard to the sanitary condition of certain, parts of Osborne College; and whether he will consider the advisability of rebuilding the portions of the college which are unhealthy?
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether the recurring outbreaks of illness at Osborne College show that the college is unhealthy; and whether there is any intention of rebuilding or altering it in order to make more healthy habitations, for the cadets?
  Mr. LAMBERT: The question of replacing the temporary buildings now used by buildings of a more permanent nature is at the present time engaging the attention of the Admiralty. But I cannot admit the suggestion that the existing buildings are injurious to the health of the cadets.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Is it not a fact there have been very serious epidemics at Osborne on many occasions?
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: Yes, there have been epidemics, but they have been brought in from outside; and, as the Noble Lord knows, boys are brought into Osborne about the age of thirteen, when they are peculiarly subject to these epidemics, mumps, measles, and such-like.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Has it not been officially reported by the officers at Osborne College that the college is unhealthy?
  Mr. LAMBERT: No, I have not heard of it.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Is it not a fact that, when pulling down some buildings, they found the walls stuffed with two inches of damp sawdust, and that in other parts you can put an umbrella through them?
  Mr. LAMBERT: The whole of these repairs have been undertaken and carried out during the recent holidays.

  Royal Dockyards (Inequalities of Pay).
  Mr. FALLEasked whether in the Royal dockyards men working on scaffolds of 25 feet and upwards above the ground receive pay at the rate of time and a-quarter to time and a-half, while men under the director of works, in the same dockyard and on the same work, must be working at an elevation of 50 feet before receiving such pay; and if the Admiralty will remedy this inequality of pay?
  Mr. LAMBERT: As regards the dockyard workmen, the regulation is as stated by the hon. Member. In the case of the Works Department there is no definite limit, the governing principle being that extra pay is confined to employment involving greater risk to life and limb than that usually incurred in the trade to which the workman belongs. I do not consider that a bricklayer working at a height of 50 feet is incurring any special risk which would justify the grant of extra pay.

  Naval Sick Berth Staff.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the discontent amongst all ratings of the naval sick berth staff; and why an attendant looking after a mild case of measles receives an allowance of 6d. a day, yet an attendant carrying out the risky work of looking after a lunatic only receives an allowance of 4d. a day, a dispenser is only awarded an allowance of 2d. a day, looking to the fact that his duties during the influenza season in the North Sea or in the fever months in the Mediterranean are very heavy, and the allowance to men qualified in massage has been reduced from 1s. to 6d. a day?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: These various allowances were adopted on the recommendation of the recent Committee on the Naval Medical Service, and were graded with due regard to the value, difficulty, danger, etc., of the particular work for which allowance is given.

  Engineer Officers of the Royal Navy.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in Admiralty Circular Letter of December, 1902, engineer commanders were promised a minimum rate of pay on promotion of 24s. a day; that, in spite of this promise, some of the engineer commanders only received 18s. a day on promotion to that rank, and that this action has created dissatisfaction amongst the engineer officers of the Royal Navy; whether the engineer officers were promised that every effort would be made to make the age of reaching each rank in the engineering branch identical with the age of reaching the corresponding rank in the executive branch; and whether he will inquire into the case and remove what is regarded as an anomaly?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second part of the question, I must refer the Noble Lord to the replies given to him on 9th March and 8th and 18th May last, and also to the detailed Memorandum on the matter sent in reply to the Memorial to the Board which the Noble Lord and other Dockyard Members signed on 27th June last. As regards the third part of the question, the Circular Letter of December, 1902, stated that the average period of reaching each rank will be assimilated, as far as it is possible, to that of the executive branch. Steps have been taken to carry this into effect, and whereas under the old Regulations prior to 1902 the average age on reaching the rank of Fleet Engineer (now Engineer Commander) was about forty-three years, it is now thirty-eight years.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Is it not the fact that the Circular of 1902 promised these engineer commanders 24s. a day, and that the Circular of November, 1903, altered that altogether? Is there not a very great deal of discontent because these officers think they are subjected to the injustice that although apparently they were promised a certain rate of pay that promise has not been carried out?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: They were promised a certain rate subject to conditions. If I send the Noble Lord the Memorandum referred to in connection with the memorial he can refresh his memory. Should he put down a further question I will do my best to answer it.

  Railway Carriage of Coal (Royal Navy).
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether extra rates were paid for the railway carriage of coal for the Fleet during the late crisis; whether he will consider, in the interest of the public service, the desirability of having large floating depots that could be towed to any position necessary; and whether he can see his way to order depots similar to the 12,000-ton depot at Portsmouth to be included in next Naval Estimates?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The cost of transit by rail is of course higher than by sea. But the rates paid to the railway companies were according to schedule, and were not higher than rates paid for railway transit under ordinary circumstances. The transaction to which the Noble Lord refers was simply part of routine Admiralty procedure designed for the purpose of testing from time to time railway facilities for the transit of coal, and had no reference whatever to any crisis, real or imaginary. The advantages of providing large floating depots to be towed from place to place as necessity demanded, as opposed to storage on shore, are not considered sufficient to justify the serious expenditure that would be involved.

  Mercantile Marine Officers (Signalling Practice).
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked if it would be possible to allow officers of the mercantile marine to attend practice at coastguard stations, or other naval establishments, in order to make themselves perfect in the art of signalling, looking to the importance of a rapid and accurate line of communication at sea between men-of-war and ships of the mercantile marine.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty have for some time past had under consideration the best means of assisting officers of the mercantile marine to qualify in signalling, and it is hoped soon to make an announcement on the subject.

  Naval Medical Service (Superintending Sisters).
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked whether a new rank of superintending sister has been instituted; what is the total number of sisters in the Naval Medical Service; whether seven sisters have been promoted
  852
  over the heads of their seniors; what is the seniority of the four superintending sisters appointed to the home hospitals and also the three superintending sisters appointed abroad; whether, out of the seven superitneding sisters selected, four have done no foreign service and the other three have not yet completed a first commission abroad; and whether there is any reason to believe that a selection of this character will create a sense of unfairness amongst the sisters of the Naval Medical Service?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The total number of sisters in Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service is seventy, inclusive of three head sisters and seven newly appointed superintending sisters. The superintending sisters had seniority in the rank of sister as from 1st February, 1905, 1st June, 1905, 1st May, 1906, 23rd December, 1908, 2nd January, 1909, 11th January, 1909, and 18th January, 1909, respectively; four of them have not yet served abroad, and the other three had not completed a normal term of foreign service at the date of their promotion. As a result of the most careful consideration, the Board found it necessary, in making these promotions, to pass over a number of sisters who, although qualified to perform their present duties satisfactorily, were not fitted for the discharge of the more important administrative duties devolving on a superintending sister.

  Unclaimed Bank Balances.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, under the present law all dormant balances in the hands of bankers become their property after the expiration of six years; and whether, pending a full inquiry into the subject of unclaimed bank balances and securities, he will introduce a Bill requiring bankers to advertise the particulars of dormant accounts six months before, by operation of law, they would become merged with their own assets?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): My right hon. Friend does not consider that there is sufficient reason to take the action suggested in the hon. Member's question.

  Sugar Duties.
  Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the increasing growth of sugar beet in this country and to the export of it to

  853
  sugar factories in Holland for the purpose of the manufacture of sugar; and if, under these circumstances, he can now see his way to promise that if a factory is created in this country for the above purpose no excise duty upon the sugar made will be charged at any rate for a period of years?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir; for reasons that my right hon. Friend explained to the House on the 2nd March, 1910, he is unable to give the undertaking asked for.
  Mr. FELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the threat of the Treasury to enforce the duties is stopping the erection of these factories?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have not heard that.

  Railway Strike (Employment of Military).
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked what charge was thrown upon the Exchequer by the use of the military in connection with the recent railway strike in Great Britain?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. Tennant): No figures showing the additional expenditure involved by the use of the troops are available.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: When does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that the figures will be ready?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware that they will ever be ready.
  Mr. KING: Will the hon. Gentleman con-eider the desirability of getting them?
  Mr. TENNANT: I will see if it can be done.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: If the figures are never likely to be ready how will the Government be able to ascertain the liability of the railway companies?

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    MEDICAL REGULATIONS.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked what arrangements will be made for the provision of medical attendance upon an insured person who happens to fall ill outside the district covered by the panel of doctors who attend upon the members of the approved society to which he belongs?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that a panel of doctors will be appointed for an approved society. The panel will be appointed for the area of a local health committee. The administrative details necessary to provide for the temporary or permanent migration of insured persons from one such area to another can be dealt with by the regulations to be made by the Insurance Commissioners under Clause 14.

    PROVIDENT DISPENSARIES.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether any steps will be taken to utilise existing provident dispensaries under the National Insurance Bill?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am unable, to give a general answer to this question. The matter will depend to a large extent on the use made in each case by the local health committees and Insurance Commissioners of their powers under Clause 14 (4).

    APPLICATION TO IRELAND.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked if dispensary medical officers in Ireland, who are required under the National Insurance Bill, Clause 59, to attend and treat deposit contributors in their area, will be remunerated upon the same scale as medical practitioners with whom arrangements are made by the local health committee; and if it would be practicable under this Bill to provide for the superannuation of dispensary medical officers on attaining the age of sixty-five years?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Clause 59 does not require the same scale to be prescribed in the two cases specified. It would not be possible to provide under the National Insurance Bill for the superannuation of dispensary medical officers.
    Captain CRAIG: When is it intended to put down the Government Amendments to Clause 59 affecting Ireland, so that we may understand exactly how that country is affected?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not see how that arises out of this question.
    Captain CRAIG: How can we discuss the Clause in Committee unless we have the Amendments?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The information will be given as soon as possible.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends himself to put down any Amendments to Clause 59 of the National Insurance Bill; and, if so, whether he will do so at once with a view to affording time for their consideration in Ireland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to him on Monday, in which, owing to a copyist's error, "take" was substituted for "table." No avoidable delay will be allowed to occur.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Is it quite fair that while the hon. and learned Member for Waterford is able to state that certain concessions will be granted other Irish Members are kept in the dark as to what the Government Amendments are?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: They will have the information as soon as the Amendments can be tabled.
    Captain CRAIG: Is it treating us quite fairly to postpone till so late putting down the Government Amendments so far as they affect Ireland? Why is this Clause being treated in a hole-and-corner way with the hon. Member for Waterford, while we have no fair opportunity of studying the Government proposals?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There has been no avoidable delay.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: How is it that the Government Amendments are on the Paper to Clauses nearly up to Clause 59, while there is no single hint of what the Government propose to do with regard to a Clause which has regard to the whole administration of the Bill in Ireland—a Clause to the discussion of which only one day is allotted?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member has pointed out that there are other Clauses before 59 to which the Government Amendments have not been put down: thus it is clear the Amendments to this Clause are not later than those to other Clauses.

    BOOKS AND ACCOUNTS.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will order that all books and accounts referred to in Clause 28 of the National Insurance Bill should be uniform in character;
    856
    whether such books will be supplied by the State; and whether all cost of auditing and valuation should be borne by the State?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I will refer the Noble Lord to my right hon. Friend's, replies to him on 31st July last.

    CASUAL LABOURERS.
    Major M'MICKINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to his reply to the deputation of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture and National Farmers' Union of England last July, whether he has come to a decision as regards the question of including casual labourers in the National Insurance Bill?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No announcement can yet be made.

    SMALLHOLDERS.
    Mr. FALCONERasked what will be the position under the National Insurance Bill of a smallholder who is not employed by an employer during the greater part of the year, but who is so employed for short periods on a large farm; and, if he does not become a voluntary contributor during the period of his non-employment, will he receive no benefit in respect of the contributions made by him and his employer during the period of his employment?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: A person in the circumstances described could do one of two things. He could join a society, and in that case he would have when not working for an employer to make a number of contributions necessary to keep him in benefit; or he could become a deposit contributor, in which case he would be provided with medical and sanatorium benefits and such other benefits in sickness as his own contributions, the employer's, and the State grant would reach to.
    Mr. FALCONER: May I ask whether,, in the events which have been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, the person mentioned in the question will be required to pay not only the 4d. of his own contribution as an employé, but also the 3d. that is supposed to be found by his employer?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is so.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: May I ask whether a deposit contributor who is only employed casually is entitled to become a voluntary contributor, as suggested in the question?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If a contributor becomes regularly employed, he would be so entitled.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: The question is whether a deposit contributor, who is employed only for a few months of the year, if he ceases to become a deposit contributor, is then entitled by reason of his savings to become a voluntary contributor and keep up his payments?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not appreciate the point raised as to a voluntary and a deposit contributor.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We had better debate this matter in Committee.

    MEDICAL PROFESSION.
    Mr. AMERYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now successfully adjusted the outstanding points of difference with the medical profession on the National Insurance Bill; and when Amendments dealing with these points will be put on the Paper?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: So far as I am aware the most important Amendments affecting the medical profession were dealt with by the Committee on Clause 14. Points of detail arising out of the decision of the Committee concerning the relations between the societies and the medical profession have been under discussion, and will be dealt with on Report.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. AMERYasked in what manner the medical benefit, due to the end of the current year, will be administered in the case of a deposit contributor who after suspension from sick benefit has become an inmate of a workhouse infirmary?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The local health committee will place the services of a doctor at the disposal of any insured person who is for the time being entitled to medical benefit.
    Mr. AMERY: Will not a person in that case already receive medical attendance gratis from the workhouse authorities?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Probably he would.
    Mr. AMERY: In that case what advantage would medical benefit be, and would the value of the medical benefit given to the individual be credited to the Post Office fund in general?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think it would be credited to the Post Office fund in general. He was receiving medical treatment in another form under the Poor Law.

    EXTRA LEVY.
    Mr. AMERYasked whether an employer who has neglected or refused to deduct an extra levy from the wages of any of his workmen who may belong to an approved society which has decided on such a levy will be liable to the proceedings and penalties set out in Clauses 52 and 53 of the National Insurance Bill?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The reply is in the affirmative, if notice had been given to the employer in the prescribed manner.

    ACCUMULATED FUNDS.
    Mr. AMERYasked whether the funds accumulated by the Insurance Commissioners in respect of reserve values by the deduction of one penny and five-sixths, or in the case of women one penny halfpenny, from the contributions paid by or for members of an approved society, will be credited separately to that society; and whether the deductions will cease in respect of members of that society when the accumulation is sufficient to meet the liabilities of that society?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to both portions of the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

    STANDING COMMITTEE B (OFFICIAL REPORT).
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend to the House such alterations or additions to the Standing Orders as will permit an Official Report of the proceedings of Standing Committee B to be circulated daily to all Members of the House whilst the said Committee is engaged in discussing Part II. of the National Insurance Bill?
    Viscount WOLMERasked what arrangements, if any, are to be made for officially reporting verbatim proceedings in Standing Committee on Part II. of the National Insurance Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Having regard to the wholly exceptional circumstances of this Bill, we think that the normal, and, as I believe, the convenient procedure of the Standing Committees should be so far varied as that a full daily Official Report shall be prepared and circulated.
    Viscount WOLMER: Will that Official Report be circulated in connection with the OFFICIAL REPORT, so that they shall both come under the same index?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We will see about that.

    DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS (HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Lord Advocate if the Scotch Office have brought before the Chancellor of the Exchequer the position of deposit contributors in the Highlands and Islands and of the fact that, under the Bill as it stands, in many cases the deposit contributors will have no opportunity of availing themselves of the medical benefits of the Bill; and if he will use every legitimate influence in his power to obtain a special grant to enable medical officers to visit far distant patients?
    Mr. URE: I can assure my hon. Friend that the matters to which he refers are under consideration.

    APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Lord Advocate, if he can give the reasons why time has been allocated for all the stages of the National Insurance Bill before the Scottish Members have been informed what Amendments especially relating to Scotland the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to make in the Bill?
    Mr. URE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on Monday to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire.
    Mr. PIRIE: What good does it do Scottish Members to be told that Amendments have been under consideration by the Scottish Office? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman is he speaking for himself or for the so-called mind of the Scottish office? Then I give notice that I shall bring this matter before the House on the Adjournment to-night.

    Board of Inland Revenue (Mr. Harper's Appointment).
    Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1), why was the appointment of Mr. Harper as Chief Valuer to the Board of Inland Revenue announced on 27th August and not during the Session of Parliament; and (2), whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Harper at the end of April, 1911, resigned a position of £1,100
    860
    a year, and a pension, on the London County Council, and was appointed Chief Valuer to the Board of Inland Revenue on 27th August, 1911, at a salary of £1,200 a year, he is now able to state that any suggestion was made, or assurance or hint given, to Mr. Harper that he would obtain a position under Government when he resigned his post on the Council; if not, when was the offer of his new position first made to Mr. Harper?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The reply to the first question is that the vacancy did not occur till 1st September. Mr. Harper was first approached by the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue with the offer of the appointment of Chief Valuer on 15th August, and the Commissioners decided at their meeting of 25th August to make the appointment. My right hon. Friend has already informed the House in the Debate of 11th May that at the time of his resignation of his position under the County Council Mr. Harper asked for nothing and was promised nothing.
    Mr. PEEL: Is it not the fact that the predecessor of Mr. Harper having passed the age of sixty-five could have been retired at any moment by the Treasury, and therefore there was no necessity for keeping it over till 27th August?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As a matter of fact, for administrative reasons the Board of Inland Revenue desired to retain his services.
    Mr. PEEL: Was not Sir Ernest Soares appointed during the Parliamentary Recess? Does the right hon. Gentleman tell me that Mr. Harper lived in an unsalaried condition for four months without knowing he was going to get a job under Government?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: During those four months Mr. Harper was engaged in private practice.
    Mr. W. PEEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that Mr. Harper left the position of £1,000 a year and a pension in April, and got this position in August, and was not given in April some hint that he was going to get the post?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have answered that question. The hon. Member is as well aware as anybody of the reason why Mr. Harper left the service of the council.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked what is the estimated increase of charge upon the Exchequer in consequence of the qualification for the receipt of an old age pension of 5s. a week under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, being increased from £21 to £42 in all cases where one of an old married couple is without any means whatever?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There is no reliable material as yet for forming an estimate of the additional cost entailed by Section 2 (2) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it not a fact that it is likely to entail an increased charge upon the Exchequer of at least 20 per cent.?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have informed the hon. Member that we have no reliable information, therefore I cannot answer that question.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, under Section 2 (2) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, an old man can, with an annual income of from £31 10s. to £42, and in the event of his wife being without means, obtain for his wife and himself pensions amounting together to 10s. per week, but that if his wife dies he becomes disentitled to any pension whatever; and, if so, whether he proposes by an amending Bill to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The effect of the present law is as stated in the question, and I see no ground for amending it in the manner suggested.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under this new Old Age Pensions Act a male pensioner, although he may have a large family, upon the death of his wife, loses not merely his wife's pension but his own pension as well? Does he think that fair?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If he has the amount which is put in the Act as income I do not see any unfairness.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether public notification has been made of the provisions of Section 2 (2) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, now in operation, whereby in the absence of means in the case of one of an old married couple the other becomes entitled to the full 5s. pension if his annual
    862
    income does not exceed £42; or how otherwise has this extension of State pensions been made known to the large number of persons now for the first time entitled to them under the above provisions?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No public notice has been issued by the Government as to the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911. The provisions of Section 2 (2) of the Act have, however, been widely advertised by the Press, and I have no reason to suppose that they are not well known to those persons who are entitled to benefit by them.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the experience of Old Age Pension Committees that there is considerable ignorance prevailing amongst persons who are entitled to pensions as to their rights under the new Act?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If the hon. Member can give mo accurate information, on that point it will be considered.

    Small Holdings.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the number of acres of land acquired for small holdings by the Kent County Council since 1st January last, and the number of applicants this will satisfy?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): Two hundred and sixty-nine acres have been acquired, which will satisfy sixteen applicants.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in pursuance of the publicly announced intention of the late President of the Board, he proposes to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the origin of the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in various parts of the country and the best means of checking its spread?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: In view of the prevailing anxiety on the subject, will the inquiry be accelerated?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am losing no time in dealing with the matter, and I cannot accelerate it more than I am doing now.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked if the right hon. Gentleman has any information as to

    863
    the origin of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Somersetshire, and as to how infection was conveyed into the county?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Careful inquiries have been made, but it has not been possible to trace the outbreak to its origin.

    Parliamentary Registers (Revision of Lists).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that at the recent revision of the Parliamentary registers a large number of persons have been struck off the list of voters in consequence of the rates for which they have compounded in their rents not having been paid by their landlords; and, if so, whether he is now prepared to introduce legislation to remedy the present state of the law in this respect?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have no general information in regard to this matter, but may I refer my hon. Friend to Section 8 of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, under which occupiers may pay rates in default of owners and deduct the sums so paid from the next payment of rent.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that under that Section a tenement occupier paying 3s. or 4s. a week might have to pay £100 arrears of rates before he could get his vote?
    Mr. BURNS: In a few cases that might be so, but this and other electoral disabilities are under the purview of the Government at the present time.

    Care of Feeble-Minded.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been drawn to the resolution of the National Association for the Feebleminded urging the Government to pass a Bill making the permanent segregation of the feeble-minded compulsory; and whether in the interests of these defectives themselves, for the sake of sufferers still unborn, and for the relief of the community from the ever-increasing burden of the taxation paid by the fit for the support of the unfit, he will bring in a Bill to give effect of this resolution?
    Mr. HICKS BEACHasked when His Majesty's Government propose to give
    864
    effect to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feebleminded, issued three years ago, by bringing forward a measure to carry out its recommendations?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have every hope that legislation dealing with this question will be undertaken next Session.

