Sitting of 30 October 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Saint Mary, Radcliffe, Rectory Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.

LORD ACTON'S NATIONALITY BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.

POST OFFICE (ESTABLISHED POSTMEN).
Return ordered "showing the number of (a) Established Postmen, (b) Auxiliary Postmen, (c) Postal Deliveries in England and Wales, Ireland, and Scotland; the number of Established Postmen appointed in England and Wales, Ireland, and Scotland within the past twelve months, and the number of such appointments given to Auxiliary Postmen and Postal Deliverers in the countries named."—[Mr. Brady.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Post Office Savings Bank (Transfer of Consols to Depositors).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Postmaster-General whether he will confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to arranging for the transfer of Consols to the Post Office Savings Bank depositors free of brokerage?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The present rates of commission are low, and I see no justification for imposing on the tax-payer the cost of such transactions.

  Post Office Clerks (Metropolitan Engineers Office).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the Department had not offered an interpretation of the recommendations made by the Hobhouse Committee for the third class clerks, Metropolitan superintending engineers' offices, he would state what steps he was taking to remedy the grievances of that class of Post Office servants, whose scales of pay, etc., have not been improved since 1896, despite the increased cost of living (recognised by increases of wages granted to other classes) and the nature of their work?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Hobhouse Committee recommended the same scale for Provincial and for Metropolitan engineer's clerks with an allowance of £15 for the latter. This London allowance is given in full at the minimum and at the maximum of the scale, but in consequence of the overlapping scales of the classes from which the officers are recruited, some of the scales containing a virtual London allowance, the full allowance cannot be given at intermediate points. Any of the clerks who are transferred to London from the Provinces are given the amount which they would have been receiving if they had entered in London. As the hon. Member has already been informed, a Departmental Committee have lately considered the organisation of the Superintending Engineers' offices, including the question of the adequacy or otherwise of the authorised number of superior appointments, and their report is now receiving my attention.

  Boy Labour (Report of Committee).
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Postmaster-General at what date he expects the final report of the Boy Labour Committee to be issued; and whether it will be presented to the House?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Committee in question is a standing Committee, and does not propose to issue a final report until the various problems connected with boy labour in the Post Office have received an entirely satisfactory solution. A second report showing that a considerable advance has been made towards carrying out the recommendations contained in the first report and

  505
  also in the direction of compulsory attendance of telegraph messengers at evening classes will be presented to the House during the present Sesion.

  Letters "H.M.S." in Telegrams.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether, in a telegram sent to a sailor on board one of His Majesty's ships, the letters "H.M.S." in capitals, count as one word, but, in sending a telegram from one of His Majesty's ships or from the local post office, unless written small and run together, the same letters are counted as three words; and whether, seeing that the official address of a warship is "H.M.S.," in capitals, he will consider in the interests of the sailors, the possibility of allowing the letters "H.M.S.," in capitals, to count as one word in both cases?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The concession allowing the letters "H.M.S." in telegrams intended for His Majesty's ships to be counted as one word was confined to the address on the ground that such letters written in capitals are generally essential or advantageous in ensuring delivery, while the same considerations do not apply equally to the text. To allow the three initials to count as one word in the text of telegrams in this case would form a precedent which would be likely to give rise to difficulties in other cases. If, however, the three letters are written as one word, they would be charged as such, and I am issuing instructions that the senders of telegrams should in each case be advised, if they have not already done so, to write these initials in this form.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that the letters are to be capitals running together so as to form one word? Is that the gist of his reply?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If they are written as one word they will be treated as such.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Arising out of that answer—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has got his answer, and a very full answer.

  Packets to Sailors in the Royal Navy.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether all packets sent by parcel post and addressed to sailors in the Royal Navy are
  506
  surcharged if the ship has left the port to which the packet is addressed unless the packet bears the additional words "or elsewhere," thus, if the words "or elsewhere" are omitted, the parcel is sent on from station to station and a surcharge made on each occasion; and whether, in the interests of our sailors, he can see his way to amend the regulation so that the endorsement or elsewhere may no longer be necessary to ensure a parcel following the ship without extra charge?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The object of the words "or elsewhere" is to give the Post Office the opportunity of forwarding the parcel to the port where the latest information from the Admiralty shows the ship to be. Until recently re-direction charges were levied if the ship had already left the port before parcels so addressed could be delivered; but I have arranged that if in such cases the parcel has to be forwarded to another home port no charge should be made for the subsequent re-direction. But in cases in which the sender, against the advice of the Department, addresses the parcel definitely to a particular port without it being certain that the ship will be there, the Post Office has no option but to send it to that port, and, if re-direction is then necessary, I see no reason why the ordinary charges should not be levied in order to recoup the Department for the extra expense to which it is put in effecting the delivery of the parcel.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these parcels are sent by old women in the country who are quite unable to know whether the ships have been moved from one place to another?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It would be entirely impossible for the Postmaster-General to know what the old women in the country know or do not know.

  Assistant Surveyors and Postmasterships
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Postmaster-General whether, now that the assistant surveyors have been put on higher scales, he will take steps to discontinue the practice of filling most of the larger postmasterships by assistant surveyors; or, if the Postmaster-General still considers that assistant surveyors who cannot be made surveyors are rightly compensated by being given large postmasterships, whether he will consider the

  507
  question of a reciprocal promotion from the provincial staff to the survey branch to prevent the whole of the provincial staff suffering from a block of promotion?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Postmasterships are staff appointments, for which all classes of Post Office servants are alike eligible; and there can therefore be no question of a compensatory appointment when such a post is filled from one class rather than another. My endeavour is in every case to find the most suitable officer for the vacancy. The training of assistant surveyors qualifies them in a particular degree for the duties of postmasters, even when, as sometimes happens, they are less suitable for the higher rank of surveyor. The whole question was brought fully before the Select Committee on Post Office Servants, who did not in their Report recommend any alteration in the existing system of appointment to pastmasterships.

  Cash on Delivery Postal Service.
  Captain MURRAYasked whether any steps are being taken to introduce a cash-on-delivery postal service into this country?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The cash-on-delivery service is at present in operation only between the United Kingdom and certain British Colonies and agencies and Egypt. I am considering the question of establishing a similar service with European countries, but not of establishing an inland service of this nature.

  Shops Bill.
  Mr. MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can inform the House when he proposes to proceed with the consideration of the Shops Bill; or, if not, whether, for the convenience of Members, he will undertake to give at least a week's public notice before asking the House to take the Report stage of that measure?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty is to reply to all questions concerning the Shops Bill.
  Mr. MALCOLM: How does it come about that while this question was on the Paper for four days this information was not given before now?
  Mr. McKENNA: I understood my right hon. Friend would have been here, and would reply to the question when it came on.
  Mr. MALCOLM: When the First Lord arrives must I repeat the question?
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh, certainly.

  Special Constables and Labour Emergencies.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether any, and, if so, what local authorities have replied to the recent circular respecting the formation of a corps of special constables to deal with labour emergencies by agreeing to undertake their formation; and whether any moneys voted by Parliament are to be devoted to the purpose of such armament?
  Mr. McKENNA: I believe that local police authorities are generally taking active steps to form reserves to supplement the ordinary police when need arises, but I am not in a position at present to say how much has been done by the different authorities—of whom there are 190—nor can I add anything to what is stated in the circular as to the financial arrangements. I may say that a police reserve is intended for service whenever the permanent force is insufficient in number for the proper discharge of its duty of maintaining order, and not merely for emergencies arising out of industrial disputes.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether one of these forces has been formed in Belfast?
  Mr. McKENNA: I must have notice of that question. I will inquire.
  Sir W. BYLES: Will the Home Office persist, under its new chief, in the effort to find some force other than the armed soldiery to repress civil disturbances?

  United Kingdom and Germany (Commercial Relationship).
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the commercial relations of the United Kingdom and Germany are regulated by a resolution of the Bundesrath, which can be rescinded solely at the pleasure of Germany; and will he state what are the difficulties in the way of the negotiation of a permanent most-favoured-nation treaty with that country?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The commercial relations of the United Kingdom with Germany are regulated by a law issued periodically by the German Emperor with the assent of the Federal Council and the Reichstag. This arrangement, which gives to the products of the United Kingdom most-favoured-nation treatment, appears to be sufficiently satisfactory from the point of view of this country to make it unnecessary to attempt to negotiate a treaty at present.

  Anthrax (Compensation).
  Mr. FITZROYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he would consider, in the case of anthrax occurring on a farm, and the cattle shut up for ten days in consequence, if death ensues, that compensation out of imperial funds should be paid?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): There are no funds available for this purpose.

  Sale of Milk (Local Authorities).
  Mr. BARNSTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is now in a position to state the result of the inquiries which the Board have been making as to the manner in which the existing provisions of the law relating to the sale of milk are at present administered by local authorities?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The inquiry is not yet completed.
  Mr. BARNSTON: As these inquiries have been going on for some time, can the right hon. Gentleman indicate any time when he will be able to make a general statement on the subject?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot state any time. The work is being carried out by inspectors who have other duties to discharge as well. I understand that they are proceeding with all possible speed. I will, however, look into the matter.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Foreign Statistics).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the admission by the Board that statistics and reports relating to foot-and-mouth disease from foreign countries are not always complete and are frequently of a belated nature any steps have been, or are being, taken to ensure that reports of outbreaks of this disease abroad shall be promptly made to His
  510
  Majesty's consuls and forthwith transmitted to the Board?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. At the request of the Board a circular letter on the subject has been recently issued by the Foreign Office to His Majesty's representatives in foreign countries.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Are the communications received from abroad on this subject transmitted to the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. I have arranged that information relating to outbreaks in countries from which cattle may be imported shall be sent to the Board of Agriculture direct by telegraph. In the case of other countries there is not the same urgency, but communications will be made direct.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. KINGasked whether it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to introduce legislation enabling county councils to buy land cheap for small holdings in advance of actual demand?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: County councils appear already to have power to purchase land in anticipation of a demand for small holdings.

  Teachers' Superannuation Scheme.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Lord Advocate whether he can now announce when the superannuation scheme for teachers will be laid upon the Table, so that it may, pursuant to the provisions of the Education Act of 1908, become operative in due course?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): If the hon. Member would be good enough to repeat his question during next week, I hope to be in a position to give him an answer.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would place the teachers' superannuation scheme before Parliament at an early date during the present Session?
  Mr. URE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer just given on the subject to the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities.

  Prison Warders (Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked whether it was proposed to grant an inquiry into the conditions of service, hours, wages, and grievances of the warders in Scottish prisons?
  Mr. URE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to a similar question by him on 1st August of this year, to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. WATT: Have the circumstances not changed since the 1st August?

  Training of Teachers (Glasgow School Board).
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had received a communication from the School Board of Glasgow pointing out that under the minute of Committee of Council on Education, dated 15th August, 1911, the Board's direct representation on the committees for the training of teachers would be abolished, and asking for the amendment of the minute; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take?
  Mr. URE: The Secretary for the Scotch Education Department has had an interview with representatives of the larger school boards and of the School Boards Association on the subject, as a result of which steps will be taken forthwith to amend the minute in certain particulars.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    SCOTTISH AMENDMENTS.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked if the right hon. Gentleman can state when the Amendments which are being considered and prepared by the Scottish Office with a view to adopting the Insurance Bill to the special conditions of Scotland are to be placed on the Paper; and whether he can arrange as soon as this is done to have them circulated as a separate document to each of the Scottish Members?
    Mr. URE: As my hon. Friend is aware, some of the Amendments which have already been made to the National Insurance Bill have an important bearing on the special conditions of Scotland. Others of the character referred to are under consideration, but I am not in a position to name a date for their final settlement and the placing of them on the Paper. The suggestion in the last part of the question will receive consideration.
    Mr. PIRIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it right that in regard to Amendments to be proposed the Scotch people should only have cognisance of them about six weeks before the passing of the Bill? Is it right?
    Mr. URE: The Government have to consider the Bill as a whole. There will be consideration of the Amendments proposed.
    Mr. PIRIE: I beg to inform the right hon. Gentleman that I shall do my best to turn the Government out on that point.

    CURTAILMENT OF SPEECHES.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that, in three full Parliamentary days devoted to the Second Reading stage of the National Insurance. Bill, only thirty-three Members were able to take part in the Debate, and that the average duration of each speech made on that occasion was as nearly as possible three-quarters of an hour, and that almost 300 Members of the present House have intimated their desire to see the length of individual speech curtailed, he will, before adopting the strict form of Closure as a recognised method for expediting the progress of Government Bills, grant a day before the close of the Session and ascertain the opinion of nonofficial Members of this Parliament.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Personally, I am and have long been in favour of a curtailment of the length of speeches. I do not see my way in the present Sittings to give a day to the subject, but I shall be glad to receive and consider evidence of the general opinion of nonofficial Members.

    SURRENDER VALUE.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked whether an approved society will have to give a surrender value on behalf of every insured person belonging to a non-approved society affiliated to the said approved society?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): An insured person who does not belong to an approved society would be a deposit contributor. Clause 25, providing for the payment of transfer values, applies only to members of approved societies.

    ACCIDENT INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION IN GERMANY.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the amount is made up of 5s. 1¼d. per head of persons insured which he has recently stated to be the average cost of accident insurance administration in Germany in connection with the woollen industries of that country?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The figure given represents not the cost of accident insurance administration in Germany, but the total expenditure per head of all persons insured incurred by the trade associations in which the woollen industries are insured under the Accident Insurance Law, the cost of administration being included. The figure is taken from the annual Report of the German Insurance Office.

    DISABLEMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked whether the weekly payments called disablement benefit will be payable only to those insured persons who are for the time being completely disabled and unable to earn any wages; and whether any disablement benefit will be payable to an insured person who through advancing age, enfeebled health, or other causes is unable to earn wages except such as are insufficient to provide for his maintenance.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Perhaps I may be permitted to refer the hon. and learned Member to the Debate on Clause 8 (1) (c) in Committee, in the course of which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that the intention was to follow the existing practice of friendly societies, and promised to accept an Amendment on report to make this clear.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Would it not be for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman gave the original answer to the question.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No.
    Mr. AMERY: Would it not be simpler if we were informed that there would not be any invalidity pension under this Bill?
    Mr. BUTCHER: Am I right in supposing that there would be no disablement benefit unless the insured person is unable to earn wages?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think the hon. and learned Member had better wait and see the Amendment.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these answers by reference on matters of great public importance are exceedingly unsatisfactory?

    EXCEPTED EMPLOYMENTS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked whether, as regards those persons who at the time when the National Insurance Bill comes into operation are engaged in any of the
    514
    excepted employments specified in Part II. of the First Schedule to the Bill and therein headed (b), (d), (e), (f), and (g), but at a subsequent date cease to be engaged in such excepted employments and become engaged in any of the employments specified in Part I. of the First Schedule, such persons will be entitled to become and bound to become insured persons under the Act upon payment of the contributions prescribed by Clause 4 and Schedule II. of the Bill; and, if so, whether the reduced rates of sickness benefit and maternity benefit to be fixed for such persons by the Insurance Commissioners under Clause 9 (4) of the Bill will be calculated on the basis of the age at which such persons respectively become employed contributors, or on some other and what basis?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: A person in the position described will be compulsorily insured and his age at entry will be taken into account in fixing his reduced rates of benefit.

    EMPLOYÉS IN GOVERNMENT WORKSHOPS AND FACTORIES.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, on behalf of the Government, he proposes to put on the Notice Paper Amendments to the National Insurance Bill dealing with the position of those employed in Government workshops and factories; and whether, in the event of the answer being in the negative, he will state under what Clause of the Bill their position can be discussed?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The inclusion or exclusion of the persons referred to can be discussed on Schedule I.

    AMENDMENTS AFFECTING IRELAND.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked when the Amendments to the National Insurance Bill affecting Ireland will be placed on the Notice Paper?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My right hon. Friend hopes to take shortly any Government Amendments affecting Ireland which may be necessary.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication of when the day allocated for the discussion will arrive?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not at present in a position to do so.

    OFFICIAL REPORTING OF STANDING COMMITTEE (PART II.).
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, what arrangements, if any, are to be made for officially reporting verbatim proceedings in Standing Committee on Part II. of the National Insurance Bill?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Perhaps the Noble Lord will repeat his question on Wednesday.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make the necessary financial arrangements to enable an official report of the proceedings of the Standing Committee, which is to deal with Part II. of the National Insurance Bill, to be prepared and circulated daily to Members of the House?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I have just given to a question on the same subject by the Noble Lord the Member for the Newton Division of Lancashire.
    Mr. MALCOLM: We have heard that the Committee is going to be set up on Thursday next. In that case, will not Wednesday be rather late to know whether there is going to be an official report of it?
    Mr. MALCOLM: I beg to ask 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 procedings of Standing Committee B to be circulated daily to all Members of the House whilst the Standing Committee is engaged in discussing Part II. of the National Insurance Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As has been stated already, the matter is under consideration. I will give an answer on Wednesday.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us when the Committee will sit?
    The PRIME MINISTER: On Thursday, I hope.

    POSITION OF SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to lay before the House the conditions governing the subscriptions to be paid and the benefits to be received by sailors and
    516
    soldiers under the National Insurance Bill; will he state in what way the benefits that soldiers and sailors are to receive under the Bill during their period of service differ from the benefits they receive in present circumstances; what benefits will accrue to them on leaving the Service, and what arrangements will they have to make in order to obtain these benefits; what proportion of the insurance premium will be borne by the soldier or sailor, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Exchequer respectively; and what will the contributions of each amount to while the soldier or sailor is in the service of the State, and after the soldier or sailor has left the service of the State?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not in a position to make a statement on this subject to-day, but my right hon. Friend hopes to table Amendments to Clause 36 shortly.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what will be the position of the soldier or sailor who is pensioned for disablement, or who is partially disabled, supposing the pension exceeds the amount he would receive under the Insurance Bill, with regard to the money he has paid every week before he was disabled?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I must ask the hon. Member to wait until the Amendment is on the Paper.

    PERSONS OVER SEVENTY YEARS OF AGE.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether men who have reached the age of seventy will be excluded from the sick and disablement benefits of the societies in which they are now insured and to the funds of which they have contributed for a considerable number of years, on the ground that they will then be eligible for old age pensions; whether he will say if that is the intention of the Bill; and, if so, what is the position of men who have Civil Service pensions amounting to a sum that renders them ineligible for old age pensions, are these men to be deprived of the fruits of their thrift and forethought by the withholding of the benefits for which they have paid, in some cases for half a century, and which were promised them by the societies at the time of joining?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative, and the third does not arise.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND SANATORIA.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked whether local authorities who have already borrowed money to erect sanatorium buildings will be entitled to be reimbursed out of the moneys set apart by the National Insurance Bill for the erection of such buildings on the same terms as those local authorities who have not yet taken action?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Grants under Clause 47 can only be made for the purpose of the provision of sanatoria and other institutions, and not for the recoupment of expenses already incurred by local authorities.

    WITHDRAWAL FROM COUNTY POOL.
    Mr. BARNESasked if a society that becomes approved under the proposed county pool will be allowed to withdraw from the pool when it has obtained 5,000 members if its expenditure has been less than that of other societies in the pool, and, if so, if any conditions will be attached to such withdrawal; will a society be allowed to withdraw from a county pool for the purpose of amalgamation with another society outside the pool; and will a society be allowed to reimburse itself the cost of medical examination in addition to the amount allowed for ordinary cost of management?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Societies will not be included in a county pool if they have more than 5,000 members at the time when the valuation takes place. The answer to the second question is in the affirmative. Under the Bill the reply to the last question is in the negative.

    DENTAL ATTENTION.
    Mr. BARNESasked if dental attention, including the supply of artificial teeth, will be allowed as medical benefit if a medical attendant under the National Insurance Bill certifies that illness arises from septic teeth and gums, and that he, the medical attendant, cannot do anything further for the insured person unless his teeth are properly attended to; and will a company which has been proved to have been guilty of fraud be allowed to establish an approved society?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: With regard to the first part of the question, the matter will be one for the decision of the local health committee, subject to the regulations of the Insurance Commissioners. With regard to the second, the Insurance Commissioners may, on sufficient grounds,
    518
    withhold or withdraw approval from a society or separate section of a society.

    DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS IN HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked what provision there is for deposit contributors in the Highlands and Islands living at great distances from any medical officer receiving adequate consideration?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The local health committees, on which the deposit contributors will be represented, will be responsible for providing the benefits to which the deposit contributors are entitled. The proviso to Sub-clause (2) of Clause 32 was specially inserted to enable the local committees to deal with deposit contributors separately in such cases.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how the money is to be found?

    INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked (1) whether any, and what, estimate has been made as to the number of Insurance Commissioners to be appointed by the Treasury in the event of the National Insurance Bill passing into law, and as to the total cost of the salaries or remuneration to be paid to them; and (2) whether any, and what, estimate has been made as to the number of officers, inspectors, referees, and servants to be appointed by the Insurance Commissioners, with the approval of the Treasury, in the event of the National Insurance Bill passing into law, and as to the total cost of the salaries or remuneration to be paid to them?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think I can usefully add anything as yet to my replies to the hon. Member for Plymouth on 5th July last and to the Noble Lord the Member for the Newton Division on the 4th July last.
    Mr. AMERYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to include among the Insurance Commissioners persons of special experience in the work of the great permanent friendly societies, of the dividing and Holloway societies, and of the industrial insurance societies; and will he include any person of special experience in matters affecting the interests of women workers?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is not possible to give any undertaking at the

    519
    present time as to the qualifications which may be found desirable in the Insurance Commissioners.

    ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked whether any and what, estimate has been made as to the number of the Advisory Committees to be appointed by the Insurance Commisioners in the event of the National Insurance Bill passing into law; whether the members of such Advisory Committees will be remunerated; and, if so, what the total cost of such remuneration is estimated to be and from what source such remuneration is to be provided?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The number of members of the Advisory Committee cannot be estimated until the Insurance Commissioners have decided the interests to be represented and the extent of the representation to be assigned severally to them. It is not intended that they shall be remunerated.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is possible to arrive at an estimate of the amount of benefit to be administered under the Bill when you cannot give an estimate of the cost of administration?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: An approximate estimate has been given.

    Licensed Premises (Returns).
    Mr. MOONEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a Return as to licensed premises in England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 408, of Session 1902, ordered by the House of Commons on 19th October, 1909, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Newry, has not yet been printed; whether he is aware that Parliamentary Paper, No. 408, of Session 1902, was printed nine months from the date on which it was ordered, being ordered on 18th March, 1902, and printed on 19th December, 1902; and if he can explain why the Treasury have allowed an interval of two years to elapse without complying with the Order of this House in reference to the Order of 19th October, 1909?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: This Return is now in the press, and will be issued in three weeks or a month from now. I regret the delay which has occurred, but the Return is very bulky, and takes a long time to prepare even in
    520
    normal times—for instance, the Return of 1902, to which the hon. Member refers, though ordered by the House, and ordered to be printed on the dates mentioned, was not issued till 13th June, 1903, or fifteen months after the original order. As stated in answer to the hon. Member on 20th February last, the ordinary work of the Customs and Excise Department has been particularly severe in the last two years, and it has only been possible to undertake this Return by overtime work.

    Regent's Park (Condition of Road).
    Mr. CASSELasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the condition of the roads on the east side of Regent's Park and to the condition of the wooden palings on the same side of the park, and to the fact that the roads in Regent's Park are kept in a worse condition than in any other park in the Metropolis; and, if so, what action is to be taken to reduce the danger involved to persons using those roads?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The roads round Regent's Park running from Gloucester Gate along the south side to Hanover Gate are maintained by the Crown Estate Paving Commissioners and not by the Commissioners of Woods. The Paving Commissioners are not a public department, but I am given to understand that, after careful experiments, they have now decided to reconstruct the surface of the roads with a special kind of tar macadam and that the work will be put in hand as soon as possible. Any question with regard to the palings should be addressed to the First Commissioner of Works.
    Mr. CASSEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state to whom the Crown Estate Paving Commissioners are responsible, and whether there is any method by which their conduct can be brought under the review of the House?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I will inquire into the matter.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether the Commissioners of Woods and Forests receive a surplus over and above the amount which they have to pay to the Treasury; and, if so, whether they will consider the desirability of keeping Regent's Park in a proper state rather than accumulating and investing surplus moneys?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: During the continuance of the present Civil List arrangements the Commissioners of Woods

    521
    pay over to the Exchequer annually the whole of their net income, subject to the retention of a small working balance. Any receipts which are of the nature of capital are carried to a separate account, and subsequently invested in accordance with the provisions of various Acts of Parliament. There is, therefore, no surplus of the kind described by the hon. Member; and in any case the Commissioners, as such, have no responsibility with regard to the general up-keep of Regent's Park.

    Payment of Members of Parliament.
    Mr. BOOTHasked how many Members of the House have received their salaries for the quarters of June and September; whether any junior Member of the Government, not a Minister of the Crown, has been paid a salary as a Member of this House; whether a Charity Commissioner or an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, in receipt of remuneration as such, has been also paid a salary as Member; and what is the position of any honourable Member who is in receipt of a political pension?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Orders for payment of salaries for the quarters ended 30th June and 30th September have been sent to all Members entitled to them, i.e., to all Members not receiving salaries as members of the Government or as Officers of the House. Ecclesiastical Commissioners receive salaries as Members, their official salaries (if any) not being paid out of public moneys. The Charity Commissioner who sits in the House receives no salary as Commissioner. A Member in receipt of a political pension receives salary as Member but the amount is deducted from his pension, as provided under the Official Pensions Act, 1870.
    Mr. BOOTH: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many Members have received their salaries in the sense of having sent the receipts into the bank?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is the subject of a subsequent question.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the two Members of the House of Commons who are advocates depute in Scotland do not receive their salaries?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Members of the House of Commons have returned the
    522
    warrants to the Treasury for their salaries or expressed a desire that in future they shall not receive salaries as Members of Parliament?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: One Member who has vacated his seat and four present Members.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Would it be possible for the House to be supplied with the names of the hon. Members who have decided to retain their amateur status?

    Historical Monuments Commission (Hertfordshire).
    Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the Government has considered the recommendation in the First Report of the Historical Monuments Commission (Hertfordshire), in which the members call attention to the fact that cases are occurring where it is desirable to deal at once with imperilled monuments of historic importance, and in which they express the opinion that the time has come when such cases should be dealt with by a Government Department acting with the assistance of a permanent advisory board; and, in that case, what action they propose to take?
    The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): The recommendation of the Historical Monuments Commission has not escaped the attention of His Majesty's Government; they are not, however in a position at present to make any statement on the subject.
    Sir H. CARLILE: May I take it that the Government have the matter under consideration, and that it will not be lost sight of?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The First Commissioner is very anxious to do all he can to preserve historical monuments, but, of course, the whole subject presents enormous difficulties.

    King Edward's Memorial (Design).
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked when the design for the memorial to King Edward is expected to be submitted to the Government by the memorial committee in London, and when the question of the site will be taken into consideration?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The memorial committee is to meet on 3rd November, and until that meeting has taken place it is

    523
    hardly possible to fix the date on which the design will be submitted to the Government. If the hon. Member will refer to the replies given in this House on 7th July and 8th August he will see that the First Commissioner has promised to exhibit the plans in this House as soon as they are ready.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTON: In allocating the time of the Session, will the Government bear in mind the promise made that the House would be consulted before the site is decided upon?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: That is not for me to say. I am sure the Government will remember all its promises.

    Submarines (Salvage Plant).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether on the 18th September last a submarine arrived in tow of a tug at Portsmouth Harbour in a sinking condition; that the submarine was slung ready for lifting, but before it was possible to lift her and tow her into the submarine depot she was under water for three nights and three days; whether the salvage plant for submarines in the German Navy could have dealt with the accident in a very much shorter space of time; and whether, in view of the fact that these accidents to submarines generally occur when the officers and crew are on board he will see that our salvage plant is at least equal in efficiency to that of the German Navy?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The hon. Gentleman appears to be under a misapprehension. There was no question of an accident, and therefore no necessity for immediate salvage. The boat was obsolete and had been the subject of experiment. As regards the last part of the question, the Admiralty has for some time past given very careful consideration to the problem of the most effective method of salvage.