    House of Lords.
    Mr. BARNSTONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increase, due to new creations, in the number of legislating peers, he can give any indication as to the date when he proposes to introduce his promised legislation whereby these numbers will be curtailed and not, as is now the case, augmented?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to an answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division (Mr. Hunt).
    Mr. BARNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman still of the opinion that this question is one that brooks no delay?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No avoidable delay.
    Mr. REMNANT: May I ask has any Bill been prepared dealing with this matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; the hon. Member may not ask that question. If he does ask it, I cannot answer it.
    Mr. CROFTasked whether the Government has abandoned its determination to reform the House of Lords?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Mr. CROFT: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a speech of the Lord Advocate reported during the Recess in which he stated that the talk of reforming the House of Lords was folly and moonshine, and was that statement authorised?
    Sir W. BYLES: Seeing that the House of Lords has now been rendered innocuous, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the policy of leaving well alone?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My answer out of which these supplemental arose was the word "No." I understand the Lord Advocate denies the statement attributed to him.

    Friendly Societies Acts.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether that Board makes any attempt, by requiring a lodgment of security or otherwise, to prevent moneyless adventurers getting themselves registered under the Friendly Societies Acts, then trading on the credulity of the poor as insuring societies, and applying to their own use all the premiums they receive; what steps the Board takes to prevent such bodies doing life insurance business in excess of the statutory limits; whether the National United Insurance Society, Limited, the United National Assurance Collecting Society, and Ireland's Life Assurance Society, all now collecting in Ireland, belong to this class; whether the Guardian Bank, Limited, guarantees, and is in a position to make good, the promises of the latter society; if not, what action he proposes to take in the matter; and, seeing that frauds are being committed within the limits of the Friendly Societies Acts by means of bogus whole-life policies, whether it is proposed to amend the law for the protection of the poor?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The National United Insurance Society, Limited, is not a Friendly Society, but is registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893. The United National Friendly Assurance Collecting Society and Ireland's Life Assurance Collecting Society are registered under the Friendly Societies Acts. The Guardian Bank, Limited, is not registered either under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act or under the Friendly Societies Acts, and the Registrar of Friendly Societies has no information with regard to it. I would refer the hon. Member to my predecessor's answer to a question by the hon. Member for South Roscommon on 25th April last for information as to the security for policyholders held by the first of the above societies. The law does not enable the Registrar of Friendly Societies to require any security from persons applying for registration as friendly societies, but industrial and provident societies are liable to make the deposits required by the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, from bodies carrying on assurance business within the scope of that Act. If the hon. Member will let me have any specific information which may be in his possession tending to show that any of these societies are not conforming to the rules or are acting fraudulently, I will have careful investigation made.
    Mr. GINNELL: In view of the fact that this question is addressed to the President of the Board of Trade, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the illegitimate doing of life insurance business brings a society within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade, has not the illegitimate doing of that business the same effect?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): If the hon. Member will give me notice I will endeavour to give an answer.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state the number of insurance policies contracted by the so-called Irish Provident Assurance Company, which, on the face of them and in the opinion of the Irish Court of Appeal, must be regarded as life assurance policies contrary to the Statute and to that company's articles of association; the number of policies that company caused to lapse by instructing their agents to cease calling for the premiums, and then treating all the premiums paid as forfeited to them; the number of policies transferred at less than face value by five directors of that company to themselves as directors of the London and Provincial Company; whether the Board of Trade before allowing that transfer required those English directors to discharge all their Irish contracts or to make provision for discharging them; and, if not, the evidence awaited last July being now available, whether the Government will institute the prosecution then promised?
    Mr. BUXTON: The Irish Provident Assurance Company, Limited, is being wound up under an Order made by the Irish Courts on the 24th April last, and there are no official facts in the possession of the Board of Trade as to the number of policies issued or lapsed by the company, or as to the number of policyholders of the Irish Provident Assurance Company, Limited, who have transferred their policies to the London and Provincial Assurance Company, Limited. The Board of Trade have no power to impose any conditions on the transfer of policies from one company to another. The only ground on which proceedings could be instituted by the Board of Trade is that the company has carried on life assurance business as defined by the Life Assurance Companies Acts, and on the information in my possession I am not satisfied that the company has ever carried on such business. If the hon.

    867
    Member sends any definite evidence it will, of course, have my careful consideration.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman not accept the decision of the Irish Court of Appeal as definite information?
    Mr. BUXTON: If the hon. Member will send me a copy of it, I will be very glad to look into it.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is it not the duty of the Board of Trade to watch these things and not leave others to call attention to them?
    Mr. BUXTON: We are bound under Statutes as to the action which we can take and which we cannot take, and so far as information is before us on this matter we are not in a position to take action. If the hon. Member will give us further information, I will be very glad to consider it.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how much of the policyholders' money has been set aside or earmarked for covering the cost of the liquidation in this case?
    Mr. BUXTON: I cannot say.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the recent report of the solicitor to the Board of Trade on defaulting liquidators, the refusal of the liquidator of the Irish Provident Assurance Company to give any information to aggrieved policy holders, and the fact that the Irish Provident, the London and Provincial, and the Provincial Homes Companies, amalgamated under the old directorate, still do business in the same Dublin office with the official liquidator, and collect money throughout Ireland through their former agents, whether he will have the relations and affairs of this liquidator and of this joint concern investigated and the result made public before more people in Ireland are victimised by them?
    Mr. BUXTON: The Irish Provident Assurance Company, Limited, is being wound up under an Order made by the Irish Courts of Law on 24th April last, and, as I informed the hon. Member on 11th July and 19th July last, the winding up of the company is not under the control of the Board of Trade, but of the Irish Courts. With regard to the London and Provincial
    868
    Assurance Company, Limited, and the Provincial Homes Investment Company, Limited, the only power of the Board of Trade to investigate the affairs of these companies is that contained in Section 109 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, which enables the Board of Trade to appoint one or more inspectors to investigate the affairs of the company on the application of members holding not less than one-tenth of the shares issued.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the President of the Board of Trade ask the information either from the Court of Appeal or the liquidator in this case?
    Mr. BUXTON: In so far as the matter has proceeded we have not been able to take action. It is not a matter that comes within our statutory powers.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is it not possible for a policyholder or a shareholder who is aggrieved to make a claim in court against the directors and prove his case?
    Mr. GINNELL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask him to state who is to bear the cost of an action by the poor people who are being fleeced and swindled?
    Mr. BUXTON: I have said that in these matters the Board of Trade can only act under statutory powers, and so far we have not been able to get a case.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether the Government will be prepared to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the methods of collecting societies?
    Mr. BUXTON: That question does not arise out of this.

    Libel Actions (General Election).
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the verdicts in the series of libel actions arising out of the last General Election; and whether, with a view to increasing public confidence in the administration of the law in such matters, the Government proposes to introduce legislation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are not prepared to introduce legislation on this subject.

    Home Rule (Ireland).
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the conflicting statements made as to the nature of the proposals of the forthcoming

    869
    Home Rule Bill, he will consider the advisability of the suggestion made in Ireland that a preparatory Memorandum be issued, as is done in the case of the Army and Navy Estimates, submitting the main proposals of the Government to public consideration and suggestion in Ireland, so as to avoid any danger of the repetition of the fate of the Irish Council Bill of 1907?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The statements to which the hon. Member refers are, of course, mere guesswork. The course suggested in his question is, so far as I know, without any precedent, and even if it were practicable (which in my opinion it is not) it would not be likely to conduce to a satisfactory solution of the problem on the lines which I presume the hon. Member desires.
    Mr. PIRIE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to invite the Irish party to frame a measure of their own regarding Home Rule in the same way that Scotch Members have framed theirs?
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman's remark that the statements are guesswork apply to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. Redmond)? As it would be out of order to carry on this subject, I beg to give notice that I shall have a word or two to say on the Motion for the Adjournment to-night.
    Mr. PIRIE: Docs the right hon. Gentleman not think it worth while answering my suggestion?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot hold out any encouragement to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether the Government scheme for Home Rule for Ireland includes the proposals that the Irish Members will still sit in the British House of Commons, and whether the Irish Second Chamber will be brought into existence before the promised reconstructed Second Chamber is established by law for Great Britain?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to a similar question by my hon. Friend, the Member for the College Division of Glasgow.
    Mr. HUNT: May we not conclude that the Government are going to force a Home Rule Bill into law although the people have never been allowed a chance of discussing it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is anticipating the Debates of next Session.

    Duchy of Lancaster.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister if he will state what are the duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; and whether, in the interests of public economy, he will consider the desirability of arranging for their discharge by a less important personage than a Minister of Cabinet rank, and at a lower salary than £2,000 per annum?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are to control the management of the duchy estates and revenues, and also—within the County Palatine of Lancaster—to appoint justices of the peace and county court judges, and to direct the administration of the estates of persons dying intestate and without kin, and to perform various duties which in other counties devolve upon the Lord Chancellor or the Home Secretary. In practice, it has been found by recent Governments an advantage to possess a Minister whose departmental work is sufficiently light to enable him to attend more closely to other Parliamentary and Ministerial duties. The present pressure on Cabinet Ministers is such as to render it, in my opinion, inexpedient to make the change suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Have I the Prime Minister's authority to tell the electors of East Bristol to-night that the Government thinks that instead of performing with great credit the duties of Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Gentleman is more useful as maid of all work to the Government generally?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think the office my right hon. Friend discharges is one pre-eminently fitted for a business man.

    Trade Union Congress.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mr. D. J. Shackleton, who attended the recent Trades Union Congress as a fraternal delegate, has made any report to the Home Office respecting the proceedings and resolutions passed at the Conference; and, if so, whether it is intended that such Report shall be laid upon the Table of the House?
    The HOME SECRETARY (Mr. McKenna): No, Sir. Mr. Shackleton has not been directed to make any formal report to the Home Office on the proceedings and resolutions of the Congress. He attended the meetings of the Congress by the desire of my predecessor in order that he might be in a position, when any of the questions raised at the Congress are brought before the Department for consideration, to advise the Secretary of State as to the views of the workers.

    Boxing Matches.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the action which his predecessor felt compelled to take in connection with the abandoned boxing contest between Jack Johnson and Bombardier Wells has had the effect of causing ground landlords and lessees of many halls in London to refuse to allow legitimate boxing matches to be decided at their premises; and whether he can see his way to make a statement which will allay the unrest, and do away with the uncertainty which prevails not only amongst ground landlords and lessees of the halls but also amongst boxers and boxing promoters?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have not heard anything of the alleged effect of my predecessor's action on ground landlords and lessees. The decision of the High Court in the proceedings by the District Railway against Earl's Court, Limited, had a much more direct bearing on their position than anything done by my right hon. Friend. The law on the subject of boxing contests is well established. My predecessor was advised by the Law Officers that, if the object and intent of the combatants is to subdue each other by violent blows until one can endure it no longer, the contest is illegal; and that, on the other hand, a sparring match in which the object is to win by skill and not by the severity of the injuries inflicted is lawful. The difficulty is not in the law, but in ascertaining whether any contest will or will not be kept within the law—a question which depends not merely on the rules which are to apply but on the way in which the fight is actually conducted. A boxing match which, so far as the rules are concerned, would be legal, may in fact degenerate into a prize fight; and no doubt, having regard to the decision of the High Court, ground landlords and lessees are well advised in taking steps for their own protection.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that if there was any possible chance of Wells beating Johnson there would have been any talk about the matter?

    London Docks (Employment).
    Mr. J. WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the action of the Port of London Authority and shipowners advertising in provincial newspapers inviting workmen to come to London and offering employment at the docks; whether thousands of men are refused employment every morning at the places for taking on; whether the excess supply of labour is nearly 25 per cent. above actual requirements; and what action he proposes to take to prevent an increase of such surplus labour at the London docks?
    Mr. BUXTON: I am informed by the Port of London Authority that they have not issued any advertisement for additional labour; that there has been no appreciable increase recently in the number of men seeking employment at the docks, and that the fluctuations in the volume of work at the docks render it difficult for them to form any precise estimate of the number of men in excess of the actual requirements.
    Mr. REMNANT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement in the question that the excess supply of labour is nearly 25 per cent. is correct?
    Mr. BUXTON: I sent this question to the Port of London Authority for their observations, and the reply they gave is embodied in my answer. The question whether there is an excess of 25 per cent. does not really arise.
    Mr. REMNANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is an unusual amount of unemployment among the dockers?
    Mr. BUXTON: I should say no.

    American Tariff (British Soap Factory).
    Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the chairman of Pears, Limited, soap-makers, has decided to set up works in America, because of the American tariff and because American soap-makers copy their goods, advertisements, and name, and send their goods into our market entirely free; and whether

    873
    he proposes to take any action to prevent this handicap to British trade and British working people?
    Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Member appears to have correctly reproduced a statement made by the chairman of the company at their recent general meeting. The proposal to erect a factory in the United States is not likely, I understand, to lead to any reduction in the staff employed in this country. I do not propose to take any action in the matter.
    Mr. HUNT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that this capital which is being driven abroad by high tariffs gives wages and employment to foreign workpeople and deprives our own workpeople of that employment and wages?
    Mr. BUXTON: I am told on good authority that is not a correct statement in regard to the action of Messrs. Pears. I have read in newspapers that in consequence of high tariffs in other countries manufacturers come and carry on their manufactures here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name," — "Singers" and "Westinghouse."]
    Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chairman of the company distinctly stated that they had been driven abroad by high tariffs?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Is it the case—as the right hon. Gentleman assumes he is correct in stating—that there will be no effect on employment at Pears' works in this country when admittedly they have erected those works in America in order to take American trade which was previously done by them from here?
    Mr. BUXTON: I do not think it necessarily follows. It really is a question of debate, and I can hardly be expected to deal with it in the form of an answer to a question.
    Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the price of soap in America?

    British Exports to Canada.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give the value of British exports to Canada for the years 1896 to 1910, respectively?
    Mr. BUXTON: The figures desired will be found on pages 154, 155, 192, and 193 of the last issue of the Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom (Cd. 5841).

    Cardiff Trades Council.
    Mr. POINTERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the last meeting of the Cardiff Trades Council had to be held in other premises than those of the local Labour Exchange because of a certain item appearing on the agenda for the meeting; whether he is aware that the superintendent of the exchange drew the trade council secretary's attention to the item, which was Military in Ambush, and pointed out that it was not a proper subject to be discussed in a Government building, and that he proposed that either the item in question be deleted from the agenda or the council should meet elsewhere; whether he is aware that the council held its meeting elsewhere; and whether his Department has sanctioned the policy of limiting freedom of discussion at meetings held in Labour Exchange buildings, and thus discourage trades councils and other local workmen's associations from using the buildings as a place of meeting?
    Mr. BUXTON: The facts of the case appear to be as stated by my hon. Friend. In view of the great importance of observing the impartiality of Labour Exchanges it appears to me that the Divisional Officer for Wales exercised a wise discretion in the circumstances, though I regret any inconvenience thereby caused to the Cardiff Trades Council.

    Port of London Authority (Pay of Clerks).
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has assured himself that the pay of the third and fourth-class clerks of the Port of London Authority, who were previously under the London and India Docks Company, have not suffered by the new classification of the staff; will he give his consideration to a detailed statement showing the inequalities which these third and fourth-class clerks suffer from at the present time; and will he receive a deputation upon the matter?
    Mr. BUXTON: As I informed the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley on 14th August last, the Port of London Authority have by their recent classification slightly improved the pay of these clerks. I understand that although the maxima of the two classes remain as before they are reached in a shorter time, and I am also informed that, as intimated in my former reply, the Port Authority will shortly promote a considerable number of these

    875
    clerks to higher grades. If the hon. Member likes to give me a detailed statement on the subject I will obtain the observations of the Port Authority on it, but I do not think there would be any advantage in my receiving a deputation.

    Stationery Department, Ireland (Fair-Wages Clause).
    Mr. NANNETTIasked the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Stationery Department in Ireland, whether in the giving away of the contracts for the printing of the Census Returns care has been taken to secure that the work will be executed in accordance with the Fair-Wages Resolution of the House of Commons, both in regard to wages and boy labour?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am informed that the work of printing the Census Returns in Ireland has been entrusted to a firm which is recognised as a "fair" house by the Typographical Association, and that there is no reason to apprehend any infringement of the Fair-Wages Resolution in any respect. Boys will not be allowed to do any portion of the contract work.

    Case of Miss Jessie Brown (Glasgow).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Lord Advocate if he has had his attention further called to the case of Miss Jessie Brown, who was wrongfully convicted at Glasgow of solicitation; and if he can see his way to take steps to secure compensation to Miss Brown?
    Mr. URE: As I informed other hon. Members yesterday. I am not prepared to recognise a claim for cosnpensation in this case.
    Mr. WATT: Has the claim for a solatium for this lady been abandoned yet?
    Mr. URE: The question is now closed.

    Post Office (Engineering Department).
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Postmaster-General whether it is proposed to change the headquarters of the engineering department of the Midland District of the Post Office from Birmingham to Nottingham; if so, what are the reasons for the change; and when is it intended that the change should take place?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The superintending engineer's headquarters will be moved
    876
    from Birmingham to Nottingham as part of a general arrangement for assimilating the districts of the superintending engineers to those of the surveyors. Such an arrangement is highly expedient for the smooth and efficient working of the service; and is especially necessary in view of the forthcoming transfer of the National Telephone Company's undertaking to the Post Office. The change will be made at once. I need hardly say that the telegraph and telephone interests of Birmingham will in no way suffer, and the growth of the stores staff at the Birmingham depot will probably before long quite make up for the removal now contemplated.
    Mr. AMERY: Is not it a fact that the identification of the surveyors' department with the engineering headquarters has not been carried out in several places—notably at Bristol, Exeter, and Cheltenham—and that in other places the matter has been delayed in some instances?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A Committee recently sat on this subject, and extensive changes are now proceeding with a view to assimilating the surveyors' districts and the superintendents' districts all over the country, with the exception of one or two cases in which very special considerations apply.
    Mr. AMERY: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose also to divert the stores centre now at Birmingham, the great headquarters of the National Telephone Company, which are shortly to be taken over, and the main underground cables, which are at Birmingham, in the centre of the great industrial area, which they serve at present?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is no proposal to alter the cable route, and the stores department at Birmingham is more likely to expand than contract.

    South-Western District Post Office.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked when the revision of duties at the South-Western district post-office will be brought into operation, seeing that it is now more than two months since a Departmental Committee was appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the duties of the sorters and postmen with a view to their improvement?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Committee referred to by the hon. Member have not yet reported, but I am assured that

    877
    their inquiries are actively proceeding, and that there will be no avoidable delay in preparing their Report. The inquiries embrace not only the question of the duties of the sorters and postmen at the South-Western district office, but the general arrangements of that office.

    Intoxicating Liquors (India).
    Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the continued increase in the consumption of intoxicating liquors throughout India; whether he is aware that in the Punjab last year the Excise receipts rose to fifty-seven lakhs as compared with forty-three and a-quarter lakhs in the previous year; whether he has noted the remarks of the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab upon these figures and their connection with increased crime in the Province; and whether, in view of the seriousness of the situation, he will obtain the views of the Government of India as to the adoption of effective reforms to check this growing evil?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The Secretary of State does not accept the view, which is not substantiated by facts, that the consumption of intoxicating liquors is increasing throughout India, but is aware of the facts mentioned by my hon. Friend as to the growth of the drinking habit in certain districts in the Punjab. The subject is closely engaging the attention of the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province, who has urged all sections of the community to co-operate to combat the evil. He is also considering what further restrictive measures can effectively be adopted. I may add that the reform of the Excise administration is engaging the attention of all the local governments, and the Secretary of State is not disposed to interfere with their discretion.

    Evicted Tenant (County Waterford).
    Mr. O'SHEEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that an application was duly lodged with the Estates Commissioners, under the Land Act of 1903, by Mr. John N. Wall, of Dungarvan, an evicted tenant, who was within the statutory time evicted for non-payment of rent from two substantial holdings at Knockmaun and Mount O'Dell, county Waterford; whether the Estates Commissioners have considered this application;
    878
    and whether, as they cannot acquire the evicted holdings under the compulsory provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907, the same being tenanted or already sold under the Purchase Acts, they will provide Mr. Wall with a suitable holding elsewhere; and whether they have received a memorial requesting them to do so?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners received applications from Mr. John N. Wall for reinstatement in two holdings formerly occupied by him, and now in the possession of purchasing tenants. The Commissioners inquired into and considered his applications, and they decided to take no action in the matter, nor do they intend to provide Wall with a farm elsewhere. The memorial referred to in the last paragraph of the question has been received.