    Protection of British Fishermen in English Channel.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received representations regarding the damage done by Foreign fishing vessels to the gear of British fishermen in the English Channel; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Representations have been received at the Admiralty on this subject. The protection of British fishing vessels is a matter constantly engaging the attention of the Admiralty, and any representations are carefully considered. It does not appear that the patrol at present carried out by the fishery cruisers is inadequate, and no alteration of the patrol arrangements is contemplated.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently a trawler was entirely disabled and the whole of its gear taken away by a French vessel?
    Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the damage caused by French fishing vessels to our own fishermen's gear in the English Channel; and whether he will take steps to see that the area from Berryhead to the Lizard is specially patrolled during the months of September, October, and November, in order that the rights of British fishermen may be sufficiently protected?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I fear I cannot usefully add anything to the answer on the subject referred to in the question given to the hon. Members for Devonport and Torquay on Thursday last, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. BARNSTONasked the President of the Local Government Board if, when a person over seventy years of age applies for an old age pension owing to a breakdown in health, the pension committee have not power, during the time inquiries are being made, to make the pension retrospective to the time when the application was made; and, if so, will he take steps to remedy this state of affairs, which presses on those who have suffered owing to their own industry by continuing work after seventy years of age?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): An old age pension cannot be made to take effect from a date earlier than that specified in Section 5 (2) of the Act of 1908—namely, the first Friday after the claim has been allowed, or, in the case of a claim provisionally allowed, the first Friday after the day on which the claimant will become entitled.
    Mr. BARNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases pensions which are applied for owing to a breakdown in health are not obtained for two months, whereas if the applicants had not been so industrious they would have received their pensions months before?
    Mr. BURNS: We do our best, and the pension officers are advised to do the same, and to see there is no unnecessary delay. We could not concede the point pressed by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. DORISasked whether the necessary printed forms of claim, etc., under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, have yet been issued to the Inland Revenue and Post Office Departments in Ireland; whether claims for pensions, or increases of pensions, under Section 2 (2) of the Act addressed to Inland Revenue officers in Mayo county are withheld from the local pension sub-committee because they have not been made on official forms, which are not yet available; and whether steps will be taken to ensure that deserving claimants shall suffer no loss by the delay in issuing such forms?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is expected that the printed forms of claim will be issued to the Post Office in Ireland this week. With regard to the latter part of the question I will make inquiries and inform the hon. Member of the result.
    Mr. CRUMLEYasked why the Local Government Board disallowed a pension granted by the local pension sub-committee to Mrs. M'Manus, of Aughamula-doney, county Fermanagh, on the grounds that she was not the statutory age, although she produced an official record showing that she was over seventy years old?
    The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Russell): No official record was produced by Mrs. M'Manus, but she submitted an old book, published in 1843, containing an entry purporting to show that she was born in 1837. The entry appeared to have been made some years after 1843, and as claimant's age was given in the Census Return of 1851 as five years, and no other satisfactory evidence as to her age was forthcoming, the Local Government Board were not satisfied that she had attained the statutory age.
    Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Chief Secretary if he can state on what grounds an old age pension of 5s. per week, granted by
    526
    the local pension sub-committee to James Gorman, of Treenmore, Dromore, county Tyrone, was reduced by the Local Government Board on appeal to 3s. per week; and can he furnish the details of the pension officer's estimate of the income of Gorman, whose only means of livelihood is a small holding of inferior mountain land, for which he pays a yearly rent of £3 12s.?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Local Government Board allowed James Gorman a pension of three shillings a week only as they considered his means were not less than £23 12s. 6d. a year. He is the tenant of a farm of twelve acres of land of moderate quality, carrying crops of potatoes, oats and hay, together with a cow, calf and poultry. The Board are not bound by a pension officer's estimate of income.
    Mr. DORISasked why the Local Government Board on appeal disallowed an old age pension granted by the Louisburgh, county Mayo, pension sub-committee to Ellen Sammon, née Gordon, of Askelane, Louisburgh, who, being unable to procure evidence of the date of her birth, produced a certificate that she was married in April 1861, over fifty years ago, which, with the evidence of several old persons, satisfied the committee that she was over seventy years old; and what further evidence the Local Government Board require in such cases?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question asked by him on the 7th August last.

    Emigration Statistics.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the number of persons who have emigrated from this country to the United States and to the British dominions oversea, respectively, for the years 1909, 1910, and 1911, up to 30th September?
    Mr. BURNS: According to the Returns issued by the Board of Trade the numbers of emigrants from this country are as follows:—
    To the United States:—

    Year.

    1909

    56,377

    1910

    73,569

    1911 (9 months)

    44,238

    To all parts of the British Empire out of Europe:—

    Year.

    1909

    81,722

    1910

    158,878

    1911 (9 months)

    174,467

    527
    These figures represent the excess of passengers of British nationality who left the United Kingdom for the places referred to, over the passengers of British nationality who arrived from such places.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by this country the United Kingdom or England only?
    Mr. BURNS: No, the United Kingdom.

    Irish Agricultural Organisation Society (Withdrawal of Grant).
    Mr. MULDOONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture whether an organisation known as the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society had applied for a grant from the Development Commissioners, and whether his department had reported upon the same; whether he had withdrawn the grant from this society in the month of January, 1908, on the publication of very remarkable disclosures; and what steps he now intends to take in the matter?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The answer to the first and second questions on the Paper is in the affirmative. The Irish Agricultural Organisation Society applied to the Development Commissioners for a Grant-in-Aid of their work, and the Department, in compliance with the Statute, reported upon the application. In reply to the third question, I have to say that for eight years prior to the date named in the question the society drew £29,000 by way of grant from the Department's funds. After full discussion, and with the concurrence of the Council of Agriculture, and by a Minute of the Agricultural Board amounting almost to a direction, the grant was withdrawn. I informed the Development Commissioners in July last that, in view of the circumstances attendant upon the withdrawal of the Department's grant, I could not comply with their suggestion to aid in reconstituting the society with a view to a grant being made without the matter being considered by the Council and by the Agricultural Board. Meetings of these two statutory bodies have, therefore, been convened for 16th and 17th November next. After these meetings have been held I shall be able to state the decision of the Department.
    Mr. NEWMAN: What are the remarkable disclosures referred to in the question?
    Mr. RUSSELL: That would be rather an involved story, entirely unsuited to question and answer in the House.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great dissatisfaction exists in Ireland owing to the withdrawal of the grant?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I am aware of nothing of the kind.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether representations were not made to him to that effect in the recent election at North Tyrone?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The answer is in the negative. Not a single representation of dissatisfaction was made to me.

    Cultivation of Beet in Ireland.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked whether the question of the cultivation of beet in Ireland is engaging the attention of the Department of Agriculture; and, if so, what steps, if any, it is proposed to take in regard to the matter?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The matter of the cultivation of beet in Ireland has frequently engaged the attention of the Department, whose views on the subject have been stated in reply to numerous Parliamentary questions. In the light of new facts which have come to our notice, further inquiries are being made, and I will communicate with the hon. Member on the subject in due course.
    Mr. O'DOWD: Is it not a fact that beet can be successfully and profitably grown in Ireland?
    Mr. RUSSELL: It can undoubtedly be grown in Ireland, but whether it can be profitably grown is not known.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could give us any information as to the experiments that have already been made in this direction in Ireland?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I should be glad of notice of that question, but it would involve some inquiry.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct his attention to the experiments recently made in the county of Norfolk in this country and ascertain whether such experiments have been successful or not?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The whole question is being inquired into.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to extend his inquiries so as to include an account of the experiments already made in Ireland?
    Mr. RUSSELL: We are quite familiar with the experiments that have been made. I have said there is no question as to the possibility of beet being grown. The whole question is one whether it can be profitably grown or not.

    Trades Disputes Act, 1906.
    Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a memorial from the Employers' Parliamentary Council, signed by sixty-five associations of employers connected with various industries in the United Kingdom, calling his attention and the attention of His Majesty's Government to the evils which have arisen in consequence of The Trades Disputes Act, 1906, and to the present combination of labour unions for the purpose of promoting national strikes; and whether he will inform the House of the intentions of His Majesty's Government with regard to the matters urged by the memorialists, namely, that picketing should either be rigorously suppressed or the number of pickets should be limited to two, and such pickets should be required to wear a distinguishing badge and to attend only where a person carries on business; that unions, whether of workmen or masters, should be subjected to the ordinary law of the land, and made responsible, like all other classes of the community, for their actions; and that a federation of unions for the purpose of paralysing the country by means of a general strike or lock-out, throwing all industries and communications into disorder and stopping the food supplies of the nation, should be suppressed as an unlawful combination and immediately so proclaimed?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The memorial referred to and the question of the hon. Member raise a number of debatable points, as to which I can only say at present that the question whether, and, if so, in what respects, the present law affecting these matters requires amendment is receiving the attention of the Government.
    Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the propriety of appointing a Committee or a small Commission to inquire into this very important question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Mr. HAROLD SMITHasked the Prime-Minister whether his attention has been called to the recommendation of the Railway Commission to the effect that members of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants should not be permitted to incite or coerce by threats, or by any form of intimidation, men who desire to give their labour; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation to carry into effect the recommendation of the Commission?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen the passage in the Report to which the hon. Member refers. It does not mention the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, nor does it recommend legislation. What the Commissioners say is that, in their opinion, strikers should not be permitted to incite or coerce by threats, or by any form of intimidation, men who desire to give their labour. Coercion by threats and intimidation are offences which can be punished under the existing law, and, though I am aware of the difficulties which are sometimes encountered in prosecutions, I think the law can be, and ought to be, enforced.
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: If the existing law is adequate, why is it not put into operation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is not the inadequacy of the law that constitutes the difficulty; it is the impossibility of procuring evidence.
    Mr. J. WARD: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the statement of the Recorder of Dublin, in sentencing a man to six months for intimidation, that the present law was amply sufficient for every purpose?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen that statement, but I believe the law to be sufficient.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Does the same law apply to the North of Ireland trade unions?

    Italy and Turkey (British Proclamation of Neutrality).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether he will state the reasons why His Majesty's Government advised His Majesty the King to omit from his recent Proclamation of Neutrality the especial warning against breaking any blockade lawfully established and against carrying officers, soldiers, despatches,

    531
    arms, ammunition, military stores or material, or any article or articles considered to be contraband of war according to the law or modern usages of nations for the use or service of either belligerent Power; whether, seeing that this especial warning was given in the Proclamation of Neutrality of February, 1904, the omission of such warning on the present occasion is intended to signify that His Majesty's Privy Council take a different view of the duties of the King's subjects from that taken seven years ago; and whether it is to be understood that there is now no longer any harm in breaking blockade or in carrying contraband of war to belligerents?
    Mr. ACLAND: The language used in the King's Proclamation of Neutrality, issued on the 3rd instant, was designed with a view to bringing it into closer harmony with modern requirements and usage than did the phraseology employed in similar instruments issued in past years. The carriage of contraband to a belligerent is not an offence against English law, but is undertaken subject to the usual risk of capture, and the penalties attaching thereto. The same principle applies to breaches, or attempted breaches, of blockade. That being so, it appeared to His Majesty's Government no longer necessary to state that British subjects concerned in such operations would thereby necessarily incur the high displeasure of the Sovereign, and the King was accordingly advised to omit the phraseology referred to from his recent Proclamation. No inference should, however, be drawn from this change of wording that British subjects are no longer liable to the pains and penalties recognised by the Law of Nations if, at their own risk, they embark on such transactions.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman say why it was put in former Proclamations?
    Mr. ACLAND: I cannot give an answer to that question.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that His Majesty's subjects were specially warned against any breach of blockade and the carriage of contraband in all proclamations of neutrality issued by this country in 1859, 1866, 1870, 1877, 1898, and 1904?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving information, not asking for it.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I am asking the hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to that fact.
    Mr. ACLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will put his question on the Paper?
    Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask whether His Majesty's Government do not consider it desirable to warn British subjects of the consequences which follow from a breach of blockade and the carriage of contraband?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of important international questions of that sort.

    Land Purchase by County Councils.
    Mr. JARDINEasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to a speech delivered by Sir Edward Strachey, at Shepton Mallet, on 18th September, advocating the purchase of large quantities of land by county councils with a view to the councils becoming landlords not only of small holders but of tenants of more than fifty acres; and whether this proposal represents the policy of His Majesty's Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen a report of the speech referred to in the question, and I gather from it that Sir Edward Strachey, in the statement quoted, was only expressing his own views on the subject.
    Captain WEIGALL: Was the advocacy of these views the reason for the hon. Baronet's removal to a higher sphere?

    Cost of Living (Board of Trade Inquiry).
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUELasked whether the Government will undertake an inquiry into the cost of living of the working classes, so that full and reliable information may be available as to the extent to which it has risen in recent years?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have already determined to undertake through the Board of Trade a full inquiry into this matter.

    Liverpool Licensing Committee's Recommendations.
    Mr. LEIF JONESasked the Prime Minister whether he has received the Report made by the Liverpool licensing committee, and adopted in its entirety by the Liverpool justices, recommending the curtailment of the hours of sale of

    533
    intoxicating liquor in clubs and public-houses and other reforms; whether he will circulate the same for the information of Members; and whether the Report will receive early consideration from the Government with a view to the recommendations being included in the promised Government Licensing Bill?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I have not yet received officially a copy of this Report, but my attention—and, I suppose, that of every hon. Member interested in the question—has been attracted to the summary which has been widely published. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Licensing Bill of 1908 contained provisions going a considerable way in the direction recommended by the Liverpool licensing justices, and I can assure him that in so far as their recommendations go beyond the Bill, they will be given all the weight to which the views of so careful and vigilant a bench are entitled.

    Elementary School Administration in London.
    Mr. DAWESasked the President of the Board of Education whether in the London elementary schools, both county council and non-provided, frequent promotions and degradations of scholars are being enforced on the teachers, without regard to the educational fitness of such scholars, merely to make the classes fit the schoolrooms; and whether he will take the necessary steps to remedy this state of affairs?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I am aware that complaints have recently been made as to difficulties of the character described by the hon. Member. These difficulties have arisen mainly from the undoubted pressure on the school accommodation, which is seriously defective in certain districts of London. The Board have been in constant communication with the council with a view to expediting the provision of additional school premises, which are gravely needed, and will continue to press the council to provide adequate accommodation. The classification and promotion of scholars is, however, a duty which belongs to the teachers in the schools, and the local education authority are primarily responsible for its proper performance. I understand that the matter has recently been discussed by the Education Committee of the London
    534
    County Council, and that a sub-committee is at present engaged in its investigation. If the local education authority's inquiries are carried out with reasonable promptitude, I do not think it is desirable that I should attempt to anticipate the result. I am, however, fully alive to the educational importance of the matter.

    Raine's Foundation School, St. George-in-the-East.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Governors of Raine's Foundation Schools, St. George-in-the-East, have applied for an amendment of their school scheme; whether they ask for the insertion of a clause providing that co-optative governors shall, in future, be members of the Church of England, that the existing scheme provides that such persons shall be Protestants, and that £15,000 of public money was granted in 1908 to the Raine's schools on condition that the clause as to the religious persuasion of governors should be modified; and whether he proposes to allow the new scheme to impose a religious test on governors, which was previously absent?
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: The scheme governing the foundation requires that "No person shall be capable of acting or being elected as a governor unless he is a person professing the Protestant religion according to the usage of the Church of England." It is understood that the London County Council are prepared to make a grant of £15,000 to the foundation on certain conditions, one of which is the modification of this requirement. In law no alteration in the provisions of the scheme with regard to the religious qualifications of governors can be made without the consent of the governing body. The governors have, however, intimated their readiness to consent to a modification of the scheme now in force so as to remove the requirement in the case of representative governors. The proposal, therefore, now under consideration is directed to remove an old test and not to impose a new one.

    Labour Exchanges (Registration).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the practice of labour exchanges to register men who are in employment for jobs that may become vacant; is such registration contrary to the principle of the Labour Exchanges Act; will the recent decision of the Government making

    535
    it compulsory for all men seeking employment in the Royal Naval establishments to register at the labour exchanges greatly swell the number of men obtaining employment through the labour exchanges; and, in view of the fact that the majority of these men only seek re-engagement, and their names and capacity are fully known to the heads of departments, what is the object of the new regulation?
    Mr. BUXTON: There is no provision in the Labour Exchanges Act preventing persons from applying for employment through a labour exchange if they are still in employment at the time of registration, and the practice of the labour exchanges is to accept the registration of such persons. The arrangements which have been come to between the Admiralty and the Board of Trade for the engagement through the exchanges of all labour required by the dockyard authorities will no doubt to some extent increase the number of persons dealt with by the labour exchanges. The arrangements, however, do not apply solely to men known to the dockyard authorities, but to all labour required by them, and the object of the new regulation is to facilitate the prompt and effective supplying of all labour requirements at the yards.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulty caused by this practice?
    Mr. BUXTON: The procedure is more effective.

    Sugar Beet Exports.
    Mr. FELLasked how many tons of sugar beet were exported from this country last year and in the year before; the country or countries to which it was exported and what quantity of beet sugar, if any, was imported into this country from the countries to which the beet was exported?
    Mr. BUXTON: The quantity of sugar beets registered as exported in 1910 was 3,909 tons, the whole of which was consigned to the Netherlands. There are no records of any exports of sugar beets prior to October, 1910. The imports of unrefined beet sugar into the United Kingdom consigned from the Netherlands were 24,199 tons in 1909 and 15,715 tons in 1910. Refined sugar is not distinguished according to whether it is produced from raw cane sugar, raw beet sugar, or both, so
    536
    that the quantity of refined beet sugar imported from the Netherlands cannot be stated.

    Pharmaceutical Certificates.
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain does not recognise the pharmaceutical certificates of any British Colony; and if, under the National Insurance Bill, the holders of British-Colonial pharmaceutical certificates who are in business as chemists in this country will be prohibited from supplying drugs and medicines under the Bill?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I understand that the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain is now engaged in negotiations with Colonial representatives. It is hoped that it may prove possible to formulate a by-law providing for the admission to the Register of Chemists of persons holding Colonial certificates of qualification equivalent to the British qualification.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Is it hoped to conclude the negotiation in time to make it possible for them to apply to the Insurance Bill?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am sorry I am not able to reply to that question.

    Votes in Supply.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will grant a Return showing the items and totals of the Votes passed in Committee of Supply without discussion, under Standing Order, during the years 1906 to 1911, inclusive?
    Mr. PIRIE: Is there any objection to giving a Return regarding the Scottish Votes under the same category? If it cannot be done, what is the reason?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The information asked for is readily accessible in the Journals of the House, and I do not think there would be any advantage in a detailed Return such as is asked for in the question, which would extend to considerable length. I am, however, sending to be printed with the Votes a summary statement showing the number and aggregate amounts of the various Votes under each Supply head which came under the general closure in each year of the period specified, and that, I think, answers the supplementary question of my hon. Friend. [See Written Answers, this date.]
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such a Return would be the best argument for Home Rule and Devolution that could be found?
    Mr. PIRIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the number of Scottish Votes in the last ten years which received no discussion at all in this House?
    Mr. WATT: Would it not be much shorter to give a list of the Votes that have been discussed?

    Irish National School Teachers' Pensions.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends this Session to redeem his promises to place Irish national school teachers' pensions on a fair basis?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: This matter must remain in abeyance until the National Insurance Bill has become law, and it is seen how its provisions affect the question.

    Arrears under Irish Land Acts.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will grant a Return showing in how many cases, under the Irish Land Acts, 1903 and 1909, proceedings have been threatened, commenced, or executed against proprietors for non-payment of instalments due in 1904 and succeeding years; and stating in how many cases the instalments have been recovered or remitted by the Estates Commissioners?
    Mr. RUSSELL: It would be quite impossible to give the Return asked for. It may be sufficient for the hon. Member's purpose to know that the collection of annuities under the Acts of 1903–9 is well maintained. The schedules of cases recently referred to the solicitors of the Land Commission for proceedings in respect of arrears due at lat June last contained 3,700 cases out of a total of 115,000 payers, or but little over 3 per cent. In the great majority of these cases payment is made either before processes are issued or before the proceedings go into court, and in the remaining cases the arrear is almost invariably recovered sooner or later. The Land Commission have no power to remit annuities payable under the Act of 1903. Up to the present there have been only three cases under that Act in which arrears of annuities, amounting in all to £97 10s., have finally proved to be irrecoverable.

    Ballyheen and Adamstown Townlands.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the town-lands of Ballyheen and Adamstown, which were compulsorily acquired some years previously from Sir John Garden, of Templemore, by the Estates Commissioners for the purpose of sub-division among evicted tenants are still unoccupied; and whether he will say if such division of the lands has not taken place owing to no application from any evicted tenant or other suitable person having been received?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the lands of Ballyheen have been allotted to evicted tenants who are in occupation of them. The lands of Adamstown have been let temporarily pending completion of a scheme for their final allocation. The difficulty in preparing the scheme is not due to there being no applicants for the lands, but because there are too many applications.

    Imbecile Women (Deportations from United States).
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the recent action of the United States Government in landing at Queenstown parties of imbecile women who, though of Irish birth, had in many cases resided in America for a period of twelve years and over; whether he is aware that, in the case of a party of six women who travelled under the charge of two state nurses on the ss. "Baltic," one committed suicide while on the voyage and that it was deemed necessary to place the entire party under close observation; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The matter is at present engaging the attention of the Irish Government.

    National Education (Ireland).
    Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary if he can state at what time after the completion of the school year the Board of National Education (Ireland) order payment to those concerned of fees for the teaching of Irish and mathematics, the certificate for payment of such fees having been forwarded to the Education Office by the examining inspectors; have payments in all such cases been made in respect of the last school year; and, if not, will he take steps to have them made without avoidable delay?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that if the reports and certificates from the inspectors are satisfactory payment is made promptly after their receipt in the Education Office. Payments have been made for the past school year in all cases in which the regulations of the Commissioners have been fully complied with. In other cases some delay is unavoidable, but the fees if finally awarded will be remitted as soon as possible.

    Sentence of Imprisonment (Turlough, County Mayo).
    Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary if he can state how many hours after his arrest Mr. Joseph Conroy, Turlough, county Mayo, was brought before a Resident Magistrate at Castlebar, charged without any previous notice, with using intimidatory language at a public meeting, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment, the magistrate refusing to allow him time to procure professional assistance or evidence for his defence; and whether, in the circumstances, he will take prompt steps to have Mr. Conroy released from Castlebar prison, and to afford him a fair trial after reasonable time for the preparation of his defence?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Inspector-General informs me that Mr. Joseph Conroy was arrested at eight o'clock a.m. on Thursday, the 5th instant, and was brought before the resident magistrate at Castlebar at ten o'clock a.m. on the same date. No application was made by Mr. Conroy for an adjournment to obtain professional assistance or to produce evidence. Mr. Conroy was committed to gaol for three months in default of finding bail for his good behaviour. He can be released on finding solvent sureties.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. LUNDONasked if the Estates Commissioners have received a resolution from the Limerick County Council asking them to acquire the lands of Ballynanty, Bruff, county Limerick, from Mr. Wilmot Smith; and will steps be taken to have the wishes of the council acceded to?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The resolution referred to has been received, and will be duly considered by the Estates Commissioners.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: What is the cause of the delay in acquiring this property? The question has been under consideration for some years now.
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Estates Commissioners are very much pressed by work. There are innumerable claims upon them.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that steps are taken to inquire?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I shall bring it to the notice of the Department.
    Mr. LUNDONasked whether the Estates Commissioners at any time approached Captain Gubbins, of Glenbrohane, Knocklong, county Limerick, with a view to the purchase of the untenanted land he holds in that district; if so, was any arrangement come to; and, if no definite decision was come to at the first instance, will negotiations be reopened?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Estates Commissioners have been in communication with the owner's solicitor regarding the sale of the untenanted land on this estate to them. They propose to have a preliminary inspection made of the lands with the view of estimating the price which they would be prepared to offer for them in the event of the owners instituting formal proceedings for sale to the Commissioners under the Land Purchase Acts.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether any complaint was made to the inspector who visited the estate of Mr. James W. Bond, at Rhyne, county Longford, by four of the tenants that they had been deprived of their bog, contrary to the agreement made with the landlord at the time of sale; and whether, as bog is an essential part of the amenities of an agricultural holding in Ireland and the landlord has retained in his hands more than an ample quantity out of which these men could be supplied, the Commissioners before passing this sale, will now be directed to require the landlord to supply these men with the turbary to which by the agreement they are entitled?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Estates Commissioners have not yet received the report of their inspector who was directed to visit this estate. When they are dealing with the estate the matter referred to by the hon. Member will be fully considered.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether any report has yet been made by the inspector appointed to visit the lands of Coolcraft, on the estate of Mr. James W. Bond; whether any offer has yet been communicated to the landlord in reference to that

    541
    inspection; and, if not, when this matter, which has now been going on for nearly two years, will be finally undertaken by the Estates Commissioners and dealt with by them?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The reply to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. The Estates Commissioners have communicated to the owner a preliminary estimate of the amount which they would be prepared to advance if the owner institutes formal proceedings for the sale of these lands to the Commissioners, but the owner has hot yet instituted such proceedings.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary if he can state the present position as regards the sale of the untenanted lands of Killasonnagh, on the estate of Mr. Richard Davoren; whether he is aware that six years ago these tenants, to the number of eleven, signed agreements for sale on condition that the untenanted portion of the property be divided amongst them; whether the inspector who visited the estate told these tenants that all this property was purchased by the Estates Commissioners for sub-division amongst the tenants; and, if so, what is the cause of the delay in vesting the property and distributing these lands amongst the people for whom they were intended?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Estates Commissioners are not aware that the tenants signed agreements for the purchase of their holdings six years ago. The estate is being purchased by the Commissioners, and the owner has accepted their offer. The Commissioners hope to deal with the estate early next year.

    Evicted Tenants Act (Ireland).
    Mr. LUNDONasked whether the Estates Commissioners intend providing Patrick Whelan, of Brittas, Boher, county Limerick, with a farm in lieu of the one he now holds; and, if so, what is the cause of the delay in having him transferred and then allow the representative of the evicted tenant into the holding now occupied by Whelan?
    Mr. RUSSELL: As the hon. Member has already been informed the Estates Commissioners are making inquiries as to the possibility of providing another farm for Whelan in a suitable locality, but they are not yet in a position to offer him a farm in lieu of that at present held by him.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he has been made aware that portions of the lands of Cooldoney, near Granard, county Longford, now in possession of a planter tenant named Lynn, have recently been offered for sale by private treaty by this man; whether he is aware that a man named Terence Reilly was evicted from these lands some twenty years ago, and subsequently died in Mullingar Asylum in consequence of the trouble which this eviction caused him; whether he is aware that the family of the deceased evicted tenant have repeatedly applied for relief and reinstatement, but have been refused on various grounds, one of the principal being that Lynn, the planter, was unwilling to part with these lands; and whether, as it now appears that this is no longer the case, the Commissioners will exercise their powers under the Evicted Tenants Act in this case and enter into negotiations with Lynn with a view to purchasing this farm for the Reilly's and restoring it to the children of the evicted tenant?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Estates Commissioners have no information as to the accuracy of the statement in the first part of the question. They have received an application from Terence Reilly's son for reinstatement in the holding formerly occupied by his father, and now in the possession of a judicial tenant, and after inquiry and consideration they have decided to take no action in the matter. The reply to the last paragraph of the question is in the negative.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Further considered in Committee.
[PROGRESS, 27th October.—THIRD ALLOTTED DAY.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

  CLAUSE 24.—(Admission of Insured Persons to Membership in Approved Societies.)
  (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any insured person and any person desirous of becoming an insured person may apply to an approved society for membership therein.
  (2) An approved society shall be entitled, in accordance with its rules, to admit or reject any such applicant, or to expel any of its members being insured

  543
  persons; provided that no such application shall be refused solely on the ground of the age of the applicant.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "society" ["may apply to an approved society"], to insert the words "or branch."
  I do not want to press the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman can satisfy the Committee that the word "society" really includes "branch" for the purposes of the first Sub-section.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I have looked into that this morning with legal advisers. It certainly includes "branch."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "society" ["(2) An approved society"] to insert the words "or branch."
  The object of the Amendment is to enable a branch, besides the central authority, to admit or reject an applicant or to expel any member. At present it is the practice among friendly societies for a branch to have that power, and they do so on their own initiative and then report the result to the central authority. There seems to be no reason why branches should not have this power in the future.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): There is no doubt, if the Amendment is not pressed, a society which wants to make its rules will be able to make them. We want to give as much self-government to the societies as possible, but we do not want to compel them to make these rules if they think it inexpedient to do so. Therefore I think it will be better to leave it as one of the matters of domestic legislation which it is suitable for the societies to consult about themselves.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I do not think that entirely covers the point. The Sub-section says, "An approved society shall be entitled …" Well, unless it is put more clearly, it may be held that a branch is not entitled. If the Sub-section is left exactly as it stands, a branch might be prevented from having the power to admit or reject. I think at any rate there is doubt.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee
  544
  with a Division if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can assure me that the point will be considered, and that branches will be empowered to act in this way.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They have power.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Under the Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGEindicated assent.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed: At the end of Sub-section (2), after the word "applicant," to insert, "and that the applicant may for the purposes of this part of this Act be admitted as a member of a society notwithstanding anything in any other Act limiting the age for admission to societies of that class."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Mr. AMERY: I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the importance of the opening words of this Clause, and also of the concluding lines, because it seems to me that the whole scheme of reserve values and rejuvenation rests upon the proviso in this Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced in various town halls and tabernacles that he is going to make men of sixty boys of sixteen. He is going to do nothing of the kind. In the first place, I do not think Post Office contributors are included. In the second place, the money has to be found for this purpose by the approved societies. It seems to me that this proviso has no effective force to compel approved societies to do that which must be done if the rejuvenation scheme is to be a success. I know that societies are credited with the reserve fund, but let me remind the Committee in the first place that the reserve values are reckoned on the average life. If a society screws up the standard and refuses to admit anybody, the health will be above the average—
  The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment does not deal with that question at all. It is purely a technical and legal question, and we cannot open up the merits.
  Mr. AMERY: May I continue the discussion on the Clause itself?
  The CHAIRMAN: Any criticism of the Clause as a whole must be reserved for the discussion on the question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the exact intentions of the Government under this Clause as it will be amended? This Clause is intended to refer to the bringing of the Act into force. I can see that it may be necessary when the Act first comes into force to have these words in the Clause, but I am not sure of that. The words are general. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends the whole Clause to be in operation for all time.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGEmade a remark which was inaudible.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I now understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the Clause is to have permanent application. May I ask whether it is to apply permanently or merely at the time when a great number of old men have to be brought in, whereas at a later stage the admissions of old men would be rather exceptional cases?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It has reference only to one special case, namely, that of trade unions. Under the Trade Unions Act no one can become a member after sixty. This is to put trade unions on the same footing as any other society. It is to remove, so far as this Act is concerned, the disability under which they would labour under the Trade Unions Act.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has given an explanation for which I am much obliged, but he did not answer the wider question as to the application of the whole Clause. I can understand how that particular Amendment was necessary as a continuing Amendment. After the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that is quite clear. That is for dealing with the young, but I thought the Clause was drawn for dealing with those already aged. The Clause does cover aged people. I quite understand that you are saying to a great number of people already advanced in age that for the purposes of insurance they must come into a scheme of this kind. But when you are compelling them you must say that there is open to them societies which can give them the greatest advantages, and you must compensate the society for their aid on the principle which
  546
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained. I do not know why, when you have once fairly launched a scheme, you should make it a condition that a society should always be ready to accept old men and not be at liberty to reject reject them on account of their age. Perhaps the Chancellor will tell us that, and at the same time tell us, what is of great importance with regard to the working of this Clause, what is the machinery by which it will be ascertained and decided—whether exclusion is carried on in fact in any particular case or not? How far are you going to ascertain whether the man has been rejected solely on account of age? Of course, if you admit the mere allegation of another reason as being sufficient proof, in that case the Clause is wastepaper. I do not say that a friendly society or a trade union would wish to exclude a man in that way, but unless there is some inquire into the bona fides of the allegation, there being at least a primâ facie case raised, the Clause may be waste-paper in cases where it is necessary to enforce it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Clause is very difficult to enforce. As he has pointed out, it is open to a friendly society to say we object on other grounds. That is the difficulty. The only way of establishing it is by showing that it is the practice of the society. Suppose you find all the old people rejected. There is a very good primâ facie case against them, at any rate, that that is the real ground of those who profess that their reasons are totally different. Still, no doubt it is a very difficult Clause to enforce. I do not think it is of so much practical importance as otherwise it might be, because we have made it worth the friendly societies while to take the old people, because we put them actuarialy in the same position as if they were sixteen years of age.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In the first instance?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In the first instance. Now I come to the second question put by the right hon. Gentleman. The answer is that we insure the whole population. Everyone does not come in at sixteen. It depends on when a man begins work. A man may go on for a number of years, and he may find at thirty or forty years of age that he has just the kind of work that is insurable work. Then he becomes an insurable person.