  BILL PRESENTED.
    TRADES DISPUTES ACT (1906) REPEAL BILL.
    "To repeal The Trades Disputes Act, 1906," presented by Sir FREDERICK BANBURY; supported by Mr. Allen Bathurst, Sir Alfred Cripps, Sir Henry Craik, and Mr. Rawlinson; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Bill further considered in Committee.
[PROGRESS, 31st October.—FIFTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

  CLAUSE 32.—(Provisions as to Deposit Contributors.)
  (1) Until Parliament otherwise determines, the following provisions shall apply in the case of insured persons (in this Act referred to as deposit contributors), who being employed contributors, have not joined an approved society within the prescribed time, or who, having been members of an approved society, have been expelled therefrom and have not joined another approved society:—

  (a) Contributions by or in respect of a deposit contributor shall be credited to a special fund to be called the Post Office fund:

  879

  (b)The sums required for the payment of any sickness, disablement, or maternity benefit payable to a deposit contributor, except so far as they are payable out of moneys provided by Parliament shall be paid out of the money standing to his credit in the Post Office fund, and his right to benefits under this part of this Act shall be suspended on the sums standing to his credit in that fund being exhausted, except that his right to medical benefit and sanatorium benefit shall continue until the expiration of the then current year:

  (c)A deposit contributor shall not be entitled to sickness benefit unless at least fifty-two weekly contributions have been paid by or in respect of him:

  (d)Such sum as may be prescribed shall in each year be payable in respect of each deposit contributor towards the expenses incurred by the local health committee in the administration of benefits:

  (e) Such sum as the local health committee may, with the consent of the Insurance Commissioners, determine shall in each year be payable in respect of each deposit contributor for the purposes of the cost of medical benefit:

  (f) The sums payable in respect of a deposit contributor for the purposes of medical benefit and sanatorium benefit, and towards the expenses of administration, shall, except so far as they are payable out of moneys provided by Parliament, be deducted at the commencement of each year from the amount standing to his credit in the Post Office fund:

  (g) The amount standing in the Post Office fund to the credit of any deposit contributor shall, upon his dying, be forfeited.

  (2) A valuation of the Post Office fund shall be made by a valuer to be appointed by the Treasury at the expiration of every three years dating from the commencement of this Act, or at such other times as the Insurance Commissioners may appoint, and if the valuer certifies that the fund shows a disposable surplus the Insurance Commissioners may carry the surplus to the credits of the deposit contributors in proportion to the number
  880
  of contributions paid by, or in respect of, them respectively:
  Provided that if the local health committee for any county or county borough in which more than 20 per cent. of the insured persons resident in the county or county borough are deposit contributors-makes an application for the purpose, the Insurance Commissioners shall make provision—

  (a) for crediting and debiting to a separate account the sums to be credited or debited under this part of this Act in respect of deposit contributors resident in the county or county borough; and

  (b) for a separate valuation being made of such account and for distributing any surplus found on such valuations to be disposable amongst the depositors resident in the county or county borough, who shall not be entitled to participate in any distribution of any surplus in the general Post Office fund.

  Amendment proposed [31st October]: In Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "Parliament otherwise determines," and to insert instead thereof the words "the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifteen."—[Mr. Sherwell.]
  Question proposed, "That the words, proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I think that all those who had the pleasure and privilege of listening to the Debate yesterday afternoon must have come to the conclusion that it was one of the best and most instructive Debates that we have had in the course of the discussion on this Bill in Committee. There were three or four speeches of singular power, and I am sorry to say one or two of singular futility. I am afraid that I cannot accept the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton), who spoke last night. I do not know where he got his notion of the Bill. During the whole of the time he was speaking I was endeavouring to cudgel my brains to find out how he had got that notion about the Bill. Certainly not in the Bill itself. Take one of the last things he said. He seemed to be under the impression that the young Post Office contributor in some sort of way pays for the old Post Office contributor.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: No.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am fortified in what I say by the OFFICIAL REPORT. He was talking of the arrangement which was made in approved societies in order to equalise the ages, and I interrupted him.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: I daresay it was my fault. My reading of the Bill is that the administration expenses are spread over it, and inasmuch as the Post Office contributors are under the Bill extremely likely to forfeit their deposits, the deposit contributors are in that way paying for those who are richer than themselves.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh, no, that is not so. Let us first of all deal with the point which the right hon. Gentleman made last night. I am not going to be taken away from that. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten, not only what he has read about the Bill, but what he said in his own speech. He was dealing with the unfairness of making the younger Post Office contributors pay in order to equalise ages. That is the point which he was making.
  Mr. LYTTELTON Mr. LYTTELTON dissented.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will read the passage to the right hon. Gentleman if he likes:—
  "It means that the man between thirty and sixty-five who has not for some reason or another been a contributor, is by this Bill placed in the same position as if he had originally contributed."
  He was dealing with that problem, and he said that it was very unfair that the young contributor should pay to equalise the ages. I then told the right hon. Gentleman that we had considered arrangements for equalising the ages. His answer was:—
  "My point is that the deposit contributors who are making certain contributions by compulsion under this Bill are contributing to give benefit to people who really do not need it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1911, col. 832.]
  I really do not know what he was driving at; all I can say is that he expressed himself in an extraordinary manner. If anybody reads it, they will find that he was dealing with the problem of age. Everybody in the House and anybody who reads it will find that he is under the impression that there were the same means of equalising ages in the case of Post Office contributors as in the case of insured persons in societies. But in the Post Office each man stands on his own merits, and the young Post Office contributors do not pay for the old. The State 2d. is not
  882
  used for the purpose of equalising ages, the young contributor does not pay for the old, and therefore there is absolutely nothing in the point of the right hon. Gentleman. To come to his second point, which is equally inaccurate. He is under the impression that some new expenses are to be incurred under this Bill, and unfortunately he mentioned them. He said there would be the expenses of the Insurance Commissioners and the expenses of their staff. He is under the impression that all that is to be deducted from the Post Office contributors.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: Not solely. I did not say that; the right hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent me. I said there would be heavy expenses which will be charged under this scheme, and of that scheme the deposit contributors will be part.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That again shows that the right hon. Gentleman does not know the Bill. That is exactly the point I am making—that not a penny piece off the cost of the Insurance Commissioners or their staff will come out of the funds of the Post Office contributors or of the others.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: Under what Clause?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Under one of the Clauses of the Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman challenge me?
  Mr. LYTTELTON: I do.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Very well, that shows the right hon. Gentleman knows absolutely nothing about the Bill; and if he only consulted his colleague who sits by his side he would have known that the cost of the Insurance Commissioners and their staff is charged only upon the 9d. which we have been talking about. The right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition have been criticising the Bill for six months without knowing the elements of it. That is the second point. There is another fundamental error the right hon. Gentleman made. He is under the impression—I read his speech, and listened to it last night—that those who join friendly societies will be higher-waged persons, and that those who join the Post Office will be persons with low wages. There could not be a more fundamental error than that. It has nothing whatever to do with wages. For instance, the man who is earning £3 a week, and who may have money in the savings bank, can still be a Post Office contributor; and, on the other hand, a woman earning 9s. a week

  883
  can be a member of a friendly society. It has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the amount of wages. That is a piece of information which may be useful to the right hon. Gentleman next time he speaks on the Insurance Bill.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: Did I say to the contrary?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly. The right hon. Gentleman said that those who were poor and those who had a low wage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it,"] I will find the actual words.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: I quite agree what I said generally was that the Post Office contributors would be of the poorest classes. We are all fallible. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a great many mistakes. I think, broadly speaking, I am accurate.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What I mean by "poor" is the man who is earning 9s. to 15s. a week. He is a low-waged person. If the right hon. Gentleman says that that is not what he means by "poor"—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."]—I am asking the right hon. Gentleman, who is quite capable of answering for himself. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that is not what he means by "poor" I am quite willing to accept it, and I am very glad of the opportunity to make the point clear. What the right hon. Gentleman said in his speech is what they have said all over the country. The impression was given by the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition, whose sources of information I have now discovered. The right hon. Gentleman had read an anonymous pamphlet. I know that pamphlet, a sort of cheap pamphlet in more senses than one. He gave us a sort of crude résumé of that last night, and a very inaccurate one at that, because he read it in a great hurry. The Leader of the Opposition seems to have heard from him the impression which he gathered from that pamphlet during perhaps the companionable time of the foursome. Anybody reading the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition would gather exactly the same idea of the Bill as was gathered on listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman last night. As a matter of fact, the worst paid men in the country are the agricultural labourers. The agricultural labourers belong to those societies, and, as a matter of fact, a larger proportion of agricultural labourers now belong to those
  884
  societies than almost of any other class in the country. If you go to the districts where they are paid even 12s. a week, you find a very considerable proportion of them belong to those societies.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: They will not in the future.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That mean that now they are paying 6d. they therefore join, but in future when they only pay 3d. they will not join. And that brings me to consider another misconception under which the right hon. Gentleman seems to be labouring very heavily.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman reaches that, may I draw his attention to Clause 32. upon which I founded myself in the opinion which I have just now expressed, that the deposit contributors would bear the expense of administration—at any rate a large part. Paragraph (f) of Clause 32 says:—
  "The sums payable in respect of a deposit contributor for the purposes of medical benefit and sanatorium benefit, and towards the expenses of administration, shall, except so far as they are payable out of moneys provided by Parliament, be deducted at the commencement of each year from the amount standing to his credit in the Post Office fund."
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I was really charitably inclined to say that the reason why he did not know his Bill was because he had not read it. Now I come to the conclusion that even when he does read it he does not understand it. If he had read the Bill a little more carefully, he would have discovered that it has nothing whatever to do with the expenses of the Insurance Commissioners.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: I spoke of the expenses of administration. I have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer so often misrepresent our side that it really does not annoy me at all. But I will point out to many who may not have heard my speech last night, that the cost of the Insurance Commissioners is not the only one. I enumerated about six heads of cost, of which the Insurance Commissioners is only one. The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to misrepresent me to those who were not present last night by accusing me of referring only to the cost of the Insurance Commissioners. He misrepresents me in that.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer, although they have never read a line of the speech and did not hear it. I did both. I am in the presence of the Committee, and I never said that the right hon. Gentleman had not enumerated items of expenditure which would fall on the insured. What I did say was that he did enumerate the cost of the Insurance Commissioners. Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that?
  Mr. LYTTELTON Mr. LYTTELTON indicated assent.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Well, I say that is not true. The right hon. Gentleman has based on this a general charge of misrepresentation, and therefore I mean to have it out. I say that I said that the right hon. Gentleman last night conveyed the impression that the cost of the Insurance Commissioners would fall upon the Post Office contributors. He did that, and what more did I say than that? I say that is not correct. Not a penny piece of the cost of the Insurance Commissioners falls on those contributors. I hope that the next time—
  Mr. CLYDE: He pointed out—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Were you here?
  Mr. CLYDE: I was. As I understand it, the point was not limited to any particular head of administration. There was a point made on the question of the cost of administration.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The specific statement is made that the costs are enormous and five different heads are enumerated, and if I chose one of those and say that the fifth is not on the fund at all, is that an accurate statement or not?
  Mr. CLYDE: That may be perfectly accurate, but that was not the point, and I think I may fairly put the other side. If the point be that the expenses of administration generally are put as a burden upon, among others, Post Office contributors, he, I think, will have to admit that that is true.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not the point that was put. [Laughter.] I am utterly at a loss to understand that laughter. The statement made is this:—
  "Then there is the institution of Insurance Commissioners, and further, the cost of the Post Office."
  What does that mean—that the cost of the Insurance Commissioners and the cost of the Post Office are on those contributors.
  886
  Neither of the two is on the Post Office contributors, and that is the notion of the right hon. Gentleman of what is an accurate statement. I am quite willing to leave it to the Committee at that. I do hope that the next time the right hon. Gentleman or his colleagues address meetings in the country upon this subject that they will take the trouble, first of all, to ascertain what the facts are, and, next, to state them accurately. That is all I want under this Bill, and the moment that is done I have not the faintest doubt that the same thing will happen as happened after the right hon. Gentleman's speech in Kilmarnock. I turn to another point. I have dealt now with three of the glaring fundamental mistakes made by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of a not very long speech upon this Bill. Let me point another thing out to him w-hen he comes to the low-wage contributors, and this applies to the observations made by one or two other Gentlemen in the course of these Debates, and that is, the lower a man's wages the less he pays. That has never been acknowledged either by the right hon. Gentleman or by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury).
  Mr. LANSBURY: I have over and over again stated in this House that the rate is a flat rate from 15s. and upwards. That is all I have protested against, and I challenge the right hon. Gentlemn to quote from any speech of mine which has been reported in which I have not made that perfectly clear.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not complaining that the hon. Member said it was a flat rate from 15s. What I am complaining of is that he did not go a little further and say that under that it was not a flat rate.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow me to explain. I challenge him or any other Member to show that in any address I have given on this Bill I have made any statement that I am not prepared to substantiate here or anywhere else. I have never made a speech without telling the people the actual Schedule and reading the actual Schedule of the Bill as to what the payments were, and the right hon. Gentleman has no right to say I have done anything different.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can only judge of what the hon. Member said by what is reported in the Press. If he tells me that

  887
  he made it perfectly clear that under 15s. there is a Schedule by which the payments come down from 4d. to 1d., and now not the penny, I shall accept his statement at once.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I have done that over and over again, and the only difference between us probably is that I have said the payment is based on a daily wage instead of a weekly wage, as laid down in the Schedule. That is all.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As long as I clearly understand I accept the hon. Member's statement at once. I am only dealing with what I have seen in the Press, and I have not seen that statement in his speeches. I only want to make it clear that this has nothing whatever to do with low wages or high wages. The agricultural labourer will be in societies. Hundreds of thousands of women only earning 9s. per week will be in societies, and in future will be paying nothing, as the whole expenditure will be divided between the employer and the State. It is right that the Committee and the country should really understand what the Post Office contributor problem is. It is not a problem of high and low wages at all. It is a totally different one. I will come to the question of what the problem really is. What is the problem? The problem is that you have either got to work this Bill through the existing societies or with out them. If you work through the societies everybody in this House who understands the Bill, and, as was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel), everybody knows that the Post Office contributor is inevitable if you work it—
  HON MEMBERS: Under the scheme?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. and learned Member says that I am not properly quoting it, I will accept his statement on the spot.
  An HON. MEMBER: That is what is reported.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What the hon. and learned Gentleman said was this, and I think he will agree, if you are going to work through the friendly societies at all, then the problem of the Post Office contributor is inevitable. I never said that he ever said that this was the only way of settling that problem. What I said was that the problem of the Post Office con-
  888
  tributor is inevitable once you begin to recognise the societies. The second point I put is this, if you do not recognise the societies and work through them you destroy them. Is there any man in the House who will deny that. I am not asking them at this moment to accept the proposition that this is the best way of dealing with the residuum, but the problem of the Post Office contributor is inevitable once you begin to work through the societies. Why? Because if you work through the societies you must give them the right of choosing and refusing their members. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Spen Valley Division (Sir Thomas Whittaker), in his very able speech last night, gave the reasons. Take, if you like, a Church of England society. Are you going to say to a Church of England society, "You must accept any man who chooses to apply for entrance to your society"? And so with the Wesleyan society or a temperance society. If you do not do that it means that you compel the affiliated societies and the collecting societies to take everybody who is refused by these selecting societies. All the societies have to do will be to put up some sort of special test; it may be a sectarian test; it may be political; it may be a test of temperance, but they may put up some test which would really have the effect of excluding all the undesirable lives. Then the societies without tests would have to take them all in.
  The moment therefore you begin to work through the societies you are bound to give them full rights of admission and exclusion. I considered that problem round and round, and I could not come to any other conclusion. You may say that that does not involve a medical test. It really does involve a medical test; it necessarily involves really a medical test, and for this reason. Suppose you put it into the Act of Parliament that there should be no medical examination, it does not help you one whit. That is really not the way the friendly societies work. Take rheumatism, for instance, which I am told you cannot tell by any sort of medical process in some forms. They discover a case, and they happen to know that a man suffers from rheumatism, which is one of the most costly things for a friendly society; and, although there is no real medical test, that man's name is never submitted to the society, and he does not come in. So it is no good saying you should have no medical test. They can reject a man for other reasons unless you

  889
  say, "You must take in everybody," which would be grossly unfair to the society. The moment you give the right of exclusion there is a residuum that remains, and has got to be dealt with. That creates the problem of the Post Office contributor. Who will be the Post Office contributors? I think my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) in his speech, which impressed the Committee very much, in moving this Amendment stated the problem very fairly. He gave three, and possibly four, classes. I will not accept the last class, but I accept the first three.
  What are the three classes of Post Office contributors? I really ask the Committee to consider these three classes because it is too generally assumed that the Post Office contributors will be poorly paid people who have been rejected on the ground of health or because they are casual labourers. That is not the case at all. They will be first of all those who are rejected through bad health, then there will be the second class, the "thriftless, shiftless, feckless class"—and I accept the words of my hon. Friend because he described that class fairly—those whose character and local reputation prevent their admission to the society, and they are left outside. There is then the casual worker, and, let me point out to the Committee, that the casual worker can be divided into two classes. When you come to consider the question there is the casual worker who cannot find work, and there is the casual worker who will not find work, and there is the third class of those who deliberately choose to work during a season and then for the rest of the year prefer to stay at home. That very often happens upon our coasts. We have people who enter into service for a short period of three or four months at seaside resorts. They go down there, and are paid high wages. They come from the country — generally they are peasants' daughters. They work for those three or four months for high wages, and for the rest of the year they do nothing. Those will be very foolish to join any society. The best thing they can join is to join the Post Office, and they will join the Post Office, because it has the effect of saving up money for them, of securing medical attendance and sanatorium treatment, and the rest of the money will be available for sick pay and maternity benefits. My hon. Friends added another class, those who join late in life. But that is not the same
  890
  sort of case, because an aged man can join a friendly society and get reduced benefits. Therefore, for the purpose of my argument, I rule that out.
  What is our proposal? There is a great deal of misconception about what is proposed in the Bill. I should like the Committee and the country thoroughly to realise what the proposal is—to realise in the first place to whom it applies, and, in the second place, what it is—before they criticise and condemn it. I have already pointed out that it does not apply merely to the unhealthy. It applies to the shiftless, to those who will not work as well as to those who cannot work. Therefore, when there is a great scheme of State charity for the Post Office contributor, the Committee must bear in mind that they are helping not merely the unhealthy, but others as well who do not deserve aid from the State. What is the proposal? First of all, on the face of it, it is purely an experiment "until Parliament otherwise determines." I will give the reasons presently why we are making it an experiment, but I may say generally that it is because I accept the argument which underlines every criticism of this Clause, namely, that the first thing we have to do is to sort out the Post Office contributors. We realised that at the start. We knew that this would not be a final solution of the problem, and we do not put it forward as such. We put it forward as a temporary method of dealing with the difficulty—a difficulty which is very largely temporary, as I shall point out—until we are able to sort out those who are permanent from those who are provisional and temporary. In the meantime those who join this fund are better off than they were before. That is the first thing the Committee should realise. Does anyone doubt that? They pay 4d. themselves — and not necessarily 4d. They may be people earning 15s. and under, 12s. and under, or 9s. and under; they may be paying only 2d. or 3d. But assume they are paying the full 4d. They get in addition 3d. from the employer and 2d. from the State. What do they get in addition to that? Out of that amount, which is placed to their credit with interest, they are able to draw their 10s. and their 5s. a week as long as it lasts. What more do they get? They get sanatorium benefit, which, except to the extent of 1s., is not deducted from what they pay. They get medical benefit right to the end of the year. There is a

  891
  suggestion that the local health committees should have power to extend that period at their discretion. That I think is a very good Amendment and a considerable improvement. When that is carried, they will have full sanatorium and medical benefit as long as the local health committee think it desirable. Does anyone say that that is not a great improvement upon their present position?
  Mr. FORSTER: That is not in the Bill I think.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I thought I said distinctly that, at the present moment, it is up to the end of the current year, but that there is a proposal that it should be extended at the discretion of the local health committee, that I thought that that was a great improvement to the Bill, and that I was prepared to accept it. See what that means. Fifteen million shillings will be paid in to maintain the sanatoria. There is £1,500,000 coming from the State towards buildings. Hundreds of thousands of these people will be suffering from tuberculosis. They will get the benefit not merely of their own contributions; that will be a very small part of the whole; they will get the benefit of the whole of the contributions of all the 15,000,000 people who have paid in. They will get the benefit of the whole contribution of the State. Beyond that, if there is a deficit on medical benefit in the case of the local health committee, or on sanatorium benefit, they can resort to the State and to the councils, and, if they assent, half the balance can be paid out of the rates and half out of the Exchequer. The Post Office contributor will have the full benefit of the whole of that. When we are considering a proposal like this, let us see what it really is. It is no use talking generalities and saying that it is no good, or that it is worse than worthless. Let us see what it is. Go to any Post Office contributor and ask if he would not infinitely prefer it to the condition in which he is at the present moment.
  Another suggestion has been made with which I must deal—namely, that the balance standing to the credit of a Post Office contributor at his death should be paid over to his next-of-kin. Before the Committee commit themselves to that, let me ask them really to consider what it means, and what its effect would be upon friendly societies. If I may say so respectfully, the proposal is the fruit of rather immature criticism. If it were
  892
  added to the Bill it would be to the advantage of every healthy person to become a Post Office contributor rather than a member of a society. I want the Committee to follow that. A fairly healthy man at twenty years of age, of good habits, would consider whether it would not be better for him to join the Post Office than to join a friendly society. If he goes to a friendly society, at best he will get nothing unless he is ill—except the maternity benefit. If he joins the Post Office, if this Amendment were carried, what would happen? His 4d. would be paid in, and the 3d. of the employer. These sums would roll up with interest until, say, he was seventy years of age. If he were ill he would get the 2d. of the State also. In any case the 4d. and the 3d. would roll up with interest until, by the time he was seventy years of age, it would amount to £100. If you do that, it means that every healthy person would think it better worth his while to join the Post Office system than to become a member of a friendly society. It would just reverse the order. Instead of the Post Office contributor system being the resort of the unhealthy, the societies would simply become aggregations of the unfit.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The societies would not take them.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the societies would not take them, then the societies would die. There would be nobody left for them to take. It would be to the interest of every man with a good constitution, who is looking forward to a fairly healthy life, to put his money into the Post Office rather than to go to a friendly society, and you would not get the benefit of the healthy lives in order to average the risks over the whole community. It is the one way to destroy the friendly societies, and if it is done it must be the responsibility of the Committee and not mine. I am in honour bound to oppose that Amendment, because I know the destructive effect it must have upon the societies. Therefore I must leave the responsibility to the Committee, because it would be setting up the Post Office system as a very effective rival to the friendly societies in the country. What happens to the balance now? I have heard a good deal about forfeiture, as if it were confiscated to the State. What happens? The only thing that happens is that a man can draw as long as he lives, and if there is a balance to his credit at the end of his days it merges in the whole volume of the Post Office contributors' fund and increases it

  893
  for the benefit of the rest. It is a kind of tontine arrangement. It is a very well-known process in insurance. What the Committee have to decide is whether that balance shall go to the benefit of the rest of the contributors' fund or whether they mean to hand it over to the next-of-kin. That would be introducing a new kind of savings bank, such as we have never had in this country before—a savings bank where you added 2d. to every 4d. paid in, where the same interest would be paid, and where a man would have by the time he was seventy years of age £100, which would be handed over to his next-of-kin. Once you offer that inducement, I say, without fear of contradiction, that the cream of the healthy working people of this country would probably resort to the Post Office, and leave the unhealthy and unfit and those who are afraid of ill-health to crowd into the trade unions, friendly societies, collecting societies, Holloway societies, and so forth, making them bankrupt in a few years. It would have been far better and more straightforward for us to have said at the outset that we would not recognise these societies. It would have been better to have done that, and to have set up a purely national system, sweeping the societies on one side, rather than by this insidious method gradually to starve them into bankruptcy. I shall certainly, on the part of the Government, resist that Amendment, and if the Committee accept it it will be entirely the Committee's responsibility.
  I come to another point, which has not been dwelt upon at all, and, if I may say so, one the effect of which is not generally appreciated. My right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) said, "You cannot compel 'societies to take these people, but you can make it worth their while. You might offer them some inducement." We are offering them an inducement to take these people. I want the Committee fully to realise what is in the Bill. Every man over sixteen has a reserve value, and every man who joins a friendly society carries that reserve value with him to that society. Take a man between forty-five and fifty years of age. What has he got? He has got a reserve value of £8 13s. Any society that takes him takes him with a sum of £8 13s. placed to his credit before he pays a single penny. If he is an invalid at the time, of course they will not take him, but if he is merely in fragile health, and may last some time, it is worth that society's while to take him in, because you have
  894
  got a waiting period of two years, and he cannot come for an invalidity pension until after he has made 104 payments.
  As a matter of fact, if anybody works this out for himself, it is a very open question whether with a man of that age it is not worth the friendly society's while to take him, and to take their chance with him, although his health is not perfect. It would be a very good speculation for the friendly society. At any rate, we cannot go beyond that. The reserve value of a man between forty-five and fifty is £8 13s. That is an inducement to the society, even if a man comes there in a bad state of health. Between thirty-four and forty the reserve value is £5 18s. Between forty and forty-five the reserve value is £7 3s. Between forty-five and fifty, as I have already said, the reserve value is £8 13s. It is worth the societies' while to consider that—unless a man is an invalid at the time, when they will not take him—whether they will not take him as a member with that reserve value placed to his credit. That is the scheme as it stands at present, dealing with a problem purely temporary in its character,, and I think I am entitled to ask—as I have asked all those who realise the work of the societies—what is your suggestion?
  I asked it in August last. I did it deliberately. Just at the end of the Committee stage I invited every Member of this House to consider the whole of these difficulties of the Post Office contributor. I asked hon. Gentlemen to help me with practical suggestions as to the best method of dealing with them. What has-been the result? I listened very carefully last night to this Debate. Not a single suggestion did I get except that really rather fatuous suggestion from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that you should offer to the consumptive, instead of sanatorium treatment which we give as part of this scheme, and medical benefits as far as we can, that we should say to him, "We will give you a pension when you are over sixty years of age." What on earth use is that—a pension scheme for the Post Office contributor? This is an immediate problem, and to offer consumptives a pension is really to insult them! It is really not a rational attempt to solve the problem. I have invited every Member of this House to give me the best of his thought in some practical form. I did not get one suggestion last night. I got one or two suggestions from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel). One about interest

  895
  is already covered by the Bill. The other is with regard to payment upon death. I told him why we could not accept that suggestion. The hon. and learned Gentleman was quite fair about it. Then comes the only practical suggestion—I frankly admit it—a suggestion which has been put on the Paper by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans). He put it on the Paper, and in time, and it has been submitted to the test of thorough criticism.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It was put on the Paper in July.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am saying so. I have considered it. I say frankly I considered it for a long time. It is by no means an alternative to be dismissed without thought. I know how thoroughly the hon. Gentleman understands the Bill. If I may say so, he applies his mind not merely to criticism but to Amendments. Therefore I feel grateful to him for his real practical contribution towards the solution of this problem. I have considered his suggestion. I have considered it again in the light of the advice tendered to me by my advisers. I will tell the Committee why I cannot see my way to accept it. The hon. Gentleman will correct me if in summarising his proposal I appear to do him an injustice. So far as I can see his suggestion, it is one of mutual insurance within the four walls of the Post Office contributors' scheme. I do not think that would be the slightest use. That is simply really putting the halt, the lame, the blind and the consumptive, the casual and the loafer to insure each other. That is no good, for it does not meet the problem. If it is to the advantage of the loafer and the casual, then it is not to the advantage of the sick. If it is to the advantage of the sick, then the casual will suffer. What you want is something that will help all these people in so far as it is possible, and this suggestion will not do that. It raises false hopes. If you give them the idea that you are able to pay national benefits, unless the State is prepared to guarantee these benefits and to pay as much money in as is necessary, it is of very little use. I should certainly oppose any scheme of the State paying any money indiscriminately to insure the loafer as well as the sick. The first thing you have to do is to discriminate between them—to sort and to separate them, and then to pick out those who really deserve help, and help those to the uttermost.
  896
  That is the reason why we cannot accept the scheme of the hon. Gentleman, although I have given it every available consideration.
  There are two or three main criticisms which have, been passed upon these proposals. We are told that we are insuring the healthy and neglecting the weak. We are told that our scheme is not preventive in its character. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hoxton completely disposed of that last night. What, by this scheme, we are really doing is preventing the strong from degenerating into the weak. If anyone will look at the statistics of pauperism he will find for himself what really happens. In one union 40 per cent. of the paupers were there because of sickness. At Gloucester between 50 and 60 per cent. of the paupers there were pauperised through sickness. The Majority Report of the Royal Commission said:—
  "There are at present in England and Wales over 200,000 men afflicted with tubercle, the majority of whom will ultimately have to resort to the workhouse, unless released by death."
  What do we do? We deal with these people before they reach the stage when it will be necessary for them to be sent to the workhouse. Those who are invalids at the present time, I agree, are a problem which fills one with despair. What we do is we prevent this process of development. We get these poor people before the tubercule develops, when the first symptoms appear. We send them for treatment at the expense of the National Insurance fund, the State, and the rates. That saves them from ever falling into that state of degradation and despair that was so picturesquely referred to last night by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley. What do we do with the sick? We give the sick medical treatment. We give them something which will maintain them during their weeks of sickness, so that they will not fall into the ranks of the pauper. We give them good treatment so as to cure them, and to restore them to health, and, if you cannot restore them to health, at any rate we keep their families from starvation. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley referred last night to the slums. Let him or anyone go to the slums and ask how many members of friendly societies there are there? Let him go to the workhouses of this country and find out how many members of friendly societies are there? This provision against sickness saves them from those conditions, and that is why, in the real sense of the term, it is preventive.

  897
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in the existing invalids you have a great problem which is difficult, and may be insuperable, may be impossible of solution in time. But the sick portion of the Post Office contributor section are a vanishing number. After this men will join as boys of fourteen, fifteen, or sixteen, before ill-health has developed. They will become members of societies. By the time they are afflicted with sickness the whole strength of the societies will be behind them, to rescue, to redeem, to assist. So far as the health portion is concerned the Post Office contributor is purely a temporary problem. The problem that matters is the problem of the casual, the problem of the dosser, the problem of the man who has not the physique to discharge the duties of life, who has not got the strength necessary to do his work. That is the problem that will have to be dealt with by something much more drastic than insurance. I never concealed that point. I have never claimed that this Bill is going to deal with all the evils of sickness, of unemployment, of physical failure. On the contrary, you have got to cut deeper. I said that in the speech in which I introduced this Bill. I have never concealed from my mind that this is a much deeper problem. You cannot insure existing invalids. They are not an insurable proposition. I said, and I venture to repeat what I said, such an idea is to insure a house on fire, is going to the insurance company when the rafters are crackling, and the flames are leaping from the roof. What is the good of trying to insure a proposition like that? It is not a problem for insurance. [A laugh.] An hon. Member laughs. Does he imagine that it is an insurable proposition? [An HON. MEMBEB: "I did not laugh at that."] It is not a laughing matter.
  Mr. FALLE: I laughed because an hon. Member said it was a question of cold water for the fire.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should not have thought that this was a laughing matter. It is one of the most serious problems that could possibly confront the House of Commons. We should be face to face with this more permanent problem of physical failure. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield said last night you must start with the child. I quite agree. I am considering, as he knows very well with his assistance, and the assistance of the medical officers of the Board of
  898
  Education, whether something cannot be done in this Bill to assist in the solution of that great problem, and I hope to do something. You must begin early; the germs of physical weakness, debility and destitution are sown early in the child. You have got the line of destitution and despair in the very marrow of some of those poor little children, and you have got to deal with that. And that is one reason why I want to make this temporary, and I shall certainly accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, although, on the face of the Clause we have already made it temporary. He wants to go beyond that, and he wants a statutory guarantee on the face of the Act of Parliament that this Parliament will not separate without facing the problem when it conies on. That guarantee the Government are perfectly willing to agree to. The problem of the Poor Law and of other sickness and debility are problems that have got to be faced. They are essential parts of the whole of this great social difficulty, and it is because I agree with the hon. Gentleman that after we are able to collect and collate the facts we should deal with them. I am a hearty supporter of the proposition he makes, that we should go on, not merely by this Bill, but by other measures—measures which will improve the housing of the people—we shall go on to uproot pestilence out of the soil of Great Britain.
  Mr. FORSTER: We have seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his two styles this afternoon. We have seen him in his most polemical mood wrestling in anger with political opponents, we have seen him in his other style, addressing himself in all seriousness to grave and urgent problems that lay close to his heart. I confess I prefer him in his latter ròle rather than the former, but I cannot pass over in complete silence the attack he has made on my right hon. Friend. I think it was very largely the result of misunderstanding. But the Chancellor went out of his way to dig out of my right hon. Friend's speech one particular point with which he wrestled for something like twenty minutes. I venture to say he did his case no good whatever, but what he stated in that part of his speech, when, having to his own satisfaction, demolished my right hon. Friend, he said that the next time my right hon. Friend went to the country he should be careful to describe this Bill with accuracy. I am altogether in favour of describing this Bill with accuracy, and I

  899
  hope the next time the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to make a speech in a place of worship he himself will describe the provisions of his own Bill which he himself ought to know if any man knows them, with that degree of accuracy which he demands from his opponent.
  Mr. BOOTH: So he does.
  Mr. FORSTER: If I should be in order, I would be very happy to take up the challenge which the hon. Member throws out. I could lay my finger upon three points of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which is represented to have lasted for shortly over two hours, in which he was wholly and fundamentally wrong. I pass from that early portion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, and I come to the serious portion which he devoted to the consideration of the problem of the deposit contributors. He very truly said last night, we had last night an instructive Debate. I think it was instructive. It brought out three things quite clearly. It brought out the fact that everyone was dissatisfied with the proposals in the Bill as they stood; it brought out the fact that everybody thought it an unfair thing to confiscate wholly a sum that stood to the credit, of a depositor when he died, and it brought out the fact that this proposal was not an insurance proposal at all. On these three points there was general agreement in the speeches made last night. The hon. Member for Huddersfield in the very interesting speech he made addressed himself to the subject of the deposit contributors. The Chancellor followed suit this afternoon, and I think the Chancellor was absolutely right when he said the problem of the deposit contributor is the practical outcome of giving a free choice to the societies to select their own members. I think there the Chancellor is perfectly right. It is the natural and inevitable outcome of grafting on a purely voluntary system a new system of compulsion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said if you give free choice to the friendly societies you must allow them to make choice.
  A free choice has other consequences beside the creation of the problem of deposit contributors. It has the consequence present to the mind of my right hon. Friend last night in the speech he made. It has this consequence, that when you allow free choice to the societies to select
  900
  their own lives so you inevitably strengthen the societies that are strong and weaken the societies that are weak. That was the thought that underlay most of my right hon. Friend's argument in his speech last night, and to my mind it is absolutely beyond controversy that that will be the effect. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say who are the people who are going to be brought into the ranks of the deposit contributor. Men of bad character, men of bad health, the casual worker. These broadly speaking said the right hon. Gentleman are the three classes of persons who are going to come into the so-called deposit insurance. But there is another category of men that the right hon. Gentleman has left out, the men who will join friendly societies when this Bill comes into force or who are members of the friendly societies at the present time, but who will drop out of the friendly societies' part of the Bill owing to unemployment. That, to my mind is a particularly deserving class on whose behalf the hon. Member for Huddersfield put in a plea last night when he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could see his way to give him greater concessions in connection with the payment of the arrears due in periods of unemployment. I think that is a class of persons we ought to keep in mind when discussing the problems of deposit contributors. It is not a small problem, it concerns a large number of people; the actuaries estimate it at 880,000 odd, and they confess themselves utterly unable to forecast the number by which those individuals may be swelled and increased during the first years of the operation of this Act; so all we can do when considering whether it is to be a large or a small body of persons is that we are driven to the conclusion that it will be even larger than we have in view at the present time. These people are brought under the operations of the Bill, and they are all to pay precisely the same contribution as the men who join the friendly societies. What will they get?
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us in picturesque language the benefits that the Bill is going to confer upon them. He told us that they will pay their 4d. or 3d., or 2d. or 1d. a week, or nothing a week if their wages are below a certain proportion, and they are to get the full 9d. when their payment out of the funds become due. They have also to get medical

  901
  and sanatorium benefits, as I understand him, so long as the health committee consider it desirable to continue these benefits. Of course, the Bill says they shall only get medical and sanatorium benefits to the end of the current year after their credit has been exhausted. I am bound to say I think the acceptance which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has signified of the Amendment is a great improvement upon the Bill, but it does not make this a scheme of insurance at all. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon leads me to believe he is going to give these people any form of insurance whatever. Their contributions are paid through the Post Office funds, and how much is going to be available for the payment of benefits when they fall sick. I want to know what is the priority of the charges upon the credit which will stand at the Post Office against each of these persons named. A certain amount has to be deducted for the cost of the medical benefits, and none of us know what the cost of medical benefits for the deposit contributors is going to be.
  5.0 P.M.
  We do know that the medical profession uphold the view that they could not reasonably be expected to give medical attendance to the deposit contributors at the same flat rate as they would serve members of friendly societies. I know a great many members of the medical profession in various parts of the country are quite frank in saying that they would require a very much higher payment to attend the deposit contributors than they would in the case of the other insured persons. So that we do not know how much is to be deducted from the credit of the contributor on this account. When is the deduction to be made? Under the Bill I under stand the deduction is to be made at the end or the beginning of each year. A certain amount has to be deducted from a man's credit for the expenses of administration of the local health committee, but we do not know how much that is going to be. It may be 1d. or it may be 2d., but if it is going to be 2d., when that is added to the amount deducted for medical benefit, it is going to leave a comparatively small margin to the credit of the depositor. Another 1s. has to be deducted on account of sanatorium benefit which will not play a very important part in the consideration I am going to urge now.
  Take the case of a man who has contributed for fifty-two weeks and who finds his credit nearly exhausted at the end of
  902
  the year and finds himself with a small balance say of 20s. standing to his credit, or about enough to pay for two further periods of sickness benefit of which he stands in urgent need. On the first day of the new year there is a risk that the whole of that credit may be taken for the charges of the cost of administering medical benefits and the administration of the local health committee and the cost of sanatorium benefit. I know that only amounts to 1s., but it has to be deducted, and the other two certainly have to be deducted at the beginning of the year. Here is a man in urgent need of the sickness benefit at the very moment he has a credit standing opposite his name in the Post Office fund, and yet that credit may be exhausted by payments for administering benefits that he is not going to get in the next twelve months.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Have you deducted the doctor?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes, I know you must deduct the doctor.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then the man gets that benefit.
  Mr. FORSTER: Then I will say that the whole of his credit is exhausted for benefits only one of which he gets during the ensuing twelve months. Surely it is exceedingly hard upon a man to make him pay for administration of benefit when he knows that he is not going to get the value of those benefits. That is the case which the right hon. Gentleman has got to meet and reconsider. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the question of the payment to the widow or representatives of the amount standing to his credit at death. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that you would ruin the whole scheme if you paid over to the man's representatives all that stood to his credit when he died. I cannot, however, see why you should not pay to the man the amount which he has himself contributed, and I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider that point.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Minus what he had received?
  Mr. FORSTER: I do not ask that any of the money contributed by the State should be paid over to him, and I do not ask even that the employers' contribution should be paid over, but I do ask that what the man himself has paid in should be paid over.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am only thinking of the effect this will have upon the society. You must not offer inducements for a man to choose the Post Office in preference to joining a society. The hon. Member puts this point to me, and I will consider it, and I am not rejecting it in my mind. I admit there is much to be said for it, but I want to be quite clear what it is the hon. Member proposes. He proposes that the man should simply get his own 4d., after you deduct all the benefits which he has received, including the shilling for sanatorium benefits.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: His proportion.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: You have separate accounts for the Post Office contributors.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: These benefits are chargeable against his contribution, plus the employers' contribution, plus the State contribution. You have to set against the amount he has paid in the proportion of the expenditure chargeable to him.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What about interest?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I would give him interest.
  Mr. FORSTER: The question of interest, although it is important, is a subsidiary point. If you accept the broad outline as ground which you may explore, then I think the question of interest is really a subsidiary question which will have to be considered. I am throwing this out as a suggestion for the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will give one or two reasons why it is difficult to frame Amendments on this point. I am following the right hon. Gentleman's speech and the points he has dealt with, and I suggest that he may fairly consider the proposal which I have made. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that you must not do anything which will induce men to come into the Post Office fund rather than join the other brother branch which is the real insurance branch of the scheme. I think the last definite point to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred was the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Colchester, and he said that you cannot take a group of Post Office contributors and get them to insure one another; and you cannot put the wastrels, the consumptives,
  904
  and the casuals in the same group and get them to go in for a system of mutual insurance. He said what you ought to do and what you will do in consequence of the medical test will be to separate the deserving from the undeserving. But the right hon. Gentleman does not do that in his Bill, for he herds them all together, deserving and undeserving, man for man receiving precisely the same treatment. I entirely agree that you ought, if possible, to pick out and separate in this scheme as it stands, the deserving from the undeserving, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman may find himself able to do that. I am driven to the conclusion, from what I have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer state, that—if we can free ourselves from the magic of his eloquence—he has been driven to admit that the criticism directed against this part of his Bill are founded upon facts and are criticisms of substance which he is bound to meet.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer complained in the course of his speech that no real suggestions had been made for the improvement of this part of his Bill. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that it has been exceedingly difficult for those who have given attention to the position of the Post Office contributor to frame Amendments within the scope of the finance laid down by the Financial Resolution. The hon. and learned Member for Huddersfield pointed out this difficulty in his speech last night, and he said that as long as you are compelled to deal with this class of person within the framework of this Bill and the financial Resolution, I doubt very much if you can give them better treatment than you give them now. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester and others have given great attention to this question, and nearly every suggestion that we have made has been rendered more difficult, if not impossible, by the fact that we have got to fit it into the corners of the Bill as it stands. I do not say that it would be impossible to find a scheme which would give these people real insurance, and I believe it is well worth while making an effort to find a scheme which will give them real insurance. I believe one of the reasons why this particular branch of the subject has not occupied more attention is that there is no organised body to speak on behalf of this class of persons. It has not been possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hold conferences at the Treasury with these persons, and no organised body has