  547
  Then they have to take him, and they take him on a reduced benefit. I think they ought to be compelled to take these cases. They ought not to be allowed to reject any man even then on the ground of age, because we are treating them in this respect as agents of the National bounty, and if they are prepared to accept the advantage of State bounty and of the aid of the employer levied by the State, they should accept the conditions, and it is therefore important that they should not rule any man out on the ground of age alone, though they may rule him out for medical reasons.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I would ask the Chancellor to carry his reply a little bit further. He tells us that the only way of finding out whether a society is breaking this Clause would be if they made a constant practice of it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not the only way.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is the only way that the right hon. Gentleman says. What will happen suppose that he did satisfy himself that they were rejecting on the ground of age? Suppose it was found that they had not got an ordinary proportion of old men among their members, is that society going to be an approved society, because there does not seem to be any provision in the Bill for enforcing this Clause? I do not think the Chancellor has gone quite far enough in his reply, because while admitting the difficulty he does not suggest any means of overcoming it.
  Mr. POLLOCK: It would be very unfortunate if we were to add Clause 24 as we have now amended it; we have added a Sub-clause under which the applicant for admission as a member of an approved society may, for the purposes of this part of this Act, be admitted as a member of a society notwithstanding anything in any other Act limiting the age for admission to societies of that class. We have laid down no class of person. If the real meaning of the Chancellor's Amendment is that it has reference to Trade Union Acts, obviously it is necessary to say so, and on the Report stage we must alter those words, for it is almost impossible to leave this Sub-section enabling persons to become members of the society, notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, whatever which there may be limiting the
  548
  age for admission to societies of a class which have not yet been defined in the Bill. This is an obvious slip, and something must be done in order to identify either the classes or the Acts which are referred to. I hope that the Attorney-General will undertake to make that alteration.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I think there is some force in the criticism which the hon. Member has directed to this Clause. I will look into it, and if it is necessary as he has suggested, I will introduce words limiting it.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: An approved society is entitled in accordance with its rules to admit, reject or expel a member. On Friday last this Committee decided that those rules must be submitted to the Insurance Commissioners. What would happen if a society felt themselves aggrieved by any decision which the Insurance Commissioners might arrive at in respect of the rules? If that society perhaps committed a breach of those rules which have been insisted upon by the Insurance Commissioners by expelling, rejecting or refusing to admit an applicant for membership, what is the position of the society?
  Mr. AMERY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted just now with regard to this proviso that it is extremely difficult to enforce, and his only suggestion was that if it was shown to be a constant practice on the part of an approved society to reject men for old age, or at any rate to make the old age standard extremely severe, then it could be dealt with. But surely this is not a question which is going to arise at the inception of the scheme. You will not be able to discover whether it is a constant practice or not for a considerable time. The answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is really that he has made it in the interests of the society not to handicap people from the point of view of age. I submit that he has not made it in the interests of the society to do anything of the kind. This reserve values loan is not a gift to the societies. It is an enforced loan from the members; and it is in their interest first of all to screw up the standard so that each reserve value allotted to them really represents more than the actual liability which is likely to accrue in practice, and secondly to keep the number of their old members as low as possible, because in that case the money that is raised, one and the five-ninths

  549
  of a penny per week per head, will meet that liability in a much shorter time, and will enable the society in less than fifteen and a-half years to give additional benefits, and get the additional two-ninths of a penny from the State in consequence. This point is one of the first importance in the whole machinery of the Bill, and means that the interests of the society are to be regarded, to the exclusion of the old men. I confess that I do not know how that Clause is to be made more efficacious, and I have not put down an Amendment in consequence, but I do submit that the idea that old men in general are going to be made young men again will not hold in practice, and that the whole interest of the society is going to be to force them into the deposit contribution scheme.
  Mr. FORSTER: I feel that there is a great deal of force in what has fallen from our hon. Friend, and I hope that the Members of the Government will examine it with the great consideration which it deserves. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can have the Clauses that we have had passed reprinted with the Amendments, because we are proceeding at a great speed. We are passing four, five, or six Clauses a day; every Clause is amended, and it is a matter of extreme difficulty to keep track of all the Amendments we are passing unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to adopt this course. With reference to this Clause and its effects, I agree entirely that if any semblance of independence is to be left to friendly societies, or those other associations which will become approved societies under the Bill, it is quite essential that this Clause should be added to the Bill, but I do not think we ought to overlook or deliberately refrain from looking at the consequences that must follow from this Clause. We are bringing into insurance for the first time something like ten millions of our population. All those that can find an entrance into those societies are to get the opportunity of being admitted, and the societies are to have complete and unfettered freedom, except as regards the age of entry, to choose their own members. The effect of that will be that the strongest societies will get the best life and the weakest societies will get the weakest or least desirable lives. The strong society will get those men who are best in health and best in occupation from the point of view of insurance and best from the point
  550
  of view of future livelihood, and as the Bill stands that is a consideration which friendly societies and others should not overlook, because if a man, owing to increased prosperity passes perhaps out of the ranks of the insured, he leaves his contributions and his reserve values behind. It is obvious, if that be so, that the society which gets a considerable proportion of members drawn from that class, who are going to rise in the world, gains very materially from the mere fact of their members, owing to their prosperity, passing out of the ranks of the employed persons. For these people, and for the stronger societies, I quite agree that the future is bright. At any rate, the finances of those societies are going to benefit largely by this Bill. I am afraid, however, that the Bill will have upon the societies other effects, which I view with apprehension. What will happen to the men who cannot pass an examination satisfactorily—what of the men who incur a more than average risk of disease and disablement? They will be driven into membership of the weaker societies. The strong societies will be under no obligation to take these men, who, as I said, will be driven into the weaker societies, and I think that the result, both to themselves and to the societies, which they will be practically compelled to join, will be exceedingly unsatisfactory. Are not the poorer and the weaker members of the community the very men whom you want to benefit by the Bill? Do you really want to benefit those who are most able to look after themselves, or those who are least able to look after themselves? I should have thought that the class of person for whom this Bill might have offered the greatest benefits would have been that class which was to a certain extent least able to make provision for itself. But there is one class of person in particular to whom I want the Committee to direct its attention, and that is the class to whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred with real sympathy, with a genuine desire to help them—I mean the hundreds of thousands of people who are now suffering from the scourge of consumption. What society is going to take them?
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that a question of that kind will open up too general a discussion, more general than should be allowed on a question, "That this Clause stand part."
  Mr. FORSTER: This has reference to the fact of allowing societies to choose their own members under a compulsory scheme. I do not in the least want to dispute your ruling, Sir, or to quarrel with it. I want to suggest a reason which I think makes my remark in order, and quite germane to the Clause we are now discussing. All these men are to be given an opportunity of joining a society if the society will take them. I wish the Committee to consider the question, and I do not raise it in any obstructive spirit. I am perfectly genuine in bringing this subject forward.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We all know that the hon. Member does not bring forward this question in any obstructive spirit, and he raises a quite banâ fide point, one which undoubtedly we ought to discuss in this Committee. But I think it could be discussed with advantage on Clause 32, which deals with Post Office contributors. I should have thought it would have been more useful if this question were discussed then than if it were discussed now, for we then could have a very considerable debate upon it at 7.30 to-morrow night.
  The CHAIRMAN: The decision I gave was as to whether we could have, on this Clause, a general discussion covering the question of exclusion by medical test by various societies. That was debated on Thursday last, and a decision was come to upon it. Therefore the matter clearly does not arise on this Clause.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask, in that case, if we shall be able to discuss this particular point on the Clause as to deposit contributors?
  The CHAIRMAN: I really could not give a decision in advance. I do not know on what Amendment I might be asked to rule.
  Sir G. PARKER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has advised the postponement of this discussion, a discussion which my hon. Friend below me thought might be contained within the four walls of this Clause. You, Sir, rule against this point. Will it not be possible, in the circumstances, to have an understanding that on the Deposit Contributors' Clause we should have the general discussion upon which we are now not able to enter?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is a very important matter, and one on which the Committee
  552
  ought at one stage or other to have a very important discussion; and I think it would be for the general convenience of the House, if I may respectfully submit so to the Chair, if we were able, or if it were possible, to discuss this very important and broad issue raised by the hon. Member when we come to Clause 32. With regard to the deposit contributors, the Government have been driven into this form of dealing with a certain class, because we assume that there will be a numerous class who will not be members of any society, and who for one reason or another will be rejected by the societies. I submit to you, Sir, that it raises very specifically the whole question, on which it would be desirable to have a Debate at some point or other of Caulse 32, both in the interests of the whole House and in the interests of the Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: When we come to Clause 32, instead of waiting to discuss it as a whole until we come to the end of it, there should be some opportunity, early in the Clause, of discussing the whole case of the Post Office contributors. That seems to me a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and, as far as I am concerned, I will certainly not put anything in the way of that. It seems to me that there is an Amendment on that Clause at a very early stage standing in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), to leave out "Post Office contributors," and a general discussion might be raised early in the Clause.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: On the question of that particular Amendment to which you referred, Sir, it forms part of a large number of Amendments which, I am sorry to say, were ruled out of order. It still remains on the Paper, but cannot be proceeded with.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When we come to Clause 32 we might be able to raise the general question on the words, "Until Parliament otherwise determines," and have a full Debate upon it.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think I may say that I will find an opportunity for discussion on that Clause.
  Mr. FORSTER: I do not wish to accupy the time of the Committee any longer at the present time, only I desire to say, in my defence, that I thought this was the opportunity for bringing forward the question, but if, according to your ruling,

  553
  Sir, a general arrangement is come to, I shall be very willing to let the question stand over until to-morrow.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I desire to call attention to a point about which I feel very strongly, before we part with this Clause, as to the possible effect of the power of expulsion given to existing societies who will hereafter become approved societies under the Bill. In a large number of societies, and in the smaller societies, there are numbers of members of the age of fifty years who have paid their contributions for a period of thirty years, and are now beginning to break down in health. Under the existing organisation of those societies, there is, as it were, a contract existing between members and the society that they shall receive sick pay for the whole of the rest of their lives. The Bill will have the effect, when passed into law, of tearing up all those contracts. In other words, the societies, in spite of the agreement with the members, will be able under the Act to expel members solely on the ground of health, although those members may not have suffered for the last thirty years and during the whole period have paid their contributions. I think there ought to be saving words to prevent approved societies, those societies which become approved, from expelling men who have paid their contributions during all those years and who are now beginning to suffer from illhealth.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: In regard to the expulsion of a member there is a provision made that, in the case of dispute between the insured person and the society, he can appeal to the Insurance Commissioners if he complains that he had been wrongly expelled.
  Mr. T. LOUGH: The Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), I understand, is not in order, and perhaps this is not a place to deal with the matter. But my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may see his way to deal with the case of those who suffer from blindness. They are excluded from the benefits of the Bill. It seems to me that the friendly societies do not treat the blind in a friendly way; I think that is rather a reproach against them, for the blind are a very deserving class of society. So far as general health is concerned they perhaps suffer less from sickness and danger of accident than many other classes of society,
  554
  for the simple reason that greater care is taken of them. I must say that every Member of the House has the greatest sympathy with those who suffer from blindness, and if the right hon. Gentleman has anything to say on the point I shall be very glad.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is no fault of ours that this was not in order. I appealed to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) not to divide on the medical test Clause, because a Division would have the effect of preventing the Committee from discussing other questions of that character In spite of that, though my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) withdrew and did not press a Division, the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, much wiser, insisted upon the Committee negativing it, with the result that we cannot discuss a question of that kind. It is not the fault of the Government, it is not the fault of the Chair, and certainly it is not the fault of the right hon. Gentleman, but it is the fault of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Upon the point raised by the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. C. Bathurst), I think it would be fatal to the whole principles on which our friendly societies are organised to take away the power of expulsion. I only say the effect would be that, and it would be deeply resented by them, and would interfere with the whole of the system upon which their funds have been expended. I do not think, however, a hardship arises in the way my hon. Friend imagines. At the present time there is nearly always an appeal from the Committee to arbitrators, if not to courts of law. I have sat as an arbitrator in the Hearts of Oak Society in dozens of cases where an appeal has been made from the managing committee to the board of arbitrators in regard to the rights of members who have been expelled for some reason or another, and generally of course it is because of some practice of a fraudulent or quasi-fradulent nature, or because they have violated knowingly and wittingly the rules of the society, which have been framed on fair lines and been revised at annual meetings from time to time. Therefore, the hardship does not arise, and it will be impossible for our great friendly societies, which are to become approved societies under this Bill, to abandon the right of expulsion. All

  555
  you want to do, I quite agree, is to safeguard the rights of members where they are endangered, but I venture to think that in the case of the larger societies, both affiliated and centralised, those rights are safeguarded at the present moment. Surely what we want to do is to interfere as little as possible, and already there is too much interference with the present system of the friendly societies of managing their funds.
  Mr. LEWIS HASLAM: There is some danger in the absolute power of expulsion which appears to be embodied in the Bill, more especially as to liability through sickness. Supposing a man has been a member of a society for a very long time, and that the society, in order to strengthen their position, expel the member on the ground of being undesirable, it occurs to me that that is a very dangerous power. When we consider that the societies are to receive State aid it appears that there ought to be some provision which would prevent Members being expelled on the ground of liability for sickness. I should be very grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could give us some assurance that he will consider this particular point.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: With regard to expulsion, I think the matter is quite clear under the Bill, and takes into account what the practice is. First of all, a member can only be expelled in accordance with the rules, and secondly those rules must be approved by the Insurance Commissioners, and the reasons for expulsion which will appear on those rules will have to be approved by them. There is the further point, to which I referred just now, namely, that if a member is expelled he has, over and above what the rules of the society give him, an appeal to the Insurance Commissioners because it would be a dispute which would arise between him and an approved society. There is the further point, which I think is really lost sight of, and which is that even if he is expelled in accordance with the rules, which are subject to the approval of the Insurance Commissioners, and, even if he fails on the appeal which he makes to the Insurance Commissioners, he still is not deprived of his surrender value. He takes this transfer value with him so that by that means I think we do give some safeguard to a member against a danger of that kind.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I understand there is an appeal under Clause 50 in the case of expulsion, and so I take it there is to be no appeal against refusal to admit.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think that there is on the present drafting, but I am considering, in view of what the hon. and learned Member said, whether when we come to Clause 50 it will not be necessary to give an appeal of that kind.
  Mr. W. PEARCE: There does not appear to be any safeguard against expelling members because they may be ten or twelve contributions in arrears. That would drive a large number into the ranks of the Post Office contributors. I should like to see some safeguard under this Clause which would prevent expulsion on those grounds.
  Mr. BOOTH: I rise to support my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lough) with regard to the treatment of the blind. I am not at all sure whether we can make an appeal for them under this Clause. I think it would be a very ludicrous position if the great army of the blind in this country were placed at a disadvantage owing to the stupid action of any Member, whether he come from Bow and Bromley or anywhere else. I therefore would appeal to the Government whether the case could not be met somewhat upon these lines, because, I am afraid, if the Clause passes as it is now the door might be closed except we reopened it on Report. Might I suggest that the large approved societies throughout the country should be compelled, perhaps under regulation, to take their proportion of the blind population according to the numbers in their societies? I do not think any of them would object to that, and if they did they would be very unpopular. I do not think the blind are bad lives from the point of view of sickness, and I do not think they should be discounted.
  Mr. CASSEL: I certainly would be very disinclined to do anything which would hamper the independent action of the friendly societies and force them to take members. Is it not possible for the blind to form a society of their own which might be grouped under the grouping section with other wealthy societies, and if it did have any deficiency to make it good out of the half-surplus of some of the other societies? If it is true that the risks are not greater in the case of the blind then they would be in just as good a position to form a society, which would be a remedy. So

  557
  far as the suggestion of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) is concerned, I should like, on this occasion, as I have on every other, to protect the friendly societies from being made more subject to bureaucratic supervision by being compelled to take members.
  Sir G. PARKER: May I ask whether this question of the blind may not be raised again on Clause 32, where it is agreed we are to have a general discussion?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how it could arise separately on Clause 32. I was about to rise to say that the Amendment is out of order at the present stage. The opportunity was on the medical test last Thursday, and that has been disposed of.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The Attorney-General has not explained what is the ultimate sanction. If the society remains obdurate, and supposing it is a case where obviously the objection is on account of age, what is the procedure? Is it to be withdrawal of approval, which would practically involve the dissolution of the society?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is one of the Amendments to be dealt with when we come to Clause 50.
  Mr. L. HASLAM: If a man is expelled from a society and is unable to join another society, what happens as to the transfer?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is a case which we deal with in one of the Clauses later to-day, and it is expressly stated that the transfer is carried.
  Mr. L. HASLAM: Supposing he cannot get into another society?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is dealt with again.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 25.—(Transfer from one Approved Society to Another.)
  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 becomes a member of another approved society, there shall be transferred to such other society in respect of such person a sum representing the liability of the first-mentioned
  558
  society in respect of him (in this Act called "transfer value") calculated in accordance with tables to be prepared by the Insurance Commissioners.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, after the word "society" ["member of an approved society"], to insert the words "or branch."
  I hope it will not be thought that this is a quibbling Amendment. It is really important, and I think a proof of that is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put down what is practically an identical Amendment subsequently. The Amendment deals with the question of a transfer from a branch of a society to another branch of the same society, and it is not at all clear whether that can be done under the Clause. As hon. Members know, members of societies are continually moving about from one part of the country to another. Very often they do not want to change their membership of their society, and would be glad to belong to another branch of the same society. As a matter of fact, by the existing practice, which goes by the name of clearances, members of trade unions and societies are changed in this way. I think, therefore, it would be desirable to have this power.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I appreciate what the hon. Member has stated as his object, but I think he will find, if he looks at the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that that really embodies in the addition which it proposes the substance of what the hon. Member desires. I think his point is met, and that it would be more convenient to have it at the end of the Clause as we have drafted it.
  Mr. BARNES: I want to raise a matter of very considerable importance to us trade unionists. Although I notice that the Attorney-General has just pointed out that there is an Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer lower down covering the same point, I think I can more conveniently raise the matter now, because it will give a little time to the Attorney-General to consider it before it comes up again. The Amendment of the hon. Member, and also that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rather stiffen the Bill in a direction which we thought was altogether wrong already. The Bill provides for branches of approved societies being, so to speak, separate entities. We, I as trade unionists, have no such branches,

  559
  the union is a thing of itself, and includes all its branches; and, let me say, it will be absolutely impossible for a large trade union to become an approved society at all under the Bill. It would be impossible for it to become an approved society were either of these Amendments carried.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Which Amendment does the hon. Member say militates against the view to which he refers?
  Mr. BARNES: In the sense in which the hon. Member uses the word "branches" we have no branches. If the word "registered" were inserted it would meet my point.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The same question was raised last week by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). I then pointed out that the word "branch," as used throughout the whole of the Bill, means "registered branch," and does not conflict with the object which the hon. Member has in mind. If, however, there is the faintest doubt about the matter, words will be inserted on Report to make it clear. But there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that it means "registered branch."
  Mr. BARNES: Why not insert the word "registered"?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It means "registered branch" throughout the whole Bill. But we have the matter before us, and if there is the faintest doubt words will be inserted to make it quite clear.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move, after the word "liability" ["a sum representing the liability of the first-named society"], to insert the words "under this part of the Act."
  Mr. BOOTH: Is it quite clear that this is the proper place for these words? A man may belong to two approved societies and do his State business through only one. He may cease to do his State business through that particular approved society without joining another. He merely intimates that he will do his business through the one society, but he is a member of both all the time.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: This is a mere drafting Amendment to make it quite clear that the provision is confined to the sickness insurance part.
  Mr. BOOTH: Surely it is just as important that this Clause should apply to a man who is a member of two societies, and merely transfers his State business, as to a man who has to join another society.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words:—
  "Provided that such transfer value shall not be so transfered in any case where the insured person has voluntarily ceased to be a member of a society with out the consent of that society, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld."
  Mr. CASSEL: I have put down, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to add the words "or when the insured person has been expelled from the society for any breach of its rules, or misconduct," but I should prefer no Amendment at all. If the Government Amendment were reasonable, my words ought to be added; but I think there are great difficulties about the original Amendment. If a man is a member of a society with a special local habitation, and he changes his place of work, why should he not be able voluntarily to change his society without the consent of the society Under the Amendment as it stands, if he removed to the North from the South of England, and wished to join another society or even another branch, he could not do it without getting the consent of his society. It is true that the Amendment says that such consent must not be unreasonably withheld, but who is to be the judge?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Insurance Commissioners.
  Mr. CASSEL: There is no such provision in the Bill, as far as I can see, unless it comes under the head of "dispute." It seems to me that a man ought to have the right to move from one society to another if it is desirable for him to do so. If you are going to say that he cannot carry his transfer value with him when he voluntarily retires from a society, why should he be able to do so if he is expelled for misconduct? Instead of moving my Amendment I will oppose the Amendment of the Government.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I agree with the view just put forward. We have decided to admit as approved societies, societies which are strictly local and possibly with only 1,000 members. On a former occasion I pointed out what a danger this

  561
  would be to the members of approved societies. I understood that we were to have approved societies with branches in every separate district, but now we shall have approved societies with only local connections. There will be hundreds of thousands of removals every year, especially in times of depression. The great societies, such as the Engineers, the Odd-fellows, the Hearts of Oak, or the Foresters, have branches in practically every town; but where the society is a local one, I think it should not be in its power to say that a man who is leaving it shall not become a member of another approved society. You are now going to admit any society, it does not matter who or what they are, so long as they can obtain 1,500 or 5,000 members, whatever may be the number ultimately fixed. They will simply become distributing agencies under the Act. I regard that as a very serious matter. There will be no inducement for a man to become a member of an approved society such as a friendly society in order to obtain additional benefits. A great deal of the work we are doing to-day will have to be undone unless some Amendment is carried, because of the chaos that will exist in consequence of men migrating from town to town without taking their surrender value.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think there is some misapprehension on the part of the hon. Member as to the effect of these words. The speech just delivered is one with which in substance I should not at all disagree. Speaking generally, when a man removes from one place to another he should have a right to be transferred and a consequential right to take his transfer value. In all these cases no difficulty will arise. The object of this Clause was to meet an objection raised by friendly societies, trade unions, and kindred associations, with regard to the difficulties with which they would be faced unless there were some restriction upon the right of unlimited transfer. They want, necessarily and naturally, to stop the man who is constantly coming into a society one day and going out the next for no reason whatever. Not because he has migrated from one place to the other—that is perfectly reasonable, and, of course, that will be allowed—but simply to meet the cases of men who for no reason, but nevertheless for some cause, may leave one society and then go to another society, and then again leave that and in two or
  562
  three weeks, as the case may be, join another. This Amendment is now put down as the result of discussion with representatives of the views of the friendly societies, trade unions, and all the other societies that were represented at the particular conference.
  Let us see how it would work: that is the practical test of it. Suppose a member of an approved society chooses to leave in order to go to some other place where he has got work—to go to the North, say, from the South. He therefore wants to join another approved society. If he gives notice to the society in the South he is entitled, under the Bill, I should have thought, without any shadow of a doubt, to take his transfer value with him to the other society. Because, of course, he has moved, and there you have a good reason. He has gone from the South to the North, and that is a good reason. The removal is a good explanation of why he desires to move from one society to another. Supposing that the society should say, as my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. J. Samuel) assumes, for the purpose of putting his argument, "We will not allow you to leave; we will not give our consent." The Bill thereupon comes into operation, and the result of that is that on appeal to the Insurance Commissioners, who, under Clause 50, have the right to decide all these disputes, the man is entitled to his transfer value, and to go to the other approved society to have his transfer value transferred from the one to the other.
  These questions will naturally arise. This Amendment is intended to meet the case of a capricious transfer from one society to another. It is certainly not intended to operate in the slightest degree by way of injury to any person or member of one society who wishes for a good cause to go to another society. I should have thought that hon. Members would have borne in mind that this matter has been discussed with those most interested in the transfer, who are agreed on the point. Under these circumstances I think this Amendment might be allowed to pass.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not know whether other members of the Committee have been as little impressed as I have with the explanation of the Attorney-General. The intention of the Clause may be ever so good, but it will operate to tie the workman down to the local society of which he happens to be a member. After all the local society can refuse its consent, and if the man is not

  563
  able readily to transfer from one society to another it is bad. There is also another point: Supposing that the notorious Mr. Osborne had been a member of an approved society, which is his trade union? Would his trade union have allowed him to transfer freely to some other society?
  Mr. J. WARD: They would have wanted him to.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Perhaps in that particular case consent would have been willingly given. On the other hand, one can well imagine a case in which there might be a conflict of interest between the trade union on the one side and the friendly society on the other side. It seems to me that a certain degree of competition between these various societies is desirable, because it improves the management, generally keeps the society up to the mark, and therefore enables the best benefits to be given. But if a man is to have difficulties put in his way, it seems to me that we have no right to compulsorily bring him into insurance. If this Clause were in the rules of a voluntary society I should not object to it at all, because you have there to protect the society itself as well as the member. But where you are compelling a man to join a society you have to be particularly careful not to put restriction which is not necessary upon his personal liberty. The Attorney-General says this Clause is only intended to catch the capricious man and the man who is "in and out." Surely there cannot be many such? It cannot be an amusing thing for a man to join a society one day and then to leave it. After all he has got to sign forms. He has got to have a medical examination, or at any rate to go through some ceremony or another. That surely cannot be a thing which often happens? The Clause as proposed by the Government seems to me to go far beyond meeting the special case of the capricious man. It gets at the man who is regularly moving from one district to another by reason of his employment, or who desires either to leave a friendly society and join a trade union or vice versa.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I should like to put a point to the learned Attorney-General. Suppose that a member in one town is a member of an approved society, and suppose that this man is a critical member, as some members of this House are. Suppose that the committee or the officials of the society to which this man belongs
  564
  take umbrage at his criticisms? Have they the right to report that man to another society in the town that he is removing to? That, I think, is a very common thing in these friendly societies—in fact in all societies. You have very critical men who are very obnoxious to the official section of the society. To give power to the official section of the society to in fact boycott the man—
  Mr. J. WARD: You were saying that they would not like to transfer him; they would be glad to get rid of him.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: What I am objecting to is the power given to the officials to object to that man joining another society. I would like to point out another fact. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, or, in other words, that every man who will become a member of an approved society will have the right of appeal to the Insurance Commissioners. We are bringing in practically 10,000,000 of uninsured persons at the present time to the intricacies of insurance. A large number of these men, thousands of the older classes from forty upwards, will be more or less illiterate. They will not have the slightest idea of what an Insurance Commissioner is. They will not be able to write an intelligible letter to him. That form of protection, unless it is an appeal to some local commissioner or some local district commissioner with power, will be no use. The protection within the Bill is really of no practical value to such a man, because he will have to go to somebody to take his case before the Commissioner. That part therefore, in my opinion, is no protection whatever to these particular men. I think that this Clause would be very much better if the words "without the consent of the society" were left out; if indeed the latter part of the Clause were left out.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The vexed question of freedom of transfer is much more important than, I think, the Attorney-General imagines. A formula does not settle everything in practical working. The Committee ought not to abandon their right of independent judgment, even when a settlement has been arrived at between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the representatives of the friendly societies. It is a case of individual liberty against corporate power. What I want to point out to the Attorney-General is that he has spread his net so wide that, while he takes in every sort of