  905
  taken up the case of the deposit contributor in the columns of the newspapers. Members of Parliament have not been bombarded with communications from any organised body representing the deposit contributors in the same way as the case of friendly societies and other interests have been represented. That, however, is no reason why we should not give the matter our most scrupulous and most minute attention. I think we ought. It seems to me that the ultimate effect of the scheme incorporated in this Clause is that when people reach the age at which they most stand in need of assistance that assistance will not be forthcoming. This Clause will give them a certain amount of help at the time when they are best able to help themselves, but at the time when they most need assistance their credit will be gone, and they will be unable to get help.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that many of the deposit contributors will be wastrels. I am not at all sure the treatment you are giving under this Bill is not too good for wastrels, but I am quite certain it is not good enough for that other and much more deserving class of persons for whom the right hon. Gentleman has so real a sympathy—those suffering from the curse of consumption and other fell diseases. The right hon. Gentleman, in a speech made in August, referred to the question of the medical test. He said that in some shape or another, at any rate, there will be some medical test, and, as the result of it, you will have practically a medical examination of something like 15,000,000 of the poorer members of the community, and you will be able to put your finger upon 200,000, 300,000, or 400,000, and say, "Here are people cursed with a definite curse—the curse of consumption." Many of those are going to be brought into the ranks of the deposit contributors. They come in with a medical certificate certifying they are suffering from consumption, and they stand in a wholly different category from the wastrel, the casual, and the man who comes in unemployed. They stand by themselves, branded—if that is not too strong a word—as consumptives by the medical test. Why are we so concerned about consumption? It is not only because we want to hear that particular individual is suffering from it; we want to protect the nation from the risk of the disease spreading to other people. That is a national matter. It need not necessarily be the subject of an Insurance Bill. That is a national con-
  906
  cern. You ought to give different treatment to the classes of person who are brought into this part of the Bill. You know these people are suffering from consumption. You have all the machinery at your command for giving them treatment. Give it them.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We do.
  Mr. FORSTER: And let them go on till they are cured.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman must have forgotten I propose accepting an Amendment that leaves it to the local health committee to treat them as long as the committee thinks it necessary. If the hon. Member will look he will see it is printed and on the Paper. The Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Plymouth and of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery, and I put it down to ensure it will be adopted.
  Mr. FORSTER: I admit that for the moment I had forgotten the right hon. Gentleman had intimated his willingness to accept the Amendment. I do not labour the point further. We are both at one. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is doing so much in the matter. Several speakers last night made the criticism that this part of the Bill had no preventive effect, but only dealt with a certain class of persons who are suffering from a given set of circumstances. It did nothing to prevent the spread of illness. It did nothing to prevent people from swelling the ranks of those who will become deposit contributors. One great blot on this part of the Bill is that there is no inducement for any body, either a society or a public body, to spend a single 6d. in preventing this class of person from increasing in numbers. Nobody has the slightest financial responsibility towards them. The whole community may look on, except in the case of consumptives, without bearing any financial burden in respect of them. I am bound to say I have come to the conclusion, not without a great deal of thought, that the position of the Post Office contributor under the Bill is not satisfactory, and I think the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take more time to consider the problem of the Post Office contributor. Of course, I believe this Bill is going to pass into law. If it does the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set up a body of Insurance Commissioners. Presumably they will be people skilled in insurance work, knowing a great deal of the problems involved in this Bill, and the

  907
  suggestion I make and the course I recommend is that the part of the Bill dealing with the deposit contributors should be withdrawn and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the assistance of any others who are willing to help him, should continue to consider this problem for the next six months, and that before this Bill comes into law the result of their deliberations should be framed in a short Bill. I believe it could be done in a couple of Clauses, and I believe this House would pass it in the course of two or three days. We might, as a result of that, have a more considered scheme of insurance even for these people who are described as uninsurable. That is the course I recommend the Committee to take, and I hope the Government will see their way to adopt it.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I think we may take it for granted there is nobody in this House, not even the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, altogether in love with this Clause. All that can be said about it is that it is the best that can be done under very difficult circumstances. I do not think the very interesting suggestion with which the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House wound up his speech is, however, practicable. Even after we had considered it very carefully for six months, however expert we might be in our knowledge of the question, the Post Office contributor would still very largely be an unknown person and an unknown property. He has got to be discovered. This problem is very largely not at all the various aspects of the problem which have been pointed out to the Committee during the last two days. This problem is mainly that we are not quite sure who he is going to be. We are not quite sure what is going to cause him, and we are not quite sure how many of them we have got to meet. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think, takes a little bit too optimistic a view about it. I am more pessimistic than he is. I think the Post Office contributor will come from many sources he has not indicated.
  The Post Office contributor will come, for instance, from a class of people whose great crime is that they have lost care and heart in life. They are not going to be badly paid altogether, and they are not going to be very sick. They are going to be that extraordinary mixture of marginal humanity that takes interest in just as little as it can help. You are not going to be able to trace them, and, as a matter
  908
  of fact, there is going to be a tremendous leakage in the administration of this Bill. That is the problem, a big problem, a difficult problem, and a very intricate problem. It can only be properly visualised after this Bill has come into operation. That is the view I have taken all along, and that view I hold more firmly now after listening to as much of the Debate as other business has allowed me. I for one, therefore, cannot support the hon. Gentleman in his advice. Let us have this Clause with all its defects. Let us make it as good as we can whilst the Bill is before us, and then let us charge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appoint a committee of experts, if you like, to watch carefully its working, day by day and year by year, so that at the expiration of 1912—[HON. MEMBERS: "1914."] Well, so that at the expiration of whatever time it is—and I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to put that in the Bill—we may be in a position to walk by sight and not merely by faith, guided by the result of experience.
  There are one or two considerations which have always guided me in my criticism of this Bill, and I think some improvements may still be made in this Clause. The real problem we have got to face is not the problem of the casual labourer. If a man becomes a deposit contributor because his labour is intermittent, we are not going to help him by giving him free medical advice. The sooner we disabuse our minds of that fallacy the better. The casual labourer is going to be helped by being made something batter than a casual labourer, and there is no use in deluding ourselves into the belief that we are going to solve poverty problems of an economic kind by giving some sort of special benefits in an insurance Bill such as this. I take my stand upon that, and am prepared to abide by it quite firmly and quite decisively. We are not going to help the casual labourer by making it easier for him to get certain benefits under this Bill than if he were not a casual labourer. He has got to be dealt with on totally different lines by totally different legislation, and from a totally different point of view. The problem which the Post Office contributor really presents to the Committee is this. I do not care whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to insure through approved societies or on a national scale. He has got to discover the average sickness risk. If he is going to

  909
  allow a body of men to segregate themselves so that the average sickness risk of their society is above the average sickness risk of the nation, then he is unduly subsidising those men. That is the gist of the whole problem. If he allows certain societies to carry on their operations upon a sickness risk higher than the general average, then it follows as a necessary consequence that there must be a residuum, the sickness risk of which is worse than those other societies. That is the Post Office contributor.
  Therefore, we made certain proposals—for instance, the proposal to distribute the surplus. I know that that was unpopular, but, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, surely we have enough backbone to do unpopular things when we think they are right. I, for one, do not care whether the friendly society members in my Constituency praise me or blame me; they may vote for somebody else if they like; but if they are going to run their societies on a sickness risk which is better for them than the average sickness risk, I am not going to help them, and I shall try all I can to prevent them doing it. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met us in this matter. We are trying to raise the Post Office contributor's risk until it reaches the level of the general social sickness risk. That is only just and fair. The right hon. Gentleman has no business to abandon them to their own bad risks. There have been various proposals to deal with them, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has intimated that he is going to accept an Amendment later on on the Paper in the name of the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Astor), and of a Welsh Member (Mr. David Davies), and he is going to give medical benefits and sanatorium benefits without limitation at the discretion of the local health committee.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: If it has funds available.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Who is going to pay for these extra benefits? As I read Sub-section (d) of this Clause the Post Office contributors themselves are to pay it from certain residual funds to be created by levies on members and other ways. What does that mean? It really means that on the back of a man already depressed by a high sickness rate you are going to put an extra burden of a still higher sickness rate.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What it really means is that the local authority objected
  910
  to anything in the nature of a compulsory levy to provide the residuum. They said, "If we are going to pay it out of the rates it must be a voluntary act on our part." Acting for the Treasury, I said we were prepared to find 50 per cent. if they would find 50 per cent. without a compulsory rate. We were, therefore, bound to put in the words "if funds are available"; otherwise it would involve a compulsory levy on the local authorities. My meaning is that we should find the balance, dividing it between ourselves and the local authorities.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: So far as medical attendance is concerned the Clause as it now stands limits it to within twelve months from the lapse. I understand the Amendment of the Sub-section enables medical attendance to be continued at the option of the local health committee as long as it so decides. Who is going to pay for that? Fifty per cent. is to come from the State and 50 per cent. from the local authority. That only happens, however, if there should be any balance. But, first of all, they will have to spend the money which they get under various Clauses of this Bill, one of them being Sub-section (d) of this Clause, which reads:—
  (d) Such sum as may be prescribed shall in each year be payable in respect of each deposit contributor towards the expenses incurred by the local health committee in the administration of benefits.
  I want to make it clear that even this concession is another burden on the persons who have not average health.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not want to argue the Amendment, seeing that it is not now before the Committee; but if, when it comes on, my hon. Friend can suggest any form of words which will carry out the intentions that the Government and the local health committee shall extend the medical benefit, I shall be very happy to consider it, bearing in mind the contribution will be compulsory on the Treasury, but not on the local authorities.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The suggestion I was going to make was that this extended medical benefit should come, not from the ordinary funds, but from funds to be derived under this Bill from insurance. It should come from the extra funds, 50 per cent. of which is contributed by the State and 50 per cent. by the local authorities. In that way you would bring your bad lives under the operation of a

  911
  genuine public health authority, and it could be financed from public funds, and not from the insurance fund.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is the way in which it will work.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: My impression is that it will not work in that way. But the point can be considered when we come to deal with that particular Amendment. I do not want to repeat the very admirable suggestions made by the hon. Member opposite regarding what is to happen to the funds credited to the deposit contributor in the event of his death. I should like to associate myself wholeheartedly with his suggestion. Of course, you cannot get the employer's contribution or the State contribution repaid to the widow or children after death, but I do think they should have the deposit contributor's own personal contribution, and that is justified by the fact that this is not an insurance Clause. There is absolutely no difference in the nature of this transaction so far as the deposit contributor is concerned and a transaction he might undertake if he laid down 4d. every week at the Post Office counter. He would get credit for that in the Post Office Savings Bank, and this transaction is precisely the same. He is putting money to account in his individual name, and if he draws from that deposit the amount withdrawn will be debited against him, and periodically lines are to be drawn across the ledger and certain balances are to be shown. That is not insurance, and therefore when the person dies it is unjust the State should forfeit the amount he has deposited just as it would be unjust for the State to forfeit on the occasion of my death any deposit I had made in the Post Office Savings Bank. If you insure with the State for sickness, and at the end of twenty years find you have never been sick you have no claim on the State for any money you have paid in, because you have been paid for your deposit by having certain risks covered. But these people are having no risks covered at all, they are simply told to set aside from their income a certain sum every week, because it may be wanted in certain contingencies. The State has simply been holding the stakes—it is not insurance at all. Therefore I should like to reinforce in every way I possibly can the suggestion made by the hon. Member opposite that that part of the money, at any rate, should be refunded.
  912
  Dealing generally with the Clause, I would like to suggest that Sub-section (d) is quite unnecessary. It surely might be left out. It is a Section which charges the deposit contributor with the costs of the local health committee. We must remember that the responsibility which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to these men is to level down their risks and to put them on an equality with the average man. Consequently, if they can be relieved of any charges for administration, it is only fair that they should be. I admit that that brings in the insurance idea, and somewhat weakens my appeal on the same lines as that made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. But it is an exceedingly small thing, and I think it would be an improvement, having regard to the general spirit and intentions of this Bill. I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer our difficulty is that we cannot make this Clause dealing with the Post Office contributor a Clause of which we can be very proud. We are travelling over unknown country. The first thing we have to do is to map out the country and to survey it, so that we may precisely understand what is in it. I have the greatest pleasure, therefore, in supporting the Amendment, which limits the duration of the Clause and which will enable it later on to be built up on scientific lines.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is admitted by everyone that this Clause does not contain any form of insurance, and that at the best it is only defended because no one has been able to find a better solution of the problem. The first question everyone asks is, What is the problem we are trying to deal with? The Chancellor of the Exchequer on two occasions has made somewhat different statements with regard to that problem. First he treated the deposit contributors as if they were an uninsurable proposition—as if they were houses on fire, which no one could expect him or any Government to find insurance for. To-day he has defended the Clause upon the ground that it is experimental, that it is a temporary expedient, that in a short time the ground will be explored and we shall be better informed and consequently in a better position to deal with the problem. Nevertheless he still relies on the ground that we cannot do anything better, and that this is an uninsurable proposition coming within the category of houses on fire. I submit to the

  913
  Committee that that is a misconception of the problem we have to deal with. The Bill itself provides in this Clause that those who being employed contributors do not join friendly societies are to come within its operation. We are not attempting to deal with those people who are so ill and stricken down that they cannot work. We are only attempting to deal with the employed contributor, and we proceed in this Clause to enact that he must have been employed, not necessarily continuously, and must have paid fifty-two weeks' contributions before he can receive any sickness benefit at all. We really ought to dismiss from our minds the class who are entirely uninsurable propositions, the class which the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers the equivalent of houses on fire. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to one other class. He spoke of girls in Wales going into service for two or three months in the year during the season. I do not think they will ever have any sickness benefit, or infirmity benefit, or maternity benefit, if they require it, under this scheme at all, because the utmost they will contribute for is two or three months, and their contributions for that period will not in any event amount to more than is required to give them medical, sanatorium and administration expenses during the year. I believe at a very low computation the expenses of medical benefit, sanatorium, and administration will, with the Government subsidy of 13s. a year from the Post Office contributor, to which ought to be added 2s. 6d. representing the two-ninths of the Government, represent a total cost of 13s. 6d. If these figures are correct, and I believe they are, none of those who are employed for the short periods like two or three months in the year will ever get any sickness benefit, and the utmost they will get will be medical attendance, really doubled in cost. I think we can dismiss, too, all the classes which the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to think he was providing for under the Deposit Insurance Clause. He also thought that a number of societies would be glad to get a number of this class, because he pointed out that at the age of forty-five to fifty they were being presented with a reserve value of £8 13s. I think the Committee will be inclined to smile when they consider that statement. The £8 13s. is not an allowance for sickness, but an allowance for age, to be finally settled by the Insurance Commissioners (who, no doubt, will consult the actuaries), and based on the only form of
  914
  information we have, the Watson Tables of the Oddfellows. These are relatively the picked lives of the population who are in the friendly societies, and, based upon these picked lives, £8 13s. is sufficient to give an age reserve. But there is nothing over for an extra degree of sickness, which is to be attributed to a Post Office depositor, and consequently the Chancellor of the Exchequer either does not understand, which I am sure is not the case, the whole system of reserves, or else he has made a slip in thinking that the society could in that way be induced to take in this class.
  There is a large number of people who will come in as deposit contributors. I believe they will be an intermediate class of people who, in the first instance, are not able to get into the friendly societies, not necessarily because they are permanently ill, and they would be the class who, either through early illness shortly after the Bill comes into force, are not able to continue with friendly societies, or who, through a period of prolonged unemployment of some kind or another, having once been in friendly societies, are forced out of them. That class probably will not be able to come back into the friendly societies, at any rate if they are over the age of thirty-five, or indeed any age over twenty or twenty-five, because they will go back at a rate for age contributions much more than is fixed by this Bill. That class will, in my view, come into the deposit contributors. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, while realising the difficulty, put the proposition in this way; we have either got to work through the friendly societies, or we have not got to work through the friendly societies. In friendly societies, of course, I include trade unions. If we work through them, then there must be a residue who are not taken into the friendly societies. So long as we give the friendly societies a right of rejection there must be a residue, and that residue must form the Post Office class. In answer to that I say, it must form a Post Office class as the Bill is drawn, because the Bill is based on a fundamental error. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) has got the point. He realises that the Bill is grouping together some of the better risks in one set of societies, and is leaving the worse risks for the deposit contributor class. He has suggested that part of the surplus coming from the better risks should be paid over to the relief of

  915
  the worse risks. That is a clumsy way of meeting the difficulty created by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which never need have been created.
  6.0 P.M.
  I propose to show—because the Bill cannot remain as it is at present—how it has been a self-created difficulty, which, if the Government had paid a little more attention to the Amendments in the earlier days, might have been altogether avoided. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been very nice in what he said about an Amendment I put down in July, but he misunderstood it, and rejected it. I will deal with that because it will show how that particular difficulty could have been avoided, and how it still can be avoided at any time before the Bill is passed into law. At the same time I must say that if it is passed on the basis it has now, it never can be remedied in a thoroughly logical way. In July I put down an Amendment which had for its object this: there are two funds, the 4d., contributed by the workman, and the 5d., contributed by the employer and the State. I am going to call it 5d., although it is not actually 5d., for the purpose of illustration. The workman has a right, in my view, to have the control of his 4d., his share of the fund, and he ought to take a proportionate part of the risks that are put on his society for the 4d. that he gets. With regard to the 5d. which the State and the employer find, the State has the right to say what it will do with it. It has not, in my view, the right to say what it will do with the 4d., but it has the right to say what it will do with the 5d. It can put it into a central fund, and out of that central fund pay a proportionate amount of the benefits. If that were done the whole of the risks would be spread over the central fund, and there would be no deposit contributor class created at all. The reason why the deposit contributor class is created is that you let the societies choose their risks, and it is the residue that goes into a deposit contributor class. The societies would have the workman's 4d. in their coffers, and they would have to pay out of that about one-third of the benefits. There would be a considerable margin. They would be entitled to that margin. The 5d. paid by the State and the employer represents about two-thirds of the risk. I say let the State pay the two-thirds of the risks to everybody, and let the societies have the 4d. and pay one-third, and let them make what profit they can out of good management. If they manage well they will have
  916
  considerable profit out of the 4d. The fundamental error here is that you are making not a central fund, worked through the societies, but that you are making each separate society practically a separate fund. The Chancellor af the Exchequer's suggestion to it was that my proposal was to make all deposit contributors insure each other. It was nothing of the sort. It was intended to give a wider basis of risks. When it was proposed in July, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose on a point of Order, and said:—
  "On a point of Order, it seems to me the hon. Gentleman is advocating a completely different scheme. With all respect, I submit that ought to have been raised on the Debate on the Second Reading. His scheme completely alters the Bill, and it would make it a different, proposal altogether, and I think that ought to be raised by an Amendment on the Second Heading. I do not see how it is possible to put forward an alternative scheme in that way."
  I pointed out that the actuaries' report had been issued only twenty-four hours before the Second Reading, and that it was quite impossible for anyone, however hard they chose to work at it, to produce an alternative scheme in time for the Second Heading. To-day the right hon. Gentleman dealt with it somewhat differently. He said he would give it consideration, but he did not understand it. To use his own words he said it was mutual insurance, that the halt and the blind were to insure each other in the Post Office. That was not my proposal. My proposal was to spread the risk wider than it has been done by this Bill. The Post Office contributors could have been dealt with by the local health committees, each society taking 4d. of the workmen, and they would have been supported by the central fund, paying two-thirds of the risk against the 5d. of the employer and the State. You would then have had all the friendly societies' co-operation, just as you have it now, but you would have had a basis of all the societies resting on the central fund. You would have had no need then to trouble about complicated Clauses dealing with surpluses, or deficiencies, or their grouping of friendly societies, but you would have had them all resting on the central fund, taking in exchange the employers' and the State contribution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might have asked me whether I could have recommended that to the friendly societies. Let me anticipate that objection. What the friendly societies wanted was to be left alone. They would have been allowed then to have had their 4d. from their members' contributions, and that could have been done easily. They

  917
  would have had something more than that. They would have had the employers' contribution and the State contribution paying two-thirds of the minimum benefit. You would not then be under half the restrictions, half the red-tape regulations which are going to strangle the friendly societies under the Bill as it stands now. You would have been able to give them ever so much more freedom, because they were only taking a relatively small portion of the State risk; and you knew in your own central fund, which you could have managed centrally and much more cheaply, you would have had the means of paying two-thirds of the benefit. I am afraid, that Amendment having first of all been ruled out at the instance of the Chancellor in July, and having been to-day again refused, I cannot justly ask the Committee to further consider it, but I thank the Committee for having allowed me, at any rate, to put it before them. We cannot possibly allow this Clause to rest on the Statute Book, and before long one party or the other will have to take some steps to put it right.
  There is one other thing I should like to call attention to, and that is the financial position of the deposit contributors' class, because if the Committee is going to consider what ought to be done with regard to the deposit contributors they ought to understand first what this present scheme is going to cost the Government, and then they ought to see whether there is any other way in which that money could be better applied. To start with, I have endeavoured, by questioning the Chancellor, to find out how much the Government imagines the two-ninths of the benefits which they are going to give to the deposit contributors are actually going to cost. The actuaries have given up the problem. They say in their Table X, page 27, that no allowance has been made for the deposit contributors, but you can get at a figure of possible cost, at any rate, in this way. If you calculate that all the contributions paid in by the workmen and the employer are in one way or another absorbed each year—they will not be absorbed each year entirely, but the bulk of them will be—the contribution which will fall to be paid by the Government is £367,000. In addition to that, there will be an enormous expense, which, to some extent at any rate, will fall on the Government, because the whole of the central expenditure will be a Government expenditure and not an expenditure
  918
  out of the deposit contributors' funds. There will have to be, as far as I can gather, individual accounts with each depositor contributor kept at the head office. I should like to know from the Attorney-General if he knows whether that is right or not. It is extremely difficult to say. There will have to be an individual account with each deposit contributor kept locally; that is clear. Will there have to be a duplicate of that—an individual account—kept at the head office? I do not see how the machinery of the Bill will work unless that is done. The Attorney-General thinks there will; I think there will too. The actuaries think that there will be 882,000 deposit contributors' accounts. I ask the Committee to bear in mind that besides the two-ninths of the benefit, which on the method I have described comes to £367,000, there will be an expenditure on the part of the Government in keeping individual accounts for 882,000 deposit contributors at their head office, besides the local expenditure on the individual accounts and the health societies, which will have to come on the health societies funds.
  In addition to that, the Government is proposing to pay, if the local authorities agree, one-half of the additional medical cost and one-half of the extended sanatorium cost. I do not think it is possible to make any forecast of what that will amount to, but it seems to me that this imperfect scheme, this scheme which is not insurance at all, may easily cost the Government something like £500,000 a year to look after 882,000 people. It seems to me that that is a most wasteful method of dealing with a large sum like that, and if the Chancellor had gone to Germany, which he is so constantly calling upon us to admire, he might have found a method much more in keeping with the proposal which was contained in my Amendment. In Germany there are parochial authorities, and they have funds which are a rather separate class of insurance from the general German insurance scheme, and there they can and do give benefits proportionate to wages for a very much lower sum—a lower total contribution than the Government, the employer and the workman will together pay in connection with this deposit insurance—and the Germans have managed to cover all classes of lives because there is no residue of deposit contributors in Germany. The only residue at all is that which we should never pick up, and which is bound to fall

  919
  upon our Poor Law under whatever scheme we may bring in. The friendly societies, so far as they exist, are working the scheme in Germany, I believe, and where friendly societies have not covered the ground the parochial societies formed by the parochial authorities have come in to supplement their efforts, and broadly that is very much what I am suggesting. Where the friendly society or the trade union will not take a man in because of his health the local health committee should be called upon to form some sort of society and give an insurance benefit, although a reduced benefit. I am dissatisfied with this Clause, even as amended. The Amendment is good to this extent, that it calls upon the House to look at this question again at an early date, but the scheme is so bad as it stands that I, for one, should vote against it even as it is amended.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: There is an aspect of the deposit contributors to which I invite the attention of the Attorney-General. The deposit contributor in the Highlands of Scotland will fare rather badly under the provisions of this Bill because, although they will pay their contribution weekly, they will not in many cases be able to derive any medical benefit whatever from the proposals of the Government, through no fault of the Bill, but simply because of the possibility of getting medical officers at anything like the rate provided for under the Bill. There will be a numerous class of persons of that sort and they will feel it some hardship. I understand the Government have made some little provision for the class of persons in Amendments which appear today on the White Paper with regard to the pooling of county funds. That will be a very inadequate contribution towards those persons. Then, too, with regard to the deposit contributors in the Highlands and islands, there are large numbers of persons who are only employed during a very short period of the year, perhaps two or three months. That is very common in my own Constituency and in Argyllshire. People go away from their homes to work in Glasgow or elsewhere for a certain time of the year and then go back. They are not at all indigent persons in any sense of the word. They are certainly very poor, but, at the same time, they are careful, and I think they would be very thankful if they could come in as voluntary contributors after having paid up as Post Office con-
  920
  tributors. The deposit contributor, if he can get taken in by an approved society, can cease to become a deposit contributor, and there is provision in the Bill for the transfer of a voluntary contributor to a member of an approved society and vice versa; but as far as I can see, and I am assured on very good authority, there is no possibility under the Bill as it stands of a deposit contributor being allowed to come in as a voluntary contributor on payment of the whole 7d. a week which the voluntary contributor has to pay. That will be an exceedingly reasonable thing for the Government to agree to, though it certainly would be a very heavy tax on the resources of these poor persons, bin in view of the benefits they would get under the Bill I think many of them would be exceedingly glad to pay up the full amount which will be exacted from the voluntary contributors. Their position as it stands now is not very enviable under the Bill. They cannot get that medical attendance which persons living near cities and towns can get. The Government ought to do everything in their power, and I trust the Attorney-General will give us some little hope with regard to this matter. The hon. Member for Staffordshire to-day asked a question in which he assumed that the deposit contributor could become a voluntary contributor. I asked a supplementary to that question, but, on the suggestion of the Speaker, I brought it up again here, and I trust it will receive that consideration from the Government which I am sure it is entitled to.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I entirely agree with what was said by the hon. Member (Mr. Worthington-Evans) that the difficulties in which we are now immersed as regard the Post Office depositor really arise, because the whole framework of the Bill is faulty. The real principle is to leave the friendly societies a free hand in dealing with their own funds and then, as regards funds which come in outside the friendly societies altogether, they should be carried into a common central fund and distributed in favour of assurees whether they happen to be members of friendly societies or not. If a scheme of that kind had been adopted the difficulty in which the Committee now stands would not have arisen. But I want to take the other point of view. We have for the moment to take the Bill as it is, and then we have to deal with the proposals made as regards the Post Office depositor. These

  921
  proposals are pitiably mean at the present time. They constitute a code which, so far as the Post Office depositor is concerned, is a code we ought never to have sanctioned, because it treats them in an unfair way as compared with the other depositors who happen to be members cither of friendly societies or of trade unions. I listened carefully to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his eloquent address, but he did not in any part of it deal with the real practical difficulties of the case. Take the proposal as it stands, and I will add to it the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Are they proposals which we can fairly offer to the poor Post Office contributors—the very poorest of the poor, although I admit other classes come in? I think the fundamental mistake is this. We introduce into an Insurance Bill proposals as regards the Post Office contributor which are not insurance proposals at all. Of course, the essence of an Insurance proposal is that a large number of people contribute to a common fund, and that common fund is liable to be drawn upon in respect of each contributor. That is the essence of insurance, and, so far as the Post Office contributor is concerned, he is not placed in that position at all. He is placed in the position that he is bound to contribute. That is a new liability placed upon him, but he does not get any recompense for that—any of the advantages which he ought to get under a national insurance scheme.
  Let me take an illustration. I do not say that it applies generally. I take the case of a man who is earning low wages, and who at the same time is unfortunately suffering from bad conditions as regards health. What is his position? Under this scheme he will practically get little or no benefit at all. He will have no recourse except against the fund to which he contributes, and to which something is added by the State and the employer. He has no recourse against the fund contributed by any other body whatever. Therefore his position is that if he is ill he can only apply to the fund to which he is a compulsory contributor. He has no benefit whatever under the scheme of insurance of any sort or kind. I am perfectly sure there is no answer to that proposition. It is not an insurance scheme, and I think it is a monstrous injustice when you come to that class of contributor that you deprive him of the whole benefits given to those who come into the scheme by means of friendly societies or trade unions. What is the
  922
  result of that? This poor man is ill, and he is only in a position to get from the fund to which he has contributed. That fund soon comes to an end. What is his position then? What comes of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us as regards national insurance and matters of that kind? That man is immediately brought to the level of a workhouse pauper. There is nothing between him and the position of a workhouse pauper, because where you have real insurance a person who is in distress or ill gets advantage of the fund brought in by his more fortunate neighbours. The Post Office contributor is absolutely deprived of that position, and it is a mockery to say that you are bringing him into an insurance scheme. You do nothing of the kind. You make him, on the one hand, contribute under a compulsory system, and on the other hand you deprive him of the advantages of the insurance scheme altogether.
  Let me refer to what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As the Bill stands, although the man's fund may have run out, he gets the advantage of medical attendance and sanatorium benefit until the expiration of the then current year. The then current year may be only a week or a little longer time, but that is all he gets. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "I will extend that at the discretion of the health committee," but the Amendment which stands in the right hon. Gentleman's name does not do that. He says the man is only to have that advantage if the committee have funds available for the purpose. Of course, they will not have funds available if they administer their financial position properly. I have another remark in regard to what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was a very strong opponent of putting any portion of the expense of this Bill on the rates at all, whether by compulsion or in a voluntary way, and I suggested that in matters of this kind, if you are really going to give assistance, it ought to be a charge upon the National Exchequer. No private Member in this House can introduce an Amendment of that kind. But when we were discussing the question, and when many of us objected to any charge on the rates at all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to listen to the claims we made. He refused to put this as a charge upon the National Exchequer. If he had done that, then his Amendment might be of value, but as it stands it is of no value at all, because he cannot guarantee

  923
  under the terms of the Bill that there will ever be funds available in order to extend the benefits of this poor Post Office contributor.
  I do not want to go into the principle of the matter, but I want to say something about paragraph (g), which says, "The amount standing in the Post Office fund to the credit of any deposit contributor shall, upon his dying, be forfeited." I say that is nothing more nor less than monstrous robbery and confiscation. Remember we are not dealing with insurance. What does the Chancellor of the Exchequer say? He says, "I put that in"—the sanction of robbery and confiscation—"because the friendly societies desire it." I think I am putting that quite fairly. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At any rate, he brought it in on account of the attitude of the friendly societies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not wish to be unfair. You are comparing entirely dissimilar matters. The members of friendly societies have insurance, but here in the case of the Post Office contributors you are not dealing with an insurance fund at all. You are dealing with a fund provided by the individual, and it is only to that fund the individual can have recourse if he is ill or desires sickness benefit. It cannot be controverted that the Post Office contributor has no benefit from the principle of insurance at all—absolutely none from beginning to end.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: What becomes of those balances the hon. Member is finding fault with is that they are retained in the general fund rather than repaid to the depositors, and therefore to that extent the Post Office contributor benefits.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: It is really not an insurance fund at all. I thought this was common ground. An insurance fund means that people contribute to a common fund and have a claim against that fund. So far as the Post Office contributor is concerned, he only has a claim against a fund to which he individually has contributed. That is the essential difference between the two cases. You cannot gloss that over. There might be £10,000 standing at the credit of those poor Post Office depositors. They would not get the benefit of a penny of that. I am glad the hon. Gentleman opposite has called attention to this matter. It cannot be done, in spite of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. The right hon. Gentleman
  924
  never touched upon this point. The Post Office contributor is deprived of the whole benefit he might get from an insurance fund. He simply has to make a compulsory contribution on the one hand, and he does not get the benefit of insurance on the other. I want to refer to the case of a class I am very much interested in, namely, the agricultural labourers. Agricultural labourers are healthy men, and in many cases they will never make any claim against the fund at all. Perhaps for fifty years he has been making a compulsory contribution of 4d. a week, and, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer very well pointed out, that would become something like £100, which he has saved out of his wages under this system of compulsory contribution. When that man dies, what possible claim can there be that the fund should be confiscated? Supposing he had put 4d. a week into the Post Office Savings Bank the money would be there. If he has made no claim against the fund, I say it is nothing but robbery and confiscation to deprive that poor man of the fund which he has accumulated, and to which he has been bound to contribute. You call that an insurance fund. The more one thinks of it the more unjust it seems.
  I hope the Committee will never consent to a proposal of this kind. That will not encourage thrift or anything of that nature. Where a man has contributed out of his own money, and where the money is still standing to his credit, I say it is nothing but robbery and confiscation if at his death that fund is forfeited. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I want to use terms which will be understood. What else is there? You compel a man to contribute 4d. a week to the fund. I am only dealing with the contribution of the man, and not the contributions of the employer and the State. You compel him to contribute that amount, say, for fifty years, and he never had the benefit of a farthing out of the fund during that period, because he has been a good life and has never been ill. To whom does that money belong? It belongs to the man who made it, and it ought to inure to his benefit or the benefit of his children. I cannot see any principle upon which you can justify the confiscation of that money. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about friendly societies?"] In the first place, in friendly societies, you have the principle of insurance, and that is entirely different; and, secondly, I can tell the hon. Member that there are two friendly societies of which I am a member—one a Holloway society and the other a

  925
  society in my own agricultural district—in which that is not done. There is a difference. I hope the Committee will understand that when a member joins a society it is a matter of voluntary bargain. He may bargain to have the amount restored at his death, or he may say, "I will rather forfeit the amount at death, and have larger benefit while a member." This is an entirely different transaction. You are bound under the deposit scheme to make a contribution by law, and having made it for a series of years, the fund is standing to your credit, and yet at your death you or your descendants are deprived of the advantage of it. What possible justification is there for that? I hope the Committee will never make the mistake of supposing that the position of the Post Office contributor is in any way analogous to that of a member of a friendly society. If he is to be put in the same position, let him take the same risks and get the same advantages. You are making the Post Office contributor pay money out of his own pocket, whether he wills it or not, and after paying for fifty years the fund to his credit is forfeited. I call that nothing more nor less than State robbery.
  Mr. KING: I rise to a point of Order. We have been told at least four times by the hon. Gentleman that this is State robbery and confiscation. Is he not contravening the rule against needless repetition?
  The CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. Member not to repeat. I will have a careful watch on that point.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I am sorry the hon. Member opposite is so sensitive on a point of this kind, but to my mind it is an extremely important one. It is a point which has been brought to my notice through having to deal with societies in the agricultural districts. The attack made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hanover Square was wholly unjustified if one looks at what is said here. These so-called administration expenses are thrown upon the fund of the Post Office depositor, subject to the exception of those portions of it which are made payable out of moneys provided by Parliament. Those portions are quite infinitesimal, and in substance the whole of the administration has to be paid out of the contributions paid by the Post Office contributors. When you make a man contribute under compulsion and give him no advantage
  926
  under an insurance scheme you ought at least to provide that the money he so gives is not dissipated or wasted in a way which, gives him no benefit and which he does not desire. If you are to have this distinction, which, I agree with the hon. Member for Colchester, is a most unfortunate one, we ought to make certain in this House that the Post Office contributor is not unduly burdened as regards contributions paid and is not deprived of benefits because he happens to be a member neither of a friendly society nor of a trade union.
  The CHAIRMAN: The general discussion has now gone on for six and a-half hours, and I would suggest to the Committee that it might be time to approach the Amendment. The speech of the hon. and learned Member who spoke last was directed largely to an Amendment which is on the Paper, which could be discussed when it is reached. I hope that hon. Members will be agreeable shortly to take the Amendments on the Paper.
  Mr. AMERY: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester went to the root of the matter by pointing out that this is a self-created difficulty, created entirely by the peculiar way in which the financial framework of the Bill has been handled. It is due to three or four factors. First, the State contribution instead of being a flat rate is given in the form of proportional contributions, will make a cumulative addition to the benefits for the future, and therefore accentuates acutely the competition among societies for the selection of lives for the forcing up of benefits at the earliest date possible. Then the scheme of rejuvenation of age values undoubtedly puts certain societies in a very good position, and gives them an initial advantage. It puts them into the position of being able at a later date to get an undue share of the two-ninths. Further, as my hon. Friend explained, the reserve values scheme does naturally encourage societies to reject all older men with regard to whom their individual liability is liable to exceed the average liability expressed by the reserve value. Still further, the shortness of the period within which the loan is redeemed, by taking money out of the approved societies and lowering initial benefits, does undoubtedly lower the general amount of original contribution to benefits, though it means a larger contribution afterwards. All these factors accentuate enormously the competition, the result of

  927
  which is the residuum of deposit contributors. I think the fact that the position of deposit contributors is so unsatisfactory in itself accentuates the competition.
  I agree with the conclusion of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley Division (Sir T. Whittaker) that if you gave a somewhat better benefit to deposit contributors, a tolerable form of insurance, larger numbers of people would join, and on that basis they would form an insurable proposition. I believe that even on the present basis, these people are an insurable proposition, but not for the benefits which this Bill pretends to give. You need not pretend to give them 10s. a week for sickness; yon need not pretend to give them maternity benefits which they will hardly ever draw. You could give them some moderate benefits which would be a real insurance. This Bill professes to give sick insurance. I think the Committee are agreed that as regards sick benefit they will not be insured. Take maternity benefits: It requires fourteen months' contribution with complete employment the whole time and not a single week's sickness to be able to get maternity benefit. Take disablement. Benefit begins after six months' sickness. I have reckoned up that a contributor who contributes for seven-and-a-half years without being unemployed for a single week or drawing sickness or maternity benefit for a single week would be entitled to one week's disablement benefit. But the great majority of these people the Committee will agree are people in indifferent health. They are people who are likely to draw out two or three weeks' sickness at least in the year. By a further calculation I find that the man who draws sickness benefit for two weeks in the year on an average, and on two occasions draws maternity benefit, would have to wait for thirty-nine years before getting one week's disablement benefit. I have further tried to calculate what is the maximum number of weeks' disablement benefit that a deposit contributor could get. If he began at the age of fourteen and drew on the average two weeks' sick benefit in the year and maternity benefit on three occasions the maximum disablement benefit that he could possibly draw if he contributed for fifty-six years would be one month.
  I think that these figures are very striking, and indicate that what is wrong with this Clause is not that it does not do something for these people, but
  928
  that because of the need of pretending that you are doing more than you are doing, you are not treating these people as well as you might treat them. The fact is obvious from the very way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has kept this deposit scheme in the background. A little while ago he went out of his way to make a wholly unnecessary attack on my right hon. Friend on the ground of misrepresentation on this very point about the Post Office contributors. May I remind the Committee that in the speech already alluded to, which extended to six and a-half columns, there was not a single reference to the deposit contributors. That speech fell into two parts. In three columns he said, "I am dealing with the people who are not in friendly societies," and in the rest he dealt with the people who are. There must have been hundreds of people in that audience who would fall into the ranks of deposit contributors. During these three columns of reference to people not in friendly societies there was not even a single suggestion that any one of them would do anything else but come into approved societies and get those benefits, and there were concrete instances where the Chancellor of the Exchequer did suggest that people who would evidently fall into the deposit contributors' scheme would have got the benefit not of that scheme, but of the approved society scheme. He gave the case of a family of three men—a father and two sons—who were unemployed for years, permanently broken in health and owing a large sum, £87, to the doctor, and he suggested that under the Bill those three people would each get 10s. a week. It is perfectly obvious that they would not. They would be deposit contributors with 10s. a week for two and a-half weeks, and afterwards they would get nothing.
  In the same way he referred to consumptives with their wives and families getting 10s. a week. But the bulk of the consumptives would be deposit contributors, and they would only get the 10s. for two and a-half weeks. Take the concessions just made. The medical benefit is to be extended beyond the end of the current year. The sickness benefit is not extended. A man falls ill in January. In three weeks his sickness benefit is out. He may run on for a month. When eventually he goes into the workhouse he gets treated by the workhouse doctor. Extra medical benefit is purely superfluous in his case. Taking the sanatorium benefit, it is by

  929
  no means certain that the health committee who have got responsibilities to the approved societies in respect of medical sanatorium benefits, as well as to deposit contributors, will be in a position to claim extra money from the rates and State for thorn, and even so it does not meet the case of the wives and families. The position of this Clause is entirely unsatisfactory, for reasons which are wholly unnecessary. It would have been possible to frame a scheme which, without pretending to give the same benefits to everybody, would have found some form of insurance for everybody. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) suggests, if you had attempted to classify consumptives and people with certain diseases and segregate them, you might have got conclusions of some value from the point of view of social science; but the hotch-potch way in which you lump all classes together cannot be defended even from the point of view of scientific investigation. If the Chancellor's Clause is carried I trust that it will not be long before both the Clause and the thoroughly unsound financial arrangement on which the Bill is based will be materially altered.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: I am glad that the Government is accepting this Amendment with regard to limitations of the time, because I think if it shows nothing else it will tend to show many of the critics of the Bill, especially those who have spoken this afternoon, including the last two speakers, that there is an element of insurance in this Clause. They start with the proposition that there is no element of insurance in the Clause. The fact is that there is. Paragraph (g) is strongly criticised, because when a man dies he is not able to have his deposits back. They must go somewhere. Sub-section (2) of this same Clause provides for a triennial valuation for carrying the excess surplus to the credit of all deposit insurances under our system. We are told it is estimated at between 800,000 or 1,000,000. Why then, I ask the Committee, is this not a system of insurance? The two chief things which have been criticised this afternoon are that it is simply deposit and not insurance, and, in the second place, injustice and robbery and other very strong words have been used with regard to Sub-section (g), because the depositor is not allowed to draw out the sums, and that when a man dies, not having exhausted his deposits, they are carried into the general surplus and re-assessed among
  930
  all the other depositors who are living. Is not that insurance? I really think that we have had some very strong expressions, and I hope that before the question comes up for revision in three years' time those criticisms will have disappeared.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think that to call this insurance is really to mock the poor people who come into it. There is an element, as the Chancellor said, of tontine insurance in it. I admit the survivor is to have the benefit of any-thing that stands to the credit of those who have died. I venture to say that there is no form of insurance so universally unpopular to members of the working classes as tontine insurance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] None. Anybody who knows about the early stages of old age pensions is aware that the proposal to put it on a contributory basis, and that any balance left by a man who died without having received benefit was to be distributed among the survivors, met with universal opposition. That is not the best form of insurance—
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: It is insurance, and not robbery. That is my point.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Having regard to the fact that you are not offering these men a choice, but are forcing this provision upon them, it is not a fair thing that you should include in the Bill that there is only to be this choice open to them.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I suggest that it is about time this discussion on the Amendment, which was only sanctioned to meet a general desire for a Debate on the whole Clause, should come to an end? There has been a very wide discussion; as a matter of fact, hon. Members have gone beyond the Clause, and have debated the Bill over and over. I think it is not an unreasonable request that this Debate should now come to an end and that we should proceed to the consideration of the various Amendments.
  Mr. HUNT: I really do not see why people who have been waiting here yesterday and to-day should be prevented from speaking on this Amendment. Of course if you, Sir, think that the Debate ought to stop now, I will sit down; but there are other Members who desire to speak, and this is their only opportunity.
  The CHAIRMAN: I suggested half an hour ago that in my opinion the opportunity for the Debate had been used, and