  565
  society, he cannot guarantee that there will be fair treatment extended to the individual member under this scheme with even the same degree of latitude as is given to-day. That might have been presumed even when the Bill was first introduced. If we had to deal only with branches of the great affiliated societies it would be a different matter. But I would point out to him how real hardship may arise. In the first place, the aggrieved member will have to go to the general committee of his society. He will then, under the rules, very likely have an appeal to a board of arbitration. Then, and only in the last resort, can he go to the Insurance Commissioners.
  There may be a very real hardship amounting to a pecuniary fine on the individual whom the society desires for its own reasons—not necessarily sinister reasons, but natural reasons—to retain. Every society in every branch has a direct pecuniary interest in retaining its members. It may inflict, by way of fine or penalty, a very heavy burden upon an individual member which will debar him from going to the Insurance Commissioners, and may make it very difficult for him to have that liberty of choice which the Attorney-General says the Government wishes to secure. I venture to think the right hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to abandon this Amendment. Now that we are setting up a new system, although we ought to be guided by the practice of the great societies, yet you have to consider here that we have taken in so many bodies of various kinds which have very little to do with the affiliated orders that it is necessary to properly safeguard the individual member. Therefore I hope the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman below (Mr. Cassel) will be accepted.
  Mr. BOOTH: I make an appeal to the Committee to support the Government Amendment for more than one reason. One is, that I am afraid that many of the organisations, particularly the old organisations, will decline to work the Bill unless this Clause is in. I think the Committee ought to know that this Clause is not in the interests of the Government—certainly not in the interests of the new societies. The people whom I have had the honour of specially speaking for in this House are not interested in the passing of this particular Amendment. But it is vital to trade unions in particular, and to old friendly societies. I do not disguise from the Committee that the insurance
  566
  agent is an industrious and a most excellent canvasser; but I submit that the old friendly orders ought not surely to be perpetually subjected to men poaching and trying to take away their members. I have been an advocate of freedom of choice and freedom of organisation, but that is not because ten millions of people are coming in. Institutions that have lived a long time and are properly conducted ought to be protected against attack. You have not merely to consider the individual. I do not yield to any man in my love for individual liberty. I hope I have proved that since I have been here. But how can there be stability in a society if canvassers may go around from time to time trying to get the members away from one society into another? That cannot make for the success of our scheme: it will lead to nothing but confusion and disorder I appeal on behalf of the older trade unions and the older friendly orders.
  Mr. POINTER: The hon. Member who has just sat down has based his appeal very largely upon the interests of the trade unions. It appears to me, however, that there is another side to that point. I am just afraid the trade unions are going to lose more from the introduction of the Chancellor's Amendment than they are going to gain. The scheme is framed upon the ordinary practice of the friendly societies of admission at the age of sixteen, and, if so, then in very many cases this is the kind of thing that will happen. A young man who selects a certain friendly society as an approved society, and when he reaches the age of manhood—that is to say, twenty or twenty-one—he will wish to join his trade union, and it may occur to him that he would like to be insured in his trade union not only for unemployment benefits, but for sickness benefit as well. Such young men may then desire to change from their ordinarily friendly society of which they have been members during the years from sixteen to twenty, and join their trade union as an approved society for sickness purposes as well. It may be possible that the friendly society in the first instance may offer some resistance to that, and may say that the reason given for the transfer is not a bonâ fide reason. They may hold the opinion that the trade union ought not to interfere or poach upon work which they believe is reserved for them wholly, and they may say that because trade unions in their view ought

  567
  to occupy themselves with industrial insurance, and not with sickness insurance, they do not believe there is a bonâ fide reason for transferring. If that were so, it is quite obvious to everybody that that is going, sooner or later to dry up the whole source of supply for the trade unions, and, therefore, from that standpoint, unless I hear from the Attorney-General some other reason which will quiet my fears, I am afraid I shall have to vote against that Amendment. The difficulty may be all in connection with the word "reasonable," and the Insurance Commissioners may not allow such difficulty to arise, because they may hold that it is reasonable to transfer in that case. May it not be as well that we should have some indication of what the Insurance Commissioners may deem to be reasonable and what they may deem to be unreasonable?
  Mr. J. W. HILLS: I think we have a real evil to meet here. I think the Clause as drawn goes much too far, and the reason is this. Some members will transfer for no good reason at all, and they will flit from one society to another and from branch to branch for no good reason. I quite agree we ought to stop that, but the Clause goes too far because it throws the burden of proof on the man. Before a man can leave a society or a branch for another he has to prove that he leaves for good reasons. Surely the burden of proof ought to be on the society, and they ought to be compelled to pay his transfer value unless they can prove that the man is unreasonably leaving them. I quite agree with the last speaker that the Clauses drawn will be extremely hard upon trade unions; but if you throw upon a society or a branch that wants to keep a man the burden of showing that that man is leaving them from caprice or for no good reason at all, I think we should be limiting the Clause so as to meet a real evil.
  Mr. J. WARD: I can quite see that while we should make it as easy as possible for members to be transferred from one society to another, there is also a very grave danger which has not so far been mentioned in this discussion, and it is this. If you are going to open the door so absolutely and completely for members to transfer without rhyme or reason, one could quite understand a society getting into difficulties and being ordered by the Commissioners to reduce their benefits in
  568
  order to make up for something that that particular member may have insisted upon doing. If you so open the door for transfer without reason it may mean the death knell of that particular society. That is the danger which ought to be well considered, and I venture to say that the proposal before the Committee for transfer at the present moment is as easy as it ought to be for men to shirk their responsibilities in one society by transferring to another.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: The impression left upon me is that the evil which it is desired to cure is very small, but entails a considerable danger to others who are not included in it at all. Everybody will admit that the greater number of people who desire to be transferred from one branch to another are those who are going to work in fresh towns and who will, therefore, require to leave one branch in order to join another. But beyond that surely it should be open to a man who has joined one society, if he thinks another society would give him better terms, to leave the one and join the other. I very much fear, if you put upon him the onus of applying to the society he desires to leave for their sanction, and hold up before them the fear that if the society does not agree, as very likely it will not, that he will have to appeal to the Insurance Commissioners, he will stay as he is rather than do that, which undoubtedly restricts the free choice which he can have. With regard to what the Attorney-General says about the very proper desire of preventing a man capriciously leaving one society to join another, there is the power with every fresh society to which such man applies to reject him and not to insure him, and the man, knowing there is a possibility of rejection, will probably elect to remain where he is. I see no sufficient reason to put restrictions upon the free choice of a man, which undoubtedly must work considerable hardship upon his legislative desires. If it is a matter of offence to leave Society A and B, and if men have to go to all this trouble of appeal to the Insurance Commissioners, it will necessarily handicap them in their choice.
  Mr. FORSTER: I confess, although the proposal in this Amendment is very simple, I find it difficult to make up my mind which way to vote. The choice open to us is very wide. There is a great deal to recommend the choice in any direction. The argument of the hon. Member opposite is a very

  569
  strong argument, as showing the danger trade unions and the old friendly societies will run of losing their membership owing to the attention of agents of the friendly society. That argument was present to the minds of the friendly societies themselves. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) directed the attention of the Committee to the difficulty which may very well arise. As I understand him, he asked what would be the effect when a deficiency takes place and an absolute levy has to be made. When a deficiency has occurred the existing members of the society remaining are liable to make the deficiency good, even although transferred to another society. But if before the deficiency occurs, when the members of the society think that owing to exceptional sickness or some cause or another the funds of their society are going to show a deficiency at the next valuation, then undoubtedly there will be very great temptations on the part of the members of the society to migrate and join another. If you refuse them leave to migrate you throw upon them the obligation of meeting a deficiency which arises, although the deficiency may be due to no fault of theirs. On the other hand, if you give complete freedom of migrating then you will inevitably bring ruin on all the weaker societies of whose financial position there may be some doubt. We are on the horns of a dilemma, and I do not find it at all easy to come to a conclusion. I grant there is a great deal to be said in favour of the Amendment, but, on the other hand, there is a great deal to be said in favour of complete independence and freedom for the individual member of the society. On the whole, I am disposed to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham as one way of finding a way out of the difficulty, which is acknowledged in all corners of the House. I hope the Attorney-General may see his way to accept the Amendment to the Amendment he has proposed.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If the hon. Member puts it down I shall consider it.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I venture to suggest, in order to carry out that purpose, certain words which I think are simple, that is to leave out the words of the Chancellor's Amendment "without the consent of that society, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld," and to put in instead thereof the words "if the society is able to show such withdrawal is unreasonable." I think that would meet the difficulty.
  Colonel GREIG: I would like to ask what happens when a man applies for a transfer, assuming he is refused. I presume he applies to the Insurance Commissioners, and then the onus is thrown upon the society of showing that their consent has been reasonably withheld I do not see that there is any hardship upon the man in this case. Another point has been raised with reference to the difficulties that may occur as to what may be the reasons for a society refusing consent. No doubt within a short time after the passing of this Bill a code will have been arrived at by custom, practically regulating the majority of cases, and then it will be known what are reasonable causes for transfer. Probably a single case brought before the Insurance Commissioners will govern hundreds of other cases, and instead of putting into your Act of Parliament all these cases suggested, you will be able to settle a number of cases in this way without difficulty. It has been argued why put upon a man the necessity of asking consent. The man must give notice to his society before he transfers, or how will the society know he is going to transfer? I do not see that there is any difficulty put upon the man, and in my opinion the Clause is quite workable.
  Mr. BUTCHER: It has been admitted that the Clause, as put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the Amendment, is too wide. I think it is clear that there is a case to be made out for the Amendment which has been suggested from this side of the House. I am rather inclined to support the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), which throws the onus upon the friendly society, or the trade union, as the case may be. The Amendment proposed by the Attorney-General seems to be an unnecessary restriction upon the freedom of the member. Let us not introduce any unnecessary restrictions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite says that the man need be under no fear in regard to this proposal, and that all he needs to do is to engage in a lawsuit. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] At any rate, the appeal has to be made to the Insurance Commissioners or to a referee, and that will cost the man money. The man will have to be away from his work a certain time, and at any rate it will cost him his time and a great deal of trouble. The Attorney-General says his proposal is only intended to apply to cases

  571
  of capricious refusal. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us what capricious refusal is. Is it capricious refusal if a man thinks he can better himself by joining another society? Would that also apply to a transfer in the case of a man who thought his society was not being well managed? Personally I find it very difficult to see why a man should engage in a purely capricious refusal. Why should he transfer himself unless there is some reason, and if he has a good reason why should he have to go to the Insurance Commissioners? I think the case would be met by the Amendment which has been suggested by the hon. Member for Sheffield, and if he goes to a Division I shall support him.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "without the consent of that society, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld," and to insert instead thereof "and where that society is able to show that such withdrawal is unreasonable."
  Sir GODFREY BARING: I think the hon. and learned Member for York has raised rather a fictitious objection. He says that anyone who wishes to transfer will be put to serious legal expense. In my opinion the only expense he would be put to would be communicating with the Insurance Commissioners, and this he might do by sending a postcard calling attention to the fact that his society had unreasonably refused to allow him to transfer. The Insurance Commissioners would then inquire into the matter, and that would be the extent of the man's trouble. With regard to the Amendment to the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield, it does not seem to me to be any improvement upon the Government Amendment, because the onus will in all cases really be upon the society to show that they have not unreasonably withheld their consent to transfer. When the man, by means of a postcard, reports to the Commissioners that he has been refused a transfer, the Commissioners will draw the attention of the society to that refusal and call upon them to point out that they have not unreasonably withheld their consent.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I confess that I am not so sanguine as the hon. Member who has just spoken as to the ease with which matters arising under
  572
  this Clause can be settled, and I do not think they will be settled simply by a half-penny postcard. I think it is absurd to say that a postcard from one of 15,000,000 insured people to say that consent to his transfer has been refused by his society, or that his transfer is being unreasonably withheld, is sufficient. The first thing the Commissioners would have to do with such, a complaint is to ask the man to satisfy them in what manner it was unreasonable, and why it was unreasonable. As a layman I have often listened to hon. and learned Gentlemen on the Front Bench, whether in this Government or another, explaining where the onus of proof lies. It appears clear to be that a man has got to make out a primâ facie case before there will be any inquiry at all. The society will not have to show primâ facie reasonableness until the individual has shown primâ facie unreasonableness. I think the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend behind me is an improvement upon the original Amendment. I should not have taken part in debating this point had it not been for an observation which the Attorney-General interjected in the remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Butcher). I am not sure whether that interjection was a considered opinion, but, if so, it shows what a delicate subject we are dealing with, and how very wide is the effect of what we are doing. My hon. and learned Friend asked the Attorney-General would it be reasonable ground for a transfer if a man could show that he could better himself by such transfer, and the Attorney-General said that that would be the best possible reason. That carries you a very long way and exposes you to all the dangers which the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) pointed out. It means that a prosperous society, or the most prosperous society, will draw away as time goes on members from the less prosperous society, until those less prosperous societies get into absolute difficulties and have to be wound up. I do not think that was the intention of the Government. I do not like to express an opinion upon it without having given rather more thought to it, but many of us accustomed to life assurance offices would very much like to have the opportunity at any stage of our insurance to change from the office in which we originally went and transfer our accumulated reserves to another office if we find that the the other office by better management or better investments or any other cause

  573
  could give us better benefits. This proposal certainly opens a very wide field. I think it suggests great dangers for societies. There is the case where a man might find, either by changing his trade or locality, that it was more convenient for him to become a member of another society. He might find new friends in the new place who were members of a different society, and as they were going to be his companions and neighbours he might wish to join their society. He might, on the other hand, find some other additional benefits which would induce him to transfer. All these cases are very reasonable, but I am not quite certain that to say generally that if a man found out that by transferring himself to one society rather than to another he would better his position, that ought to be in itself a sufficient reason for allowing the transfer. I think the whole subject is one of extreme difficulty. I confess that I prefer the amended form suggested by my hon. and learned Friend behind me to the original form of the Amendment proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If we do adopt the Amendment, I think it is a subject which between this and the Report stage the Government ought to give further attention to, and I think we ought to raise the matter again upon the Report Stage.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think the result of the discussion has been to show that really we are all agreed. The difficulty is whether or not by the Clause as drafted the burden of proof is thrown upon the society or not. For my part, I quite agree the burden should be upon the society in refusing to pay the transfer value to show that it had reasonable grounds for refusing its consent, and I am quite ready to adopt words to meet that point. I do not think, however, the words of the hon. Member for Sheffield quite run. They were, of course, drafted roughly. I think it would be better to redraft the proviso with the object of carrying out what is the intention of the House and what I think everybody agrees should be done; that is, to make it quite clear by the words of the proviso that the burden is put upon the society and not upon the member. If that would meet the views of the Committee, I would suggest that the hon. Member for Sheffield should withdraw his Amendment and that we should draft a new proviso.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: As a matter of personal vanity, I think the words do run,
  574
  but I shall be very glad to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman and to withdraw them.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words: "This Section shall apply to transfers from one branch of an approved society to another branch of the same society in like manner as it applies to transfers from one society to another society."
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I wish to suggest that the words "to another branch of the same society" are unnecessary. It is not only from one branch to another branch of the same society, but from one branch to another branch of different societies.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is covered.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will try and show it is not covered, and, if it is not, perhaps the Attorney-General will try and meet it. As the words stand, this section applies to another branch of the same society but not to a branch of another society. We want it to apply whether it is between the branches of the same society or between the branch of one society and the branch of another society. There is no reason why it should not apply all round.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If the hon. Member will read the Clause itself, he will see that point is covered.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: You are making transfers between branches on the same footing as transfers between, societies, but you have limited it to transfers between branches of the same society. We are at one with the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but not with the words. If you alter the words so as to make it read "another branch of the same or any society," you will get the decision at which we all wish to arrive.
  Mr. HILLS: This point is very important. Supposing a man transfers from a branch of the Oddfellows to a branch of the Hearts of Oak, his transfer value would not go to the society to which he transfers, because the Amendment transfers the transfer value between branches of the same society, and that

  575
  would not do. It is purely a question of drafting, but it is extremely important from the financial point of view.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, after the word "same" ["another branch of the same society"], to insert the words "or any."
  Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 26.—(Transfers to Foreign and Colonial Societies.)
  (1) If an insured person ceases to be permanently resident in the United Kingdom and becomes a member of any society or institution established in a British possession or foreign country, of a kind similar to an approved society, which is approved by the Insurance Commissioners, or of any branch established outside the United Kingdom of an approved society, the transfer value of such person, or, in the case of a deposit contributor, the amount standing to his credit in the Post Office fund shall be paid to such society or institution or branch; but no such payment shall be made unless the Insurance Commissioners are satisfied that the society, institution, or branch in question gives corresponding rights to any of its members becoming resident in the United Kingdom.
  (2) Where an arrangement has been made with the Government of any British possession or with the Government of any foreign State, whereby insured persons may be transferred to a society or institution established in the British possession or foreign State similar to an approved society or the Post Office fund, and members of any such society or institution may be transferred to approved societies or to the Post Office fund, it shall be lawful for the Insurance Commissioners to make such arrangements as may be necessary for any such transfer as aforesaid, and for the determination of the amount to be transferred in any such case, and of the rights to which any person transferred is to be entitled; so, however, that nothing in this Section shall affect the rights of a society under this part of this Act to refuse applications for membership.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I rule on three points before taking the Amendments in detail. The first point is the matter raised by several hon. Members dealing with Post Office depositors. It is clear this Clause, although it refers to Post Office depositors, is only a subsidiary clause, and anything done in this Clause would not prejudge the full consideration of the position of Post Office depositors on Clause 32. The second point is raised by the Amendment suggesting that deposit contributors ceasing to be permanently resident in the United Kingdom should be able to draw out the balance standing to their credit (if any) on emigration. That, in my opinion, comes on Clause 32, and not on this Clause. The third point is the proposal to give a transfer value to a person leaving the United Kingdom and not joining another similar society. That must be a matter for a new Clause. It could not be brought in as an Amendment to this particular Clause.
  Mr. HUNT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "or foreign country."
  I do not think a man insured in this country should be allowed to take money out of this country and spend it in a foreign country. A man who goes to live out of the country permanently has no business to take British money with him.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman has omitted to note the advantages we expect to get from the foreigner as well as the advantages which we are giving to the foreigner. Unless we get those advantages, the Clause does not hold. We propose to give advantages to the approved societies of foreign countries on the condition that those approved societies of foreign countries give the same advantages to ourselves. That is what we call reciprocity.
  Question, "That those words stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "gives corresponding rights to any of its members," and to insert instead thereof the words "will give a corresponding right to such member on his again."
  If the Clause were amended as I suggest a member of a British approved society emigrating would be entitled to have his transfer value paid over to the

  577
  Colonial or foreign society on the condition that if he returned and becoming a member of a British society again the transfer value would be returned to his original society. It would not require a general rule with regard to all members of all societies in foreign or Colonial countries; it would be a specific condition attached to the transfer value on each occasion.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The point which the hon. Member has raised is one of very great importance. The Bill sets up as a test the conduct of the foreign or Colonial society to its own members when those members come to this country. The hon. Member says whatever their conduct may be to their members our business is to our members, and, because they will not extend a particular privilege to their members when they come here, our members ought not to forfeit their privilege if they go there. I think that is a matter of real substance. I can understand there may be reasons for desiring that members of overseas societies should be encouraged to transfer for the benefit of their members when they come here, just as it is proposed we might transfer for the benefit of our members when they go overseas. I do not wish to prejudice that course of conduct on their part, or to lessen the inducement to do so, but I do wish to guard against our people being penalised because they do not choose to adopt that course. Men are compelled to insure whether they like it or not, and, in the course of their lives, they may have to go abroad for a term of years. They may thereby have to forfeit something, and I take it that the object of the hon. Member is to prevent that. He desires to provide that a member who returns must transfer the value if he comes back to the old country. That is an object which we ought to secure, and I hope the Government will insert the necessary words which will secure it. I do not know what words are required, but I do say that our members ought not to forfeit their benefit because oversea societies are not willing to extend to their members the same privilege when they come over here. We have to see that our members are protected.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This is very incomplete reciprocity. It would mean that there would be continual transfers from
  578
  our country to a foreign country, and there would be nothing coming back to this country.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It may be that I do not appreciate the fact but it does seem to me that the great bulk of emigrants who come to this country will not have any transfer value. Surely the hon. Member is in the world of dreams.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not very familiar with Colonial societies, but I should think it is quite possible—[An HON. MEMBER: "How about emigrants from the Colonies?"] My hon. Friend behind me has emigrated from the Colonies. The right hon Gentleman has suggested it is very hard that the only alternative to a society which fails to give that reciprocity is for the emigrant to lose the advantage. But these cases must, of necessity, come under a new Clause, and that new Clause the Government are quite prepared to hear the arguments upon. I ask the Committee to support the Clause as it stands.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I do not think the hon. Gentleman really understands the question. No doubt the Clause as drafted protects a man going abroad. But the point referred to by the hon. Member had regard to someone who is a member of an approved society who went abroad and who returned. That is a different matter altogether. In Clause 26, Sub-section (1), that is dealt with. The proposal is that a man should not be penalised because he has been abroad.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I think the Amendment ought to be accepted. What is its object? It is this: if a member of an approved society of this country chooses to go abroad to one of our Colonies, or to any foreign country, if he has something standing to his credit here he is to take it with him. But as the Clause is at present drafted, unless he can find a society which gives corresponding benefits to his own society, he will not be able to do so. It is further desired to secure that he shall be able to make a bargain, so that if he wants to return to this country the sum standing to his credit shall be re-transferred. Surely that is a point which ought to be considered by this House? The great difficulty has been that a member of an approved society going from this country with something to his credit will, in all probability, find it impossible to discover a society which will come within the provisions of this Clause, and I understand

  579
  that the object of this Clause is to provide for such a contingency. Surely it ought to be feasible for the Government to carry this out.
  Mr. FORSTER: I can explain in a very few words the reason why I support the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite. He contemplates the case of a man who leaves his country, takes his transfer value with him, and, when he comes back to this country, wants to bring that transfer back. The difficulty is this, that hardly any society in foreign countries or in the Colonies can transfer value to their members when they leave. There may be voluntary arrangements between society and society, but that is not the point. The hon. Member opposite wishes the Committee to bear in mind that this is a transfer value, and I think we ought to take care that, when a man leaves this country and goes to an oversea society he shall be in a position, should he come back to this country, to bring his transfer value with him.
  Mr. O'GRADY: This is, of course, a very important point, and I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who last spoke. When a man goes from a society to the Colonies and comes back in two or three years, if it can be provided that there shall be a right of transfer value, I think it would be of benefit.
  Mr. POINTER: It appears to me that the object the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment aims at is already embodied in the Bill. Suppose a man goes away to a foreign country his transfer value is to be sent after him if the society to which he is transferred will return that value should he come back again to this country. That would cover the case of a man who had joined a society in America, and who desired to return to this country. This is a case of the greater including the less. If the hon. Member who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench is right that there are any societies in any country who send transfers to other countries, then this Amendment does not meet the point. So far as I can see it will not get us out of the difficulty.
  Mr. POLLOCK: May I suggest to the Attorney-General one simple way out of the difficulty? I understand him to say that the intention of the Clause is that the man who goes abroad or to the Colonies and comes back should have the right to bring with him what has stood to his
  580
  credit with either the Colonial or foreign, society. The real difficulty arises by the use of the term "its members." If that means not only the members of the foreign society who have no domicile in this country, but also includes members who have gone from this country without losing their domicile, and who return again, the difficulty that is suggested in the Amendment does not really arise. If the words "its members" does really cover all that, then the Clause may be accepted. Does it cover all that? Inasmuch as the words used here are that the Insurance Commissioners have to be satisfied "that the society, institution, or branch in question gives corresponding rights to any of its members," that would seem to imply that the members so entitled are persons of foreign domicile. If the Attorney-General would make a drafting Amendment in order to say that the word "members" included not only foreigners of foreign domicile but also persons who have gone abroad and who did not lose their domicile in this country and who came back, that would meet the case. I suggest the words "gives corresponding rights to any of its members becoming resident in or returning to the United Kingdom." I ask the Attorney-General to consider these words.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: The difficulty is this: that if the Clause remains as it is, it will be a great injustice to all those members of approved societies who wish to emigrate to our Colonies, for they will not be able to take their transfer value with them, because there are no societies in our Colonies which now give a corresponding right to us. But if the Clause is amended as I suggest, an emigrant going to Canada or Australia, and who finds there a society which will allow the condition to be attached, that if his transferred value is paid over to them they will give it back if he returns, it will not only encourage emigration but will also encourage return, and we do not penalise the man. I want to be fair to those who emigrate and to those who wish to return. If you insist upon the Clause as it is, all the Colonial societies will have to alter their rules and regulations, which is a complicated matter and would involve considerable delay before the emigrants could get advantage of the Clause at all.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I wish we could have some expression of opinion from the Government on the interesting

  581
  suggestion of the hon. Member below the gangway (Mr. O'Grady), who informed us of the practice in his own society. I rather gathered that he was not much inclined to approve the Amendment, but he suggested that possibly the practice of his society might conveniently be adopted by the Committee as being the practice to be embodied in the Bill. That practice was that they allowed a period to elapse before the emigrant's right in the transfer value was cancelled, and if he returned during that period of years then he took up his membership at once with the full benefit. That is a very important statement, and I do not think we ought to pass from the matter without some expression of opinion from the Government on the subject.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The reason why I had not intervened is because it seemed to me that the point made by the right hon. Gentleman does not in any way touch the Amendment. I listened with great interest to the suggestions and observations made by the hon. Member (Mr. O'Grady), which I noted for possible future use. The Clause deals with a person who ceases to be permanently resident in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: He ceases to be permanently resident here. The case raised by the hon. Member is of a man who ceases to be permanently resident here and becomes temporarily resident elsewhere, and then comes back again.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That point was decided by the Chairman when we began to discuss the Amendment. He said it would have to come in as a new Clause. The whole point to which we must devote attention is whether or not we intend to accept the Amendment? I quite appreciate and sympathise with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but it really does not arise upon this Amendment.
  Mr. O'GRADYI do not know who is in fault in this matter, but I raised the point in connection with the Amendment. I understood the point was that the Amendment dealt with men who emigrated to Colonies and desired to come back again.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: May I point out that the Amendment is not confined to those who wish to return, but is applicable to all emigrants. Under the Clause no emigrant can take with him his transfer
  582
  value to any society overseas unless that society has a regulation which we all know it has not got.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not the effect of this Clause under the ruling which I gave at the beginning. The question of an emigrant being able to withdraw his transfer value if he does not join a similar society, must be brought up in the form of a new Clause. It could not be comprehended within this Clause.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: If I understand the Clause aright, unless in the overseas Dominions, societies can be found whose rules and regulations permit of this corresponding benefit being given to any emigrant from this country so that he can take out with him his transfer value, he is penalised and robbed because these societies have not the necessary rules and regulations. He is robbed of what he possesses in this country if he emigrates to one of the overseas Dominions. I want to prevent that. My Amendment covers all emigrants, and enables them to search about in their new home for a society which will agree that, if they wish to return, a corresponding right will be given to them.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: There are societies in the Colonies and the United States that do this now. Take my own society. We have branches in New Zealand, Canada, the United States, Australia, and South Africa. Anybody who went to one of these places would have credited to him in the books of the society a transfer value that stood in his name. If he came back that transfer value would be standing to his credit. If necessary, it would be transferred to our branches in the Colonies or America. There is no difficulty so far as we are concerned, because we should transfer on paper. Of course, it is a question of international arrangement if you are going to induce foreign societies to come to some arrangement with us. The Engineers' and the Carpenters' and Joiners' Societies are trade unions that have branches in every country. They simply transfer on paper, and the transfer value would be here if the man came back.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 140.

  Division No. 351.]

  AYES.

  [6.30 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

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

  O'Malley, William

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Alden, Percy

  Hayward, Evan

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

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

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Barnes, George N.

  Hinds, John

  Pointer, Joseph

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Hudson, Walter

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

  Black, Arthur W.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

  Boland, John Plus

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Johnson, William

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Brace, William

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Reddy, Michael

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Joyce, Michael

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Keating, Matthew

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cameron, Robert

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lansbury, George

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Rowlands, James

  Chancellor, Henry George

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

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Clough, William

  Leach, Charles

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

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

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Sheehy, David

  Crumley, Patrick

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  McGhee, Richard

  Shortt, Edward

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Dawes, J. A.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Devlin, Joseph

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dillon, John

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Doris, William

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Martin, J.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Falconer, James

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wardle, George J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Watt, Henry A.

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Webb, H.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Mooney, John J.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Morgan, George Hay

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Munro, Robert

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Neilson, Francis

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

  Hackett, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds. West)

  O'Dowd, John

  Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

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

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Barnston, Harry

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

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

  584

  585

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Foster, Phlnp Staveley

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Nield, Herbert

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  O'Brien, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  O'Grady, James

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Grant, J. A.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Bird, Alfred

  Guiney, P.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

  Boyton, James

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bull, Sir William James

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Butcher, John George

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Campion, W. R.

  Hills, J. W.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hoare, S. J. G.

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cassel, Felix

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

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

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Clyde, James Avon

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Crean, Eugene

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Croft, Henry Page

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

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

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

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

  Falle, B. G.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Fell, Arthur

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Younger, Sir George

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Mount, William Arthur

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Forster, Henry William

  Newman, John R. P.

  Dr. Chapple and Sir G. Baring.