  931
  well used. I see no reason why the hon. Member, when we come to the question, "That the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill," should not be able to say something.
  Mr. HUNT: Very well, Sir.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN: According to what I said at the beginning of the discussion of this Clause, I propose that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) should take the decision of the Committee on his Amendment, with its consequential Amendment. In undertaking to put his alternative scheme, it must be understood that, having had wide liberty of discussion already, we cannot have a fresh discussion.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Does that mean, Sir, that you would rather I made no remarks at all in submitting my Amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN: Only a few explanatory words.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "deposit" ["in this Act referred to as deposit contributors"] and to insert instead thereof the word "non-society."
  I move the Amendment for the purpose of submitting a further Amendment which appears on the Paper. There are only three things which I wish to say. It was remarked yesterday that this proposition of mine only means a kind of qualified Poor Law relief. But that is on the assumption that the people whom I propose that the health committee should take charge of are going to get something entirely for nothing. I intend to call the attention of the Committee, however, to the fact that these people will be contributing, and this proposal is no more in the nature of Poor Law relief than the proposition to give sanatorium benefit or any of the other concessions of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken to-day. My second point is, that although I have been dubbed a very unpractical person in making the observations I have made in Committee on this matter, yet I submit that, unless the Committee could have adopted some such proposition as that of the hon. Member for Colchester, there is no way by which you can insure that the sick people of this country shall have, adequate treatment at the time they need it except on some such basis as I now put before the Committee. My proposal means simply that the local health authority must provide in some way
  932
  or other for the persons who are sick, and must provide, what is of infinite importance, money for them during the period of sickness. You may send a man to a sanatorium, but if he has no money at home, it is quite hopeless to expect him to go and stay there unless you keep him there. The last point is that under the deposit scheme, as I understand it, there may be periods when maternity benefits will not be available. I contend myself that the one thing in this country women are entitled to is treatment at the time of maternity—treatment and nursing generally are what they need. These are the reasons why I put this Amendment on the Paper in the form in which it appears. It is really on all fours with the medical evidence laid before the Poor Law Commission, and practically with what the Majority and Minority proposed, namely, that you should give treatment, and settle any other question afterwards.
  Amendment negatived.
  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment in order is in the name of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth).
  Mr. CASSEL: I have an Amendment which I think comes before that of the hon. Member for Pontefract.
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will explain the purport of his Amendment.
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "being employed contributors" ["who, being employed contributors, have not joined an approved society."]
  The object of the Amendment is this:—As the Bill is drawn the only persons who can become Post Office contributors are employed persons, persons employed within the meaning of the Act. There are certain voluntary contributors who might like to become Post Office contributors. I do not think there will be many of them, but there are some, and the people I have in my mind are the blind. It is the universal practice of friendly societies to reject the blind. They never admit the blind as members of friendly societies. With regard to the blind, as a rule such employment as they get is not of such a character as to be employment within the meaning of this Bill. They are engaged generally on very small jobs.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, in Subsection. (1), after the word "expelled" ["have been expelled therefrom and have not joined "], to insert the words "or have resigned." I do not wish to give any reasons in support of the Amendment beyond the fact that it will avoid confusion.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I have an Amendment immediately following of wider scope. In any case, it is conceivable that persons may seek to be members of an approved society without having been expelled or having resigned.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We will consider the hon. Member's form of words later on.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), after
  the words "joined another approved society," to insert the words—
  "(a) Every local health committee shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act form a society (in this Act referred to as 'a health society') for the insurance of insured persons under this part of this Act, not being members of an approved society who are resident within the area of such local health committee."
  This is one of the Amendments leading to a series of Amendments relating to the creation of health committees, which, I regret to say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been able to see his way to accept. I propose to move it formally, and to ask the Committee to divide upon it.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 243.

  Division No. 359.]

  AYES.

  [7.2 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dalrymple, Viscount

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

  Ashley, W. W.

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

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

  Astor, Waldorf

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Macmaster, Donald

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Dixon, C. H.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Baird, J. L.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Malcolm, Ian

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Falle, B. G.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fell, Arthur

  Mount, William Arthur

  Barnston, Harry

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Fitzrey, Hon. E. A.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Goldman, C. S.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Grant, J. A.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bird, Alfred

  Gretton, John

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Boyton, James

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Stewart, Gershom

  Bull, Sir William James

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Hills, J. W.

  Swift, Rigby

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hohler, G. F.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cator, John

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

  Cave, George

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Mr. Worthington-Evans and Sir R. Baker.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Armitage, R.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

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

  Bentham, G. J.

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Palmer, Godfrey M.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hayward, Evan

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pirle, Duncan V.

  Brace, William

  Hinds, John

  Pointer, Joseph

  Brady, J. P.

  Hodge, John

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hunter, Win. (Lanark, Govan)

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

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pringle, William M. R.

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

  Johnson, William

  Radford, George Heynes

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Cameron, Robert

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Reddy, Michael

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jowett, F. W.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Clough, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Keating, M.

  Robinson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Kelly, Edward

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lansbury, George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Leach, Charles

  Rowlands, James

  Crumley, Patrick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Scanlan, Thomas

  De Forest, Baron

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Sheehy, David

  Donelan, Captain Anthony Charles

  McGhee, Richard

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Doris, W.

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Duffy, William J.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Summers, James Woolley

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Tennant, Harold John

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Falconer, J.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Meagher, Michael

  Ure, Rt. Hon Alexander

  Ffrench, Peter

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  France, G. A.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Georqe, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Wardle, George J.

  Gill, A. H.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Watt, Henry A.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Munro, Robert

  Webb, H.

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

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

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hackett, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Williams, J.,(Glamorgan)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Harwood, George

  O'Dowd, John

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Grady, James

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Mr. CASSELhad given notice of the following Amendment to move to insert at the end of paragraph (a) the words "and there shall be credited to every de-
  936
  posit contributor in addition to his contributions compound interest at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum on the balance for the time being standing to his credit."
  The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment is not in order, as it involves an additional charge.
  Mr. CASSEL: The object of it is to ensure that each man shall get a proper proportion of interest credited in respect of his share. It is simply a question of dealing with the available fund, as, I assume, the Insurance Commissioners will invest the money. It is really only a question of apportionment, and I am not concerned with the precise words.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think I understand exactly what the hon. Member has said. I have examined the proposed Amendment most carefully, and it seems to me that it cannot be brought within the ambit of the Money Resolutions which the Committee have passed. It is clear that the interest on the general fund might be required to meet liabilities—for instance, for sick pay—and the proposal might involve an increased charge. On those grounds I am not able to accept it.
  Mr. CASSEL: May I move the Amendment limiting it to any surplus which is available. I do it really for the purpose of pointing out what is an injustice which is not intended but created under the Bill. I am not likely to get an opportunity of doing so on the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. Whatever interest will result from the investments of the money the deposit contributor will get. They cannot debit it every day, but the hon. Gentleman goes beyond that, and his proposal is obviously out of order, as it involves an additional charge, but the interest will go to the fund.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is the point of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and clearly it cannot be out of order if, as the Chancellor says, it is already in the Bill. Will the Chancellor say where in the Bill it is provided that the deposit contributor shall have the benefit to his own account of the interest earned by that account? I venture to suggest that the words of my hon. and learned Friend are required in order to carry out the expressed intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow a discussion on the question.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: You can raise it on the second Sub-section.
  Mr. CASSEL: Will it be possible for me to move an Amendment with the limiting words, "so far as any surplus arising under Sub-section (2) allows"?
  The CHAIRMAN: I really could not, allow that without having seen it previously. At first sight I think it is covered by my other ruling. I have given most careful consideration over two days to the hon. Member's proposal. I must be bound by the rules of the House, and I have come to the conclusion that the Amendment is out of order.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in paragragh (b), to leave out the words "until the expiration of the then current year," and to insert instead thereof the words, "for a further period of twelve months." This is the most extraordinarily drafted Clause I have ever read.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I interrupt the hon. Member? I am afraid that if this Amendment is negatived it may rule out my subsequent proposal that the local health committees should allow the medical benefits after the expiration of the year without any limit at all.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think that mine is a better Amendment than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; therefore I will move it, and if the right hon. Gentleman convinces me that his proposal is better than mine I will withdraw it. The position is really absurd. The man loses his right to medical and sanatorium benefits after the expiration of the then current year. If he fell out of the scheme in January he would continue to get medical benefit for eleven months; but if he fell out at the end of December he would get it for only a few days. Who the author of this extraordinary provision was I do not know; but it suggests that the Bill was drawn in a very slipshod manner. I propose that in any case the deposit contributor should be entitled to medical and sanatorium benefits for twelve months after he falls out. That would give him every opportunity, because if the sanatorium treatment is any good it ought to do its work in twelve months. The Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer leaves it optional in the hands of the local health committee whether the benefits should be extended. I object to that. I think it is infinitely better from

  939
  the point of view of these poor people that the matter should be certain. It is optional to the health committee if they have funds available for the purpose and think fit to do so. Considering the very bad treatment that deposit contributors get generally under this Clause, the matter should not depend upon whether there are funds available, but the contributors ought to be entitled in any case to get the benefits for, at all events, twelve months. I hope as the right hon. Gentleman is willing to meet us to a certain extent he will meet us altogether.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have adopted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Astor) which is an infinitely better one in every respect than the one now moved. It will extend the treatment, if necessary, not merely for twelve months, but it may be for four or five years. The only reason why the words "if it has funds available" are inserted is that I cannot compel the local authorities to supplement the fund, and it is left to their option. The hon. Member for Plymouth has accepted the form of my Amendment; therefore I hope the hon. Member for Dudley will not press this proposal.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is mistaken in treating this Amendment as an alternative to the proposal standing in his name. That Amendment stands on its own merits. It may be read in conjunction with the Bill as it stands, or in conjunction with the Bill as my hon. Friend proposes to amend it. The Bill as it stands says that a man shall have medical benefit to the end of the year, which may be twelve months, or twelve days, or even one day. Under the Chancellor's proposal he may have it longer if funds are available and the committee approve. My hon. Friend proposes that he shall have it for twelve months certain, and the Chancellor's concession can follow perfectly well upon that. The question between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my hon. Friend is not to what extent there shall be a permissive authority to extend a man's benefits, but for how long his benefit shall be guaranteed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes that if the man's contributions become exhausted on the first day, the benefit shall be extended compulsorily for the whole twelve months. But if his contributions are exhausted on the last day of the year there
  940
  is no compulsion to give him benefit for one day longer. My hon. Friend proposes that in all cases he shall have the benefit for twelve months. That is the real point.
  Mr. ASTOR: With regard to the sanatorium benefit there is no time limit. My objection to the Clause as it stood was that it imposed a definite time limit—a maximum of twelve months and a minimum of perhaps two or three days. My hon. Friend's Amendment has the same inequality. It imposes a time limit which may be twenty-four months or twelve months and a day. The Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the other hand has no limit; it is left to the local health committee in any case to decide. It is quite different in that way from the sickness or invalidity benefit. In the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment I find the words "if it has funds available for the purpose." Subsection (f) says that on 1st January 1s. 3d. shall be deducted from the sum appearing in the name of every Post Office contributor. This is not an arbitrary sum. Obviously it has been worked out, and is intended to cover sanatorium benefit—treatment in a sanatorium or otherwise. The only point I would put is that if a man becomes ill with consumption in December he must have the same right to full sanatorium treatment as if he became ill in February. If he became ill in February he would naturally have two, three, or six months. If he became ill in November or December he ought still to have the same treatment. The money must be there if the scheme is sound, because the 1s. 3d. has been deducted from everybody's fund. I think my hon. Friend's doubt is due to the words "if it has funds available for the purpose." I do not think the words are necessary.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think that that point will arise in regard to the sanatoria. It is not as if the man had to pay for sanatorium treatment during the time he was in the sanatorium, and that therefore his contributions were lowered to that extent. The 1s. entitles him to sanatorium treatment. The reduction would be rather in respect of medical benefit. Therefore these words would not limit his right to sanatorium treatment. It is far better to give the local health committee this power, and let them judge each case on its merits.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If this Amendment is negatived, will it cut out the Amendment of the Chancellor of the

  941
  Exchequer? It seems to me that the two might very well go togetner. Whether or not I ask permission to withdraw my Amendment depends on the ruling of the Chair on that point.
  The CHAIRMAN: No, I do not think that this Amendment being negatived
  does shut out that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 120.

  Division No. 360.]

  AYES.

  [7.31 p.m.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon William (Rhondda)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Nuttall, Harry

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Hackett, J.

  O'Dowd, John

  Armitage, R.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Ogden, Fred

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  O'Malley, William

  Astor, Waldorf

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Harwood, George

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Hayward, Evan

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Black, Arthur W.

  Herbert, Colonel Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hinds, John

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Brace, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Brady, P. J.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Radford, G. H.

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Reddy, Michael

  Bryce, John Annan

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Johnson, William

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Cameron, Robert

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

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

  Keating, Matthew

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Clough, William

  Kelly, Edward

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Rowlands, James

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Leach, Charles

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

  Cotton, William Francis

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on Tees)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

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

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lundon, Thomas

  Sheehy, David

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  McGhee, Richard

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  De Forest, Baron

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

  Summers, James Woolley

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Tennant, Harold John

  Devlin, Joseph

  M'Callum, John M.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Donelan, Anthony Charles

  McKonna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Doris, William

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Marks, Sir George Crovdon

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Webb, H.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Meagher, Michael

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Falconer, James

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Money, L. G. Chfozza

  Wiles, Thomas

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Mooney, John J.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morgan, George Hay

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Munro, Robert

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

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Winfrey, Richard

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

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

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Glanville, H. J.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  NOES.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Falle, B. G.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Fell, Arthur

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bagot, Lieut-Colonel J.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Baird, J. L.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Newman, John R. P.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gardner, Ernest

  O'Grady, James

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barnston, H.

  Goldman, C. S.

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

  Barrie, Hugh T. (Londonderry)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gretton, John

  Pointer, Joseph

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Bird, Alfred

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

  Boyton, J.

  Hill Wood, Samuel

  Snowder., Philip

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hodge, John

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Swift, Rigby

  Butcher, J. G. (York)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cassel, Felix

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Cator, John

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Cave, George

  Kerr-Smiley Peter Kerr

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lansbury, George

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

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lawson, Hon. Harry (Mile End)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

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

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

  Dixon, C. H.

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Sir A. Griffith-Boscewen and Mr. Mills.

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

  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move to add to paragraph (b) the words, "and that the local health committee, if it has funds available for the purpose and thinks fit so to do, may allow him to continue to receive medical benefit or sanatorium benefit or both such benefits after the expiration of such year."
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: On a point of Order. The Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives power to local health committees to raise certain additional sums of money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already told us that he intends that a certain equivalent sum shall be raised by the Exchequer. I maintain that this is an additional charge, and therefore that it is out of order. The Chancellor shakes his head. I do not know whether he is going to defend his proposition.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have considered the point. The hon. Baronet follows these matters closely, and no doubt he will recollect the ruling that my predecessor as Deputy-Speaker gave on the Report stage of the Money Resolution. He ruled that it would be in order to pro-
  944
  pose additional benefits provided that the two-ninths proportion of the State contribution was not exceeded. I consider this Amendment is covered by that Resolution, and for that reason I propose to allow it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: My contention is that the proposed amount would be exceeded because there would be additional benefits which were not contemplated.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order, though I am afraid it is a question of fact rather than one of order. As I understand this Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is not limited at all by the two-ninths. It deals with circumstances in which the health fund available for making sanatoria benefits would be insufficient to do all that the local health committee wished. In that case it may be supplemented by a contribution, in equal proportions, by the local authority and the State. I think I am right in that that the contribution from the State is not governed in the least by the two-ninths.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think these points are covered by the Resolution, which, in

  945
  addition to the two-ninths, provides for the Exchequer contributing one-half of the excess referred to.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The point is this: Under the Money Resolution the State was allowed to contribute two-ninths. They might give as much benefit as they desired, provided that their contribution did not exceed two-ninths. Now, under the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the contributions by the employer and the employed disappear. Whatever additional benefits are to be going to be given, will be paid as to one-half by the State and as to the other half by the local authority. Therefore I contend the two-ninths does not apply.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think so. I think that point is covered by the ruling already given.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I should like the Chancellor to tell me whether I was right in my inference that the local health committee can have no funds available for this purpose unless the local authority and the Treasury agree to make a special contribution for the purpose?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the Bill stopped at this point, I agree that the only funds available would be the shilling and the two-ninths. I propose, as I have already said, that there shall be a further extension, and when I come to that I must get an amended Money Resolution. In the meantime this is only "if the funds are available." If it remains here you will only get the shilling and threepence. Later I shall propose an extension. Before I do that the Money Resolution must be amended. It is not necessary to amend it for this purpose.
  Mr. FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has talked about a new fund. I have not the slightest information as to what fund the Chancellor of the Exchequer is referring to when he says he will have to amend his Resolution in order to provide them. Perhaps he will give us some indication. We do not want to labour the point; we only want to know to what fund he is referring.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not want to travel outside this Amendment. I think I said frequently when we were discussing sanatorium benefits on Clause 8, that there was a very general desire that there should be a very wide extension of the sanatorium benefit, and that the
  946
  extension should not be confined to sanatorium treatment, but to other treatment as well. I say that would involve additional charge, and I said that I proposed later on to introduce an Amendment that would enable us to do so and to provide funds for that purpose. In order to do that, I think it would be necessary to amend the Financial Resolution, but I cannot say so definitely until I consult the authorities of the House.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The right hon. Gentleman talks of amending the Money Resolution, which really means he will have to bring in a fresh Resolution, which will have to go through all its stages in the ordinary course. If that is so, will the Resolution be taken outside the time-table in the Closure order, or will it be done on an allotted day?
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask if the Government make a contribution and the local health authority refuse the other half, will the local health authority be allowed to use the Government's contribution for that purpose?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Then it appears to me there is going to be very little chance of the extension of this benefit, because in view of the obligations placed upon local authorities in different parts of the country already, I am afraid the local health committees will refuse to find any additional money, and therefore, as far as I can see, this proposal will be but a mere shadow.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If my hon. Friend will only make some inquiry as to what the local authorities are doing now, he will see his observations are futile.
  Mr. W. THORNE: I am a member of the local authority for twenty years, and I know what is going on.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member may know what is going on in his own local authority, but I am talking of other enlightened authorities. Yesterday I had a local authority before me that comes from a very enlightened part of the country.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Wales?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, I am very glad my hon. Friend knows the proper distinction, and they told me the way they wore building sanatoriums, and whereas

  947
  now the whole expenditure falls upon them, in future part of it will come out of this fund and part of it will fall on the Treasury. What the Government are now doing will relieve the local authorities, and half the expenditure will be borne by the State, which will be a direct incentive to them to act.
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (c), "A deposit contributor shall not be entitled to sickness benefit unless at least fifty-two weekly contributions have been paid by or in respect of him," and to insert instead thereof the words, "The provisions of Sub-section (7) (6) (c) and (d) of Section 8 shall not apply to deposit, contributors."
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the latter part of the Amendment is not in order. It is largely negative of what we have already decided in the general discussion. We must take it that the general discussion and the previous decision of this Clause have affirmed the general views of the Clause, although not amending it in detail. I understand the hon. Gentleman's proposal would take out deposit contributors if he has anything standing to his credit.
  Mr. CASSEL: No, that is not the proposal. It is to leave out paragraph (c), which provides a longer waiting period for the deposit contributor than for a member of a friendly society. It seems to be absurd that a deposit contributor should have to wait longer than a member of a friendly society, and all this proposes to do is to reduce the waiting period.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman moves that by himself it would certainly be in order.
  Mr. CASSEL: With regard to the insertion which I propose, that does not propose that deposit contributors could draw out money, except for the purposes of sick pay, without waiting for the whole waiting period. I do not think there was anything in the general discussion which covers that.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have an Amendment myself to leave out paragraph (c).
  Mr. CASSEL: So far as striking out paragraph (c) is concerned, I understand
  948
  the Chancellor has a similar Amendment, and, therefore, it is not necessary to say much on the point, but I desire also to move the insertion of other words, and upon that point perhaps my Amendment was not sufficiently clear. That Amendment relates back to Clause 8, Sub-section (7), and this Clause provides certain waiting periods for a man before he can draw out any sick pay. He must wait twenty-six weeks. I say that in the case of deposit contributors there is not the same reason why he should wait so long to draw out sick pay. The case of the deposit contributor is a different case from others, because it is his own money he will be drawing from, and not other people's funds. You must have a provision in order to insure other people's funds and to prevent fraudulent withdrawal, and you provide there should be certain waiting periods, but that seems to be wholly unnecessary in the case of deposit contributors. I do not propose to allow him to draw out except he is sick.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is exactly the way I apprehend the proposal, and I think the hon. Member himself last evening put that view forward upon the general discussion, because my object in allowing that wide discussion was that this point might be brought out. I certainly cannot allow what is practically a negative of the Clause to be brought forward as an Amendment.
  Mr. CASSEL: This would not be a negative of the Clause. The fact that I mentioned it should not prevent me from moving it. I did not apprehend that. I made the suggestion, and I did not hear any one controverting it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Five hon. Members did."] Well, if five hon. Members controverted it, that surely does not prevent me from moving it as an Amendment. If it did it would greatly curtail our liberty of discussion. This is nothing like a negative to the Clause. It only modified it in a small principle. That is, that in the case of deposit contributors they should not have to wait the full twenty-six weeks for sickness benefit, and if that Amendment were inserted it would in no sense negative the Clause, but would leave it as it stands, with a slight qualification. The fact that I mentioned it in the course of a speech ought not to prevent me moving it, even if 200 Members spoke against it.
  The CHAIRMAN: I ventured, on the consideration of this Clause, to make a