  Mr. POLLOCK: I rise to move, after the word "in" ["becoming resident in the United Kingdom"], to insert the words "or returning to."
  This is the Amendment which I indicated when we were discussing the matter previously before the Committee. The Attorney-General will see that Clause 26 really breaks into two parts. First of all, you are dealing with the case of an insured person who ceases to be permanently resident in the United Kingdom and then becomes a member of any society established in a British possession or a foreign country. In reference to these institutions, that is to say, foreign or Colonial institutions, the Insurance Commissioners, before they allow any transfer of the transfer value, are to be satisfied that the society, institution or branch in the foreign country or Colony in question, gives corresponding rights to any of its members (those are the members who are domiciled in the Colonies or foreign countries) becoming resident in the United Kingdom. The last Amendment has been negatived, and we still have to deal with the case of an Englishman who goes to a foreign
  586
  country and comes back, and for that purpose it is not sufficient to have a test as to whether or not the foreign or Colonial society or institution gives to its members certain rights when they become residents in the United Kingdom. That is not enough. You want to be quite certain that the men who are domiciled as Englishmen and who go abroad have got the right, and will be given by the institution that they join abroad on their once more becoming resident in the United Kingdom, the same full rights that foreign or Colonial members of a foreign or Colonial society are given.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman handed this in during the last Division, and I waited to hear his explanation. It is clear to me now that this is the same question that was raised then. I cannot see from anything that he has advanced any new question in it. Of course, we cannot go back on a question already decided.
  Mr. POLLOCK: On the last Amendment the question was whether the word proposed to be left out should stand part

  587
  of the Clause. Assuming that those words stand part, my Amendment is in order to make it quite clear that the word "members" includes not merely foreign members of foreign institutions, but also domiciled Englishmen who have been abroad and are returning. I accept the result of the last Division, but I want to have it perfectly clear that the word "members" includes persons who are returning.
  The CHAIRMAN: The effect of carrying this Amendment would be the same as if the other Amendment had been carried. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not yet shown me anything to the contrary. I will hear him further if he wishes.
  Mr. POLLOCK: My object in moving the Amendment is to prevent any possible doubt as to who are the members referred to. The members, as the Clause stands, are the members of the foreign society. I want to make it clear that they shall include the persons who come back after residence in a foreign country.
  The CHAIRMAN: That would be done under the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member (Dr. Chapple). The next Amendment is covered by the ruling I have given.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I submit that the first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton is not covered by your previous ruling.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member (Mr. Lees Smith) signified that he did not desire to move.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I should like to move it unless it is covered by your previous ruling.
  The CHAIRMAN: Is not that the same as the one standing in the names of the hon. Members (Mr. Baird, Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Captain Clive)?
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If that is to be moved, it will do.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is one with which I have dealt. It is the same point and is covered. It ought to be matter for a new Clause.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I submit that it is the natural following on of two such Clauses that we have already dealt with? This proposed Amendment is
  588
  to allow a member of an approved society who goes abroad and does not join a foreign or Colonial society to remain a voluntary member of his home society, and it seems to me it is the natural consequence, and, therefore, that it is desirable to consider it while we have the discussion fresh in our minds. It really carries out, to some extent, the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite, and, to some extent, follows the practice of the societies we have heard spoken of.
  The CHAIRMAN: The first one is to allow a member to become a voluntary contributor in an existing friendly society if he goes abroad, but shall cease to have any claim upon moneys provided by Parliament. It does not seem to me to be necessary to enact that. If, on the other hand, he can claim transfer value from the society, then that is covered by the ruling I gave at the beginning.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is not that he would retain transfer value for all time. It is that transfer value standing at his credit should be transferred to the voluntary side of the friendly society, and that he should remain possessed of that transfer value. I submit that if we have not that inserted in this Clause now, but are to have it in a new Clause, then nearly all the discussion we have had will be repeated. I submit that it is for the convenience of the Committee we should dispose of that matter now. It will not take any time now.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is exactly as I have stated, and that is the reason why it seems to me to be included in the decision I gave at the beginning.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think before we part with the Clause we ought at least to have some statement as to what are the intentions of the Government. Do they regard this Clause as dealing completely with the subject raised, or do they mean to bring up a new Clause dealing with matters which we cannot deal with under the Amendments to this Clause in view of the ruling you have given? That really very much affects the position of the Clause. I do not ask at this stage that the Government should state exactly what they will do. That, I take it, would be trespassing on the ground which you desire should be reserved for another occasion. But I

  589
  think we ought to know whether the Government intend to take up the threads of this discussion and weave them into a new Clause, or whether in their mind this Clause is complete, and is the only solution they mean to offer spontaneously during the progress of the Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We will consider these points again, and if we find it necessary, we will put in words to meet the case.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As the Clause now stands I shall vote against it, because it seems to me extremely unfair. I do not want to go over ground which we are barred from going over because the Amendments which we wish to propose are to be dealt with in a new Clause, but surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give us a rather stronger indication of the Government's intention. They put down this Clause, and it seems to me that they should say how they are prepared to defend it, or amend it. There has been fencing, but no real defence of the Clause as it stands. I think most Members of the Committee feel that it is not complete. There are a large number of cases left out of consideration altogether, and if this is to be the final decision of the Government as to the transfer value due to people who go abroad or to our Colonies, then I think it is so incomplete and unsatisfactory that I shall have to vote against it. But I should like the Government to say something more definite on the various points which have been discussed.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot give any further promise, for I must consider the matter very carefully. This may be an imperfect attempt to deal with the subject, and I would like to consider the matter further in view of what has been said in the course of the discussion. Beyond that I cannot go. I think it would be wise to allow us to get this Clause now. It may eventually turn out to be of considerable value in connection with the question of insurance. At present I do not think there is any statutory insurance in any part of the Colonies, font if they established insurance schemes, this Clause would give reciprocal power in dealing with insured persons under this scheme and Colonial schemes.
  Mr. FORSTER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable to say whether or not there is real substance in the points which have been put forward. I want to state
  590
  briefly the reason why we are not satisfied with the Clause as it stands. The right hon. Gentleman says it is the first attempt to establish reciprocal arrangements with the Colonies and foreign countries in regard to insurance; but we say that his attempt to establish reciprocal relations is bound to break down, because under the terms of the Clause you can only give the right to emigrants to take their transfer values with them if they join societies which give similar advantages to their own members. There is no society in any one of the Colonies or in any foreign country which gives such a right or has such transfer values to give.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: There are such societies.
  Mr. FORSTER: I understand that the hon. Gentleman refers to foreign branches of the same union, and that is totally different. One of the reasons why we are not satisfied with the Clause as it stands is that there are no oversea societies that have these transfer values to give to their members. The people who emigrate from this country may have contributed for a considerable number of years to societies in this country, and although there is some offer to them of the opportunity to take their transfer values under the Bill, that offer will be inoperative when they wish to make use of it. It may simply mean that our people, so far from being empowered to take their transfer values with them, will be condemned to forfeit their transfer values for the simple reason that they will not be able to find oversea societies which will be able to give them reciprocal advantages. We are very reluctant to divide against the Clause, but we do hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give us some more definite assurance than we have yet got with regard to this matter.
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman opposite has taken up the attitude which he has done in regard to this Clause. It is quite clear that such a Clause as this, which looks into the future, cannot be complete in itself. But surely it is an instance of the credit which is due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has looked ahead and kept in view the great opportunity for developing a scheme of this kind. The hon. Gentleman says it will break down because there is no society in the Colonies or in foreign countries that can give reciprocal advantages. How does he know

  591
  that there will not be societies established when the British Parliament enacts this Bill and makes the offer to societies in the Colonies and foreign countries that we are prepared to give reciprocal advantages in connection with transfers? They will be the first to respond to the action of this Parliament, and in all probability great opportunities will be afforded for the insured in this country and for societies in other countries to build up on this Clause a great extended system of insurance for at all events the whole of the British Empire. That is what I understand to be the object of this Clause. How can we be asked here or during the progress of the Bill, when we are giving the opportunity for 15,000,000 to come in, to make this Clause watertight and perfect? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because it is asking too much under the Bill. At this stage what is essential is that we should make watertight and secure the essential parts of the Bill. We should make provision for building up other watertight parts in the future. We should make clear what is the intention of Parliament when this Bill passes into law. We should make clear that it is intended not only to cover the ground to-day, but to leave opportunities for covering the ground in a far wider direction. I think we should make a great mistake, if we did anything to weaken the inference to be drawn from this Clause, that the Colonies and foreign countries can come into line with us in the matter of insurance.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman has informed us that the Clause is essential, and also that it is not watertight.
  Sir E. CORNWALL: I said we are not bound to make it watertight.
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation that the Clause is essential, and that the Government are not bound to make it watertight because it would be so difficult to do that in a Bill of this kind. The result of that explanation is that the Clause is unnecessary. Here is an hon. Gentleman who is going to vote for a Clause which he himself has told the Committee is unnecessary. He says that this is a bait to foreign countries. We are going to show foreign countries what great people we are. They are going to avail themselves of the opportunity embodied in this Clause, which is not watertight, and cannot be made watertight, and is not essential to the Bill. There can be
  592
  but one conclusion which every Member who has listened to the hon. Member must have come to. That is, he must vote against the Clause. If he desires to bring foreign countries into line, the matter should be proposed to foreign countries not in a little Clause of this description, which probably foreign countries will not see, but proposed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Then when there is something to go on, we can devote our time next Session to a Bill embodying these ideas. The fact is that that Clause is put in to delude the working classes, and to be used upon platforms. So if anybody says, "What is going to happen to a man in ten or twelve years who has been paying into an insurance scheme and then goes abroad, as owing to the action of a Free Trade Government he can find no work in England?" it can be said, "Oh, there is one Clause in the Bill which provides that if there is a foreign society," which the promoters of the Bill know perfectly well there is not, "that will take them in, and, if the Insurance Commissioners, after consultation, say that this foreign society is approved by them, then the man may be able to get some return for money which he has paid in." It is merely a window-dressing Clause, and I hope that my hon. Friends below the Gangway who are interested in the Bill will divide against it.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown, as the hon. Member opposite (Sir E. Cornwall) says, that in drafting this Clause he is looking to the future, which may be a very distant future, which we cannot affect or hasten. I have not the least objection to the Chancellor of the Exchequer looking to the distant future. On the contrary, the more he does so the better. But that is no reason for forgetting the present. It is quite clear from his observations that he had in his mind the possibility of establishing reciprocity with the British Dominions. The Clause is one which attempts to establish reciprocity with all the world, but it is clear he was thinking in the main of the Dominions, because it is there we hope that the great bulk of our emigrants will go in increasing numbers, and all of us desire that they should go and develop the Dominions rather than become citizens of foreign countries. He has had in mind the idea that, partly influenced by the example of this Government, the Parliaments of those Dominions may at some future time establish similar schemes, and he has prepared

  593
  the way for reciprocity when they have established a similar scheme under legislative conditions. That is a future that is very proper to deal with, but it is an uncertain future. Meantime, a great many go abroad, and this Clause will have borne no fruit.
  The hon. Member asked why should we attempt to make this Clause workable, or to provide for everything when we are asking 15,000,000 people to come in. Is not that the very reason why we should give every attention to it, especially as we are not asking fifteen millions to come in, but are telling them that they shall come in whether they will or not. That makes a difference. Hitherto a man has insured himself as he liked, with the knowledge that if he went abroad, unless there were special arrangements, he would forfeit his reserve value. Now you say, "You shall come in; this reserve value accumulates for your benefits as long as you are there, but unless you can fulfil a condition which at the present time you cannot fulfil, you shall forfeit your reserve value." I am very reluctant to vote against the Clause, because it is imperfect, provided that the Chancellor of the Exchequer sees clearly how imperfect it is, and provided that, having heard of the discussion which we had in his absence, he really will set himself to deal with the present necessities of the case, and not content himself with some Clause that will only be workable when the Parliaments of the Dominions have passed legislation similar to that which we are considering to-day. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might admit that there is a gap in his Bill, and that, he will make some proposal to deal with it and not leave us without some assurance that the Government will make a proposal of the kind that is required.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I really do not know that I can go beyond what has been said in the Debate. Just now I am busy preparing the Papers which the right hon. Gentleman himself asked for, I have heard something of what happened, and I do not think that really I can be expected to go beyond this. There is a great thing in what my hon. Friend (Sir E. Cornwall) said that, after all, all you can do really is to put this out in the form of a general offer to the Colonies, and when they come to consider it, they will have a good many reciprocal suggestions, and in formulating an arrangement between the parties they will make certain suggestions which they will put in the form of a Bill. I have no
  594
  doubt at all then that we would make further suggestions to them which would be in the form of an amending Bill when that comes. This is much more than the nature of an offer than it is in the form of a definite and final arrangement, and it must necessarily be so, because the final offer must correspond to the terms to which they suggest to us. I hope that finally this will carry out a reciprocable arrangement and an international arrangement for the benefit of people who go from this country to the Colonies, and even to other countries. But I think when the time comes for that it must be on the basis of considering this as a general offer to begin with. You cannot really lay down a series of proposals now. There are a great many things which we cannot possibly foresee, and I will be very glad to consider suggestions made, but I have only done this because the right hon. Gentleman made an appeal to me on that particular line.
  Mr. O'GRADY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has failed to grasp the point. I quite agree that in the future schemes may become interchangeable between ourselves and the Colonies. Meantime what is going to happen? Year after year there are thousands of men who are driven out into the Colonies for some reason or other, and as far as this Clause is concerned at present those men will be robbed of what they have paid into the Insurance Fund. They cannot take their transfer value with them.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What are they getting now?
  Mr. O'GRADY: They are not compulsorily insured now. The Chancellor should remember that after all there are thousands of men going out into the Colonies who will remain there for a certain period of time, but will come back again. I think that those men's transfer values ought to be safeguarded. We ought to pay the men out the transfer value or we ought to allow a certain period of years to elapse, so that when the men come back again they may come back into their own society and pass into full benefits; and I think therefore the request for a new Clause is a very reasonable one, and that the Chancellor ought to deal with it on those grounds.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There is one extra alternative, that the man should be allowed to remain a member of his friendly society or trade union as a

  595
  voluntary member. If the Chancellor can give us an undertaking that for the existing member of an approved society who is to be compulsorily insured, and is therefore not at all on all-fours with the present-day practice, one of those alternatives will be adopted by the Government, I should be satisfied. Unless something of that sort is done my view is that this Clause as it stands is robbery, and I will vote against it.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILE: With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the Committee must be surprised at the changed attitude which he has taken up within the last few minutes. When the right hon. Gentleman rejoined the Committee about half an hour ago he told us he wanted first of all to satisfy himself that there had been real substance underlying the Debate. He had not the advantage which most of us have had of hearing the Debates, but no unbiassed person could have listened to the material that has been placed before us without realising that there is real grievance underlying this, which was emphasised by the hon. Member below the Gangway a moment ago. The right hon. Gentleman must have long since satisfied himself that there was real substance in the objections to this Clause. Yet now he comes forward shifting his ground entirely, and says, "It is true that the Clause is a sketchy Clause and not a complete Clause. Then what can you expect under the circumstances? We throw this out as a sort of challenge to the whole world, so that at some future time it may serve as a basis on which it can be taken up." The whole attitude of the right hon. Gentleman is extremely unsatisfactory, and I hope the trade unions and friendly societies will realise that under the sketchy arrangement of the right hon. Gentleman their members are, as the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. O'Grady) has said, going to be robbed of their contributions. They are forced to make these contributions, and, having made them under compulsion, they are not to be allowed, even if they go abroad, to retain any hold on them. No portion of them is ever handed back. An arrangement at the present moment existing satisfactorily in trade unions and friendly societies is to be destroyed. An hon. Member below the Gangway opposite mentioned that in his society there was no limit, and that a man's contributions remained to his credit wherever he might
  596
  be, and he could take up his benefit whenever he returned home. I think the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman most reprehensible, and I hope that the Committee will emphasise their entire disapproval of the sketchy way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has dealt with the matter by voting against the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. BAIRD: The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) said, as I understand, that his chief objection was that in Germany no compensation was given, and there was no arrangement of the kind. I trust I understood him correctly. I should like to ask him whether a man moving from Canada to Bavaria—
  Mr. BOOTH: May I say to the hon. Member that that was not the purport of my remark.
  Mr. BAIRD: This Clause on the face of it purports to introduce some sort of reciprocity, some form of common action between the Mother-country and the Colony, which existed throughout the German Empire, and any allusion to the German systems of insurance which ignored that fact cannot give a correct interpretation of the existing state of things in that country. So long as we call ours an Imperial Parliament we should endeavour to deal with the Empire as a whole, and to suggest that this reciprocity is not an essential part of the Bill is indeed to ignore the importance of the Imperial issue. I must vote against anything which discourages reciprocity. It must be real reciprocity, and the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls it real reciprocity does not lead me to accept it as such. In order that a beginning might be made with reciprocity it was necessary that the Amendments we proposed, none of which were accepted, should have been received. As it is, the Clause stands unamended. So far from giving reciprocity it will cause laughter and ridicule throughout the Empire wherever it is read and wherever it is represented as some means of drawling the bond of union closer between the Mother-country and the colonies. It is going by the name of reciprocity without being reciprocity, and you cannot call it actual reciprocity unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer modifies it. I should like to make one last appeal to hon. Members on the Government Benches. We have had three great suggestions, very simple and straightforward, to improve this Clause in

  597
  such a manner as to make it a real reciprocity. Those proposals were rejected without the Chancellor of the Exchequer vouchsafing any remark to show the reason of their rejection. I do not think that is the proper way in which to carry on a discussion of this character. Our suggestions were brought forward in actual good faith, and with a desire to improve the Clause. They were received in silence and without any remark being vouchsafed at all, so that the Government showed that they did not intend to have any discussion on this point, or that they are against reciprocity. They refused the introduction of any Amendment of the Clause which would bring about a reciprocity.
  Mr. AMERY: I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there is any real objection to notifying the Colonies, through the Imperial Secretariat, that whenever they are in a position to give us reciprocity we are prepared to meet them by introducing an amending Bill making that possible, and meanwhile one or other of the suggestions should in justice be adopted to meet fairly people who, by hundreds of thousands, are leaving this country.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 148.

  Division No. 352.]

  AYES.

  [7.25 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lough, Rt. Hon Thomas

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Falconer, J.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Adamson, William

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lundon, T.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lynch, A. A.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Alden, Percy

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  McGhee, Richard

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Glanville, H. J.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Goldstone, Frank

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Barnes, G. N.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough

  M'Callum, John M.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

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

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

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Boland, John Plus

  Hackett, J.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Martin, J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Brace, William

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Brady, P. J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Meagher, Michael

  Brunner, J. F. L.

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

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

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Harwood, George

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mooney, J. J.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hayward, Evan

  Morgan, George Hay

  Cameron, Robert

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morrell, Philip

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

  Munro, R.

  Cassel, Felix

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Neilson, Francis

  Clough, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hudson, Walter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Dowd, John

  Cotton, William Francis

  Johnson, W.

  Ogden, Fred

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Malley, William

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Keating, M.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Kelly, Edward

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

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

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Dillon, John

  Law, Hugh A.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Doris, W.

  Leach, Charles

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Pringle, William M. R.

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Sheehy, David

  Watt, Henry A.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Webb, H.

  Reddy, M.

  Shortt, E.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Summers, J. W.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Tennant, Harold John

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

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  Rowlands, James

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

  Wadsworth, J.

  Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Newman, John R. P.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Baird, J. L.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  O'Brien, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Grant, J. A.

  O'Grady, James

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Greene, W. R.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gretton, John

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Guiney, P.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Barnston, H.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Perkins, Walter F.

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

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

  Bird, A.

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hohler, G. F.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Campion, W. R.

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

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

  Jowett, F. W.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Kirkwood, J. H. M.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lansbury, George

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Crean, Eugene

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

  Croft, H. P.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Weigall, Capt A. G.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Wood, John (Stalybrdge)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Worthington-Evans, Laming

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

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

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  McCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Falle, B. G.

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Younger, Sir George

  Fell, Arthur

  Macmaster, Donald

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Mr. W. Peel and Mr. Pollock.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  And it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 25th October, successively to put forthwith the Questions
  600
  on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at

  601
  half-past Seven of the clock at this day's sitting.

  CLAUSE 27.—(Prohibition Against Double Insurance.)
  A person shall not be or attempt to become a member for the purposes of this part of this Act of more than one approved society at the same time, or, being a deposit contributor to, become at the same time a member for the purposes of this part of this Act of an approved society, but nothing in this Act shall prevent any person who is a member of an approved society or a deposit contributor under this part of this Act becoming a member of the same or any other society independently of this Act, or affect the right of an approved society to reject or expel from membership any person not being an insured person, or the rights or liabilities of an approved society or of any member thereof arising otherwise than under this part of this Act; and, subject to the provisions of this part of this Act, all rules made by an approved society or any branch thereof shall remain and be of the same force and effect as though this Act had not been passed:
  Provided that where an insured person is a member of an approved society or a Post Office contributor under this part of this Act, and is also a member of a society independently of this Act, and the sums payable to him by way of benefit under this part of this Act, and independently of this Act, would exceed his wages or other remuneration, the benefits payable to him under this part of this Act shall be reduced by the amount of the excess.
  Amendment made: Leave out the words "Provided that where an insured person is a member of an approved society or a Post Office contributor under this part of this Act, and is also a member of a society independently of this Act, and the sums payable to him by way of benefit under this part of this Act, and independently of this Act, would exceed his wages or other remuneration, the benefits payable to him under this part of this Act shall be reduced by the amount of the excess."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

  CLAUSE 28.—(Approved Societies to Keep Proper Accounts.)

    ACCOUNTS: VALUATIONS: SURPLUS AND DEFICIT.
    (1) Every approved society and every branch of an approved society must—

    (a) Keep its books and accounts under this part of this Act separate from
    602
    all other books and accounts of the society or branch, and in such form as may be prescribed by the Insurance Commissioners, and, when required, submit them to audit by auditors to be appointed by the Treasury;

    (b) Submit to have its assets and liabilities under this part of this Act valued in accordance with the provisions of this part of this Act;

    (c) In the event of a surplus or deficiency being shown upon any such valuation, comply with the provisions relating to surpluses and deficiencies hereinafter contained;

    (d) Render such returns as the Insurance Commissioners may prescribe.

    (2) The provisions of this part of this Act relating to accounts audit, valuation, and returns shall as respects the transactions of any approved society or branch thereof under this part of this Act be substituted for such of the provisions of any Act regulating the constitution of the society or branch as deal with the like matters.
    Amendments made: At the end of paragraph (d), Sub-section (1), insert the following words:—
    "(2) Regulations made under this section shall provide for a separate account being kept showing the amount expended on administration, and for limiting the amount which may be carried to that account out of the contributions under this part of this Act, and for requiring any deficiency in such account (if not otherwise defrayed) to be met forthwith by a special levy."
    After Sub-section (2) insert the words:—
    "(3) In the case of a society or branch transacting other business besides that of insurance business under this part of this Act, all funds and credits of the society or branch under this part of this Act shall be as absolutely the security of the members for the purposes of this Act as if they belonged to a society or branch carrying on no other business than such insurance business, and shall not be liable for any contracts of the society or branch for which they would not have been liable had the business of the society or branch been only that of such insurance, and shall not be applied directly or indirectly for any purposes other than those of insurance business under this part of this Act.

    603
    "Where a separate section of a society has been established and such separate section is an approved society under this part of this Act, the expression 'society' in this Sub-section means the society of which the separate section has been established and not the separate section."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

    CLAUSE 29.—(Valuations of Approved Societies.)
    (1) A valuation of the assets and liabilities arising under this part of this Act of every approved society and of every branch of an approved society 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 appoint.
    (2) Every such valuation shall be made on such basis as may be prescribed:
    Provided that it shall be assumed for the purposes of such valuation—

    (a) that the approved society or branch liable to pay the proportion of the benefits administered by the society, and of the cost of the administration of those benefits which is payable out of the contributions payable by or in respect of the members, that is to say, seven-ninths, or in the case of women, three-fourths, of such benefits and cost;

    (b) that the rate at which interest is to be calculated is three per cent. per annum.

    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "by" ["by the Treasury"], insert the words "or with the approval of."
    In Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), after the word "branch" ["approved society or branch"], insert the word "is."
    Leave out paragraph (b).—[Mr. Lloyd George.

    CLAUSE 30.—(Surplus.)
    (1) If upon any such valuation a surplus (certified by the valuer to be disposable) is found, the following provisions shall apply:—

    (a) If the society is a society with branches, the surplus shall, subject to the provisions of the next succeeding Section of this Act, be applied in the first instance in making good any deficiency shown by any of its branches:

    604

    (b) Subject as aforesaid, the society may submit to the Insurance Commissioners a scheme for distributing out of such surplus any one or more additional benefits among insured persons who are members thereof, and upon any such scheme being sanctioned by the Insurance Commissioners the society may distribute such additional benefit or benefits in accordance with the provisions-thereof:

    (c) If on the valuation of a branch of an approved society a surplus is shown in respect of such branch, there shall be transferred to the central body or other central authority of the society of which it is a branch one half of the surplus, and the branch may itself, or through the society, submit to the Insurance Commissioners a scheme for distributing out of the remaining one half of such surplus any one or more additional benefits, and upon any such scheme being sanctioned by the Insurance Commissioners, the branch may distribute such additional benefit or benefits in accordance with the provisions thereof:

    (d) If at any time after a scheme submitted by a society has been so sanctioned as aforesaid there is found to be a deficiency in the funds of the society or of any of its branches which the society is required to make good, or if at any time after a scheme submitted by or on behalf of a branch has been so sanctioned as aforesaid there has been found to be a deficiency in the funds of the branch, no additional benefits shall be distributed under the scheme until such deficiency is extinguished and a surplus shown.

    (2) A scheme made under this section may prescribe the conditions to be complied with as respects any additional benefit conferred by the scheme, and every such scheme shall so far as practicable provide for the reduction, suspension, or deprivation of the additional benefits conferred by the scheme in the case of members who are in arrears, and may make a corresponding reduction in the amount to which such members are to be deemed to be in arrears for the purpose of reckoning the rate of sickness benefit.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the

    605
    word "valuer" ["certified by the valuer"], and to insert instead thereof the word "actuary."
    It is not at all clear whether the person to be appointed is going to be a Government official or whether some qualified person who now works for the friendly societies will be able to do that work in future. The calculations that would have to be carried out will be enormously complicated. Let me give just one instance, and that is the case of surpluses and deficiencies. The valuer or actuary will have to make up his mind whether a surplus exists or whether there is a deficiency, and it will be extremely important for the future of the insured persons in the societies, because it may lead either to increased contributions or to reduced benefits. In reply to an inquiry addressed to Sir G. H. Ryan, who is President of the Institute of Actuaries, the following was received:—
    "In reply to your letter, I beg to say it is the wish of the council of the Institute of Actuaries that the words 'qualified actuary' should be substituted for 'valuer.' I may add, looking at the complicated and responsible duties which will fall upon the technical advisers of the friendly societies under the operation of several Clauses in the Bill, the council of the Institute are of opinion that the public interest requires that such duties should only be entrusted to, and performed by persons with acknowleged qualification."
    I think the Committee will agree that no one is more qualified to give an opinion on the subject than Sir G. H. Ryan, and I think there is no necessity to add anything further.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: This matter has already been dealt with by the Amendment to Clause 29 introducing the words "or with the approval of." The word "valuer" is a word of wider interpretation than the word "actuary," and would be interpreted not only to cover "actuary" but also other kinds of valuers.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is the objection to it.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have no doubt in most cases actuaries would be employed, but there are cases in which the persons employed by some of the societies have not been actuaries, and the societies are satisfied with their work. The word "valuer" is the word used in the Friendly Societies Act, where the valuer has very much the same obligation as would be imposed under this Bill, and where he has to take into account not only assets but liabilities. He would have, therefore, to make actuarial calculations. We propose to keep the word "valuer" because we
    606
    think it meets the exigencies of the case. It is a little more elastic than the word "actuary," and we think it is better that we should have that elasticity under the Bill. In any circumstance the person to be appointed must be approved by the Treasury, and therefore you are not likely to have a person appointed who is not capable of making proper actuarial calculations and proper valuations. I would submit to the hon. Member that, bearing in mind the much wider application of the word "valuer," that he might well withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: In the Insurance Bill of 1909 dealing with small insurance companies of all kinds and description the Government inserted the word "actuary," and made it compulsory on all those companies after the 13th June of this year, and once again every five years, to be valued by an actuary. I should have thought that the Amendment was an exceedingly proper one under the circumstances, and that it is an actuary who should be appointed, unless the Government intend finding jobs for some of their friends who do not happen to have actuarial qualifications.
    Mr. SANDERSON: I think the Amendment is a very useful one, and that the Attorney-General has supplied the reasons. He says they want a man who must be a valuer used to making actuarial calculations. I think that the way to bring that about would be to insert the word "actuary," as he is a person generally used to making actuarial calculations. He suggests that the object is to give elasticity in the Clause. I think the hon. Member who moved this Amendment showed that the object of it was not to give elasticity, but to provide that a really competent person should be apponited to look after the accounts of the friendly society. The Amendment is brought forward in the interests of friendly societies and their members, who at present employ actuaries to audit their accounts. Another argument used by the Attorney-General was that he wanted a man who would deal not only with the liabilities, but with the assets. Does he really suggest that an actuary is not capable of dealing with assets as well as liabilities? The arguments brought forward against the Amendment do not commend themselves to my mind. We are anxious that there should be appointed a man really capable of carrying out the object of this Clause, and nobody but a person so capable.
    Mr. FORSTER: I would much rather have the word "actuary" than the word "valuer." There is, however, a great deal of force in the argument of the Attorney-General that the word "valuer" is actually in the Friendly Societies Act at the present time, and covers the official who advises friendly societies under existing conditions. I was anxious that the word "actuary" should be used in order to make quite certain that the practice now obtaining among friendly societies of securing distinguished actuaries to advise them and make their calculations should continue. I know that the Manchester Unity are particularly anxious to be able to continue to enjoy the services of the distinguished actuary who now acts for them, and, if we have an assurance that the present practice may continue, I do not think the Amendment need be insisted on.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I can only say again that the word "valuer" covers "actuary."
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Will the Attorney-General give an assurance that the societies who now enjoy the services of distinguished actuaries will not be interfered with?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I thought that that followed. If a society employs an actuary, and the word "valuer" covers "actuary," the society may continue to employ an actuary.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is it not the fact that the valuer or actuary must be appointed by or with the approval of the Treasury? Therefore if the Treasury do not approve of the present actuary of a society they can refuse to sanction his appointment. It is another case where the economy of the societies is so far interfered with that their actuary must be approved by the Treasury.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The societies do not think that we are interfering with them, as they wished an Amendment to be put down.
    Mr. BOOTH: The word "actuary" used in the manner proposed has no meaning whatever. If the hon. Member suggested a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries there might be some force in the term, but seeing that every insurance company has an actuarial department in which they have a large number of clerks who call themselves actuaries, I do not see any meaning at all in the Amendment.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would be quite willing to substitute the words "a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries." I hope that care will be taken so that the actuaries who have served friendly societies so well in the past will be able to continue so to do.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) paragraph (a), after the word "surplus" ["If the society is a society with branches, the surplus shall, etc.,"] to insert the words "in any central fund."
    This Amendment is really consequential upon an Amendment guillotined on a previous Clause. We ought, if possible, to connect branches according to the amount of sickness and the rate of wages in the locality. Under the Bill surpluses will flow from branches with a surplus to branches with a deficiency, and the object of the former Amendment was to enable branches to group together so that they might keep the surpluses within a district or combination of districts. Under the Bill surpluses will flow from healthy districts to unhealthy districts. The healthy districts may be earning low wages and the unhealthy districts high wages, so that the surpluses may be continually flowing from the pockets of the small wage-earners into the pockets of the large wage-earners. I do not know whether it is possible for me to move the Amendment now.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I do not see why you should not move it now, because if it is accepted by the Government any necessary Amendments can be made on Report.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Government were not quite clear as to the intention of the hon. Member in putting this Amendment on the Paper. There is, however, a drafting point which we ought to meet. It it not quite clear what surplus is referred to in paragraph (a), and in regard to that I shall offer words which I hope will be satisfactory to the hon. Member. As to the question of grouping branches, I do not see how that arises. The hon. Member has later Amendments dealing with that very vital question. On that the Government propose to meet him and to allow such grouping, but we are advised that it can only be done by a short new Clause, which will be on the Paper in a day or two. That Clause will provide that the

    609
    system at present operative in the Manchester Unity shall be allowed to continue, that branches may be grouped and pool their surpluses in a "group central fund" apart from the main central fund. One great demand for that comes from Scotland, where they contend that they have less sickness in their branches than is the case in the English branches, and the Manchester Unity wish to continue their present system of pooling the Scottish branches. We are prepared to accept that system, but that does not involve this Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, to leave out the words "the surplus" ["If the society is a society with branches, the surplus shall, etc."], and to insert instead thereof the words "any surplus in the central fund of the society, including any surplus transferred from the branches to the society under the provisions of this section."
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It is not possible to go back to insert an Amendment after the word "branches" when you have allowed an Amendment to be moved after the word "surplus." If the Government were not alive to this difficulty before, they cannot deal with it now.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The other Amendment was withdrawn.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope the Government will tell us what this jumble of words really means. It is difficult to write the Amendment down, and still more difficult to read one's writing when it is written under these circum-stances. Apparently it refers to a surplus in the central fund. Is that surplus to be created by the branches direct or by the groups? If it is to be created by the groups, why is it to be applied to the deficiencies of the branches? Some explanation is certainly required before the Committee can vote on a complicated question of this sort.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: This is purely a drafting Amendment, and has nothing whatever to do with uniting societies. That we propose to deal with in the new Clause. The present Amendment is solely for the purpose of making it clear in paragraph (a) that the surpluses dealt with later on are the surpluses of the central society, and not the surpluses of the branches.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As I understand it, this is supposed to be a drafting Amendment, and it is a drafting Amendment in consequence of the new Clause—
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, no; no new Clause at all. It is just a drafting Amendment, and has nothing whatever to do with a new Clause.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member's explanation of this drafting Amendment may be all right, but he appeared to think it necessary to propose a new Clause, and I imagined that this had something to do with that. I confess personally I do not understand what it is. This half surplus which is going to make up the deficiency—that is the scheme of the Bill—is that to go from the branches direct to the central fund, or to some intermediate fund, which I think you are going to call a group fund? After it is given, is it going to be applied amongst the groups or amongst the branches?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: All we are dealing with is that we are making a drafting Amendment which, as my hon. Friend has explained, would be necessary whatever you do with the subsequent part of the Bill. It is simply an Amendment which has been rendered necessary in consequence of our seeing the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for South Wilts (Mr. C. Bathurst), by which we saw that it was desirable to make quite clear what is the surplus that you are dealing with. I am quite sure the hon. Member understands the thing quite as well as anybody.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I apologise to the Attorney-General for saying so, but at the present moment I do not understand.
    Mr. POLLOCK: The Attorney-General asks us to walk by faith and not by sight. What one wants to guard against is in adopting words which carry the purpose of the Committee rather further than the Committee understands, and which will prevent subsequent discussion. Formerly we had the words "a surplus." This is a surplus which comes from the branches. This introduces a very important matter indeed, because if it is contemplated that this surplus is to be drawn from the various branches into the central fund, it may be that there will be a steady flow of

    611
    money from some branches for the purpose of other branches. That introduces serious difficulties. These are words that the Committee should have an opportunity of discussing, but it must be remembered that under paragraphs (c) and (d) there are references to the question of a surplus or a deficiency. What we want to understand is that it is almost impossible to discuss this matter by merely what is called a drafting Amendment. This is the first time that we find arising the question of discussing surpluses arising from the branches. What we want to know at once is what branches are contributing to this surplus? Are we going to have surpluses drawn from the agricultural branches for the benefit of the industrial branches, or what is the scheme proposed? I ask the Attorney-General to give us a little more light and not merely ask us to accept this as a mere drafting Amendment, because it embodies very important alterations in the system as at present suggested.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I rather agree with my hon. Friend opposite that this ought to be treated as a drafting Amendment, but in fact the hon. Gentleman realises there are a considerable number of Amendments down to portions of the Clause on the following page dealing with the substance—that is the question of allocation. I am bound to say in the matter of drafting I cannot quite accept the hon. Gentleman's words as being an improvement on those of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. I imagine what he seeks to attain is some sort of parallel words to those found in Sub-section (c) "a surplus shown in respect of such branch." That refers to the surplus fund after the valuation of the branch in respect of such branch. Surely all it wants in that case is similar words. What I fear is that if these words which the hon. Gentleman has suggested are tacked on besides those which my hon. Friend has suggested it will prejudice to a large extent the discussion which will follow on the Amendments on the following page. I do at any rate appeal to the hon. Gentleman that if better words are all that he wants to achieve that he should leave it as a mere drafting Amendment in the way that I have suggested. Perhaps better would be the words "shows in respect of such society." We have already got the word "the" in part of the Clause, that is "the
    612
    surplus." If we referred back to "the surplus," not "any surplus," that would meet the case. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment in the form in which I suggest it.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: We have explained that it is purely a drafting Amendment. Whatever question there may be one way or another as to the exact wording, or whether our word may be better than a subsequent word, we have a preference for the words which we have ourselves here suggested, and I would ask the Committee to pass those words. This will not prejudice any discussion which will take place afterwards.
    Mr. FORSTER: May I appeal to the Attorney-General that the next time the Government admit that an Amendment which has been put down by any hon. Friend behind me makes it necessary for them to make a drafting Amendment to their own Bill that they will give us a little more notice of the form of the words that they propose?
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I desire to move, to add to paragraph (a) the words: "and subject thereto with the sanction of the Insurance Commissioners in the reduction of the contributions of its members." What this Clause proposes to do is, in the event of there being a surplus to the credit of the society, to apply it in the first instance in making good any deficiency shown by any of its branches. Secondly, you will find in paragraph (b), subject to such application, the society shall submit to the Commissioners a scheme for distributing additional benefits. There is a very strong feeling amongst agricultural labourers that the flat rate, to which reference has already been made, does impose very serious burdens upon them as compared with other classes of the community. What they ask is that if there is to be a flat rate at all, and if as a result of the flat rate and the enjoyment by them of a higher standard of health, there is to the credit of their country societies a substantial balance, that that balance, after wiping out the deficiencies in other branches of their own society, shall be applied—a very reasonable suggestion—in reducing their contributions, which are already very large, bearing in mind the small wage which they receive.
    I have had several representations made to me, as other Members representing

    613
    other agricultural constituencies, in favour of the reduction of contributions, if there is a balance available, rather than an increase of benefits, which in most cases will not be enjoyed by persons in the agricultural industry. If the Committee refers to the Schedule which sets out additional benefits they will find that they refer very largely to benefits consequent upon serious and prolonged illness, the kind of illness from which the agricultural labourer does not as a rule suffer. In spite of the hon. Member for Pontefract, I should be very glad if he were to try to make good his case in the agricultural district. I fancy he would find himself, not only very unpopular, but would find it very difficult to justify his arguments. It is perfectly true to say that the agricultural labourer is strongly in favour, if there is a surplus to the credit of his society, of being allowed as a result of that surplus to make a reduced contribution, instead of having so-called additional benefits. For these reasons I beg to move the addition of the words to which I referred.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member always puts his case so lucidly and so appealingly that it is sometimes difficult to argue against him. But I think in this case he is really cutting at the proposed scheme of the Bill as it stands at present. We have already passed the scheme of the Bill that 4d. shall be regarded as the insurance amount—
    Mr. C. BATHURST: With all respect, I should like to interrupt and say that I do not think we have passed that. That appears in the second Schedule, and we have had an undertaking from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if necessary it shall be reconsidered.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: All I meant to signify was that the whole discussion on the Bill, both in this House and in the country, has, up to the present, proceeded on the assumption that 4d. shall be required to meet that insurance. Any reduction of that amount would, if it came about, seem to be less desirable than the granting of additional benefits, which are in themselves exceedingly desirable, as much to the agricultural labourer as anybody else in the country. The hon Gentleman said that the Schedule of additional benefits does not provide anything very attractive to the agricultural labourer. Let me take one example—payment from the first day instead of the fourth day. I suppose
    614
    there is no class of men more than the aged agricultural labourer, whose chief complaint is chronic rheumatism, who would more desire payment from the first day—
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I have looked in vain for that additional benefit in the Schedule, and I cannot find it.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think it is in the Schedule and it is a very liberal suggestion; the hon. Member will not expect me, for the moment, to give him the exact reference in the Schedule, but if it is not in the Schedule, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised that it shall be one of the additional benefits. In that case I am glad to say that the force with which the hon. Member advocates this Amendment will be removed if we give benefits that will be attractive to this particular class. Any other benefit that the ingenuity of the hon. Member can devise which will be attractive to the agricultural labourer, and which might give him additional benefit, will be received favourably by the Government. We are anxious to make the Bill as attractive to the agricultural labourer as to any other. There is disagreement with the contention of the hon. Member, that the agricultural labourer will have less sickness in the long run to be paid for under the Bill than any other class.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I hope the hon. Gentleman does not desire to go into that question to-day, because I absolutely challenge the accuracy of his statement. We on this side of the House deny it.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I agree there is a difference, and we acknowledge the difference on account of his longevity. Probably in the long run it will be found it is as difficult to give large additional benefit in respect of the agricultural labourer as in that of any other in the country. Passing for the moment from the agricultural labourer, it would be exceedingly undesirable to have a series of varying rates of contribution by different classes of the community. It would throw very great responsibility and additional work upon the employer supposing he had many hundreds of persons in his employment belonging to different societies all paying different rates, and from all of which he has got to deduct different rates in accordance with the valuation that might take place for three years. We have already put upon the employer a small amount of

    615
    differentiation in connection with the compulsory levy Clause, and I think it would be unreasonable to throw more upon him.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: How would the employer be affected if this Amendment were adopted?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: He might have numbers of persons all paying different insurance rates or sums, which he will have to deduct at different times. Is not that so?
    Mr. C. BATHURST: There would be no difficulty about that. The indication would be given by the society to which a man belongs, if he is entitled to make smaller payments.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It would involve difficulty. There is complaint both here and in Germany, and the employers in Germany ask for one rate and additional benefits rather than that there should be a continual variation in the amounts paid for insurance. We are anxious to keep 4d. as the standard, because we believe that with this amount of insurance the additional benefits would still be exceedingly useful to those entitled to them. There is not an additional benefit that has been suggested that we should not like to include in the Bill if we could. There is no end of additional benefits, but additional benefits mean additional help from the Exchequer. The point about the lowering of the insurance rate is a point which has been considered very largely in connection with a certain class of labourers. I know that the hon. Gentleman could reply to me that there is this option in many local agricultural societies. On the other hand, we find agricultural labourers and others in comparatively low-rated counties, such as Norfolk, paying a larger amount than this 4d. per week, and willing to pay it. We think the labourer will be content to pay the amount and will be glad to get the additional benefits from that amount, and as experience has shown, this amount is not a costly sum to obtain from him.
    Mr. CASSEL: The object of this Clause is merely to give liberty to the societies. It is not to compel them to apply their surplus in reducing subscriptions; it is simply to give them an option. Take the case of a society which through good management has accumulated a surplus. Why should not that society be free to deal with it as it likes in the future,
    616
    either in increasing benefits or in reducing subscriptions? An hon. Gentleman opposite says it is. If that were so it would not be necessary to move this Amendment.
    Captain MURRAY: What about Clause 55?
    Mr. CASSEL: I do not think Clause 55 has anything to do with that at all. It only deals with the existing surpluses of existing friendly societies. That is entirely different from surpluses which may be accumulated in future by societies working this scheme. Why should not societies with surpluses accumulated in the future be at liberty to apply them one way or the other? Some people may find it suits them best to apply them in reducing subscriptions. Why should they not be at liberty to do that? A man is earning 15s. or 16s. a week, which, according to every standard, is barely a living wage, and he says instead of a deduction of 4d. off that wage, he would prefer to have the subscription reduced. If he says that, why should any autocratic bureaucracy of officials decide that the society shall not apply their surplus earnings from good management in that way? It is another instance of how the Government are uniformally imposing on every society their own scheme, and will not allow any society, even in regard to the surplus it gets through its own good management, to deal with it in the way it pleases, even though there is a possibility that it might put a little more trouble upon the employer. If you give as much trouble to the employer as you are giving by this Bill, why should you hesitate with this little additional one? Employers, if they are to have these burdens placed upon them at all, would not object to this one. I object to this on the same principle on which throughout I have objected to this Bill. From start to finish this measure is an interference with liberty of action; it is an interference from the time the society is born until finally it is given leave to commit suicide under the Insurance Bill. At every stage it is hampered, and here you have a case in which a society cannot deal in the way it likes with its own accumulated surplus.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Anyone who heard the arguments from the Government Bench must have wondered why there is not a stronger case to be made out in defence of the position taken up by the Government. A lamentably weak case has been made

    617
    out. If the hon. Member wants to know the opinions of the agricultural labourers as to whether they would prefer a reduced contribution or additional benefit, he should ask them. In the great bulk of agricultural districts I am sure the hon. Member would be told that under the present condition of wages they would far rather have the option of reduced contributions than increased benefits or fancy benefits which they do not require. In the case of Norfolk we have been told that no objection is made there by the agricultural labourers to paying larger contributions to their friendly societies than are required under this Bill. May I point out that the main object for which those contributions are paid in the country districts is for insurance against death, and that is a thing which this Bill does not touch. If you are going to allow an option of insuring against death the case would be different, but I am sure the Government are not going to do anything of the kind. If they were there would be some force in the contention which has been put forward. On these matters we all represent our constituents, and they put forward views which very often do not agree with the Government of the day. As far as my experience goes, what they all say is that the one thing they object to in this scheme is that no provision is made for death benefits. If the Government can assure us that death benefit is going to be included, then the hon. Member would have a much stronger case, but to say that the agricultural labourer prefers to have increased benefits rather than a reduction of his contribution is to say something which is not actually the fact. I do not think there is much in the argument that more trouble would be put upon the employers. When the Government proposed a compulsory levy, there was nothing said about the increased trouble to the employers and we were reminded of the argument used in the opposite direction at the earlier stage of this Bill. There is a strong case against this Amendment, and I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.
    Mr. BOOTH: I was glad to hear the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash, but I am surprised that in looking for consistency he should look for it in the House of Commons, because that is the last place I should think of looking for it. That argument ought not to weigh very much with hon. Members. Apparently, it is conceived by hon. Members opposite that
    618
    this proposal has something to do with the agricultural labourer and the farmer, but it has nothing whatever to do with them. It is assumed that there are going to be surpluses in agricultural districts and nowhere else, and one hon. Member hinted that there was practically going to be a transference of money from the poor agricultural districts into the richer artisan districts. A more grotesque idea as to how this Bill will operate I never heard. I have made what inquiries I can upon this subject, and I have consulted people who have statistics to guide them, and I am prepared to stand by my prophecy that if approved societies are formed separately for agricultural labourers they will find theselves doing very badly. Time will show whether the hon. Member opposite is right or myself. I have not made this statement without consulting statistics and authorities likely to know. The hon. Member must surely be aware that the great insurance companies of this country go into every street and hamlet and have access to information of the utmost importance on this subject. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite have consulted them, but I think if they had they would not have made the speeches which we have heard on this subject. I suggest that there is nothing in this Clause or in the Amendment to the Clause relating to agricultural districts at all.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I think the hon. Member is going entirely beyond the purport of this Amendment, but if he does make the statement that the experience of large friendly societies leads us to believe that agricultural sickness is as great as other industries, that is contrary to the tables of the Manchester Unity, from which this scheme is largely based.
    Mr. BOOTH: I knew very well the hon. Member would soon go off on to other ground, and he is going into past history which has nothing to do with this Bill. In the case he mentions they pay for sickness during accidents, and this scheme does not do that, and that alters the whole fabric of the scheme. What I was putting before the House was something quite germane. The claim put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite was that they were speaking on behalf of the agricultural districts, and if their argument does not rest upon that, then they have made out no case at all. The case put forward by them rests on the assumption that there is going to be something superior in agricultural

    619
    districts to that of the towns, and I do not admit that. I do not think they will be worse off, although I am afraid some of them may be, but I ask hon. Members to look upon them as a neutral position, and there is nothing in this proposal with regard to town or country. The hon. Member opposite has challenged my experience of rural districts. May I point out that I am a rural guardian. I know the hon. Member for Barkston Ash is the Master of the Foxhounds in the district in which I live, and he knows the agricultural districts thoroughly. I do not think, however, that he would claim that under the operation of this Bill there is going to be a great difference in the rate of sickness in the Barkston Ash Division. I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to listen to the arguments of the Minister who just now gave us his explanation. It it is all very well to say it was a lame explanation and expressions of that sort, and I am not concerned to defend either one Member of the Government or the other, but I think my hon. Friend who spoke for the Government made out a very straightforward case, and he did it in very respectful language.
    Mr. SANDERSON: May I point out to the hon. Member for Pontefract that the Amendment which has been put forward on this side of the House was supported by a very forcible speech by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, and, as far as I know, there is not an agriculturist in St. Pancras. It is a mistake to suppose that this Amendment is brought forward solely in the interests of the agricultural districts. It seemed to me from the speech made by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department that he regarded this proposal as coming from those representing only agricultural districts. But I do not think that is so. There may be a case why 4d. ought not to be paid by a certain class. I will take the agricultural labourer. The hon. Member says we are going to say to the agricultural labourers, "You must pay your 4d., but we will give you the opportunity of having additional benefits." Why should we say that? Why
    should we interfere if the agricultural labourer is content with the ordinary benefits set out in this Bill? As far as I can judge the benefits in the Bill are quite enough for the agricultural labourer, and what we want is to reduce the amount the labourers will be compelled to pay instead of increasing the benefits. Why in the world should the agricultural labourer not have that option? It is all very well for the Under-Secretary to say that the agricultural labourer in Norfolk at the present time is quite prepared to pay 4d.—he might have said 5d.—but I hope the hon. Member will recollect that that is a voluntary contribution. He is making his own bargain. He thinks he is going to get a quid pro quo for his 4d. or 5d., but here you are laying down a hard and fast rule, and it is our object to try and give those who have to subscribe as much latitude as possible. I do appeal to the Under-Secretary to consider this Amendment earnestly and seriously. I speak with no disrespect nor do I say anything against his courtesy or ability, but it is somewhat of a misfortune that the hon. Gentleman is the only occupant of the Government Bench at the present time, and that he is left there, with nobody to consult, to see whether this is an Amendment he can accept. When the Closure takes place the Front Government Bench is full of Ministers, but when we are discussing an important Amendment affecting the interests of a great number of people throughout the length and breadth of the country, then the whole responsibility is thrown upon the Under-Secretary. That is a matter of which we are perfectly entitled to take notice and to protest against. I hope, if the hon. Gentleman does not feel himself in a position to say the Government will consider this Amendment, at all events he will take time to consult with his colleagues.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 184.

    Division No. 353.]

    AYES.

    [8.40 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Barnston, Harry

    Cassel, Felix

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Bird, Alfred

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Baird, J. L.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Crean, Eugene

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Croft, Henry Page

    Doughty, Sir George

    Ingleby, Holcombe

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

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Jowett, F. W.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Fell, Arthur

    Kirkwood, J. H. M.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Forster, Henry William

    Lansbury, George

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Goldsmith, Frank

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

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Gretton, John

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Hall, C. B. (Isle of Wight)

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

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

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

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

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

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

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Mr. C. Bathurst and Mr. Sanderson.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Gulland, John W.

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Hackett, J.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Neilson, Francis

    Adamson, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Alden, Percy

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

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Harwood, George

    O'Dowd, John

    Allan, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    O'Grady, James

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Ogden, Fred

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hayward, Evan

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

    Boland, John Plus

    Higham, John Sharp

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Hudson, Walter

    Pointer, Joseph

    Brace, William

    Hunter, W. (Govan)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Brady, P. J.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    John, Edward Thomas

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Johnson, W.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Joyce, Michael

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Keating, M.

    Reddy, Michael

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Kelly, Edward

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    Randall, Athelstan

    Clough, William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Leach, Charles

    Robinson, Sidney

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rowlands, James

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lundon, T.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Lynch, A. A.

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

    Crumley, Patrick

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    McGhee, Richard

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Dawes, J. A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sheehy, David

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Devlin, Joseph

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Shortt, Edward

    Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Doris, W.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

    Falconer, J.

    Martin, J.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Meagher, Michael

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Verney, Sir Harry

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Wadsworth, J.

    Gibson, Sir James P.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Wardle, George J.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Morgan, George Hay

    Watt, Henry A.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Munro, R.

    Webb, H.

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

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

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    622

    623

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

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

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Whyte, A. F.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

    Wiles, Thomas

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Guest and Mr. G. Howard.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member for the Bassetlaw Division of Nottingham will explain the object of his Amendment.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I do not propose to touch Section (a) of Clause 30, which provides for the ascertainment of the surplus, but I propose to deal with the allocation of the surplus. I shall move to leave out paragraph (b), and to make consequential alterations in (c) and (d), my object being to provide that half the surplus when it has gone to the central fund shall be returned under certain circumstances.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In those circumstances I will ask the hon. Member to move his Amendment.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move to omit paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1).
    Clause 29 provides for the taking of a valuation, and for the way in which it shall be carried out. Clause 30 begins by saying that if upon any such valuation a surplus is found certain provisions shall apply. The first thing to happen is, if the society has branches, the surplus is to be devoted to wiping off any deficiency shown by any of its branches. With that I agree. What apparently happens under Sections (b) and (c) is this. Under Section (b), subject to wiping off the deficiency, the surplus that belongs to the branch, and which has been created by it, may be dealt with in such a way as the Insurance Commissioners, who are a sort of guardian angels hovering over every effort of the society, may think fit. That seems to be rather hard. If these people have created the fund for themselves, I do not see why they should not spend it as they like. If you go on to another Clause you find almost an absurdity. What is to happen under Clause (c)? If you have got a valuation of the fund and a branch shows a surplus you are to divide that surplus into two halves, and one half is to go to the central fund for the purposes of meeting any deficiency which may exist in the other branches. That I leave untouched. But it does not say what is to happen with the other half of the surplus which has been transferred. If there is no such deficiency, apparently, as the Bill now stands, the central fund would keep that half altogether
    624
    instead of its being, as it should be, at the disposal of those who have contributed the money. I seek to meet that difficulty in this way: I have got an Amendment down to Clause (c) which, while leaving the first part untouched, provides that "if at the next valuation succeeding the said transfer there is no such deficiency then the said amount shall be forthwith retransferred to the said branch to be distributed in such additional benefits as the branch may determine." I think that is commonsense. I agree if a branch has a surplus half of that surplus should be transferred to the central fund for the purpose of meeting any deficiency that may exist in other branches. But I provide that if at the end of the valuation which takes place every three years it is clear no such deficency exists, then the purpose of the transfer has failed, and I submit it is commonsense that the surplus should go back to those who have contributed it. There is no reason why it should accumulate in the central fund. It belongs to the branch. If at the end of the triennial valuation no deficiency is found to exist it should go back to that branch.
    As to the other part of the Amendment, the deletion of (c), I venture to suggest to the Government that there is no reason for this constant interference with the disposing rights of those who have contributed funds. Why should they be put, if it be that they have a surplus they have accumulated, to the trouble and expense of preparing and submitting to the Insurance Commissioners for their approval how they should spend their money. These are admittedly societies worthy of all admiration. They have inculcated thrift; they have done what a good many of us have not done, they have practiced what they preached. They have accumulated funds by their own industry, and why should they not be left to spend their own funds as they think fit, subject to the very proper provision in the Bill that one-half of the surplus should be made available for meeting deficiencies. I venture to press the claim of these three Amendments, and I press for some explanation as to what is to happen to the one-half of the surplus which has been transferred to the central fund to meet a deficiency which does not exist. I submit that if at the end

    625
    of the triennial valuation a deficiency does not exist, the surplus should be re-transferred to the branch society.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think that the Amendments in part are due to a misunderstanding of the Government's proposal. I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Member would look not only at the proposals in the Bill, but also at the Amendment dealing with them, which in part falls in with the scheme he has outlined. The method of dealing with the surplus has been already explained. At every three years' valuation the surpluses of the branches of the various societies, if the society has branches, are divided in half. Half is retained by the branches themselves, and one-half is paid into the central pool. The half retained by the branches themselves can be used for additional benefits under "C" for the branch which has made a surplus. The half paid into the central pool goes to build up a fund whose primary object is the satisfying of deficiencies in branches where there is a deficiency. That is a system of spreading the risks approved by the affiliated orders. Then the hon. and learned Member says that if the central fund is larger than the deficiencies at the three years' valuation there is no provision for that central fund being redistributed.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Or if there is not a deficiency.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Not only is there a provision in (B), but there is an alternative offered by the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: They are both optional.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: They are both optional. A society may if it likes declare additional benefits to all its members. By the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer they are now offered an alternative, that is the adoption of a system we discussed last Thursday. They can return the surplus to the branches in proportion to the surplus the branches have made, and the branches can use this surplus for additional benefits. If they have no branches, the society can declare additional benefits. We adopted this after long negotiation with the societies, and this having been explained to the Committee, I think it will be found to be a satisfactory method of allowing elasticity, guarding against mismanagement, and at
    626
    the same time encouraging local branches to make as large a surplus as possible.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. FORSTER: The explanation of the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, to a certain extent at any rate, meets the points urged by my hon. and learned Friend. I think my hon. and learned Friend was able to make a very good case for the series of Amendments to which he has referred, but I think he will be satisfied now that the Government has come to the same conclusion he himself reached. I think if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been able to place his Amendment on the Paper rather earlier than he has found it possible to do, my hon. and learned Friend would have been able to see that the Government were really working in the same direction as himself, and in the circumstances perhaps he would not have found it necessary to move his Amendments.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: As it is quite clear that the surpluses are not to remain for ever with the central fund when no deficiency occurs, I shall be quite satisfied with the undertaking on behalf of the Government to make that clear, either upon an Amendment or upon the Report stage. What I want to guard against is that where there is no deficiency in the branches the surplus is to go on being transferred to the central fund and accumulating in the central fund without any part of it being repaid to the branches.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. and learned Member will look at our Amendment I think he will see his point is dealt with.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I take the word of the hon. Member that that is so, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to move in paragraph (b), after the word "of" ["for distributing out of such surplus"], to insert the words "one half of."
    This Amendment really raises in another form a question which we raised a few days ago in connection with this Bill. We moved an Amendment that approved societies should not be allowed to admit members upon a medical examination. The object of that Amendment was to make some provision—so much provision as we could—to secure that approved societies should take a fair share of the

    627
    burdens of ill-health. That Amendment was defeated, and in this Amendment we are approaching the same problem in a different way. This Clause provides that we are to have triennial valuations, and at the end of three years the surpluses are to be devoted to additional and special benefits. The point we desire to raise before the Committee is this. If a society desires it can bend its energies in an unfair way to the accumulation of these surpluses. It can erect a standard of admission, it can select its members, it can create a sort of oasis of good health, and then it gets the employers' contribution and the States' contribution, in addition to its individual members' contribution, and the scheme which is proposed as a scheme of social reform is robbed altogether of its qualities as a scheme of social reform. It simply becomes a method by which a small and select body of men can keep on accumulating surpluses at the end of every third year, and refuse to take upon themselves the social responsibilities which the approved societies ought to take. I think the Chancellor quite appreciates the point, and, however difficult it is to meet it, I feel quite sure that he agrees with our intention, although he has to oppose the Amendment. I do not want to stand by the half, although that is on the Paper. The purpose of the Amendment is not to divide upon the question whether it is half or a quarter or a third, or whatever it is. We simply put down a half in order to raise this principle, that these surpluses ought not to be regarded as the property of the members of the society, but that they ought to be distributed amongst the good and bad lives in order that we may arrive at some sort of national as opposed to a select society risk. That is our idea.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us the other day that, in drafting any scheme of insurance, you had to consider one of two alternatives—either insurance through existing societies, with the resulting segregation, or the creation of some great amorphous national scheme which was going to be undertaken by one society stretching from John o' Groats to Land's End and from the Atlantic to the North Sea. But I think we ought to try and combine the two ideas. The foundation of the scheme is the society—insurance through societies—but the result of that is the Post Office contributors. I do not think it ought to surpass the wit of the very
    628
    clever Treasury officials, who have been drafting this Bill, to amend it so that the deposit contributors may receive, at any rate, a greater part of the benefit of the national scheme than they have at present; and I am not sure how that can be done, except by one of two ideas. One is the idea which the Committee rejected the other day, and which, of course, we cannot, I am sorry to say, raise again. The other suggestion is that we might take a certain percentage of the triennial surpluses and divide them out, especially amongst the rejected lives.
    Might I refer to the importance, from the trade union point of view, of the proposal. I must apologise, because I made the point the other night, but it is germane and, in fact, essential to this Amendment too. The trade union, from its very nature, can select its lives. The trade unions cannot possibly say to one man, "I beg of you to declare me as your approved society," and to another man, "I beg of you do not declare me as your approved society." The trade union must go to every man who is engaged in an industry, whether his health risk is high or low, and try and get him in; and if a trade union is going to work this Bill, and I hope they are all going to try and do it, it is bound to bring in everybody it possibly can, and induce everybody it can to declare it as his approved society. What is the effect of that? If you are having one set of societies, say friendly societies, selecting lives carefully, then their surpluses at the end of the triennial period will be large. Then, if you have trade unions not selecting their lives carefully, but simply taking in everyone working in the workshop and factory, their surplus at the end of the triennial period will be comparatively small. They are bearing a burden of ill-health which the friendly society is not bearing at all. What is going to be the effect of that? Your far-seeing trade unionist, your careful man who wants to possess himself of every halfpenny he can, will very soon discover that if he declares his trade union to be his approved society he is losing compared with his fellow-workman who has declared a friendly society with a high medical admission as his society. The member of your specially selected approved society at the end of every third year is getting more and more special benefits and more and more extra benefits compared with your member of a trade union who has declared that trade union as his approved society. I am afraid the effect of that will