  949
  suggestion to the Committee, which, I understood, was universally agreed to, to ensure that opportunity of discussion should be allowed upon the first Amendment which should cover all the suggested alternatives to those embodied in the Clause. I am bound to say that the portion of this Amendment which moves the insertion is one of those alternatives, and that is the reason I cannot allow it now on the discussion of details of the Clause.
  Mr. CASSEL: Of course, I bow to your ruling, Mr. Whitley, but I should like to point out that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley was allowed to move his Amendment. I do not wish any further to question your decision upon that, although I feel it does preclude me from moving an Amendment that has some point in it. In the circumstances, I will move the omission of paragraph (c), which I understand is acceded to.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I venture to remind you, Mr. Whitley, that on previous occasions where a general discussion was allowed, although it was ruled that the discussion should not be repeated on Amendments, still separate items have been voted upon without a discussion. I submit that what has been done on previous occasions may be done on this occasion. I think it was done more than once on the Revenue Bill, although the discussion was taken on one proposition, several others were divided on.
  Mr. AMERY: May I submit it is quite obvious this Amendment cannot alter the situation which requires at least twenty-eight weeks to accumulate an allowance for one week of sickness.
  Question, "That paragraph (c) stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (f) to add the words,
  "if such amount be sufficient for this purpose, and, if not, shall be included in the like deduction made at the commencement of the following year."
  8.0 P.M.
  I put this Amendment down to ascertain what would happen in case there was not sufficient money to pay the expenses of sickness and maternity at the beginning of the year. I want to know the exact position in this respect. Supposing a member has not sufficient to his credit to pay the sanatorium and other expenses, will
  950
  he be mulcted in respect of money paid in by him on his own account in the course of that year? I am only moving this Amendment to make the position clear.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I sympathise with the object of the hon. Member and I quite realise why he has put this Amendment down. I am sure, however, that it is quite unnecessary, and it will be all the more unnecessary after we have included the further Amendment dealing with this question to be moved later.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: After the assurance which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman I desire to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: I beg to more to leave out paragraph (g), and to insert instead thereof the words,
  "On the death of a deposit contributor there shall be paid out of the amount standing to his credit in the Post Office fund an amount proportionate to his contributions, with such interest as the Insurance Commissioners may allow, and the said amount shall be paid in such manner as the local health committee may determine, to or for the benefit of his widow and dependents or, failing them, of his next-of-kin or such person as the deposit contributor may have appointed. The remainder of the amount in the Post Office fund standing to the credit of the deposit contributor shall, upon his dying, be forfeited."
  While I think the whole Committee must have been convinced by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in which he stated that it would not be possible without increasing the attractiveness of the deposit contributor section to allow the return of the whole balance standing to the credit of a deposit contributor on his death, that does not apply to the smallest portion of the contribution the man himself has contributed. Supposing the man was never ill during the whole of the three years, and did not withdraw a penny from the fund, he would only have a maximum of some 39s., which would represent his own contribution. Although that would not mean very much, if it could be returned it would remove a great sense of injustice, and it would make a great difference to many poor homes, and I do not think it would be regarded by the insurance companies as insurance against death. It would only mean the return of the contributions of the contributor.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As I have already said, I am in great sympathy with the object of this Amendment, and I shall be glad to accept the principle. All I want is not to make the deposit contributor class so attractive, and by that means dissuade people from joining the societies. I am afraid the form of words moved in this Amendment will not quite do. I have not prepared other words, but if my hon. Friend will withdraw this Amendment I will undertake to introduce on the Report stage words which will carry out the object which my hon. Friend has in mind, and that is that the 4d. paid in by the contributor shall be at the date of his death put to the credit of his next-of-kin, and the only deduction made will be in respect of sanatorium management and benefits. I will bring in such an Amendment on the Report stage, but it will not do in the form set down in this Amendment.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I have made a rough calculation by which I find, taking the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to a person between the ages of twenty and seventy years, if he had no illness, and having to his credit at the age of seventy £100, he would have, if only his own payments were taken into account, something between £30 and £35. Persons in this position who suffer from illness and have not been accepted by a friendly society are probably persons who have made no provision for funeral benefit, because they would not belong to a friendly society. It does seem rather hard that whereas a man like this may, through a long life, have been making payments into the fund, the cost of his funeral should fall upon the parish. Many men dread nothing more than the cost of their funeral falling upon the parish, and this proposal would form a fund by which they would be able to pay funeral expenses.
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Mr. AMERY: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has consented to accept the general principle of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and has recognised the complete difference between the position of deposit contributors and ordinary insured persons, will he consider the advisability of extending a similar favour to those persons who leave this country and go abroad?
  Mr. BOOTH: I am afraid the insurance companies will not care very much about
  952
  this proposal, and in the case of some friendly orders I am inclined to think some opposition will be engendered unless you say that members of friendly societies should also draw something out of this kind. This proposal is lessening the insurance element. This measure is either a Sickness and Invalidity Bill or it is not, and if money is taken for this purpose there must be so much less for the other benefits. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consult some of the leaders of friendly societies on this point. With regard to industrial insurance companies I do not think they will take a narrow view of this matter, but the trouble I foresee is that it may often be made the means of men being persuaded to leave trade unions and the friendly orders. When the compromise was arranged between the friendly orders a distinguished and chosen representative of the trade unions was present, and he raised no objection to the inclusion of this provision. I know there will be plenty of time to asecrtain whether the trade unions and the friendly orders will agree to this Amendment.
  Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Member for Pontefract has uttered a word of warning, and he has reminded us that this is a Bill dealing with insurance and invalidity. I take it that there is no form of insurance, for the deposit contributor, and I want to have his case considered. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken a wise course in asking for time to consider the point. The matter is not free from difficulty by any means, and I am sure that no one realises that more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope the Committee will allow the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment on the assurance the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I understand from the undertaking given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Sub-section (g) will go out of the Bill, and that the right hon. Gentleman will substitute something else.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We may amend it.
  Mr. SANDERSON: Many hon. Members would vote against this Clause if paragraph (g) is allowed to remain. I understand it is to go altogether in the present form, and that it will be amended upon the principle that the dependents of a deceased person are to get the proportion of what remains to a man's credit

  953
  less the expenses. I understand that is the principle which the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepts.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is the principle.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CASSELrose to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words:
  (h) "The amount standing to the credit of any deposit contributor shall, upon his ceasing permanently to reside in the United Kingdom, be paid out to him."
  It seems to me that where a Post Office contributor has accumulated a fund and desires to emigrate he ought to be able at least to draw out that part of it which represents his own contributions. I fully accept the criticism that it ought not to apply to the State contribution, and I am desirous of not doing anything to injure the friendly societies. I wish to make the depositors' position better, but not so good as that it will draw too many from the friendly societies.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There are considerations applicable in this case which would not be applicable in the case of death, but I will consider them together and put some Amendment down for the Report stage.
  Mr. CASSEL: Shall we have an opportunity of discussing it on the Report stage?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If there be any difficulty about it, I will certainly see the hon. Gentleman before I put the Amendment down.
  Mr. CASSEL: I certainly think the Committee would wish to have an opportunity of discussing it, but I feel I cannot press it any further at this moment, because I agree this Amendment will not do, and would have to be re-cast, and I am not ready with other words.
  The CHAIRMAN: I did not put the Question, so that it will not be necessary to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2). We originally discussed an Amendment treated as a peg on which to hang a general discussion, and the result is we have accepted an Amendment which makes absolute nonsense of Sub-section (2).
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I accept the Amendment.
  Mr. CASSEL: If the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment, I have nothing further to say except that the result will be to do away with any interest for these Post Office contributors. I mean interest in the sense of interest on their money. The only way in which the right hon. Gentleman was going to bring in interest for them was through the surplus. I think the right hon. Gentleman, while he accepts the Amendment, will recognise it will be necessary to substitute something for it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I propose to accept the Amendment, so that the hon. and learned Gentleman need not adduce any further arguments in support of it, but I will give him a reason for the Amendment which does not seem to have occurred to him. This valuation will not be necessary now, because we have accepted an Amendment by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell), which brings the Post Office contributors to an end on January 1st, 1935. I am sure it is not necessary to introduce some other words, but still I will consider it.
  Mr. CASSEL: I had fully apprehended the point put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I thought I had made it clear. I said the Amendment accepted to-day would make nonsense of the Clause.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I apologise to the hon. Member.
  Mr. CASSEL: I did not know it when I put the Amendment down. I then had other reasons for not wishing this Clause inserted. It would be desirable in the interests of the Bill to put something in its place to give interest to the Post Office contributors. I had in mind not merely whether a particular Amendment was going to be accepted or not, but what the right hon. Gentleman invited us to do with regard to giving suggestions to improve the Bill. If you leave out this Clause, I do not see where the Post Office contributor is going to get any interest at all, because there is no provision for dealing with the interest accruing on investments made with moneys which are found by the Post Office contributors.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then leave it in.
  Mr. CASSEL: It would make nonsense. I am speaking in favour of leaving it out, but I am suggesting that in the interests of making sense of the Bill certain other words will have to be put in its place.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have said that several times.
  Mr. CASSEL: I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this. The Clause as it was framed would have allocated the interest in a rotten way. It would have allocated it without any relation to the money they had found. I hope when he does introduce a substitute for this Clause it will deal fairly with the interest as between the different interests.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided to omit this Clause rather than to amend it. It is perfectly possible to amend it, and it affords a grand opportunity for putting a premium on county and other health authorities trying to increase the health standard so as to reduce the number of Post Office contributors. If this Clause had been retained, in any case it would have been an incentive to the local health committees, even in its present form, to do all they could to improve the health of their district, and if it had been amended in the way I should have preferred, that encouragement would have been given specially to local health committees in districts where the number of Post Office contributors was small rather than large. I believe it would have afforded an immense stimulus to local health committees generally to improve housing and other conditions, and to raise the general standard of life. We have had most alarming reports during the last week or two on the subject of the medical inspection of school children. That is, I know, a subject for county committees, and it is not a matter which can be dealt with apart from co-operation with the county committee, but if this Clause had been kept in, and if it had been slightly modified, a premium could have been placed on progressive work on the part of those who administer medical inspection in the county. I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided to omit the Clause rather than to amend it.
  Mr. AMERY: If this is to end in three years, surely it is necessary to make arrangements for some valuation at the end of that period. Ought we not to provide in the Bill for some such valuation?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We leave it to the Parliament of 1914 to deal with the whole problem.
  Mr. FORSTER: What is going to happen about the interest? Before 1914, the
  956
  date on which the scheme will have to be reconsidered, some of these deposit contributors will have paid into their fund, and will probably not have exhausted their credit. As far as I can see there is no provision in the Bill which would give them credit for anything on account of the interest that their contributions may be presumed to have earned. How is that point going to be dealt with? You must give a man credit for the interest his money has earned, and I cannot see anything in the Bill which does that.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It makes no difference whether you leave it in or out. There can be no computation of interest until the end of three years.
  Mr. FORSTER: Why not?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The valuation is to be made at the end of three years. The Amendment before the Committee has actually nothing to do with the computation of interest, and whether this is in or out it makes no difference.
  Mr. FORSTER: If it is in we can amend it, so that there may be some provision for crediting the various accounts with interest upon the amounts paid in. If you leave it out of course we cannot do that. I think I am entitled to ask how are you going to give the deposit contributors interest on their money?
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. CASSEL: I think, as the result of the Amendments adopted to-day, this Clause is left in a most unsatisfactory, unfinished, and truncated condition. We leave these people in this condition, that for three years they go on contributing to this fund and at the end of that time nobody knows in what position they will stand. We leave them absolutely at sea. If it so happens that the present Government is then in power, we may know what is to be done with them; but so far as the work of the House of Commons is concerned, in regard to this Clause, I think it is work of which we ought to be ashamed. It is the first Amendment which has done all the damage. Hon. Members suggest that I am the offender. I absolutely deny that. The paragraph had to be taken out as a necessary consequence of limiting the duration of the Clause to 1915.

  957
  The responsibility rests on the Government. I may be the truncator, but the Government ought not to have allowed me to truncate the Clause if it was improper to do so. I absolutely repudiate the responsibility for the mischief that has been done. These people are to subscribe their 4d. per week until the 1st January, 1915, and we have no idea what is to be done with the money when the accumulation has been made. The Clause, I repeat, is left in a most unfinished and most unsatisfactory condition.
  Mr. FORSTER: I am so dissatisfied with the way in which the deposit contributors are dealt with under this Clause that I shall vote against it.
  Mr. BAIRD: My hon. Friend had an Amendment down to substitute the word "contributor" for "insurance." We have had it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself in a most lucid explanation that this is not insurance and that it is simply tantamount to what might happen if a man endeavoured to insure a burning house. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] That expression has been frequently used in connection with this question of the deposit contributor, and I think it would only be just to the people who will come under this Clause to let them know that they are not insured. We
  ought to take out that word "insurance." I very much regret the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not see his way to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Colchester, which was a very serious attempt to produce a scheme which would have been an insurance. I am loth to vote against any part of this Bill, because it is designed to do a certain amount of good, but between the intention and the carrying out of that intention there is a wide gulf, and, in spite of the benefit in connection with sanatorium and medical treatment, you are asking people to contribute who are not in a position to do so. The immediate effect of this Clause will be to put the people whom it touches in a worse position. I dislike voting against anything which aims at doing good, but I think that this particular Clause misses its aim so completely that I shall have no hesitation in voting against it.
  Mr. BOOTH: I wish to give the Committee my candid opinion of this Clause. I think it is the ablest, the cleverest, and the best Clause of all. It has stood impregnable against all the criticism it has had.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 82.

  Division No. 361.]

  AYES.

  [8.40 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Daves, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  De Forest, Baron

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Hinds, John

  Armitage, Robert

  Doris, W.

  Hodge, John

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Duffy, William J.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Falconer, J.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Bowerman C. W.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  John, Edward Thomas

  Brace, William

  Ffrench, Peter

  Johnson, W.

  Brady, P. J.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Gill, A. H.

  Joyce, Michael

  Cameron, Robert

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Clough, William

  Gulland, John William

  Lundon, Thomas

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hackett, J.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Cowan, W. H.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Harwood, George

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Davies, E. William (Elfion)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sheehy, David

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Meagher, Michael

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Mooney, J. J.

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

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Morrell, Philip

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Radford, G. H.

  Webb, H.

  Munro, R.

  Reddy, M.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Robinson, Sidney

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Rowlands, James

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Dowd, John

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Winfrey, Richard

  Ogden, Fred

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

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

  O'Grady, James

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

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

  Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. G. Howard.

  NOES.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Mount, William Arthur

  Ashley, W. W.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Astor, Waldorf

  Croft, H. P.

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

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dixon, C. H.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barnston, Harry

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Forster, Henry William

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Goldman, C. S.

  Snowden, Philip

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Grant, J. A.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gretton, John

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Bird, A.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Swift, Rigby

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Boyton, James

  Hills, John Waller

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Touche, George Alexander

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

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

  Campion, W. R.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Winterton, Earl

  Carlile, Sir Edward Mildred

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Cassel, Felix

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Cator, John

  Lansbury, George

  Cave, George

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Macmaster, Donald

  Mr. Baird and Mr. Amery

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 33.—(Transfer from Approved Society to Deposit Insurance, and vice versâ.)
  (1) If an insured person, being a member of an approved society, ceases to be a member of that society, whether voluntarily or by expulsion, and fails to become a member of another approved society, then

  (a) if he becomes a deposit contributor, his transfer value shall be carried to his credit in the Post Office fund; Provided that if a reserve value is credited to the society in respect of him, that reserve value shall be
  960
  cancelled and the difference between the transfer value and the reserve value shall be carried to the credit of the deposit contributor;

  (b) if he does not become a deposit contributor, his transfer value shall be carried to such account and dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed.

  (2) If an insured person who is a deposit contributor subsequently becomes a member of an approved society for the purposes of this part of this Act, there shall be transferred to the society the amount

  961
  standing to his credit in the Post Office fund:
  Provided that—

  (a) if that amount exceeds the value of the contributions paid by or in respect of him estimated on the assumption that he had been a member of an approved society since his entry into insurance, the excess shall not be transferred to the society but shall be carried to the credit of the Post Office fund;

  (b) if that amount is less than such value the insured person shall be treated as being in arrear to the amount of the deficiency.

  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (b), after the word "with" ["dealt with in such manner"], to insert the words, "for the benefit of himself or of his dependents."
  The object of the Amendment is to secure that any money which may stand to the credit of a man, if he does not become a deposit contributor, shall be carried to his dependents. That is a proposal that the Committee might accept without doing any harm at all to the conditions laid down by the Chancellor, especially in view of the fact that in the case of transfer he has already promised on Report to bring up some arrangement by which this shall be carried out.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: All these questions can be considered on the rules, and I think it will be a mistake to put in words of this kind before the rules are considered. I can promise this to the hon. Member, that if it is necessary to introduce words in order to enable the regulations to take this form I will consider it between this and Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. FORSTER: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (a).
  I move this in order to ask the Government to justify what they propose to do. It will be observed that if a depositor subsequently becomes a member of an approved society, he may lose a very considerable proportion of the credit which stands to his name in the Post Office contributors' fund. Let me take a concrete case which will make my meaning clear. A man enters insurance as a deposit contributor at sixteen. In the course of ten years he has built up a fund standing to his credit which may very well amount to
  962
  £10. Supposing he then joins an approved society, and suppose that his reserve value amounts to something like £5, that amount will be taken out of his credit in the Post Office fund and credited to the society as his reserve value. The balance of £5 standing to his credit in the Post Office fund will be forfeited as far as he is concerned. I can quite see the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishing to build up and swell the Post Office fund, but I want him to explain how it is fair to the individual.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is really quite immaterial now because we are reconsidering the whole of this proposal on 1st January, 1915, and it is almost inconceivable that a fund should be accumulated which would be in excess of the transfer value. It is quite immaterial whether it is in or out for that reason. I really do not care if the hon. Gentleman would really like to have it out.
  Mr. FORSTER: That is another case in point. It shows that the whole position of the deposit contributor is so unsatisfactory to the House that they all agree that the proposals in the Bill cannot stand and that the whole question must be reconsidered, if not this year or next, at any rate within the next two or three years.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), after the word "shall" ["the insured person shall be treated"], to insert the word "not."
  I move this mainly for the purpose of ascertaining what is the meaning of this paragraph. In the case of a Post Office depositor transferring to an approved society, if the amount standing to his credit in the Post Office is less than, I suppose, his value in the approved society he is to be debited with arrears. How is it proposed to give effect to that and to charge the person with arrears?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The point of the paragraph is that if a man who has been a Post Office contributor subsequently joins a society, the society of course can only take him on his paying something which is equivalent to the transfer value. Supposing the amount is not sufficient for that purpose, he can either pay it up himself and put himself in the same position as anyone else, or he can take reduced benefits. That is the whole point.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean), pursuant to the Order of the House of 24th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Adjourned accordingly at Nine o'clock.

  Customs Examining Officers.
  Customs Examining Officers.
  Allotments on Crown Lands.
  Allotments on Crown Lands.
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Local Contributions to Technical Schemes.
  Local Contributions to Technical Schemes.
  Irish Provident Assurance Company.
  Irish Provident Assurance Company.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Applications to Estates Commissioners.
  Applications to Estates Commissioners.
  H.M.S. "Egeria."
  H.M.S. "Egeria."
  Sailors' Good Conduct Badges.
  Sailors' Good Conduct Badges.
  Maxim Gun (British and Foreign Armies).
  Maxim Gun (British and Foreign Armies).
  Mr. Orme's Deportation from South Africa.
  Mr. Orme's Deportation from South Africa.
  Coronation Medal (Territorial Force).
  Coronation Medal (Territorial Force).
  Vaccination (British Army).
  Vaccination (British Army).
  Kent Territorial Force.
  Kent Territorial Force.
  European Troops in India (Vaccination of Women).
  European Troops in India (Vaccination of Women).
  Re-sighted Army Rifle and Ammunition.
  Re-sighted Army Rifle and Ammunition.
  Territorial Force (Mobilisation).
  Territorial Force (Mobilisation).
  Home Defence.
  Home Defence.
  Competitive Musical Festivals.
  Competitive Musical Festivals.
  Vaccination Prosecutions, Eastbourne.
  Vaccination Prosecutions, Eastbourne.
  Care of Feeble-Minded.
  Care of Feeble-Minded.
  Railway Servants' Hours.
  Railway Servants' Hours.
  Scottish Education Fund.
  Scottish Education Fund.
  Sheriffs Principal (Salaries).
  Sheriffs Principal (Salaries).