    629
    not be good for trade unionism, and that the further seeing men, the more anxious and careful men will leave their trade unions as their approved societies and transfer to friendly societies with big benefits. It is, therefore, partly in the interests of trade unionism that I make this proposal. My position is simply summed up in this, that I regard these surpluses only partly as personal possessions. They are the result of a great national effort. They are the result of State subsidy, of State effort and of public enterprise, and whilst it is perfectly true that part of them ought to be regarded as personal property, and ought to be attached to the individuals whose premiums have brought them into being, nevertheless, another part belongs not to the healthy men apart from the unhealthy, but to the general average life, and that can only be secured by some method of distributing a portion of these surpluses.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I rather regret that so important an Amendment has come on during the dinner hour, when there is a small House, because I think it deserves very serious consideration. It is a suggestion which no man can dismiss without going very carefully into the pros and cons of the matter. Of course, it is an Amendment which will be resisted by all the friendly societies in England. You unite every society under this—friendly societies, collecting societies, dividing societies, Holloway societies, deposit societies, and agricultural societies. There is not a society in the Kingdom which would not oppose this, and I am not so sure, though my hon. Friend is better able to speak than I am, that he will carry every trade union with him. I do not say that is conclusive, because when the State is prepared to assist in the expenditure of millions the State is entitled to over-rule the objections of each society provided there is a sufficient grant for the purpose, but it does make it necessary for us to consider whether the reasons are so overwhelming as to induce us to defy the opinion of all the people who have been engaged in the administration and distribution of benefits of this kind during the last fifty and even one hundred years. I have looked into this proposal very carefully.
    I may say that I regard the Amendment with a certain amount of favour from one point of view, but when you come to examine it closely you will find that it is not so just in its application as my hon.
    630
    Friend seemed to imagine. On the face of it it looks as if you were calling upon societies which make a profit out of the selfish selection of good lives—make a profit out of their own selfishness—to distribute some of that profit with their brethren. That is what the Amendment appears on the face of it. How are these surpluses to be made? They will be made far more out of good management than out of good lives. Societies that happen to have skilled, able, and experienced men at their head, and not merely at their head but in all branches of local administration, that have the courage to stand against malingering, even at the risk of losing membership, will have a good surplus. Money will be lost far more from cowardice than ill-health. It is a very difficult thing for societies to apply their rules ruthlessly. Anybody who has been working the great friendly societies declares that there is no doubt there has been real slackness till within the last few years, with the results which the returns of the Registrar of Friendly Societies eloquently speak of. You had great deficiencies, and then one or two societies began to seek skilled advice and to find out the causes. They found that the payments were too high and the contributions too low, and that they were much too slack in their methods of administration. Then they began to improve their financial position, and the most of the improvement that has taken place in recent years in the position of friendly societies has been due very largely to the ruthlessness with which they are beginning to exercise their functions.
    What is the result? Mr. Moffrey, in his speech at the Edinburgh conference, pointed out what had been disastrous to the recruiting of friendly societies. They had been standing still during the last few years because the societies were beginning to exercise strict disciplinary powers, to administer their funds in a more businesslike and relentless fashion, and to discourage mere raids on the funds without any regard to the future prospects of the societies. That is the position. Therefore I say that surpluses will not be attributable to the good health of the members, or to the choosing of good or bad lives, but rather to the skill and courage of administration which will not make for immediate popularity but rather for the establishing of a sound basis, which will appeal in the long run to the best instincts of the

    631
    community. Is it fair that we should go to a society that has saved a large surplus through management of that kind and say, "You have got a surplus. Here is another society that has got a deficit"? That deficit may be attributable not to the fact that they are not applying medical tests, but to the fact that they are not very strict in examining claims. Is it fair to say, "Half of your surplus you have to give in order to make up the deficiency of this ill-managed society"?
    I do not wish to anticipate the argument which will be advanced in respect of the Post Office contributors. I am sorry to say that the area of our discussion in respect of them—the area in which we can amend the proposals—has been limited by the fact that an Amendment was negatived in spite of the appeal of the Government that the question should be left over for discussion later on. It was not the fault of my hon. Friend, and it was not the fault of the Government that that was done, but it may affect the proposals when we come to deal with the Post Office contributors. I wish to have it debated very thoroughly. I have constantly invited Members of this House and others outside to criticise the Post Office contributor scheme and to submit alternatives. So far as I can see my hon. Friend's Amendment is the only important and substantial contribution to that scheme. It is a courageous one. I admit that, because my hon. Friend has taken the responsibility of proposing an Amendment which is unpopular, and I think for that reason it is entitled to respectful consideration. But it is not because it is an unpopular one that I am opposing it. I have opposed popular Amendments during the course of our discussions on two or three occasions. I am opposing the Amendment, because I do not think I would be justified in accepting my hon. Friend's proposal. It penalises good management and rather encourages bad management. That is the worst thing that could be done in connection with the administration of the funds. There is one thing in regard to which I could not agree with my hon. Friend. He said that the more a society took good and bad lives indiscriminately the worse would be the position. This is really a temporary qualification. The medical test will be more important during the first twelve months than it will ever be afterwards. After that persons will come in at 13, 14, 15, and 16 years of age. They will come
    632
    in when young, and although there may be ill-health at that time, it is not a serious element. It is not an element that disturbs any actuarial calculation. It is only in the initial stages that this test is an important matter. Therefore the members of trade unions will not be ultimately in a different position from others. Afterwards they will come in exactly in the same position as any other society. Societies that think they are going to be in an extremely high position merely by a selfish scrutiny of the physical condition of the claimants to membership will, I fancy, soon find they are mistaken. I am not afraid of what will happen if the Committee of the House of Commons include all these societies and allow them to come in. I think the competition will be so keen that too close an examination of infirmities would be rather a drawback than otherwise.
    After all, there are only two or three diseases that make any serious difference to a sick club. There are many that make a serious difference to an insurance club, but the diseases which make a serious difference to a sick club are not diseases that make a difference to life insurance. I have no doubt they will rule out those who will be likely to have prolonged diseases, but with every desire in the world to accept an Amendment of this character I have come to the conclusion that it does not encourage good management, that on the contrary it discourages it and it may have the effect of allowing societies to be managed in a slipshod fashion, with proper supervision not exercised over the claims, because that is the real point. It is the way in which the management of a society examines the claims for sick benefits that is important. If it just looks at a claim the moment a man sends it in with a medical certificate and decides to honour it and pay its ten or twelve shillings a week, that society will soon have a deficiency. On the other hand, a society that examines claims carefully and has checks upon them will have its surplus. I do not want to say that a surplus built up in that fashion taxed to the extent of 10 or even 20 per cent. for the benefit of the other society.
    I hope there will be other methods of dealing with these poor people than those suggested by my hon. Friend. After all, a trade union has other compensation. Men do not join it merely for the sake of the benefits. They join a trade union for the sake of the protection which it gives them in their conflicts with capital. They

    633
    join it for the sake of combining in order to establish better conditions and better terms and better wages, and no doubt these subsidiary advantages will be an element in strengthening a trade union to be able to say, "in addition to the fact that we are helping you to get better wages and better conditions and protect you against the tyranny of employers, we shall be able to give you these substantial benefits." I do not think that is a dominant motive in the mind of any man who joins a trade union. A trade union therefore will have to depend upon that. Why is it that my hon. Friend says that they will not examine a man's chest, but, on the contrary, they look at his heart before allowing him into the society? It is because that is not quite their motive? They have, therefore, other objects, whereas the principal object of the friendly society is to provide for sickness and infirmity. The man who joins a friendly society joins for that purpose, and he has not the double motive which exists in the case of trade unions.
    That is the strength of their position. They have got the advantages of double motives. I do not think that the friendly society has got such advantages as were stated. In fact I think not. There might be a certain slight advantage. Everybody knows that there is not that searching medical examination in these cases. I regret that I cannot see my way to accept this Amendment. At the same time I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this question because it does indicate the difficulty of dealing with the Post Office contributors. My hon. Friend admits frankly that there are those two ways of dealing with the matter; one is working throne the societies, and the other is working not through the societies. That involves practically the wiping out of all societies. No man could face that problem in this country. I do not think that any man could face the problem of wiping them out altogether, and I do not think it would be desirable. I think there is something good in keeping these societies, and in encouraging them to spread their operations there is something to be gained which is almost as valuable as the pecuniary benefits which they extend. The Committee of the House will have to decide, therefore, to retain this system with its disadvantages. I shall have something to say further as to the Post Office contributors when I come to them. Meantime I regret very much that I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Chancellor has not by way of any suggested alternative dealt with the case that has been made when the hon. Member proposed his Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has recognised that the Government have failed in connection with the deposit contributors.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I cannot benefit Post Office contributors under this Clause, and I was confining myself to the Amendment before the House, but when I came to the Post Office contributor I shall certainly defend the suggestions of the Government. Therefore, I must demur at once to the suggestion of the hon. Member.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Of course I accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but I will say that the proposer of the Resolution certainly thinks that the Government has failed in connection with the Post Office contributors, or it would not have thought of taxing a series of people who may be poor or rich in order to assist the subsidy which the Government are giving to these contributors. The Chancellor has in his speech been endeavouring to find excuses for the position of the Post Office contributors. Accordingly he recognises that there are two possible schemes: a national scheme and some form of subsidy for the approved society. A national scheme he puts on one side, although apparently at one time he had an idea of proposing a national scheme which since at any rate has been withdrawn, and he has received some support from the friendly societies. The other alternative of the hon. Member who proposed this Amendment the Government will have nothing to do with. I do not think the hon. Member in proposing his Amendment put the case one bit too high. There will be an enormous difference between the benefits given by one society and those given by another, as any one considering it must be willing to admit. The Chancellor tried to minimise that difference. He suggested that there will not be any selfish scrutiny by an approved society of the lives of the people who are proposing to join, but is it selfish? Is not it their business, are not they bound to protect their existing members, and are not they bound in good management to see that people who are going to be large claimants on their funds are not admitted into their societies? Does not the whole scheme of the Bill give a premium to those who manage their societies by the

    635
    selection of lives as well as by ordinary methods and give their members a better benefit?
    It seems to me that they would be obliged to make a serious selection, a very close selection, of lives. Now they will be able to do so. Formerly they had to entice members into their societies, and very likely they allowed to come in those whom, if they did not want to keep up their members, they would have left out. But now, when ten millions extra people are to be forced into insurance, it will be quite easy for the best societies to make a very strict selection indeed. There will be really more applicants than they have need for. Under this Bill, also, there is an additional reason beyond the existing reason for the good lives piling up an extra large surplus, because it is recognised that amongst agricultural labourers, at any rate, the rate of sickness is less than it is among miners, for instance; and the reason why there is an equilibrium in risk is that the agricultural labourers' lives are longer, and, therefore, more likely during the age of seventy and during later ages to come on the sickness fund. But this Bill cuts off the benefit at seventy, so that the society gets all the benefit up to seventy, and then, just at the time when under present conditions claimants naturally expect to come on the fund, the Bill cuts them off, and does not give them any benefits at all. So that the actual framework of the Bill is likely to aggravate the piling up of surpluses. I do not think the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment stated his case the least bit too high. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to minimise the societies piling up surpluses, and said it was largely due to good management that surpluses would be created.
    With regard to good management, I think it is a good thing in two or three ways. One way was that the societies had to overhaul their financial arrangements and reduce benefits and increase the contributions so that their financial position would be much better. But under this Bill there is no question of reducing benefits or increasing contributions unless an actual deficit occurs; so that in all those cases where there is a surplus the argument which the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward cannot possibly apply. He claimed also that some of the surpluses arose out of the strict supervision of claims. That is perfectly true. I am not wishing to minimise that, but,
    636
    in future, the doctors will not be under the same control of the friendly societies as they have been in the past, and does he think that the doctors will be able to render quite the same assistance to friendly societies in scrutinising claims? That will not be the case. I do not minimise the statement made by the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment. There is no doubt there will be societies who will have enormous surpluses and who will be able to give very much larger average benefit. But, on the other hand, there will be societies which will give less than the ordinary benefit.
    The hon. Member suggests that they should take half those surpluses, and should give them to the deposit contributors. Why? The deposit contributors are in my opinion not given any insurance at all under the Bill, and the hon. Member does not suggest it gives them insurance. All it does is to give them some sort of additional subsidy beyond that which the Government gives. If they require that subsidy, I think the proper way to get it is from the Government, and not from the members of societies, who are many of them just as poor as the Post Office contributors. And you are suggesting that they should be specially taxed on their surplus, which would otherwise go to them as additional benefits. You are suggesting that that should be taken away, and that these poor people should be specially taxed to give some form of insurance to others who have not been able to join the society. While I want to see the deposit contributor given a form of insurance, which I think it is quite possible to give, I cannot support this Amendment, which is not giving that insurance, but giving it out of the funds of people who very possibly are no better off than those to whom the surplus is given. Certainly the younger men are being made to pay more than enough for their insurance under this Bill, and you are taking from them something which may make it worth their while to come into insurance and giving it to another class. I do not think myself, because one injustice is contemplated by this Bill, the Committee would be wise in adding another injustice to it. I shall oppose the Amendment.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I think the proposer of the Amendment has made two or three distinct claims. The first claim is one which is to be met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in future stages of the

    637
    Bill, and that is to make better provision for the Post Office contributor. It was with that side of the Amendment that the hon. Member for Colchester has principally dealt. I am quite confident myself that the real reason why the Amendment is brought forward by the Labour party is that they see in it one possible means of enabling the trade unions of this country to compete with approved societies and with the friendly societies and the insurance companies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained to us how, in future—and I think he is perfectly correct—the success of an approved society will not depend so much upon the selection of lives as upon the management of the branches and upon the strictness with which the examination of possible claims for benefit is carried out. I think he perhaps unduly minimised the question of the selection of lives. I think certainly the Manchester Unity will have an enormous pull over trade unions and other friendly societies. But it is this question of management that is bound to affect the real future of the approved society. You have coming into the field collecting societies, and I have no doubt they will be most strict, as they have been in the past. They have really got the most rigid management and will have probably the largest surplus. They have traditions behind them. The strictness of friendly societies has also become far greater in the selection of sick cases. We have far more careful conditions in those societies. A man who is receiving sick benefit is inspected, and every member of the society constitutes himself an inspector in order to keep down the rate and keep down the benefits. What is the position of trade unions in this regard. There you have an entire difference of origin, a difference of sentiment, and certainly a difference of inspection. You have not there the rigid examination into the justification of every claim. From the very nature of the circumstances you cannot expect a rigid inspection from the trade union. You cannot expect the secretary of the society, who has to look after something of more importance than sickness benefit, to make rigid inquiry into the case of the member who is sick. The trade union has got to be popular. It is not necessary for the friendly society to be popular; it is not necessary for members of the friendly society that it should be popular. It is necessary for the trade unions to be popular, and if they become approved societies under this Bill, there
    638
    is no other possibility except to look forward to an increasing state of insolvency so far as they are concerned. You are bound to have less exacting management, less exacting inspection, and, in addition, you have got to take in every life that offers. The hon. Member for Leicester has moved this Amendment, which suggests that those branches of any approved society which come out with a surplus should pay back one-half, or, rather, one quarter, of the surplus, and that that money should be used for the deposit contributors. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Colchester that if you are going to help the deposit contributors you had better help them by a tax on the whole community, and by insurance, and not by a tax on solvent branches of approved societies. But the main question here is not the assistance of the deposit, contributors, but some means of prevent-those societies which are strictly managed, and which select the lives, from becoming far stronger than all the other societies in the field, and getting all the insured persons of the country. So far as that is concerned, I think this Amendment might do something in that direction, but I do not think it is desirable that it should be done.
    I think the best way, so far as trade unions are concerned, and I have expressed this opinion in "The Labour Leader," is that no trade union should, under any circumstances, become an approved society. Trade unions are not out in order to insure people against sickness. It is not their main function. Their main function is to get better conditions and better wages for their members. The more they develop along friendly society lines the more they will go away from their original purpose. In so far as this Bill will certainly drive trade unions far more along friendly society lines and take them away from the real purposes of trade unionism I think it will injure trade unionism in this country. Trade unions can avoid that by the simple expedient of not allowing the trade unions to become approved societies, and by allowing the members to join any other approved society. It will still be possible for members of trade unions to contribute to sick funds in the unions, if they want to do so, in addition to the approved societies. I think you will find that a large number of trade unionists will remain in the sick benefit fund under the trade unions in addition to those of the approved society. If they become approved societies whether with

    639
    this Amendment, or any subsequent Amendment, they will become the worst form of approved society, with a constant deficiency and reduced benefits owing to those deficiencies, and put the whole trade unionist movement on an inferior plane as compared with the rest of the insurance world.
    Mr. J. WARD: I rise especially to reply to the last statement of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). I quite agree with the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) that it would be, I should imagine, improper to take away the surplus of a society that by good management created the surplus, in order to give it to someone else. I think that that would be the worst possible way we could proceed. I am not, however, so anxious to combat that, because it has been combated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think there is very little more to be said about it. I do wish to refer to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that the great trade unions of the country should make no effort to become approved societies. I am positively certain that there is no trade unionist in this House who will second this proposition, and, after all, I should take it for granted that the officers of the trade unions who have been connected with the trade-union movement for the past quarter of a century are the best judges as to the duty of trade unionists in a case of this description. What is the suggestion? The suggestion is that the moment trade-union societies take up the business of sick or provident benefit they begin to neglect, or at least to suffer from some serious disadvantage in taking part in the ordinary industrial contests of the country. As a matter of fact, the whole history of the trade union movement is in the completely opposite direction.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: What about the Transport Workers Federation?
    Mr. J. WARD: You can take the whole of the trade societies of the country, and you will find that those that have expended most energy and most money in labour disputes, and those that have been most solid and most secure, not merely from the point of view of benefits, but from the actual assistance they are able to give to their trades in the case of labour struggles, are those societies which, in addition to their
    640
    trade benefits, have friendly benefits attached to their work. Any novice in trade unionism will tell you that. There is not the slightest doubt that so far as stability is concerned, and so far as their general aptitude for dealing with labour questions is concerned, that a society that has a provident business attached to it is infinitely superior to the society that is merely a twopenny-halfpenny strike club. I have had experience of both sorts, and I know.
    Anyone acquainted with the facts knows as to the society established purely for trade benefits and which has to rely almost exclusively upon some agitation with reference to wages and working conditions. The probabilities are, if you were to take the whole of the labourers' unions in the country, so unstable are they as to members that the probabilities are that once every five years there is an entire change of personnel. The men want an advance of wages, though the opposition say it is the officer of the trade union, and what happens? The men get into such a condition at their work that they can stick it no longer. The moment they get into that condition they want a trade union. They come forward and join, sometimes in droves, just for a short time. Then when the immediate necessity has gone by, such as an advance of wages or an alteration in the working conditions, the whole of the membership evaporates again. What is the experience of the societies that have provident benefits? Their experience is that not only can they hold the members together in the case of labour disputes when agitations for advances are on, but that their provident benefits keeps the society in a stable condition all through. That is the experience of every man in the trade union movement, and I say that this advice that the trade unionists should not have anything to do with provident benefits because that would militate against their power to carry out their work of organising demands for increases or of giving protection to the workmen in getting better conditions, why as a matter of fact it would be suicide on the part of the trade unions to take the view of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme—absolute suicide. Every society that has taken in the slightest degree provident benefit as part of its business has established itself on a permanent basis, whereas scarcely one of the societies that has not done so can claim to be in that position. I agree that if it was likely that anything would happen such

    641
    as the hon. Member has suggested to take the great trade unions entirely into the provident business, so that they neglected altogether the business of improving the wages and working conditions of their members, it would be a danger which every one of us would do our best to avoid. But the hon. Member can take it from me that it is not good advice to tell trade unionists to keep out of this work; it is much better advice to tell them to go in and take their share in the business and to see that other people do not have the controlling influence. At any rate, that is the advice I shall give as far as my voice and influence go.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I must point out that we have travelled rather wide of the Amendment. The proposal before the Committee is to allot part of the surpluses arising in the approved societies to the benefit of the Post Office contributor. We must endeavour to keep the discussion to that point.
    Mr. AMERY: It seems to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his remarks entirely left out of account Clause 25, which does allow freedom of transfer to anybody who wishes to transfer. In regard to the initial stages, by the reserve value scheme societies which have considerable reserves now will have those reserves liberated in such a manner that they will be able to offer outside the Act very substantial additional benefits. That will enable them to pitch their standard of health very high, and, therefore, at an early period to accumulate substantial surpluses. Once having accumulated those surpluses, they will continue to draw from the weaker societies all round. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that the real success of these societies will depend upon the rigidity with which they deal with sickness claims, and that any efficient control of malingering which the health committees secure will insure to the benefit of all the societies in an area, and not to the benefit of any one society. I submit that in the main the position of the different societies will be affected not by the effectiveness with which they control sickness, but by the surpluses they have at the beginning, and the prudence with which they exclude inferior lives. Therefore, without wishing to support the Amendment, I feel that the hon. Member for Leicester has put forward a very strong case against a fundamental weakness of the Bill.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. BOOTH: I hope that Members of the Committee will be able after this interlude to consider the matter on its merits. I have been trying to keep my mind on the Amendment; therefore I did not take much notice of the last three or four speeches. As I understand the Amendment, which I can scarcely think the hon. Member will press to a Division, it is that half the surpluses are to be devoted to the Post Office contributors. That means that the trade unions, if successful, will subsidise the blacklegs. If the trade unions get a large number of members in their approved societies, they will, under this Amendment, hand over half their surplus to benefit the blacklegs who refuse to join them and go to the Post Office—because in future all men will be able to get into approved societies if they wish, as they will start when they commence work. At first those outside will be those who cannot, and those who will not get in, but after a few years—at any rate, long before we get the extra benefits—there will remain in the Post Office only those who will not go into approved societies, namely, blacklegs so far as trade unions are concerned. Therefore, I appeal to the Committee to consider whether they ought to take the surpluses of nine-tenths of the people in order to distribute them amongst a small section. My own calculation of the number who will eventually be found in the Post Office is about 5 per cent. Therefore it would mean taking the surpluses from approved societies dealing with 95 per cent. of the insured persons in order to make a handsome present to the small residue of cranks and blacklegs who refuse to associate with anybody. I make that forecast in all seriousness. Owing to the free competition of the various societies there can be in future only a small percentage of the population—some say 10 per cent., but I put it at 5 per cent.—in the Post Office. How absurd it would be to make such a present to these Ishmaelites, who decline to stand shoulder to shoulder with their fellows. Hon. Members opposite who suggest that there will be a huge surplus in some societies cannot have had two minutes' conversation with an actuary. They cannot understand the question at all. Certainly the better managed societies will have a surplus, and those that are managed badly will have a deficit. It is to the operation of that law that we look to keep the societies right. But any idea that by some mysterious assortment of individuals you

    643
    will find societies with enormous surpluses is to my mind a wild flight of imagination. I hope the Committee will put that idea entirely on one side. Hon. Members have spoken as if all the new societies will have rigid medical tests, and that trade unions will suffer in consequence. I believe that many societies will open their doors without any medical examination at all, and take their members in exactly as trade unions do. To my mind there are difficulties in the administration of the Bill which will require to be surmounted, and I think in this particular that good management ought to be rewarded. If the societies, being managed by trade experts, careful people, are able to show good results, their members are entitled to their reward. It can only be by a good deal of self-sacrifice and a good deal of care that any society, whether trade union or insurance society, can make a success of this Bill. I hope men will be public spirited enough to do it. I do hope when they have done that they would not have the natural fruits of their labour taken away from them to be given to people who refuse to associate with their fellow men.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I think it is a little ungracious on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that no one has put in before him or those in charge of the Bill a proposition in reference to the Post Office depositor. I have had several Amendments down for a considerable number of months, and I think the hon. Gentleman the member for Colchester also has had Amendments down. But either they have never been considered, or at any rate the Chancellor of the Exchequer—well, he may have considered them—but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has any right to assert that no alternative Amendments have been put down but the one now being discussed. I protest against the statement of the Chancellor made earlier in the evening that some of us by our action last Thursday, mine in particular, had prevented, and would prevent the Government doing all they might do for the Post Office depositor, because I and others forced a Division on a certain Amendment. I never forced any Division. As a matter of fact, through a sheer accident, I voted for the Government on the matter. Whether or not that be so, it is quite beside the point to say that I forced a Division. I had nothing to do with forcing a Division. What is more, no Division took place.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: Whilst I do not associate myself with the last words of my hon. Friend from across the Channel, I do associate myself with much that he has said and much that the Member preceding him said. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer were here for the moment, for I would like him to understand what is the experience in his own constituency of a Member who tries to explain the Bill. I think the only really unpopular moments I have had with my own party, and with the Members of the Radical and Labour parties in my Constituency, were when I tried to put this Bill fairly and squarely at a conference which was held. There was one thing that was deep in the minds of every working man, whether trade unionist or friendly society man. He had got it into his head that this Bill was going to put an extra burden upon friendly society men for the benefit of men who were not naturally thrifty whom it was desired to force into this national scheme. Their idea was that the friendly societies were going to pay as they had never paid before for extra benefits for those who had not shown themselves eager to protect and defend themselves against sickness and invalidity in the past.
    I would like to say to the representative of the Government, the Attorney-General, in connection with this Amendment, that if the Government want their Bill to be popular in the country, and had any idea of accepting this Amendment, that this Amendment would make the Bill extremely unpopular. There is no friendly society man in the country, not one, that would not say it was bad enough as it was, but to take that which is the result of their own thrift, their own natural thrift and successful agglomeration of efforts in their friendly societies, and to give to those whom one hon. Member—rather unfortunately—described as "blacklegs," and who would not, were it not for this scheme belong to a friendly society, nor associate themselves in national thrift—if I say the Government were to persist, and the hon. Member for Leicester succeeded in carrying his Amendment, I can assure the Government that the fate of this Bill would be soon known in the country. I am absolutely certain that the friendly society representatives who waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer would poll against any such Amendment. I appeal as a friend of the Bill to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to friendly Members in this House, if

    645
    we go to a Division to oppose the Amendment, because I think that the foundation of the Amendment is one which is to take from those who have to give to those who have not. It is unwisely, ungenerously, and unfairly trading upon the resources of the friendly societies in order to bolster up a portion of the Bill. It is most difficult to defend in the constituencies. If carried out I am absolutely certain it will be found very difficult to make successful the Post Office depositors part of the scheme.
    Mr. W. E. HARVEY: The hon. Gentle man the Member for Stoke, in a speech which he delivered a little while ago with a great amount of warmth, distinctly declared himself in opposition to the hon. Gentleman the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme. He said that the great trade organisations based their stability on their provident benefits; in other words, that it was impossible for trade unions to live that did not pay provident benefits—
    The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but his speech would be leading the Debate again into the lines which I warned the Committee a few moments ago ought not to be followed.
    Mr. W. E. HARVEY: My statement was in reply to the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke. I want to say that of the miners' associations of Great Britain two-thirds of them pay no provident benefits, and yet they are stable societies. They have large accumulated funds. They have brought all their men into their trade society. They are friendly society men too, but they are friendly society men apart from their trade unions. They are as interested in friendly societies as any other class of workmen in the country. They contribute over and above that into another society for the protection of their interests that the Chancellor referred to in the speech which he has just made. What I do want the House to understand is that there are powerful organisations in this country who have no friendly society benefits. They are in existence for protecting the employment of the men and for getting better wages.
    Mr. POINTER: It appears to me several things have been said in the course of this Debate that ought not to pass entirely without notice. In the first place, I protest against the assumption that lies at the bottom of certain statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He
    646
    seemed to indicate by his arguments that he thought the position of the societies having respectively good lives and bad lives would not make much difference in regard to the positions he tried to set forth. In the next place, he argued rather strenuously, it was all a question of management, and in order to prove that he went on to point out how certain societies, notably the Oddfellows, are very strict in their supervision of claims. Right down at the bottom of this there appears to be the assumption on the part of the Chancellor, and it seemed to be taken as a foundation by some subsequent speakers, that there was a strong tendency towards sponging on the part of some members of friendly societies. I protest against that. The same root idea seemed to exist in connection with the nonsensical attempts in connection with other parts of the Bill such as the two-thirds resolution to prevent malingering. The idea seems to be that the workers are more inclined to, escape their responsibilities and to sponge upon the funds to which they themselves and their fellow workers contribute. I believe that fear is greatly exaggerated, end has led the Chancellor not to take that judicial view of this Amendment which he might otherwise have done. I believe the two points advanced in favour of this Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) are points of substance. In the first place, I think it is a fact that trades unions will not be able to exercise that same jurisdiction in regard to matters of health in regard to persons who come forward for admittance to their society as friendly societies can do. As has been pointed out, their chief consideration is organisation for industrial purposes. On the other hand, they have for many years past taken on the other work. I am a friendly society man of twenty years' standing, and I am not arguing against friendly societies. I have heard the argument advanced that nothing in this Bill ought to interfere with the management of friendly societies, or to alter their custom and practice established for long years. I think we can do little less than claim the same for trade unions. Just as trade unions are confined to industrial organisation with sick insurance in the past, nothing in the Bill ought to take away from the possibility or probability or indeed from the certainty that they will be able to continue their activity after the Bill becomes law just as before.

    647
    With regard to the Post Office contributors, I see nothing inequitable or unjust about the suggestion that underlies this Amendment. I join issue with some of those who have already spoken. There seems to be an impression in the minds of some hon. Members that if there be a certain section of people gathered together in the Post Office scheme, they are, to use the words of the hon. Member (Mr. Booth), "blacklegs." I suppose those referred to are ne'er-do-wells who are outside any of these societies because they are too apathetic, too mean, or too low down in the scale of social order as to recognise any necessity for joining a thrift society. That view is inconceivable to me. If this Bill becomes law, and does anything towards fulfilling its promises, I cannot understand one single worker remaining outside some approved society. I think it is very likely that the whole membership of the Post Office Department will consist of men only prevented from joining an approved society because they have not the necessary health qualification. If that be so, I believe we are not asking for anything that is unjust or inequitable, when we ask that something should be done for these unfortunate people who are Post Office contributors, not from choice but from stern necessity. I am not going to argue that this is the best of all possible ways, but at least we can claim that it is the only practical way which has been outlined and suggested up to the present. When we are met by hon. Gentlemen opposite who are so anxious about the poor, and express crocodile sympathy for them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not crocodile sympathy."] Do hon. Members object to my statement that they profess sympathy for the poor? [An HON. MEMBER: "Not crocodile sympathy."] Then I withdraw "crocodile sympathy," and say hon. Members have expressed sympathy, and I am surprised that arising out of that sympathy they cannot see that the Post Office contributor will be practically a scapegoat for the rest of the scheme. Unless they are prepared to bring forward some alternative scheme whereby these unfortunate people can have their lot made better they must excuse me saying that their sympathy is not taking a practical form. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would rid himself of that suspicion, that obsession which he has in regard to malingering of the workers and the rest of it, he would see the matter a little more clearly. We are entitled to hope from certain suggestions
    648
    which have been made that at a future stage of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman will be able to do something to make the prospects of those who belong to this unfortunate class a little brighter than they appear to be under the present scheme.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I take it to be the desire of the Committee that this question should not be closed in connection with this class of contributors in order that we may be able to return to it. Therefore I do not propose to close the question by calling a Division. If hon. Members care to consider the matter further they might remember that about two-thirds of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech and the whole of my hon. Friend's speech were quite outside the scope of my Amendment, which contemplated, not the scallywag who of his own free will remains outside approved societies, but the person who is very definitely defined as the contributors who have been rejected from membership of an approved society. I hope in any further consideration of the scheme that limitation will be borne in mind, because it is very essential to the idea I have in mind. If the Committee will allow me I will withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. AMERY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), after the word "thereof" ["insured persons who are members thereof"], to insert the words "under this part of this Act."
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have some doubt whether the words are necessary, but I am quite willing, if the hon. Gentleman wishes, to consider them. I cannot accept them now.
    Mr. AMERY: Perhaps the Attorney-General will allow me to explain the point afterwards.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), to insert the words "or the society, if a society with branches, may in lieu of submitting such a scheme distribute the balance of the surplus, after making good deficiencies as aforesaid, amongst such of its branches as have a balance in proportion to the amounts of such surpluses, and in such case the sum so apportioned to a branch shall be treated as an addition to the disposable surplus of that branch."
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), after the word "branch" ["a surplus is shown in respect of such branch"], to insert the words "such surplus may, with the sanction of the Insurance Commissioners, be applied in the reduction of the contributions of its members, or failing such sanction."
    The CHAIRMAN: That appears to be covered by an Amendment on this Clause already negatived.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: It is a totally different point. The Amendment which I moved to paragraph (a) related to a surplus standing to the credit of the society itself. This is far more important. It relates to a surplus standing to the credit of the branch of the society. I venture to hope nothing which has been said with regard to the surplus of the society will in any way prejudice this more important question.
    Mr. BOOTH: I should like to ask the ruling of the Chair. Members voted recently on the general question, and what they were voting for was that certain money should go in reduction of payments rather than an increase of benefits. This Amendment is a case of ringing the changes.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: This is a totally different question. That was a question between society and society; this is a question as between different branches of one of the affiliated orders, and it raises an entirely new point as regards the administration of the funds of those orders. This proposal would constitute as it stands a new drain on the branches, and my Amendment is that in the case of a particular branch of an affiliated society that is able to show a surplus it Shall be possible, with the sanction of the Insurance Commissioners, to apply that surplus in reduction of contributions of members before devoting it to an increase of benefit. The branches of most of the large affiliated orders to-day do not make any substantial contribution into the central fund; indeed, same of them make no contribution at all. These branches enjoy the full benefit of any surplus that may stand to their credit. It is now proposed that one-half of the entire surplus shall be applied towards meeting the deficiencies of less fortunate branches. But what I would like to
    650
    remind the Committee is that the majority of the members of the affiliated orders to-day are members living in country districts.
    Of the fifteen million persons who come to be insured under this Bill, four millions only are at present insured in friendly societies, and the bulk of these are country members. Under this scheme a very large majority of the new members will be those who are either so thriftless that they have not thought of undertaking their own insurance in the past, or they constitute the worst lives to be found largely in the over-populated towns. The suggestion is that they will deliberately form one of the large affiliated orders and stand a chance, at any rate, of a levy being made on their branch for the purposes of the central fund. But there is a great distinction between a voluntary scheme and a compulsory scheme, and if a man with his eyes open chooses to join a large affiliated order, knowing that a large portion of the surplus will pass to a less fortunate branch, he cannot complain. But here you are insisting that he shall become a member of an approved society, and consequently the argument will not bear scrutiny; he has to join the society, knowing that a part of his health benefit will be derived, not by himself, but mainly by others who live under less fortunate circumstances in the towns and yet enjoy, fortunately for themselves, much better wages. I think there is very strong grounds, bearing in mind that this will be an entirely new drain on a healthy branch of the large affiliated orders, for accepting this Amendment.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: There is very little that is new in what the hon. Member has just said. I quite agree that he is applying it to branches in a different manner from the proposal that he put forward during the early part of this discussion, which was answered by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department. I put it to him that there has been no request come forward to us from any of these branches or from any of the societies that there should be this reduction in contribution he is pressing for in this Amendment. It is a curious thing that if it is so much desired, we should not have had a request made for it. We have had everything put forward by the friendly societies, but there is no real demand for the Amendment he is putting forward, and I submit to the Committee that it is covered, although not strictly covered, yet

    651
    it is in principle covered by what was discussed and decided in the earlier part of the evening. I am quite unable to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. FORSTER: I am assured that there is a very genuine desire on the part of some of the smaller branches of the affiliated orders that this Amendment should be inserted. I would only remind the Attorney-General and the Committee that you are giving an option to the branch to dispose of its surplus in this way with the assent of the Insurance Commissioners. You are imposing no obligation
    upon them; you are simply giving them the opportunity of using the surplus their own efforts have created in the manner they themselves prefer, provided they are able to obtain the assent of the Insurance Commissioners. I cannot understand why the Government should refuse the Amendment, and I hope, even though the Attorney-General says that he cannot do it, reflection will convince him that it is necessary.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 219.

    Division No. 354.]

    AYES.

    [10.40 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Goldsmith, Frank

    O'Grady, James

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Grant, J. A.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Gretton, John

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

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Peto, Basil Edward

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

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Hills, John Waller (Durham)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Barnston, Harry

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

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

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Bird, Alfred

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Boyton, James

    Jowett, F. W.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Kirkwood, John H. M.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Cassel, Felix

    Lansbury, George

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Cautley, Henry Strother

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

    Touche, George Alexander

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

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

    Crean, Eugene

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

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

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Doughty, Sir George

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Fell, Arthur

    Mount, William Arthur

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Younger, Sir George

    Forster, Henry William

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Mr. C. Bathurst and Mr. Lane-Fox.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Adamson, William

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Dawes, J. A.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    De Forest, Baron

    Alden, Percy

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Devlin, Joseph

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Chancellor, Henry G.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Doris, W.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Clough, William

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Falconer, J.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Black, Arthur W.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Boland, John Plus

    Cowan, W. H.

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Gibson, Sir James P.

    Brace, William

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Brady, P. J.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rowlands, James

    Griffith, Ellis J.

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

    Rowntree, Arnold

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

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Gulland, John William

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Hackett, J.

    Marks, Sir George

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

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Martin, J.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Scanlan, Thomas

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

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

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

    Meagher, Michael

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

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

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Sheehy, David

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Shortt, Edward

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morrell, Philip

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Hayward, Evan

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Munro, R.

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Neilson, Francis

    Summers, James Woolley

    Hinds, John

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Tennant, Harold John

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Hughes, S. L.

    O'Dowd, John

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hunter, W. (Govan)

    Ogden, Fred

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wadsworth, J.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Johnson, W.

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

    Wardle, George J.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Watt, Henry A.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Webb, H.

    Joyce, Michael

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Keating, M.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Kelly, Edward

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

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

    Whyte, A. F.

    Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Radford, G. H.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

    Reddy, Michael

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rendall, Athelstan

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

    Lundon, T.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Wilson, W. T. (West Houghton)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

    Lynch, A. A.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    McGhee, Richard

    Robinson, Sidney

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

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Mr. Dudley Ward and Captain Guest.

    Amendment proposed: In paragraph (c), after the word "surplus" ["the remaining one-half of such surplus"], to insert the words "together with any such addition as aforesaid."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not rise to oppose this Amendment. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can say how far we ought to go to-night?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is no time limit to-night, but I would suggest that we should get through Clause 30, so that we may begin Clause 31 to-morrow. The Amendments to Clause 30 are mostly drafting Amendments, and, when we get through them, I will move to report Progress, if that will meet the views of the Committee generally.
    Mr. FORSTER: I have looked through the Amendments, and, while one or two
    654
    may lead to discussion, I agree that most of them have already been covered by previous decisions. There are points which will be met by Amendments standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are very anxious to have such opportunity as will be permitted to us to discuss Clause 31 to-morrow, and we will do our best to get through Clause 30 to-night.
    Amendment agreed to.
    EARL of RONALDSHAY: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), after the word "benefits" ["or more additional benefits"], to insert the words "or so reduce the contributions." I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave it to be understood that this Amendment would be accepted.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is the general desire of the House that there should be a

    655
    provision of this kind. It is best met by the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on page 41 of the White Paper, which meets exactly the point raised by the Noble Lord, and will come in more conveniently there.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendments made: At the end of the Clause to add the words, "(3) No surplus and no part of any surplus shall be applied for the purpose of paying any benefits payable on death or any benefits other than one or more of the additional benefits specified in Part II. of the Fourth Schedule to this Act."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to propose, at the end of Clause, to add the words, "Provided that, if a majority of the members so decide, such portion of the surplus as may be decided by the members shall be applied to the extinction of the arrears in whole or in part, and for the application of the remainder of the surplus only in the provision of the additional benefits herein referred to."
    The object of this Amendment is to enable a society to use a surplus in paying off arrears. In the event of arrears there are to be ten different rates of benefit below the ten shillings rate, and ten different periods at which a member will come into benefit. This will lead to extremely complicated calculations, and it would be a benefit if a society or its branches could apply the surplus for the wiping out of arrears and bring its members into a position of equality.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Arrears are already sufficiently dealt with, and as this proposal would be somewhat complicated and would add to the complexity, we see no reason why we should accept this Amendment, which would add another to the Clauses that deal with arrears.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This Amendment continues the present practice of existing societies. They have a benefit fund, out of which large grants are made to those who cannot pay up their arrears. It is quite true that the provisions of the Bill are complicated with regard to arrears. But this does not add to the complication at all; it simply gives the particular society the power to dispose of a portion of its benefits in assisting a man who has fallen by the way. It seems to me that if a
    656
    society chooses to do that it is not for the Government or for the House to object. It is a matter for the local government of the society. We are not compelling the societies to use their surpluses in this way; we simply seek to give them power to do so. It seems to me that the Government might well, if they wish to continue the friendly societies in the way in which they have undoubtedly been of service to the community in the past, allow them to use their surplus for the purpose of paying up the subscriptions of those who fall into arrear.
    Mr. W. PEEL: I should like to support the Amendment because I am thinking of the case of seasonal workers who fare very badly under the Bill as drawn, though it is quite true that there are changes as regards arrears. I think it would be only a fair thing that the society should be able to devote some surplus revenues to some of these arrears. It would take off the sharpness with which the Bill does fall on some of this class of persons to whom I refer. I have very great pleasure in supporting the Amendment which is purely optional.
    Mr. BOOTH: I am rather amazed to hear these remarks about distress and the charity box. It sounds very noble, but it has nothing whatever to do with this point. The hon. Member talks about the sharpness of the Bill, or the strain of the Bill. Language of that kind, he must know, is not satisfactory. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] At any rate, hon. Members must recognise that as regards arrears the Bill is more generous and helpful than any friendly society that ever existed. I know that it is very liable to be misinterpreted in the country by some of those canvassers that I have found in my journeyings to and fro, but the Bill does deal far more sympathetically with the workman in arrears than any friendly society has ever done here or elsewhere. I see no necessity whatever for a provision of the kind proposed.
    Mr. FORSTER: I must appeal to the Attorney-General to leave some freedom of action to the majority of members who form a branch of a society. That is all this Amendment does. Surely if the majority of members of a society, or branch, wish to employ the surplus to relieve members who have fallen into arrears, the Government might well give them the liberty to do so.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I join in the appeal to the Government on this point. It is quite true that the provisions with regard to arrears are exceedingly complicated, but they would become much less so if there were no arrears. It is only the existence of the arrears which makes the provisions complicated. The Amendment is not compulsory, but only enables a majority of the members to deal in this way with the surplus if they so decide. I appeal to the Government to allow some latitude in a matter of this sort. It is not that we are asking that the society should be forced to consider this point, but simply that it should have the power of discretion.
    Mr. POLLOCK: As I understand the Attorney-General does not deny, or rather he suggests, that in the Bill there is some provision under which it would be possible to pay up arrears because the surplus is to
    be disposed of by providing increased benefits. The suggestion, I suppose, is that a table might be made of benefits, and it might include payment of arrears. I think my hon. Friend is quite right in not being satisfied with that. His proposal is only a provision which might be adopted if the majority of the members so decide. They are quite capable of forming the best judgment as to whether they should adopt this provision or not. It may be that the societies will take legal opinion and find out their powers as well as the Attorney-General, but I would like to have the Bill as plain as possible, and if they are to have the power it would do no harm to merely point that out, while a great benefit would be conferred on those in arrears.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 203.

    Division No. 355.]

    AYES.

    [11.5 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Forster, Henry William

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Ashley, W. W.

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Baird, J. L.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

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

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Barnston, Harry

    Hills, John Waller

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hohler, G. Fitzroy

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Bird, A.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

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

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Mackinder, H. J.

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

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Mount, William Arthur

    Younger, Sir George

    Doughty, Sir George

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Fell, Arthur

    Newdegate, F. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

    Mr. G. Locker-Lampson and Mr. Pollock.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Falconer, J.

    Adamson, William

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Clough, William

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Barnes, George N.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Gibson, Sir James Puckering

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B.)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Cowan, William Henry

    Goldstone, Frank

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

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

    Crumley, Patrick

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Boland, John Plus

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Davies E. William (Eifion)

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

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

    Brace, William

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hackett, J.

    Brady, P. J.

    De Forest, Baron

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Bryce, John Annan

    Devlin, Joseph

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Doris, W.

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

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Masterman, C. F. G.

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

    Hayward, Evan

    Meagher, Michael

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morgan, George Hay

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Hinds, John

    Morrell, Phillip

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

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Sheehy, David

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Munro, R.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Shortt, Edward

    Hudson, Walter

    Neilson, Francis

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Hughes, S. L.

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon Sir Rufus

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Summers, James Woolley

    Johnson, W.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Dowd, John

    Tennant, Harold John

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Grady, James

    Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Jowett, Frederick William

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Joyce, Michael

    Phillips, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Keating, Matthew

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Wadsworth, John

    Kelly, Edward

    Pointer, Joseph

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Wardle, George J.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

    Watt, Henry A.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Webb, H.

    Lundon, T.

    Radford, George Heynes

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Reddy, Michael

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

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

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    McGhee, Richard

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Robinson, Sidney

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

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

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

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Rowlands, James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Martin, Joseph

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 24th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

  MILITARY AEROPLANES.
  Mr. SANDYS: On this Motion, I desire to call attention to the subject of military aviation, with special reference to the provision of aeroplanes and the training of officers. I am well aware it is somewhat inconvenient to raise this important question at this hour of the evening. At the same time a large number of persons in this country who speak with authority feel a certain amount of anxiety with regard to the British Army in connection with this particular branch of military science. The Under-Secretary for War made a
  660
  statement on the subject, on the 18th July, in this House in which he outlined the intentions of the Government with regard to military aviation. I think a further statement on his part would be very welcome to-night in order to assure us how far these intentions have been carried out and what the future policy of the Government with regard to military aviation is to be.
  Since the right hon. Gentleman made his statement last July I venture to say considerable fresh light has been thrown upon the value of military aviation by the result of the French manœuvres on the eastern frontier. I assume the right hon. Gentleman has received reports from the British officers who attended the manœuvres, but although I do not attach any importance to my own view, as one who followed the manœuvres, I may say that to the ordinary observer the general impression conveyed by following the operations of the troops was certainly that the aeroplane is destined in the future to play a very important part in military operations. I am of opinion that many of

  661
  the statements that appeared, both in the Press of this country and in the French Press were certainly exaggerated, and there can be no question that the weather conditions that prevailed during the greater portion of the manœuvres were exceptionally in favour of aeroplane operations. At the same time I think it was made quite evident to anyone who had the opportunity of watching what went on in the course of these manœuvres that information can be obtained by means of aeroplane reconnaissances which it is quite impossible to gain in any other way. I do not think I am over-stating the case when I say it was made quite evident that any army in the future which takes the field either unprovided, or inadequately provided with an efficiently trained corps of officers, and with machines of the very best type, is taking very serious risk indeed if it is to meet an opponent who is efficiently provided with these means of obtaining information.
  In view of the general expression of opinion that has been made as to the results of the French manœuvres, I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman's statement on Thursday is very unsatisfactory. In one answer to a question he stated that whilst the French Army possessed no fewer than 200 aeroplanes the total provision in the future as well as the present of the British Army was sixteen aeroplanes. As I understand it, the effective fleet of aeroplanes at present at the disposal of the Army amounts only to ten effective aeroplanes, that is to say, to bring up the number to the grand total of sixteen, which the right hon. Gentleman anticipates, we shall have to purchase six new machines. I understand that two officers who are members of the Army Air Battalion, are at present visiting France, and I hope a portion of their expenses are being defrayed by the War Office. I understand they are attending the aviation trials taking place at Rheims under the French Government, and no doubt they will bring back information and recommendations with regard to the purchase of machines. Apart from the purchase of foreign machines I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some consideration to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee) last July that it was highly desirable that some prizes and special inducements should be offered to British manufacturers in order that they might construct
  662
  a machine suitable for service requirements. I think it is highly desirable that some encouragement should be given to British manufacturers of aeroplanes and aircraft generally. The expenses of experiments are exceedingly great, and, as the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, experimental machines do not always turn out practical successes. I think it is most undesirable that in the event of an emergency we in this country should be dependent upon foreign-built aeroplanes. The French Government are fully alive to the situation, and I understand they are offering at the competition which is taking place at Rheims prizes and purchase money amounting to about £40,000 for successful machines. I think there is no doubt that the encouragement which aviation has received from the French Government has in itself assisted France to take that front rank which she occupies in aviation amongst the nations.
  With regard to the sixteen aeroplanes which the right hon. Gentleman tells us are to be provided in the future he may remember that in the statement he made in July he told us that the War Office had decided that between 100 and 150 officers would be required as pilots. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will have something to say to reconcile the two statements which seems of a rather opposite character. The fact that only sixteen aeroplanes are to be provided seems to me to indicate a change in policy since the last statement was made, which I can only say seems very regrettable. At the present time, in spite of the statement made last July, there are, as a matter of fact, only six officers of the Army Air Battalion actually engaged in flying, and unless there are very good grounds indeed for supposing that the military authorities of other countries are totally wrong, and have completely over-estimated the value of aeroplanes, we are running a very serious risk indeed in thus almost totally neglecting this particular branch of military science. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will say that a very considerable number of officers have obtained their pilot certificates and gone back to their regiments, but that does not meet the case. If we are really going to have an efficient corps of airmen, it is highly desirable a large number of officers should be permanently engaged in this work, which requires continuous practice. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some information with regard to the question of pay, about which considerable

  663
  dissatisfaction still exists, and also as to the provision of winter quarters. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that in the future greater encouragement will be given to the officers and men, and fuller and more generous recognition of the undoubtedly valuable services which they are rendering to the Army and State.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): I shall be very glad to make a short statement in the brief time at our disposal in reply to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite. The House would be interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman had himself been to the French manœuvres where the aeroplane showed its value in a striking degree, and I shall be very glad if he places at the disposal of our Department any observations he made. May I say at once the idea the hon. Gentleman seems to have in his mind that there is any going back in the policy I announced some few months ago is quite erroneous. Far from that, we are going forward with the development of this new art with the determination to bring this country up to a proper standard and indeed to a high standard in matters of aviation.
  We propose to issue almost immediately the terms under which officers will be able to obtain a position as Army airmen. Any officer who passes the text and obtains the Air Club certificate, for which of course he has to pay by attending one of these aviation schools, will receive £75. I do not know that that will in all cases cover the whole cost, in some cases it will more than cover the whole cost—but that is the sum paid to the officer who passes the Air Club. After obtaining his certificate, he will be attached to the Army Air Battalion for instruction in those branches of aviation which are of special value for military purposes. To be able to steer in the air from the stars or compass, to be able to draw an accurate map, and, what is more difficult, to be able to steer by a map—all these special things which an airman will have to know he will be taught at the Army Air Battalion. At the end of that time, if he succeeds in passing and obtaining the certificate, similar to the French military certificate, he will become an Army airman, and will be so described in the Army List, and will be available for this vitally important service if the occasion ever arises. Those officers who have already joined the Air Battalion and who
  664
  have received £50 will receive the extra £25 without delay. After these Army airmen have passed all these tests, it is proposed they should be attached periodically to the Air Battalion for what we call in the Army refresher courses, and from what I have been able to ascertain about flying I should think these refresher courses would have to be very frequent in order that they may master this very difficult art.
  The hon. Gentleman wants to know how many aeroplanes we have. He pointed out that in an answer I gave the other day I said we had sixteen aeroplanes available, or about to be available. I was glad to give that answer because it is much better we should know exactly how we stand. It does appear that we have far too few, but then the comparison is with France, which in this matter is far ahead of the rest of the world. We have alone hung back in the matter of aeroplanes because we wanted to make sure of buying the most useful type. But we could not keep on waiting for ever. Still we thought we could afford to wait until we could arrive at a decision as to the best type of aeroplanes for the Army. We have at the present time, in various stages, nineteen aeroplanes. I admit that one is broken beyond repair and one is quite out of date. Others are more or less under repair. What we have been doing has been to try the different types. I have here a list of the different types, of which we have eleven—some very good and some very bad—seven biplanes and four monoplanes, and these our Army officers as well as the civilians attached to the Air Battalion have been flying. We have, however, learned most useful lessons from these different types of airships and are now engaged in testing some of the more speedy monoplanes. We are arriving at a point when we think we see our way to choose what is the best type, first for teaching people to fly, and secondly, to buy for the purposes of war should war unfortunately break out.
  As soon as the moment for choice comes—and it will come very soon—we propose to purchase a fairly good number of aeroplanes on which a large number of officers, who no doubt will be forthcoming on the terms I have announced, will be able to fly. Of course, Army flying is quite different from civilian flying. It seems obviously very little use for a man to go up by himself, and for war purposes you must have a machine which can carry two men—one to

  665
  steer and the other to observe. Therefore we want a very special type of aeroplane for the Army. The hon. Gentleman asked about the prizes. The specification of prizes for Army aeroplanes are now practically completed. The points to be decided are only the total amount, and what is more important still the distribution of the sum of public money to be given as prizes for the best Army aeroplanes. Very shortly—certainly before the end of the year—I hope we shall be in a position to announce the prizes which the War Office and the Admiralty—the Government as a whole in fact—propose to offer for Army and Navy aeroplanes.
  I may say, in conclusion, that we fully realise the immense importance of aerial scouting in war. An aeroplane can do work the value of which can only properly be realised by those engaged in war. It enables one to see the other side of the hill. It has now passed out of the region of conjecture whether aeroplanes can or cannot ascend in all reasonable weathers and observe the movements of large numbers of troops. Finally, it is vital for any country which has an army to have an efficient aeroplane survey. That is realised by both the War Office and the Admiralty, and the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty are giving their earnest attention not only with a view to getting a good aerial scouting service for each Department but are co-operating with the idea of working together in this as in other matters in order to provide a really efficient scouting service for both the naval and military services. How much advantage there would be to the State if in all matters there were complete co-operation between the Navy and the Army it is unnecessary to dwell upon, but I can assure the House that in this, as in other matters, there will be full, co-operation between both Navy and Military services; indeed, the Government as a whole realise the vital importance of this service and will press forward all necessary matters to maintain the defensive forces of this country at a high level of efficiency.
  Colonel YATE: Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the grant of £75 for training? The cost of training was stated at £100. Why should we try to cut the wretched officer £25 out of that £100? I would seriously ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter, and, if possible, give even a little more than the cost. The right hon. Gentleman said
  666
  that an adequate number of aeroplanes would be provided, but, so far as I can gather, he gave no number. I understand we have sixteen. Is that number to be raised or not?
  Colonel SEELY: It will be raised.
  Colonel YATE: To any fixed number?
  Colonel SEELY: It will be raised greatly, but I cannot say the exact number.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask how many officers are now trained?
  Colonel SEELY: I said in my previous statement that we proposed that at least 100 officers should be trained as observers and pilots, and with that number we propose to work in the first instance. In addition to them there will be non-commissioned officers and other ranks who will also be trained in this service.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: There is one point in regard to this matter I should like to emphasise; that is the proper utilisation of voluntary service in connection with aviation. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the civilian aspect of the question. Information has reached me which shows that the War Office have not encouraged the private man outside as they might have done. I would seriously ask, in view of the possibility of war, and the immense service aviators must now render, whether the right hon. Gentleman would not reconsider the whole question of calling into utilisation the whole of the private flyers throughout the country. A friend of mine who is one of the first three British flyers told me that he had offered his services to the War Office. His age was twenty-seven, and he was told he was too old for his services to be taken advantage of. At that time he had offers from two foreign governments, and the result I do not know, but I promised to bring the matter under the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. If I mentioned the name the whole House would know that his services should be taken advantage of. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have a proper official in charge of the whole service, a man of the highest possible standing, who would have authority at the War Office, and who by his own capacity had shown himself worthy of such a position. He should encourage to the utmost the private flyers outside. They get very little encouragement, and it costs them a small fortune before they make any headway at all.

  667
  The amount of money which has to be spent is something colossal, and the country concerned does not encourage them to any great extent. The third thing I wish to impress on the right hon. Gentleman is to make it easy for these men, first to give their services to the country to which they belong; at present they are being tempted by three or four foreign countries. Even in connection with the war between Italy and Turkey my friend had an offer a few days ago to go into service. Japan, as the right hon. Gentleman is probably aware, has also made overtures to several of our leading flying men. The duty of the War Office and the British Government ought to be to place all grounds of temptation out of the way of these men who have sacrificed their financial position for the next few years in learning this art.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: The hon. Member has asked the right hon. Gentleman to encourage private individuals in experimenting in this way. I go further, and ask him if he could not encourage those who are really connected with the service, especially in regard to cross-country flights. I understand as matters stand any experiments in that way have to be carried on at the expense of the individual, and although they may be refunded later on, they are at any rate out of pocket for a considerable time. If the War Office could see their way not to keep them out of their money and to find money for experimenting, undoubtedly it would remove a certain amount of dissatisfaction, and also facilitate many men who have not private means to join in the experiments which are so necessary if this art is to be properly encouraged.
  Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen minutes before Twelve o'clock.

  British Museum (Application for Pension).
  British Museum (Application for Pension).
  Customs Statistical Office.
  Customs Statistical Office.
  Home Rule (Government Departments, Ireland).
  Home Rule (Government Departments, Ireland).
  Post Office Medical Examination (Superannuation).
  Post Office Medical Examination (Superannuation).
  Finance Act (1909–10) Licence Duty.
  Finance Act (1909–10) Licence Duty.
  Furniture of Pensioners.
  Furniture of Pensioners.
  Road Board (Ireland).
  Road Board (Ireland).
  Votes in Supply.
  Votes in Supply.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenant, Clare Island (County Mayo).
  Evicted Tenant, Clare Island (County Mayo).
  Admiralty Joiners.
  Admiralty Joiners.
  Admiralty Labour Rates.
  Admiralty Labour Rates.
  Fair Wages Clause (Clyde Workers).
  Fair Wages Clause (Clyde Workers).
  Cadet Units (Territorial Force Associations).
  Cadet Units (Territorial Force Associations).
  Territorial Force (Highland Light Infantry).
  Territorial Force (Highland Light Infantry).
  Glen Parva Barracks, Leicester.
  Glen Parva Barracks, Leicester.
  War Department (Adult Unskilled Labour).
  War Department (Adult Unskilled Labour).
  Territorial Reserve.
  Territorial Reserve.
  Regimental Money.
  Regimental Money.
  Coal Supplies.
  Coal Supplies.
  Railway Strike (Employment of Military).
  Railway Strike (Employment of Military).
  Old Street Children's Court (Industrial School Case).
  Old Street Children's Court (Industrial School Case).
  Shops Bill.
  Shops Bill.
  Coast Erosion.
  Coast Erosion.
  Trade Unions Legislation.
  Trade Unions Legislation.
  Milk Colouring.
  Milk Colouring.
  Acute Polyomyelitis.
  Acute Polyomyelitis.
  Dublin Postal Secretary.
  Dublin Postal Secretary.
  Post Office Engineering Service.
  Post Office Engineering Service.
  Postal, Telegraph, and Telephone Grievances.
  Postal, Telegraph, and Telephone Grievances.